Talk:Napoleonic Code/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Napoleonic COde hadn't destroyed Legal Unity in Europe, because no such thing existed. Every country, every region in country had different laws. Unification of those different laws wsas in fact first step to creation of modern state, and that unificaiton for example in Poland took probably more than 300 or maybe 400 years szopen

Its more complicated than that. In continental Europe, the law was a mixture of local custom and Roman law. The local customs varied from place to place, but Roman law was largely constant from place to place (although the extent to which it was used depended on local custom.) And in universities, Roman law (and also canon law) were the only laws studied -- not local customs. But after the advent of codes such as the Napoleonic code, the (albeit limited) unity provided by Roman law was lost. -- SJK

I accept that explanation, although i thought that Roman Law usually was a skeleton of the law, and sometimes was just kind a. erm, academic, abstract thing - ,,local rules, at least in Poland, regulated every-day aspects of life, as punishments for crimes, regulations for inheritation goods, trade rules etc etc. szopen

---

does napoleonic law take the place of common law in louisiana? I heard something about that once, regarding common law differences in louisiana regarding divorce.

Clarification needed

The sentence under History: "The reaction to the Civil Code and other subsequent codes resulted legislative role by judges protesting royal decisions—to protest excesses of royal power or, in some occasions, to defend the privileges of the social classes to which the judges belonged." is confusing as to meaning. Please re-word or correct this. Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reworded. --Wikiain (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also had a go at much else in the early sections, drawing particularly on the equivalent article in French Wikipedia (see external link to it). The word "customal", which I have used, won't be in most dictionaries - but it is used by legal historians to translate "coutume" where that refers to, and often is in the title of, a published collection. A movement toward collection and codification was in train before the Revolution, notably in the work of Pothier. --Wikiain (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

legal unity

I don't understand the idea that there was a "legal unity of continental Europe that had existed since the Middle Ages". The law was the same across all of Europe in the medieval period? Vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire? Culturally, via feudalism and the aristocracy spanning multiple countries - thus the culture (and lfghaw) of the nobles was common across the continent?

This "legal unity" really refers to the fact that the medieval use of eclesiastical law that preserved "Roman law" was taught without change throughout most of the so-called "dark ages" in various church controlled universities. What needs to be clarified is the development of the local customs or coutumes as they were called, a body of law that developed in various municipalities that dealt with issues that were not specifically covered by roman law. Alex

Right. I'm not an expert on old French law, but I remember reading several times that there were lots of local customs, local privileges etc. David.Monniaux 07:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is now incorporated. Roman law was preserved in two ways: continuously, through canon law; and, through medieval "reception" by rulers from the 11th century on, as secular civil law. The latter, however, remained more a resource than effective as everyday law. For one thing, it was in Latin; for another, it was rarely transformed into national codes. Actually, it is doubtful how much effect it had had even in Justinian's Constantinople (Byzantium), since contemporary historians hardly mention it. In Justinian's day, Latin was the language of higher administration and, within that, the legal system - but the lingua franca in most parts of the eastern empire was Greek. --Wikiain (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Other civil law countries

Somebody inserted "European". What were non-European countries with a civil law system? David.Monniaux 07:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

several South American natiions, Lebanon, Most African nations, Japan, and China are all examples of non-European countries.Voltaire1799 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Latin America

"the Napoleonic Code ... formed the basis of the private law systems also of ... Spain, Portugal and their former colonies."

Clarification requested -- My understanding is that the Napoleonic Code is the basis of the legal systems in many or all Latin American countries. Can somebody clarify this in the article? Thanks. -- 30 October 2005

I think so too (apart from Brazil, which recently enacted an entirely new code), but we would need someone knowledgeable to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.63.186 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Penal Code graffiti?

Under Penal Code someone inserted the line IP ADDRESS 170.158.177.80 > LIVERPOOL I'm to assume this was not part of the article, but it confused me enough I thought I should make a note here.

Liastnir 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I restored some deleted parts (now it makes sense). Also, I deleted some crap, including something about a "Code de Rohan, Malta, 1782" (or '92); it may be real, but I searched and all I get is the fictional nation of Lord of the Rings. If there are further vandalic edits, please remember not only to delete the vandalic content, but also check if something was deleted, cuz there was stuff there that didn't make sense without stuff I restored from older versions. Always compare with older versions! And the last one is not enough, try with older ones too. --Neuroghost 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A "Code de Rohan, Malta, 1782" does exist. New searches (e.g. Structure and Organization of the Order of Malta)show that it was a constitution for the Knights Hospitaller and still has some force for that order. But it does not appear to be comparable with the Napoleonic Code and, if so, is rightly omitted from this article. You might like the idea, Neuroghost, that its author, Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc, was a knight born in la Mancha. --Wikiain (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this line vandalism? "The Napoleonic Code was then put to an end in 1890." (See end of long paragraph about Louisiana.) It seems to have been added in isolation by a user at address 71.245.251.253 on 14 Oct 2007. It doesn't really make sense in context. Can someone who knows more about the subject please comment? Bouncey (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Countries linked

Sweden, Lebanon ... appear in the what links here, should not thet be added in the relevant section ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized several times. Perhaps it should be locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentfever (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Napoleonic Code has a redirect to Napoleonic Code...Is there any reason for this?Diamondfiretail 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cambacérès contradiction

Just a note for someone with more knowledge on the topic - the Penal code section contains a reference to Cambacérès influencing the statutes on same-sex acts, while the article about him contradicts that. I have no idea which is correct, just wanted to point it out.

