Talk:C Sharp (programming language)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Compiler as a Service

If this article is truly about the C# language, then I do not believe Compiler as a Service should have to be mentioned under C# 5.0. This is completely implementation-specific; for example, Novell's Mono has had CaaS for a long time. --Zor (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

ECMA standard update

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm has been updated so the standards note about C#4 not being standard should be updated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.29.236 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Wouldn't it be closer to reality to use a sharp sign in the article title in place of the forbidden hash; rather than the word "Sharp"?--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't have a # character in an article title as that character is used by the html spec to represent a section in a page. It might be possible to use ♯ (U+266F) but that goes against the the convention of writing the name, it is also hard to type. C♯ programming language does redirect here.--Salix (talk): 09:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The technical limitation per the # has less to do with URIs (where it can be quoted as %23) than wikilinks (where it would be a bit messier).

What i find nonsensical is a template flatly declaring that the correct title of the article is "C# (programming language)", when the name of the language is actually C♯. I've always viewed C# to be a secondary spelling; but seeing as it's canonised in the spec as an official alternate (indeed, used almost exclusively), i suppose it's acceptable as the article title. (It just seems suboptimal.)
—überRegenbogen (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been discussed many time in the past see /Archive 2 and was featured in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars so I'd rather not got back there.--Salix (talk): 10:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the arguments though. No-one needs to type the symbol (except once, when doing the page move), and the sharp sign is much closer to the conventional way of writing the name than the word "Sharp" is. It seems silly to have the notice at the top saying what the "correct name" of the article is, when we have the technical capacity to represent that correct name almost perfectly.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But that's explicitly not the conventional way of writing the name (emphasis added):

Due to technical limitations of display (standard fonts, browsers, etc.) and the fact that the sharp symbol (♯, U+266F, MUSIC SHARP SIGN) is not present on the standard keyboard, the number sign (#, U+0023, NUMBER SIGN) was chosen to represent the sharp symbol in the written name of the programming language.[9]

--Cybercobra (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we can't use the number sign, so we have to use something else. And the sharp sign looks a lot more like the number sign than the word "Sharp" does.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this is even a discussion when we have an article on the musical note C♯. We should be using it in the programming language page as well. Any and all "chosen representations" are nonetheless still sub-optimal. NJDevils1087 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Anybody want to post a move request? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

C# as a Declarative Language

At the beginning, it is stated that C# is multi-paradigmed including ... declarative ... . Could someone expand on this a bit? The only declarative language I've used is MetaFont. Having used C# a good deal, I must say that what I know of declarative programming (from MetaFont) doesn't exist in C#. I'm happy to say that I don't understand declarative programming, but if I have any idea of what it is, C# does not support it, or I don't understand in what ways C# supports declarative paradigms.

--Limited Atonement (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The LINQ syntax is primarily what people mean by "declarative", in the same sense that SQL is a declarative language. Attributes are also kinda-sorta declarative if you stretch the definition a bit. :) Maghnus (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WPF's xaml is also declarative. --Sanisoclem (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

---

C Sharp (programming language) → C♯ (programming language) – The official and common name of the programming language appears to be C# (with a number sign). But that name is not possible due to technical restrictions. We should try to represent it as closely as possible. The sharp sign (♯) is certainly much closer than the word "Sharp", and since the name is derived from the musical notation, it is logical as well as practical. It is difficult to type the sharp sign but redirects can handle that. The most important thing is to have the title at the top of the page match what the user is expecting as nearly as possible. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support Unable to locate any source explicitly advising against using the sharp sign. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just as we do not substitute the octothorpe in running text when we mean the sharp sign, likewise we should not do the opposite in article titles. Powers ^T 02:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We have to substitute something though. Why do you think the word "Sharp" is superior to a ♯ sign? –CWenger (^ • @) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Because it's accurate to how the name of the product is pronounced. Powers ^T 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It is the wrong character, isn't typable anyways, violates MOS:TM and is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We shouldn't be putting the wrong special character into a title just because it happens to resemble the right character. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; it's not the right character; I think this kind of ascii art is pushing it a little. But shouldn't it be C sharp? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh, it's a proper noun. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

