>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?

Dmitry,
It's mainly a personal preference. To me a table should be plural as it holds information about its singular form :)
Companies : I know this holds multiple company records.
If I look a table as a collection of records/objects, collection naming convention is always plural.
For example I've a table named 'Configuration'. Though it has multiple records all together make a single Configuration for one system and actually all options (records) are shown on the same form at once.
But again it's a preference :)
PS: I also find it easier to distinguish say a Customer object from a Customers alias.
Cetin