Schmatt 18:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Shouldn't this be at "Napoleonic Code", not "Napoleonic code"? Kuralyov (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalised throughout. --Wikiain (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

some cleanup

Addressed the lede tags, minor tidying up on this page. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please move article

Hello. I'm linking to this page but as "Napoleonic Code" with a capital "C". Everywhere this article mentions the word code it has a capital letter. Perhaps someone familiar with it could move this article to Napoleonic Code. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Napoleonic code → Napoleonic Code – I agree, Susan, and am a specialist in comparative law. Capitalising "Code" in its name is conventional in English (although not in French). The name has been capitalised throughout the article, with no objection. Refs in other articles sometimes capitalise, sometimes not. Those that do not capitalise can easily be changed. Graham87 moved the article in good faith from "code" to "Code" and back again on 28 February 2009. To undo that I guess might affect the many later changes, so I have attempted a "move" now. But a request is necessary because a "move" attempt is blocked, apparently by the previous capitalisation. --Wikiain (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP style is to only capitalize proper nouns. The fact that Napoleonic code has been increasingly capitalized in recent decades is not good evidence that it's a proper noun. Still a substantial percentage of quality sources treat code as generic. I would go the other direction and downcase all the uses in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You've made me think! I agree that the article should go one way or the other. And that the word "code", with reference to law as well as otherwise, is normally used generically. But maybe a comparison with "Morse code" will help. That article is titled Morse code, but the box in it has "Morse Code". There seems to be a choice and I'd be inclined not to capitalise there, since the reference is to a system that will have been published in thousands of ways. True, one could say that the original publication, the French code civil as of 1804, has appeared in many print formats and also that it has gone through many editions, now annual. But, when someone speaks of the "Napoleonic C/code", the mind goes first to a volume and secondly to its content. With the Morse C/code, it is the other way around. For example, it makes sense to say "in Morse code" while "in Napoleonic code" would be ungrammatical - one has to say "in the Napoleonic c/Code", referring primarily to a book (and in this respect French usage is the same). I suspect that a philosopher, if agreeing with all this, might have a neater way of saying it. But for these reasons I still go for capitalisation. --Wikiain (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2011 (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.

Consensus to move

Hi Vegaswikian (no relation, to my knowledge), you conclude that there has been no consensus. But opinion for the move was running 3:1 in favour (counting Kuralyov from back in "Capitalization") and included two people who have a specialised interest (Kuralyov and myself). The single user against has interests remote from the topic and also hasn't responded to my reply. Could you please at least re-open the discussion? --Wikiain (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, what Wikian said. The majority are in favor of move, and the one opposed doesn't appear to be knowledgeable on the topic. I'm doing work on Napoleon at the moment and off the top of my head I can't remember any historian whose work I refer to using a lower-case c over a capital C for the Code. Kuralyov (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. We seem to have sufficient agreement that the name should be capitalised. Could you do that, please? --Wikiain (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the discussion was 1 to 1. If you add the comment immediately above it was 2-1. The close was based on the comments about the move. I did not read all of the talk page and I don't believe that is required. If there is now a consensus, feel free to open a new request. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

New request to 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: article moved to Napoleonic Code. Gosh, what a lengthy move discussion over what you would think would be a very simple decision. Both sides of the argument make legitimate points, but after reading through everything here, it seems to boil down to a) is this a proper name and b) if it is, what does policy say? Consensus is pretty much universal that it is a proper name, and while the Manual of Style - our guiding policy here - seems to be fairly vague, there's a considerable and considered consensus here that as it's a proper name, it ought to be capitalised. So, it has been moved. I've put the little marker to close the discussion at what I think is the bottom, if that's in the wrong place, or if there is any particularly useful content that could still be used in further discussion, there is no problem in someone shifting it upwards. fish&karate 14:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Napoleonic code → Napoleonic Code – There have been three requests/suggestions that the title of this article be moved to "Napoleonic Code".

1. On 6 August 2009, Kuralyov wrote: "Shouldn't this be at "Napoleonic Code", not "Napoleonic code"?" On 10 November 2010, I made that change throughout the text - but couldn't move the title because with "Move" lower and upper case letters trip over each other (although that wasn't clear to me at the time).
2. On 10 September 2011, SusanLesch wrote: "I'm linking to this page but as "Napoleonic Code" with a capital "C". Everywhere this article mentions the word code it has a capital letter. Perhaps someone familiar with it could move this article to Napoleonic Code."
3. Same day, I made a formal request for the move. The discussion is archived above on this page. The decision by Vegaswikian was "No consensus".

Following Vegaswikian's response today, I am making a new request. In support of this request, I wish to incorporate the positive remarks made earlier by Susan Lesch and, both earlier and in response to my Move request, by Kuralyov. The present state of play therefore seems to be, as I said today on Vegaswikian's talk page: of four contributors on the proposal that the article should be renamed "Napoleonic Code", three are in favour and they include the two who have a specialised knowledge of the subject (Kuralyov and myself), while the sole objector has been knowledgeable only about the general meaning of the word "code" and has not sustained his objection.

How far an Admin should read back up a talk page, I would think is probably not something that should be set in concrete, but I would agree that there should not be an actual obligation to look outside the immediate proposal and its discussion - which why I am incorporating, by reference (to use a legal expression), the earlier discussion into this proposal. Comments welcome. --Wikiain (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support; Yes, I agree that this should be Code and not code. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support; Concur with Wikiain. Sorry, Vegaswikian, you're wrong on this one. The names of particular legal codes are proper nouns and thus they are capitalized all the way through. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support; this is a proper noun. How the idea it isn't, and isn't so capitalized, came into the discussion beats me. JCScaliger (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've supported this all along and hope this time common sense and the mass of evidence will prevail. Kuralyov (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons explained in the recent RM. I didn't respond to Wikian's long paragraph there, as no reply seemed call for; he explained his preference, but didn't say why not just stick with WP's style of only capitalizing proper names. JCScaliger I'll repeat: in many publications, code in is lower case, providing clear evidence that it's not generally seen as a proper name, in spite of the trend over recent decades toward more often capitalizing it. That's who the idea that it isn't came into the discussion. It is perfectly common and normal for experts in a field, like you guys, to want to capitalize stuff that they hold dear, but the writings of outsiders are a better indication of how the topic is viewed by a more general audience; papers by economists, for example (like this and blocked link www.microfinancegateway.org/gm/document-1.9.26333/21113_wps3203.pdf) tend to use lower case on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: we don't capitalise "The Common Law", and nor should this term be upcased (that is, the "code" part). It's not confusable with any other term, is it? WP:CAPS says if in doubt, downcase. There's far too much eye-poking capitalisation on WP. Oh, and just a small point: it's translated from the French, who themselves wouldn't dream of upcasing it. Tony (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. [I withdraw my opposition to this move, in response to recent argument. See below. Noetica^Tea? 18:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)] Published sources vary on this. Significantly more use uppercase than lower case in "Napoleonic [C,c]ode", as a search on "with the napoleonic code" confirms (that string is weighted toward in-text occurrences; and suitable restrictions were applied for currency and to enable checking of texts: "Preview and full view›Books›Jan 1, 1990–Oct 10, 2011›Search English pages"). But that search does not select "reliable sources"; and in any case "reliable sources" are not what we should be after, for the question addressed in this RM. It is matter of style, as set out in the MOS pages. WP:MOSCAPS (the most relevant MOS page) announces this general principle at the start: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." We may take this as supporting, prima facie, the use of lower case where that is a realistic option. Nothing on the page counters that for the present title. The nearest guideline is that for science and mathematics, whose full text is this: "In science and mathematics, only proper names that are part of a name for an idea should be capitalized (Hermitian matrix, Lorentz transformation). A small number of exceptions exist (abelian group)." WP:MOSCAPS links us to WP:MOSPN for a treatment of proper names, because "most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms." But nothing at WP:MOSPN gives any ruling on cases like the present title. It includes a generality that is converse to the generality just cited from WP:MOSCAPS: "In English, these are typically capitalized nouns." So we have a circularity. Nothing at WP:MOSLEGAL breaks us free from it.