    Yes of course, nevermind then. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment WP:TITLE#Special characters is the appropriate policy. I can see the sharp sign just causing endless difficulty with people typing the # in links. Dmcq (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If anyone would be cognizant of this issue, it would be programmers. And since this is a programming article... --Cybercobra (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- don't need special characters in titles unless you're looking for said character (and even then, it may not be practical). C Sharp is fine; anyone who understands the url spec will probably expect the article to be at this location. I disagree that we "have" to substitute an incorrect character just because it's "closer" — not in meaning, and that's what should be focused on. – anna 12:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Undecided, leaning towards oppose Although occasionally typeset as C♯ or C^♯, Microsoft itself uses C# pretty consistently. Given that the latter is technically impossible and "C hash" wouldn't be very recognizable, we should probably settle for the official pronunciation "C sharp". Not sure if this is a proper name and if the S in sharp should therefore be capitalized or not. —Ruud 10:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

question on Hello World example

Is there an error in this text?

class Program
Above is a class definition. Everything between the following pair of braces describes Program.

static void Main()
This declares the class member method where the program begins execution. The .NET runtime calls the Main method. (Note: Main may also be called from elsewhere, like any other method, e.g. from another method of ExampleClass.) The static keyword makes the method accessible without an instance of ExampleClass.

Should it really say ExampleClass here, or maybe Program class? The only place I see ExampleClass is up in the Generics section. Sorry if this is a dumb question, I am just learning C# - BollyJeff || talk 19:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks! --Cybercobra (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unity 3D

I believe Unity 3D should be taken off the list of "implementations". It's not an implementation, but merely uses C# as a scripting language (if my memory serves me right, through Mono's tooling). --87.55.108.124 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering there have been no objections, I will make this change... --Zor (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it had to be removed. Unity is a relatively popular and well-known tool. And even a scripting language can be considered an "implemenation" no? They have their own libraries and what not. And I don't know what is meant my "Mono's tooling", they do include Mono develop for help with programming, but you can just as easily use Visual Studio, or, like with Javascript, you can just open up a plaintext editor and program. 128.238.242.212 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

An implementation consists of such things as a compiler and a virtual machine. Unity 3d does not provide its own, it uses the ones provided by Mono. -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hellow World example : GUI

The GUI example for the Hello-World-Program will not work stand-alone. Hello-World-Programs are supposed to have no dependencies outside of the given code. The code for the intended example would in fact be:

using System;
using System.Windows.Forms;

namespace Whatever_Namespace
{
	static class Program
	{
		[STAThread]
		static void Main(string[] args)
		{
			Application.EnableVisualStyles();
			Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
			Application.Run(new Form1());
		}
	}

	public class Form1 : Form
	{
		public Form1()
		{
			InitializeComponent();
		}

		private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
		{
			MessageBox.Show("Hello World", "Hello");
		}

		private System.ComponentModel.IContainer components = null;

		protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
		{
			if (disposing && (components != null))
			{
				components.Dispose();
			}
			base.Dispose(disposing);
		}

		private void InitializeComponent()
		{
			this.button1 = new System.Windows.Forms.Button();
			this.SuspendLayout();
			// 
			// button1
			// 
			this.button1.Dock = System.Windows.Forms.DockStyle.Fill;
			this.button1.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(0, 0);
			this.button1.Name = "button1";
			this.button1.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(250, 50);
			this.button1.TabIndex = 0;
			this.button1.Text = "Button";
			this.button1.UseVisualStyleBackColor = true;
			this.button1.Click += new System.EventHandler(this.button1_Click);
			// 
			// Form1
			// 
			this.AutoScaleDimensions = new System.Drawing.SizeF(6F, 13F);
			this.AutoScaleMode = System.Windows.Forms.AutoScaleMode.Font;
			this.ClientSize = new System.Drawing.Size(250, 50);
			this.Controls.Add(this.button1);
			this.Name = "Form1";
			this.Text = "Hello World";
			this.ResumeLayout(false);
		}

		private System.Windows.Forms.Button button1;
	}
}

The .NET Framework will only always run the Main() method in the Program class to launch an application, no matter whether it is a console application or a windows forms application. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Hello world program is supposed to "one of the simplest programs possible", so the GUI example should simply display the message box when run - not display a form with a button that needs to be clicked to display the message. Ie it should be something like:

