Talk:Venetian Ceruse

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 reduce caps by redirecting and restoring. This was improperly moved by cut-and-paste, and it does not appear to be a proper noun or brand name. Dekimasu よ! 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally created as "Venetian Ceruse" and editor moved it without any discussion to "Venetian ceruse". I have moved it back to "Venetian Ceruse", this is the name of the cosmetic product and both words should be capitalized. Chessy999 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Venetian ceruse" is not a brand or trade mark. It is the generic name of the cosmetic, hence a common noun --- like "French toast" or "Irish coffee". The "ceruse" definitely should NOT be capitalized. (By the way, "Spirits of Saturn" is wrong too --- it should be "spirits of Saturn".) Jorge Stolfi 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it was a brand. Chessy999 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: in your example neither "french" nor "toast" is inherently capitalized, as the noun is no longer associated with France. Chessy999 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, but that is an argument for renaming the article "venetian ceruse", not "Venetian Ceruse"! --Jorge Stolfi 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is you do not know what you are yapping about, my last comment. Chessy999 22:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No rename - "Venetian Ceruse" was the brand name for the 16th century cosmetic product, both words should be capitalized, the same as the cosmetic product Lip Volume. Chessy999 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Lip Volume" is indeed a brand (assuming that the manufacturers did register it properly. If so, only they can use that name. On the other hand, "Venetian Ceruse" was not (and is not) a brand; anyone could (and can) make the stuff and sell it by that name. (By the way, in the 16th century capitalization customs were very different from those of today. Some writers capitalized every noun, common or not --- just as in German.) --Jorge Stolfi 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any evidence based on sources that it was or wasn't a brand? I don't see anything that can be called reliable evidence here. A Google search seems to indicate that both capitalizations are in use, but a lot of those pages also capitalize "Lead". Dekimasu よ! 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks that the burden of proof is on the other side: if it was a brand, who owned it?
As far as I know, the international tretaies that today protect commercial brands across national borders simply did not exist in the 16th century. Moreover the word "ceruse" itself is a common noun: it is an archaic name for white lead (lead carbonate), a white pigment which was already known to the Romans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Stolfi (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move. Calling anything a "brand" in the 16th century is a stretch and it wouldn't apply by now anyway (cf. zipper, aspirin). — AjaxSmack 03:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.