From Wikipedia style guidelines, then, we are left with a presumption in favour of "Napoleonic code". This is unevenly implemented in titles of current articles. We may take Salic law as parallel: law and code are in the same domain, and "Salic law" is, I think, better preceded by "the" than not.

If we include choices made in OED as a guide to usage (as opposed to capitalisation in its citations), then the preference for lower case is confirmed in OED for the nearest cases:

Napoleonic code ("also with capital initial in the second element")
Justinianian [sic] code (elsewhere code of Justinian)
Salic law or code
Theodosian code (elsewhere code of Theodosius)

These predominate over cases in OED with upper case:

Highway Code ("In Britain ...")
Green Cross Code ("also with lower-case initial in third element"; "Brit. a set of guidelines (intended esp. for children) for crossing the road safely, introduced in 1971 and subsequently incorporated in the Highway Code")

The OED preference is incidentally confirmed in the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors: "Salic law" (but "Corn Laws"); and "law" passim for scientific laws (like "Coulomb's law"). See also Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS16), "8.1 Chicago’s preference for the 'down' style"; "8.79 Formal names of acts, treaties, and so forth" ("the Brady law"; but others do not conform).

On balance, there is a strong presumption in favour of "Napoleonic code" – strong enough for that to be retained as more consistent with practice. In particular, simplistic and circular notions of "proper names" (or "proper nouns") can only retard or befuddle processes like this. It's more subtle than can be addressed by any invocation of such comfortable formulae or slogans.

Noetica^Tea? 08:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment in response. Those who are opposing make several points, with which I respectfully disagree in the following four ways:

1. This is an encyclopedia, intended to inform with expertise. It is not a dictionary, recording whatever may be current usage. That is a most respectable task, but a different one. In an encyclopedia, informed usage surely must prevail over general usage. Just as much as, in a dictionary, informed description of current usage should not prefer one usage to another on any ground except prevalence.
2. "Napoleonic Code" is the title of a particular publication, not the name of a category - such as "common law". "Salic law", which has been cited, is an example, I think, leaning in favour of the direction that I propose. That article's indecision as to capitalisation appears, legitimately, to reflect historical uncertainty as between a category and a publication - or, more likely, a category of publications. My expertise does not extend there, yet I have some acquaintance with the area and the writers seem to me to know what they are talking about.
3. The expression "Justinianian Code" is correct in naming Justinian's Codex (literal and accepted translation, "Code") - and likewise for the "Code of Theodosius (Codex Theodosianus)". But the Justinianian Codex, unlike that of Theodosius, did not stand alone but was a component of a three-part work that has become known as the Corpus Iuris Civilis. That work as whole may be called the "Justinianian code" in the sense of "Justinian's codification". Such a usage as "Justinianian code" may well be out there, but in this encyclopedia it would sanction an ambiguity between the name of the whole and the name of a part.
4. It is true that French usage does not always capitalise code; however, it does not do so consistently. The main point here seems to be that each language has its own conventions. For example: in French the title of a publication is normally capitalised only as to the first word, while in English all important words are capitalised. At the same time, one should not expect that every native speaker of each language will understand those conventions identically. For example: in English, all the important words in a publication's title are capitalised, but it is increasingly common not to do so for the a subtitle.

In the case of the Napoleonic Code, I think there is certainty: the name refers not to any category but to a single published (and republished) text. For this reason, that is how those of us who have expertise on the matter write the name. And therefore that should be the usage in an encyclopedia. --Wikiain (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have surveyed the use of the term in books, and I find that it is not usually referring to the book. It's referring to a set of rules, a code. Yes, they are collected in a book, too, but that book's title is not "The Napoleonic Code". When we discuss the code, we're talking about the contents, not the book. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon wrote several codes, but one of them, the code of civil law, is named the Napoleonic Code - as the article says; it is far the best known and most referred to. It would be possible (if silly) to split the article between Napoleonic code, in general, and Napoleonic Code (this one). That is why the use of Napoleonic code continues, although Napoleonic Code has been steadily more common since 1920.

Examining the results makes this result stronger: of the recent hits, those using Napoleonic Code are texts on the history of law; those using Napoleonic code are mostly false positives (the same books, using Code), variegated by (for example) a quote from Tennessee Williams, who is using the language of his characters, not of an encyclopedia. Even the books discussing that speech use Code as often as not.

So does the OED: their quotes since 1910 (except for the same quote from Tennessee Williams) use Code; so does their first citation, from Wordworth. (The title of their entry was set in the first edition, which came out in the 19th century, when usage was about evenly divided; that they have not chosen to change it when usage is still somewhat divided is understandable, but their problem, not ours.)