...
static void Main(string[] args)
{
     MessageBox.Show("Hello World", "Hello");
}

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if an example with a form is wanted, the "simplest program possible" is something like the code I posted. Opening a MessageBox is only a call to the OS, and not a form of the application itself. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A WinForms "Hello world" would be basically a form with a label - no buttons or event handlers. Most of the stuff in the autogenerated InitializeComponent() is also unnecessary for such an example. Maghnus (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A call to Console.WriteLine is "only a call to the OS" as well (as is the call to printf in the original C version of the program, but it is still a valid application. Anything with a Main function is a valid application. It doesn't need to be a Form - a MessageBox is a GUI (ie not a console application). I still assert that my example (corrected if necessary so it compiles cleanly and runs - I haven't tested it, and my C# is not brilliant) is the appropriate one. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, of course neither printf nor MessageBox.Show are "calls to the OS" - both are calls to a library that in turn calls the OS. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted to the original version (using MessageBox). I agree that what we have (pre-revert) is misleading. A message box is probably the simplest. We said GUI, not Windows Forms or WPF or whatever, so there's no need to use a Form. T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, while the entry point must be called Main(), it does not have to be in a class called Program. As long as there's only one static method (in any class) fitting the requirement, the C# compiler will use that as the entry point; if there are more than one, a command line switch is needed to tell the compiler which Main() to use. See [1]. T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Article name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consider http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%E2%99%AF It uses C# as the name. - Bevo (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What other languages do doesn't really matter to enwiki. And see the failed Requested Move directly above. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the real reason here is that # doesn't work as a lookup letter in the Mediawiki database system or PHP or something... The above discussion regarded using the sharp sign ♯, which very well works, but may be a real headache for the users/editors — or not. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The name of the Language is C#, pronounced "see sharp", period. The name is not C Sharp and not C♯. And since Google and other search engines allow searches for C#, Wikipedia ought to as well. Is this the world's most extensive encyclopedia or some noob's private website project? ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The technical problem is that the # character has special meaning in the URI standard, so the URL would need to encode the character as %23. That would be fine as far as PHP and the database are concerned. MediaWiki could potentially handle a URL such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%23_(programming_language) instead of redirecting to C, but it doesn't. Unless and until they fix the software (not likely, as it's by design), C_Sharp is the best option. Maghnus (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with a fix that will not screw up section wikilinks (e.g., C#History). It would be really odd if you have to escape the # sign even in wikitext. T. Canens (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The name of the language is C♯, but can be written as C# (view the Visual Studio cover). The only problem here is the possible violation of Manual of Style:

Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used.

--Ricvelozo (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The programming language should really be using "C♯" since the "♯" symbol is the sharp sign. C# means "C Number sign" or "C Hash", not "C Sharp". But of course, we use C# because it's actually on the keyboard and can be easily inputted in contrast to the sharp sign, ♯, in which people would have to use the character map or something. Still wrong though. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

assembly vs namespace

From the section on the hello world example:

In this case, when the compiler sees use of the Console type later in the source code, it tries to find a type named Console, first in the current assembly, followed by all referenced assemblies

I'm pretty sure "assembly" in this sentence is wrong, and should be replaced by "namespace". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.65.169 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Module system

The module system including the using keyword should not be explained in the example section, but rather in its own section. --91.202.129.192 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Location of the Syntax section

I disagree with this change moving the syntax section to the top. In a general purpose encyclopaedia the details of the syntax are nowhere near the most important information. Do other editors have an opinion on this? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Syntax is highly tecnical, and per WP:UPFRONT should be after more general sections like history and design goals. I've moved it downwards. Diego (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am new to Wikipedia, and I figured that the article was mainly about what the language is, and not about the context, usage, and development of the language. Obviously, I am not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines enough. Randomizer3 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In a wiki about programming, you'd be right. But always have in mind that Wikipedia is for all audiences; someone who is not a programmer (a journalist, a manager) might want to learn what C# is for (as opposed to how it's used), and general sections about context are more informative for most people. Diego (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Influenced by Java?

