>Something I think about things that I should not be thinking about (is it called being neurotic <g>?)
>
>I am designing a new database and of course new tables. A few sample databases I see (in VFP and in SQL Server) use convention of naming tables as plural (Categories, Companies, Products, etc.) It has always bothered me why they do that.
>
>I think that naming tables with singular names makes more sense. Like Category, Company, Product, etc. I see a few benefits of using singular names:
>1. Fewer letters to type in code.
>2. When you type COMPANY.ADDRESS it means "one company address", whereas if you type COMPANIES.ADDRESS it is confusing. Am I making sense? <g>.
>3. Ok, not a few, just two <g>.
>
>But there must be reasons why all the database gurus use plural names. What are they?

I find singular more convenient.

One more detail, about naming tables. This is not a convention, but a safety precaution. The name of one table should not be contained within the name of another table, especially at the end. Otherwise, the code generated by the RI-builder might eventually confuse the tables!

Examples: Tables Article, Supplier, ArticleSupplier (the last one is supposed to hold information, about which suppliers can provide which articles). Rename at least the Supplier table to something else (like SupplierMain), to avoid the above-mentioned bug.