In short, the present title is partly misleading, partly a 19th century anachronism. The proposal need not be defended as expert usage against common usage; it is both. JCScaliger (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon: the Napoleonic Code is not just a list. Nor is it an edited collection, like the Codes (codices) of Theodosius and Justinian. It is a new text, albeit incorporating old as well as new ideas. It was conceived, and operates, as an integrated whole: each element of it is interpreted as to its own wording, as to its place within the whole and through analogies between elements. This is done mainly by courts - the "Mega" edition of the Code provides 10,000 judicial decisions on CD. While it is ordinarily sufficient to refer to the elements individually, even that is done against the background of judicial interpretation. Scholarly interpretation, in France, can also play an authoritative role. --Wikiain (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Theodosian Code has also been much more common, over the last century, than Theodosian code. If we examine the results in detail, we find that most of the uses of code are false positives (not true of Code), and the rest are mostly either typographical oddities, like the book that prints visigoth, or genuine uses of the common noun; not the Theodosian Code, but either the code expressed by it, or a cryptogram associated with some Theodosius.JCScaliger (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is the Napoleonic code, not just your run of the mill Napoleonic code. And even the oppose !voters acknowledge that printed sources use uppercase more often than lowercase here. I appreciate Noetica's lengthy argument from the Manual of Style, but as he says, nothing in the MOS is directly on point - except "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." Here, since "Napoleonic Code" is the name of a specific, unique instance of a general term - a proper noun - capitalizing it is necessary. Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dohn, isn't it still the Napoleonic code with lower case, as used by many sources? And taking your argument logically, we could go the full hog and capitalise all three words, I suppose: "... unlike The Napoleonic Code, comtemporary English law was based on ...". Tony (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. We do capitalize The in some names, e.g. "Starr, who left Rory Storm and the Hurricanes to join The Beatles, had..."; "The majority of The Sorrows of Young Werther is presented..."; and so forth. However, we don't do it in most cases and for various reasons I wouldn't recommend it here. But it wouldn't be illogical or outrageous. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably moot, since this title doesn't happen to start with "The". --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dohn, thank you for appreciating my exegesis of guidelines, and for your own efforts. I don't agree with your analysis. While the MOS pages say nothing directly addressing cases just like the present one, I have shown that cases lying adjacent to that cluster are directly addressed: they are to be lower-cased. As for "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization", the evidence from sources, and very notably from OED, leaves no doubt: this is not a case in which capitalisation is necessary, despite your claim. OED has it as a secondary option; and its sample of citations is too small to justify any separate conclusion. I have also shown that the general MOS line is in accord with both CMOS16 and current best-practice guidance in Britain. While I don't mind much which way this RM goes, I would like it to be decided on undistorted facts (and without special pleading – not that I accuse you of that). If RMs are argued well on all sides, the processes adopted and the points made might usefully be appealed to as a body of "common law". I hope this will happen. Noetica^Tea? 03:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm being consistent with the MOS - although ultimately, I don't think the MOS gives us much help. Firstly, I don't see the circularity in the MOS that Noetica does. There's no place in the MOS that I've found which says that it's okay not to capitalize a proper noun. This is perfectly compatible with a general statement that unnecessary capitalization is to be avoided. Implied in that general statement is that capitalization should be used when it is necessary - and it is generally necessary to capitalize proper nouns. If that's true, then the question quickly boils down to whether "Napoleonic C/code" is a proper noun or not. If it is, we should capitalize it. If it is not, then we should not. The problem is, deciding what are proper nouns in English is a tricky business. As Noetica noted, not even the examples cited by the OED agree in this instance. And I may be missing it, but I haven't found any intra-Wikipedia guidance on how to determine whether a word or phrase is a proper noun. In a case where either one can be seen as acceptable, I think we let our fellow Wikipedians decide whether something is a proper noun or not, using the usual Wiki combination of appeals to theory, usage, and common sense. Once we determine that, then the MOS guides us how to title the article. Here, I've explained why I think "Napoleonic Code" is best seen as a proper noun. If that's the consensus view, then I think the MOS would be happy to see it capitalized. Dohn joe (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's a proper noun. From what I can gather from the interesting discussion above, there's not a clear answer in sources. If it was just a nickname or common-use description -- "Napoleon's code" -- fine. But according to the article "it was renamed the Napoleonic Code" in 1806. So that's the formal title of the document(s) after that date, I would assume. It is, essentially, a title. So it should be Napoleonic Code for essentially the same reason that our article on Ophüls's movie is The Sorrow and the Pity and not The sorrow and the pity, notwithstanding that the French original (Le chagrin et la pitié) isn't capitalized. That's how they do it in France, but not how we do it when we translate titles. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking further into French usage. The corresponding article in fr:WP, which of course is only illustrative for en:WP, is consistently "code". A brief introduction to codes by the publisher of the French codes, Dalloz, has a heading "Les codes napoléoniens (The Napoleonic codes)" for the category that embraces all of the codes promulgated under Napoleon, but under that heading capitalises "Code" when referring to this particular code: "Le Code civil des Français sera ensuite rebaptisé Code Napoléon par la loi du 3 septembre 1807 (The Civil Code of the French would later be renamed 'Code Napoléon' by the law of 3 September 1807)". I haven't been able to find that law itself, but the Bulletin des lois de l'Empire, vol. 13 (1811) refers repeatedly to a law of that date (apparently the same law but in another respect) and to "Code Napoléon", which I think may be taken to reflect the name adopted in 1807. None of this can be conclusive, even for French usage, but I think that the practice of Dalloz is persuasive, both for its rationality and because Dalloz can be assumed to know at least as well as anybody what the best practice should be. --Wikiain (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well researched, Wikiain. But whatever those sources prefer or do, OED favours "code" tout simplement. Since OED's preference is in accord with the most relevant Wikipedia guideline – avoid unnecessary capitalisation – we should not capitalise in this case. Capitalisation cannot be "necessary" here, if many sources including OED do not capitalise, and by way of confirmation many parallel cases are treated likewise. What is the point of having guidelines if they are not to be acted on? We should do that, unless there is a clear reason not to. No such clear reason has been adduced. Noetica^Tea? 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica - Since you refer with such emphasis to the OED, but do not cite which edition, I have added below (in a new section since it is so long and the OED's formatting does not copy) the latest version of the OED entry for the word "code" (NOTE: this edition is available only through subscription and I thank my institution's library). Its references are both various and very old - they seem not to have been updated at all as to legal matters since the first edition of the OED. I don't think this is at all useful about current usage, either as to what we should record or as to what we should prefer. --Wikiain (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC) I've now made the addition a subsection, to obtain continguity and to improve navigability through the Contents box (is that better, Tony?). --Wikiain (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiain, I am impressed by your conscientious commitment to getting this right, through display of evidence, use of detailed argument, and weighing of competing principles. Your OED excerpt is just one of many relevant entries in that great resource (which deserves our respect in RMs, that's for sure). Note that I used the same edition as you did (the current one online); in any serious discussion where the edition mattered, I would certainly have declared if it were not the current one. More importantly, note this: I also checked an earlier edition of OED that I have on each of my computers (a CD-ROM, current at 2004). The phrase "Napoleonic code" occurs nowhere in the full text at 2004; so what I cite above is later than 2004 in OED. It is not old, legacy material that needs updating – as so much of OED always will, given its 20-volume vastness. And I have cited several relevant parallel cases whose currency is not impugned so far as I know (not having checked them all). My other references (ODWE, CMOS16) are also up to the minute. Noetica^Tea? 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• oppose—Noetica makes a compelling point: this is a style issue, and our style is essentially to not capitalize when we can get away with it. Either styling is probably correct, but here we avoid capitalizing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that stands up, Erik, despite the reference to varying usages we've seen above. A good collegial discussion; but it is reasonable to hope that the status of Wikipedia's style guidelines will be affirmed, against the well-motivated arguments in favour of other considerations. They give a clear enough message on the present issue, though sometimes we have to glean it from the silences as much as from direct statement. That issue needs addressing soon, at the appropriate talkpages. Noetica^Tea? 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside Erik's praise for Noetica, and Noetica's approval of it: Our guidelines do not say "lower case when you can get away with it"; on the contrary, they say "Wikipedia does capitalize initial letters of proper nouns, and often proper adjectives. In doing this, we follow common usage, and when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (abelian group, k.d. lang), we follow common usage." This is a proper noun, and it is not k. d. lang. JCScaliger (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that way about an appearance of consensus after rational exchange of ideas, JCScaliger. Some of us are trying to move this forward. I have repeatedly challenged you on the matter of proper names (or nouns: you do not distinguish, it seems). You have refused to concede that my questions need answers, and without any evidence have impugned my understanding of this technical linguistic matter. OED does not share your easy take on proper names, and does not appeal to the notion in its very recent treatment of "Napoleonic code". If the editors of OED considered 1) that the phrase was unequivocally a proper name, and 2) that every proper name must invariably have every one of its components capitalised, then they might support you. But they do not. Taken with the relevant style guidelines on Wikipedia, they support lower case. I was not committed to that opinion when I first turned to this issue; I developed that opinion by examining the matter without prejudice, and watching and responding to others' thoughts here. Can you say the same? You might answer those questions I put to you earlier at another place, if you do respect the process of discussion in RMs. Add to those your explication of "proper adjective", which is problematic also. Noetica^Tea? 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The !votes are 8-4 for the move, by my count; Wikian has the best of the argument on the sources; and Noetica's position on title policy failed to gain much support here. Yes, there may well be consensus to move. JCScaliger (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You appeal to numbers as if they are all that consensus could amount to. Go and read WP:CONSENSUS, and then reflect on whether there is consensus to move this article. If this RM were decided simplistically on the numbers it would be a great shame; there has been a great deal of argument and evidence to weigh, and if that is not to count, we are all wasting our time and the RM process might as well be abandoned. We should come here to vote, and leave with the opinions we came with. I have a higher aspiration for Wikpedia, and I think others in this discussion do too. My position on WP:MOSCAPS, WP:TITLE, and other relevant policy and guidelines is supported by their very wording. My respect for the soundest of external sources is also based on their exact wording, as well as on their spirit and their practice. Some here support what I bring to the table from such places, some do not. I hope the matter will be well judged; if it is not (as happens regrettably often in these RMs), so much the worse for everyone and for the Project. At least some of us have achieved a fine example of nuanced argument. It can be shown in future as an example. Meanwhile, you have not answered my questions. Noetica^Tea? 00:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Try again. A bit earlier in this discussion, I responded to Noetica, explaining how I thought that "Napoleonic Code" is perfectly in line with the MOS. Having seen no response (which I understand - it's difficult keeping track of and responding to every entry in a multi-editor, worldwide discussion such as ths one), I thought I'd try again.