Per Neutral Point of View, should the page really state that it influenced Java, as the source even states that, "In my opinion, it is C# that has caused these radical changes to the Java language."

This could be disputed because Java influenced C#, and the source even states that it is one person's opinion. -TheLunarFrog (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They are contemporary and quite similar languages targeting the same audience. I don't think anyone would dispute there's is some mutual influencing going on here (e.g. Project Lambda). Adding an additional reference e.g. discussing more recent versions of the two languages (Java 7/8, C# 4/5) couldn't hurt, though. —Ruud 00:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

C Sharp (programming language) → C♯ (programming language) – Please put your reason for moving here. Jarble (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose MOS:TM, using a special character -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Man, I hate this requests. I really want this to happen because I like the "C♯" look better than "C Sharp". But rules are rules. Via MOS:TM. Srsrox (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

implicit with keyword

C# supports strongly typed implicit variable declarations with the keyword var

Without knowing the form of one of these declarations, I still quibble with calling it an implicit declaration if it uses a keyword. Jmichael ll (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"strongly, implicitly typed variable declarations" might be better, although it doesn't read well. Eg

var i = 10; // implicitly typed integer

The type of i is deduced by the compiler from the context, but it is just as strongly typed as if the programmer had specified int explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

better reference for Gosling quotes in C# article

The source in footnote (reference) 17 quotes a source that quotes a source.

A better reference for the original source is:

Wylie Wong (2002). "Why Microsoft's C# isn't" CNET News, January 17,2002 available online at: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1082-817522.html

I'm not a wikipedia editor. Can soneone please fix this.

Also a more extended and informative quote would include the second part of Gosling's comments:

"They had this problem in their design rules that they had to support C and C++, which means you have to have a memory model where you can access everything at all times. It's the existence of those loopholes that is the source of security, reliability and productivity problems for developers. So on the one hand, they copied Java, and on the other hand, they added gratuitous things and other things that are outright stupid. That's amusing.”

68.80.26.175 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)cherbert@ccp.edu

Thank you for the suggestion, I've replaced the reference as suggested. I did not add the entire quote since I felt like it didn't add much to the section, but if someone else sees value in it they can add it.

Also, there are no designated Wikipedia editors. Anyone can edit Wikipedia (except for some protected pages, of course.)

Pathogen-David (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sharp Sign Notation

# notation. since when has it been called C hash? the sharp symbol is used at the start of the article, but gets switched to the octothorpe. 50.125.167.6 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely common to type C# instead of C♯ because it is easier to type. Even most of the official documentation uses a pound sign instead of a sharp. For example: [2] (This is even covered in the article under the name section.) Pathogen-David (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

At work we don't use the musical symbol when using/writing the language, but use the "#" symbol (shift+3 on keyboard). We pronounce the name "see-hash". But I've also heard "see-sharp" as well. I've never heard it called "see-octothorpe", but that's not to say it isn't. By the way, I believe the "pound sign" is something different (£ - England-currency?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.170.13 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"C Sharp" or "C sharp"

Why does "Sharp" have an upper case "S" - should it be lowercase, per MOS:CAPS? Presumable "Sharp" is not actually part of the official name ("C#"), so there's no need to capitalise it.

If it should be capitalised in the article title because it's a proper noun, then it probably ought to be capitalised everywhere throughout the article, in particular C_Sharp_(programming_language)#Name currently has a lower case "S" in

The name "C sharp" was inspired ...

175.45.116.66 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Space Engineers

@JSG6155: Does this edit refer to this Space Engineers? If so, it should be linked (and italicised). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Version 6 language specification

The article lists a date of "July 2015" for the C# 6 specification, but fails to give any reference. In fact, this Stack Overflow answer seems to suggest that no actual specification exists yet, even from Microsoft. --Wormbo 07:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. VS2015 install only came with a C# 5 spec. I have marked it as "none" until one can be sourced. Rawling4851 08:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Literature

The literature at the end of the article is nearly ancient... --TobiasVetter (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on C Sharp (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060214002638/http://msdn.microsoft.com:80/vcsharp/previous/2002/FAQ/default.aspx to http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/previous/2002/FAQ/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218222543/http://research.microsoft.com:80/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/faq.aspx to http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/faq.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sunmist3 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

