>Arguments that data type should not be included in the field name because the User might encounter them are tenuous to say the least - use the caption option in the dbc instead.
>
>And what does the following mean: "The other rule we have is to always use long field names, so that a field's contents can be adequately described for not only users, but any legacy inheritors".

See, what did I say about people being passionate about this?

Anyway, that means that every field name should be fully descriptive, so anyone remotely familiar with the data can determine the field's contents independent of table. Usually we have 15-30 char names. I see way too much free-table style naming, where it requires a Help Glossary to determine what the heck a field is.

Well, one of my defenses is certainly that these are agency standards, not of my own design. But having lived with them for years now, I find the standards to be quite good, and would not change them even if I could. Not to say there haven't been disagreements here about the convention, either, even from me at first.