  Essentially, we have two general statements from the MOS to work with here. 1) "Unnecessary capitalization is to be avoided"; and 2) "In English, these (proper names) are typically capitalized nouns." Noetica sees conflict between these two statements; I do not. The converse of 1) is that we should not avoid capitalization where it is necessary. And I would hope that everyone here would agree that it is typically necessary to capitalize proper names. That shouldn't be controversial - the OED, our MOS, and every other source I checked said something to the effect that "Proper names (and nouns) are generally - or usually, or typically - capitalized." If we accept that, then the conflict between 1) and 2) disappears, and we are free to typically capitalize proper names without offending the MOS. All we need to do is decide whether "Napoleonic C/code" is a proper name or not.

  This is more difficult than it seems. Nothing in the OED or our style guide (or anywhere else I looked) gives guidance on how to determine whether a particular word or phrase is a proper name. We have general guidance on what a proper name is, but eventually it simply comes down to a determination that that word or phrase is somehow "name-worthy". Which is a consensus decision. As we've seen, outside sources are split in this case, with the majority favoring "Code". The purpose of this discussion should be in deciding whether we agree this is a proper name; the MOS capitalization decision flows directly from that decision. (And before someone baldly asserts that "typically capitalized" doesn't mean "always capitalized" for one or either element in the proper name, I'd like to see evidence or reasoning why this proper name is not typical of other proper names - assuming that this phrase is determined to be one.) Dohn joe (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I can't speak for Noetica, but I don't see the problem as being in the guidelines; just in the assertion that "code" here is part of a proper name. Enough sources use lower case to suggest that it is not always treated as a proper name, and that capitalization here is a styling issue. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I totally agree that "Napoleonic C/code" is not always treated as a proper name. If consensus thinks that it should be here, though, our style guide says that it should be capitalized, correct? Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Still trying. I don't think there is any issue whether the name of this book is or is not a proper name. Where legislation has been given a name by law, that name is its proper name. This is the case here: the book is the Code Napoléon. All agree that the English translation should be "Napoleonic C/code". And then, since this is a proper name, "Code" should be capitalised. So far, I think, so good.