History

I thought it was very interesting when I read in My History of Visual Studio (Part 1) – Rico Mariani's Performance Tidbits that Microsoft temporarily began to develop a C# language (based on the C language) before developing a C++ compiler. I added a mention of that in this article, I hope it remains, at least somewhat. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The correct title

The hatnote of this page says the correct title is C# (programming language), which I think is inaccurate. According to a further section, the correct title would be C♯ (programming language), which is currently a redirect. If we move this to C♯ (programming language), not only is it correct, but there are also no technical limitations. — Supuhstar * — 19:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

NO. ECMA 334 standard, page 9, states: "The name C# is written as the LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C (U+0043) followed by the NUMBER SIGN # (U+0023)." Kiwipidae (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice that the NUMBER SIGN # is an "unsafe character" according to the RFC1738; namely, it is used for Anchor link. This is why # cannot be used as part of the title. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Like for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%E2%99%AF_(musical_note) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.224.8 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The correct name of the language is not "C Sharp". It is indeed "C#". However, "C♯" (with a sharp sign rather than a number sign) is a closer name to "C#" than "C Sharp" is, and I would also note that the only reason the number sign is traditionally used rather than the sharp name is that at the time this language came out, extended Unicode characters were not widely in use and a standard ASCII character was much easier to use. And we can leave the note at the top saying that the correct title for the article is "C#" rather than "C♯". Anyway, I am going to be bold and move the article to "C♯ (programming language)", BUT, I will leave the note saying that the correct name for the article is "C# (programming language)" which cannot be done due to technical limitations. This would address the concerns of Supuhstar, Amitie 10g, and the IP user 200.41.224.8 in wanting to switch from C Sharp to C♯, and Kiwipidae in wanting to be sure to note that the correct name is C#. I think this is a good consensus compromise for those 4 users as well as myself, since I also support a move from "C Sharp (programming language)" to "C♯ (programming language)" given the technical impossibility of using "C# (programming language)" under MediaWiki software just like the 3 users Supuhstar, Amitie 10g, and the IP user 200.41.224.8, but I also share the concern Kiwipidae has in making sure to note what the correct article title is at the top of the article. The only real concern I see with this new name for the article is users who have older computers or low-specification mobile devices would not be able to see the Unicode character for the sharp sign correctly, but I think this would only affect a very small minority of users and it would only appear once at the top in the article name, the rest of the article would consistently call it C# using the number sign instead of the sharp sign. Yetisyny (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I would be firmly against a rename to "C♯". U+266F is definitively not part of the official name of the language, and it is absolutely not Wikipedia's place to promote the idea that it is. — Warren. ‘ talk , 20:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have made a requested move proposal below. I encourage all interested parties, even those such as yourself who are against my proposal, to participate. It is in the bottom part of this talk page. I would note that all the pages would KEEP the notice at the top stating that the official name of the language is "C#" and that "C♯" is used as the title instead for technical reasons. And the articles would consistently use "C#", not "C♯", in them. So I absolutely would NOT be promoting the idea that that is the official name of the language, just to clarify. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding about this, I welcome you and anyone else who wants to participate in the requested move discussion to do so. Yetisyny (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• C Sharp (programming language) → C♯ (programming language)
• C Sharp syntax → C♯ syntax
• C Sharp in Depth → C♯ in Depth
• C Sharp 2.0 → C♯ 2.0
• C Sharp 3.0 → C♯ 3.0
• C Sharp 4.0 → C♯ 4.0
• Comparison of C Sharp and Visual Basic .NET → Comparison of C♯ and Visual Basic .NET
• List of C Sharp software → List of C♯ software
• Turbo C Sharp → Turbo C♯
• Polyphonic C Sharp → Polyphonic C♯
• Spec Sharp → Spec♯
• File and stream I/O in C Sharp → File and stream I/O in C♯
• SharpOS (operating system) → SharpOS

– Although the correct name would be C# (programming language), C♯ is the closest we can get using WikiMedia software and we will keep the current notices at the top of all articles concerning C# that C# is the correct name and use C# in the text of the article. This is closer to the real name than C Sharp and Unicode support for the sharp character is near-universal on most devices in 2018. Above is a discussion where there appears to be consensus in favor of this, although I am doing the requested move template for 2 reasons, first because this involves multiple pages, and secondly because there is a possibility that people might disagree. I would note that the sharp symbol looks very similar to the number symbol so this is closer to the correct name, and also since the number symbol is supposed to represent a sharp symbol and is just done that way for ASCII backwards compatibility in the ECMA 334 standard, page 9, but it is still pronounced "sharp" and in the logo for the language the sharp symbol is used. The same also applies to the F# programming language and various C# derivatives. Yetisyny (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple articles that would be moved. This would involve moving 13 articles, plus the 4 categories Category:C Sharp libraries, Category:Free software programmed in C Sharp, Category:C Sharp software, and Category:C Sharp programming language family. Moving categories is done differently from moving articles and involves editing every single page that includes the category in them. But I felt it would be best to include them here since I am talking about moving 17 related items (13 articles, 4 categories). Of course moving the categories is a different process, it may require doing the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion process after this requested move process here is done. I am not allowed to request a move of categories using the requested move process or template, instead it would be done via Categories for Discussion or someone could just DO it but only if these 13 pages get moved and this is approved. 3 of the articles that would be moved would replace redirect pages which ordinary users cannot do but administrators can, for the other 10 articles there would be no obstacle to moving them.

As far as the last article move regarding SharpOS (operating system) to SharpOS, other operating systems with unique names like ReactOS or FreeBSD do not typically have (operating system) in the article title. Android (operating system) is one that does have (operating system) in its article name because "Android" can refer to other things and this is used for disambiguation. SharpOS being an operating system based on C#, I thought I would address its naming issue as well in this request.

Additionally the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) needs to be updated if this change is done, since it references the current naming of this specific article (currently C Sharp (programming language)), so that specific reference would need updating. Anyway I do not think this is likely to be very controversial, it might be just a little controversial but I think it is long-overdue maintenance that several users have requested above in this very talk page.

I do realize that there is a Wikipedia policy generally advising against the use of special characters but exceptions are sometimes made to that general guideline such as for the article (A→B) Life which uses a special character. I would note that MOS:TM, cited in the second of the 2 proposed moves 5 years ago in 2013, currently makes exceptions when "a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name". A significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include either the # or ♯ character when discussing C#/C♯ (C# is more common since it is easier to type and part of ASCII). Spelling out the word "Sharp" rather than using the sharp character is clearly an inferior way of doing things and I think an exception to the general guideline against using special characters in article titles is not only justified here but something that the vast majority of editors would prefer, if the rules allowed it. So, if that is also your personal preference, if you would normally be in favor of this move but you are going to go by the book and oppose this renaming by citing the rules, I would remind you, the rules can be changed if there is consensus and we already have exceptions to those rules, and this would only be carving out a very narrow exception, if the existing one is not good enough. The new exception would be for special characters used as substitutes for characters that cannot be used due to technical limitations, in cases where those special characters are appropriate (we might need to define "appropriate" in more detail). So, I would ask for people to at least consider that, and support this proposal. Or if you do want to oppose it based on a rule, I would ask that you please say WHY you do not want to grant a narrow exception to the general guideline against special characters that would ONLY apply to article titles that cannot use certain characters due to technical restrictions. I would quote from the last move request back in 2013, where only 2 people gave opinions, "Strong Oppose. Man, I hate this requests. I really want this to happen because I like the "C♯" look better than "C Sharp". But rules are rules. Via MOS:TM. Srsrox (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)". Yes, rules are rules, but they also have exceptions, and they can also be changed, and I am proposing a very narrow exception to the rules be granted in this specific case. I think this was overlooked in the last discussion, and if we have enough consensus for an exception, "rules are rules" need not apply here. Indeed, Wikipedia has no policy saying that rules are rules, but rather, one that suggests the opposite, "Ignore All Rules", and I am not actually suggesting to ignore rules, just to carve out a narrow exception that is based on consensus, and possibly even make that exception PART of the rules. From the policy guideline Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, it says "Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled 'guideline' or 'policy', but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors.", and it points to WP:CONSENSUS. This should be taken to mean that, if there is consensus among Wikipedians for an exception to a rule, such as a general rule against special characters such as ♯ appearing in article titles, we ought to follow that consensus. Such an exception already exists, at least on MOS:TM, although the language of the exception would require the ♯ character to be more widely used for C# than the # character, so at least on a rigid, literal interpretation of the existing exception, this proposed move would fail that test. However that particular Manual of Style article does not take into account characters that cannot be used for technical reasons such as #, and I do believe that this particular case is a unique one that none of the existing rules regarding special Unicode characters in article names really apply to since none of them were thinking about cases such as this one that involve the predominantly-used character being one that cannot be used for technical reasons involving MediaWiki software. ESPECIALLY not in cases where a symbol such as # is pronounced "sharp" and interpreted to mean ♯ but only written as # for what are ALSO technical reasons. This specific overlap regarding special characters and characters that cannot be used due to technical reasons is not really addressed anywhere in the rules. Which means we are free to decide whatever we want based on consensus on what is best for improving the encyclopedia, as long as we are not doing anything TOO drastic that would be a major violation of Wikipedia core policies such as the Neutral Point of View policy. Something important to consider is the SPIRIT of Wikipedia policies and not just the letter of them, and I think that this change might not be within the letter of current policies but it is in the spirit of them. And no I am not wikilawyering because if I were wikilawyering I would be citing policies and their exact literal meaning to prove I am correct in a dishonest way that goes against the spirit of the policies, which is the exact opposite of what I am doing, I am considering the spirit of them more than the literal meaning and also being honest about the literal meaning being against this move. Although if people disagree with this and cite the existing policies and literal meaning I will certainly not accuse them of wikilawyering either, I assume good faith about everyone.