The same words, however, can also be used generically, as a common name. In such usage, capitalisation is not appropriate. It would be correct to say "among European codes of law, the Napoleonic code stands out", which has the same structure as "among all the Borogovian thingies, Mimsie's one stands out". Then the question is whether the article title is to be a proper name or a common name. Since the article is primarily about this book individually and only secondarily about it as a member of a class ("codes of law"), I think the title should be its proper name. Although several French codes can be referred to as "Napoleonic", an article about them generally would surely have the title "Napoleonic codes". The proper name here "le Code Napoléon", which translates as "the Napoleonic Code" and for the purposes of an article title one will drop the "the".

As to the OED: Noetica, I wasn't seeking to cast any aspersion about you not saying which OED edition you were using. It is just, as you will agree, that it is normally important to know which edition is being used. And in this case most people will not have access to the third edition, which is available only online and for subscription. Many people will not even know about it and some of those will not have access to a subscribing library.

Does the edition actually matter here, however? Actually, no - I have now been to my institution's library and looked up the first (1933, 1970 rev repr) and second (1989) editions in hard copy. These editions and the third, below (and thank you, Noetica, for the hide/show), are identical in sections 1.a and 1.b. I was right: they have not been updated. They do not provide any example beyond 1818 in 1.a and 1863 in 1.b. Also, in section 1.a it is sometimes unclear whether the topic is Justinian's whole codification or only the Code (Codex) part of it. And reliability is suspect when all editions make an elementary mistake as to the French name, getting Code Napoléon right but saying Code Civile (wrong gender for the adjective) instead of Code Civil. I'll say again, then, that the OED is not much help here.

As to dictionaries generally, let us remember that they are written by dictionary writers - indispensable people, but almost never specialists in what they are writing about. An encyclopedia entry, however, is preferably to be written by specialists on the topic. WP is (or can be) better than EB less because in WP anybody can have a go (which has its downsides) than because in WP those who can have a go include all specialists on the topic, not just the one who has been tasked with an article in EB.

As to voting, I agree that the numbers should not be decisive and I don't take JCScaliger to be suggesting that - the search, as Noetica says, is for consensus. In that search, one should take particularly into account what are the views of those who have a specialist knowledge of the topic (there is no elitism in a preference for expertise). Because the substantive issue here, as I see it, is not whether the title should be changed from being X to being Y but what, in any case, should be the title (decapitalising "Napoleon" has mischievous attractions). And the specialists, Kuralyov and myself, are strongly in favour of "Napoleonic Code". --Wikiain (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica's responses to Dohn Joe and Wikiain:

Dohn Joe, you write:

A bit earlier in this discussion, I responded to Noetica, explaining how I thought that "Napoleonic Code" is perfectly in line with the MOS. Having seen no response (which I understand - it's difficult keeping track of and responding to every entry in a multi-editor, worldwide discussion such as ths one), I thought I'd try again.

As you have seen, I take care to answer questions. I did not see one; but I am happy to address the issue once again here. I had cited WP:MOSCAPS concerning proper names, and then looked at two other guidelines:

WP:MOSCAPS links us to WP:MOSPN for a treatment of proper names, because "most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms." But nothing at WP:MOSPN gives any ruling on cases like the present title. It includes a generality that is converse to the generality just cited from WP:MOSCAPS: "In English, these are typically capitalized nouns." So we have a circularity. Nothing at WP:MOSLEGAL breaks us free from it.

Now, the qualifications "most" and "typically" are important. No one denies an overlap between capitalised nouns and proper names. But we are having this discussion partly because the overlap is merely an overlap, and not an exact correspondence. The details are controversial, and well-respected grammars do not agree on them (a matter that can be pursued another time). Therefore an elite authority like OED – taking linguistic advice and drawing on its many decades of experience – does not use this notion in discussing "Napoleonic code". Do we think we know better? Myself, on this point I will follow their lead and the lead of major style resources.

You write:

Essentially, we have two general statements from the MOS to work with here. 1) "Unnecessary capitalization is to be avoided"; and 2) "In English, these (proper names) are typically capitalized nouns." Noetica sees conflict between these two statements; I do not.

But this is inaccurate. I do not see a conflict. I diagnosed a circularity. Briefly, because of the overlap I mentioned just now, we might demarcate proper names as (typically) those that are (typically) capitalised; or we might decide which nouns or noun phrases ought to have capitals as (generally speaking) those that are proper names! No conflict; just a loose circle that can mislead us in cases like "Napoleonic code", if we don't read and think critically enough. How to decide this case? Well, I have looked to our Manual of Style, and to OED, and to other major resources, and I find that "Napoleonic code" is fine. For what it's worth, "Napoleonic Code" is not fine. For those who accept such terms uncritically, nothing in OED or the MOS pages settles that it is a proper name. But for everyone, the evidence (from OED, and many specialised sources too) shows that it is not necessary to capitalise here; so, following our Manual of Style, we should not capitalise.

I hope that makes my position clearer. If it does not, just ask me a well-focused question and I will try to answer it.

Here's a quick question. Do you, Noetica, personally consider "Napoleonic C/code", in its sense at issue here - the French civil code of 1804 - a proper name? Dohn joe (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is no definitive answer. The matter is tangled in theory and convention, like the status of Pluto. Is it a planet? Yes, according to certain criteria that are now superseded, and in some popular imagination – and perhaps for astrologers of a certain stripe (though you'd have to ask them). No, according to widely accepted new criteria. The fabric of the universe is unaltered, no matter how we limn its curves. The linguistic facts remain as they are, regardless of shifts in our descriptive systems and theories, and diverse opinions among linguists. I take some high-flying linguists to task for their dogmatism in use of terms akin to "proper name", so let no one here feel especially singled out. Anyway, here are some points we might agree on (and I will use lower case without prejudice, just for simplicity):