Anyway sorry about that long paragraph, I felt that given the 2 previous failed move attempts in 2011 and 2013 I had to state the case for why I thought the same move should be tried a third time. And yes, I am following WP:BOLD here and boldly proposing this move.

If the move is NOT approved in general, I STILL ask that the 13th and final proposed article move in this list, from SharpOS (operating system) to SharpOS, be approved, since I do not think it is controversial in the slightest. It is different from the others since it does not involve the sharp symbol but is about getting rid of the words "operating system" in parentheses from the article title. So if/when people oppose this, I ask that they please consider the SharpOS case separately since I think it is totally uncontroversial.

I suggest having 2 separate discussions, one for the first 12 of the 13 moves involving the ♯ sign replacing the word Sharp, and a separate discussion for the 13th and totally unrelated move involving SharpOS no longer having (operating system) after it. This would help to keep the discussion of those 2 separate issues cleaner, and in case people end up supporting one and opposing the other, having 2 separate discussions would help with that. I have already said everything I need to say so I will not be participating in any of these discussions, obviously I am in favor of my own proposed moves but I will not vote or comment in it, as the original proposer. Yetisyny (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the 12 moves replacing the word Sharp with the ♯ sign:

• Oppose because "♯" is, by definition, strictly a musical symbol, whereas the name of the language, based on the official language documentation, expressly says it is "#". The octothorpe and "musical sharp" symbols look similar, but they are not synonymous. Wikipedia is expressly WP:NOT in the business of promoting things that aren't true, even if it's tempting to do so to work around a technical limitation with URLs. The current pattern of using the word "sharp" for technical reasons works just fine because that's how you say the subject. — Warren. ‘ talk , 22:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per User:Warren and because it would make these articles inconsistent with how we deal with the same technical limitation in other articles that would have the # sign. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel Wikipedia already goes too far in allowing non-ASCII characters in page titles; this would not be an improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - we want to do the best we can with the limitations we have with our software. This is a step in the very much correct direction. Red Slash 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per User:Warren - if the symbol is not exact, it shouldn't be used at all. It would just be more confusing to use an alternate symbol._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the move of SharpOS (operating system) to SharpOS:

This move should be discussed on the appropriate talk page, not here. Remove this section please. — Warren. ‘ talk , 22:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mads Torgersen

Mads Torgersen is a broken lemma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.11.34 (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

".csc" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect .csc. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• C Sharp logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)