1. "The Napoleonic code" can function as a definite description. That is, it is analysable to show how it has one unique referent (assuming a single Napoleonic code without prejudice, just to illustrate): it is a code, and it is the only code that deserves the descriptor "Napoleonic".
2. Some definite descriptions come to be treated as proper names: the descriptiveness is "bleached away" through users' inattention or loss of comprehension. An example: "[The] Mull of Kintyre" looks like a definite description (it is analysable semantically, as describing some entity unique in the context of utterance); but it is treated as a proper name when we do not attend to, or do not know, the meanings of all its components. We may not know that a mull is a promontory or headland, so the descriptiveness is opaque or merely latent in our case. We might as well call the Mull of Kintyre "Trevor": less evocatively, but with equal success in referring to it.
3. Some definite descriptions (and indeed, some descriptions or formulations that hardly count as definite) are intermediate and indeterminate in status. Now, "the boss" might be like that. Context of utterance is important, as are elusive idiolectal factors. But how about "the Boss" when applied to Bruce Springsteen? It is capitalised, to show its intended role as a kind of proper name. A fan does not merely consider that the singer is "the boss" in some metaphorically veracious way; she names him that way. Or does she? That can be contested.
4. Capitalisation has divergent uses in diverse languages that use alphabetic scripts. Its uses within English are various, and subject to uncertainty and opinion. We can be sure that it is not a reliable guide to the status of a noun or a noun phrase. When I write "the Project", as I do often enough, it is not certain that the phrase is a proper name. The descriptiveness seems to remain essential. It is not like my calling Wikipedia "Ferdinand" or "Zozz", though I could choose so to refer to it. I am using a description, and it tends in the context of my utterances toward being classifiable as a proper name: I do not always attend to the meaning of the word "project", or its aptness in describing Wikipedia.

So much for points we might agree on. They are roughly put, without regard for the strictest propriety. The goal here is plain communication. Now, might my capitalising "Project" make "the Project" a proper name? Might it rather acknowledge that it is a proper name? If I choose instead to keep "project" in lower case, might that make "the project" no proper name? Might it rather acknowledge that it is no proper name? Does it make a difference if I say rather than write the phrase, so that there is no question of case? Me, I say that there is no sure answer to any of those questions. I am happy for extreme cases to be assignable, and for there to be no problem there of any "direction of fit" when we speak of their capitalisation and their status as proper names. "Helen" and "Pope Benedict" are almost always proper names (and capitalised); "drawing pin" and "place" are normally not proper names (and not capitalised). I do not accept that anyone can rule on all cases; certainly not in a way that we should all accept. OED decides against such talk, and I applaud that decision.

I hope the circularity I find in talk of proper names and capitalisation is more apparent. The vis dormitiva as an explanation of opium's power to induce sleep is tightly circular, because it explains that power by that power; prescribing capitalisation for proper names (defined as expressions that we write with capitals) is scarcely better.

Noetica^Tea? 10:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you just said - certainly I do in broad strokes. It's not really the answer to the question I thought I was asking, however, so I'll try again. I was trying to ask a subjective question - not whether "Napoleonic C/code" is a proper name, but whether you, Noetica, personally treat "Napoleonic C/code", in the context stated above, as a proper name. We'll return to capitalization later, if need be. Dohn joe (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dohn, you specifically put this question to me (with my underlining): "Do you, Noetica, personally consider 'Napoleonic C/code', in its sense at issue here - the French civil code of 1804 - a proper name?" In good faith I gave that question a full and reflective answer. Now you say you thought you were asking a different question. I'm sorry: I do not read minds. Please consider the amount of time all of this takes. Do I personally treat "Napoleonic C/code" as a proper name? Introspection about these things is notoriously unreliable. I have already discussed in detail my personal use of "the Project"; neither in that case nor in the case you ask about can I give a single simple answer. Beyond that, because I think the notion of proper names is irremediably complex and fluid, and of limited utility in resolving practical questions, I don't feel enough commitment to it to give an answer. (Would you feel any commitment to answer a question about your use of the verb "turn" in the middle voice? I suppose not, if you like most people are unsure about the middle voice in English. ☺) I did not introduce proper names into this RM discussion, so I am not accountable for it. Same with OED's treatment of "Napoleonic code"; so I consider myself in good company. Noetica^Tea? 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of making this tangle un-unravellable (and I should be the very last person to do that), but in hope of pulling a handy loose end somewhere: Noetica's reference to definite descriptions suggests to me that maybe some of us are passing each other in the night because some of us, including myself, are seeing in the expression "Napoleonic c/Code" nothing but a translation while others are, I think mistakenly, according it a life of its own.

If it is nothing but a translation - that is, of "le Code Napoléon", which is the book's official name and I think clearly a proper name - then the translation must also be a proper name. (That does not entirely conclude the issue of capitalisation - as if anything could be entirely conclusive on such a point - but, for reasons stated much earlier, I think it provides a clear basis for preferring capitalisation.) A literal translation would be, as the OED3 entry "Napoleonic" (below) finds in Wordsworth, "the Napoleon Code". However, even if that were preferable in principle, the rendering "the Napoleonic c/Code" is the sole settled translation, which an encyclopedia searcher would look for, so we are stuck with it.

By way of clarification (I'm an optimist today): a proper name (as I understand the idea) is not a description at all. The article Definite description calls definite descriptions "proper". But I would suggest (probably without originality) that there is a clear difference from "proper" names. One could say that a proper name is necessarily proper (or intrinsically proper), in that there is no question of it having more than one referent; whereas a definite description is contingently proper, in that there is such a question about it and that question has a particular kind of answer. That is: it is a definite description if and only if it turns out, upon asking, to have only one referent - even if it is expected that this is what will turn out.

Then at least part of the trouble that we are in may be that the expression "the Napoleonic c/Code" can look like a definite description. It can appear to refer to a class, "codes", within which the adjective "Napoleonic" identifies either one or possibly more members (and some users have taken it to, at least possibly, identify more than one). Classes named "codes" certainly exist, including the class of "codes" in the legal sense. And a class name does not cease to be a description if the class turns out to have only one member, or even if it is already known to have only one - it remains a description, but a "definite" one. What seems to matter (to restate what I said above) is whether the expression immediately points to that member. Thus the expression "the first president of the USA" does not immediately point to George Washington, because one still has to ask and answer the question of who actually was the first president. But the expression "George Washington" does immediately point to GW (and only secondarily to anything named after him), so it is a proper name.

In the present case, however, any appearance of being a definite description dissolves itself. This is because, in the process of investigating the membership of the apparent class, it turns out that the name is actually nothing more than a translation. Otherwise put: the only reason why the expression "the Napoleonic c/Code" exists is to translate "le Code Napoléon". It has never been descriptive. Of course, one could give it other tasks, which would be other reasons for it to exist, and some of those tasks might be descriptive - but this is the only task that we are dealing with for this article. --Wikiain (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiain, why do all that? I have again and again shown that appealing to proper names is an entanglement we can do without. The matter is perfectly well settled, let me repeat optimistically as if it might be heard this time, by noting that it is not necessary to capitalise "Napoleonic code". The best evidence for this is in up-to-the-minute material from OED: its explicit wording. This is corroborated by the diversity of usage in sources. Given all that, Wikipedia guidelines settle the matter: if it is not necessary, we do not capitalise. Period. No appeal to proper names, or consequent contestation, is productive or even relevant. Why not leave it at that? Read Proper name (philosophy), whose entire lead is this (with my underlining):

"A proper name [is] a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that we are talking about" writes John Stuart Mill in A System of Logic (1. ii. 5.), "but not of telling anything about it". The problem of defining proper names, and of explaining their meaning, is one of the most recalcitrant in modern analytical philosophy.

Do you really think proper names are going to help us here? OED doesn't, and I don't. If you think you understand them better than OED does or I do, please continue. Demonstrate how "Napoleonic code" is at all obviously "a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that we are talking about but not of telling anything about it". Otherwise, can we all just go home now?

Noetica^Tea? 01:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, I've been ready to go home for some time! You introduced the concept of definite descriptions and I was trying to show that it was likely to be a dead end. I can't have any idea of what you may know about proper names, especially because you don't think them relevant to this discussion and so haven't said much about them, so I wasn't supposing and I don't think I have suggested that I know more about them than you do.

I'll pass on OED - nuff said about that earlier, I think. I'm happy to accept that Proper name (philosophy), although a work in progress, shows that talking about proper names is fraught with difficulty. As you say, it begins with an illustrative remark by John Stuart Mill, which does seem very contestable - and which may be why it was chosen. A personal name, which I assume is a kind of proper name, can say quite a lot about a person - such as their gender and cultural heritage. Thus the name "John Stuart Mill" tells me that this is a male person whose cultural heritage is British. Some personal names reveal somebody's religion.

I'm actually coming to prefer a different, although not incompatible, line of argument (although Proper name (philosophy) touches on this in terms of a "causal theory" - albeit in a way that evokes J.L. Austin's "performative" utterances, just to make matters even more tricky). Possibly what I am about to say is suggested in earlier discussion, but the discussion is so tangled now - which I think does make it time to go. Though I'm not going to claim, as the proposer here, any entitlement to a last word.

The book in question has the legally conferred name "le Code Napoléon". I don't think it matters to the status of that name whether the name had been in the book itself, which was not the case (the book itself contained a different name), or, as is the case, has been conferred by a later statute. Then one could argue that a translation of that name should have the form typical of a name given by law to the same kind of work (if there is one) in the language of the translation. Search WP for "criminal code" and I wish you joy with the Criminal Code of Canada, the Criminal Code of Belarus and more. I particularly like that of Belarus. Police used to batter people over the head with it until they confessed, guilty or not:

"This may have been to ensure that the suspect had no illusions regarding the legality of the investigation process,’ Literaturnya Gazeta reported drily in its account of the investigation that finally led to the arrest of the real killer." (Guardian Weekly 13 March 1988)

Vegaswikian, is this all enough now? --Wikiain (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to Wikiain. A final response, I hope. Picking up salient points:

"You introduced the concept of definite descriptions and I was trying to show that it was likely to be a dead end."

I introduced definite descriptions only when asked to say what I personally considered to be the status of "Napoleonic code". Not only do I think that such theory is a "dead end" for the practical issue we discuss here, I even reject talk of proper names, for the present purpose! It is not I who wanted any such theory here, though I consider myself passably competent to deal with the theory of proper names and definite descriptions. You think (see above) that I have not said much about proper names here, all the same? The record shows otherwise. ☺.

"... it begins with an illustrative remark by John Stuart Mill, which does seem very contestable ..."

Still, that's a pretty well-established line on proper names; and its contestability merely reinforces the point that is then made: that the topic is exceptionally difficult and disputed. (Conferral of a particular personal name, incidentally, is perhaps only informative of gender in virtue of selection from one list or an alternative list – a sort of performance itself, rather than a semantic matter. There is normally nothing at the purely semantic or descriptive level about "Kylie" to motivate it as a name for women.)

"The book in question has the legally conferred name 'le Code Napoléon'."

If we take the code to be a book, and a book only, that might be so. It is not, however, uniformly treated as a book, but as a code – the code laid out in a certain book (which as you point out did not bear the relevant name anyway, if truth be told). Similarly, a book called A list of New York nightspots (because it is named that way!) does not transfer to that abstract list "a list of New York nightspots" as a proper name. Applied to the abstract list, that is at best a description – and not even a definite description. Now, even if we accept the argumentative links you forge here (the book bears that title as a proper name, and the abstract code therefore bears that appellation as a proper name, and the category of "proper name" is or ought to be preserved in translation), the chain of argument still fails. Wikipedia guidelines, as I have shown by quoting them, do not require that we use any test for status as a proper name, in deciding on capitalisation. See my summary reply to Dohn Joe below, for one more repeated articulation of what the guidelines do require of us. We are to avoid unnecessary capitalisation; OED and other impeccable sources demonstrate that capitalisation is not necessary for the present title.

Noetica^Tea? 07:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully a final comment. Noetica, you're still not beginning to understand the topic - that is, that which is the subject matter of the article. The Napoleonic c/Code did not exist before the book (it is a new work, not a mere collection) and it does not exist (except by reference to it) outside the book, any more than Tolstoy's War and Peace did not exist before and does not exist outside the book with that title. The Code has been much amended, but it is still one and the same work. The book gave itself a title and, being a code of law, it did so with authority subject only to later laws. That title was changed by a later law to le Code Napoléon (later withdrawn, but after that restored). The title le Code Napoléon translates into English - like the names of other codes of law - as "the Napoleonic Code". This is how the capitalisation "Code" is necessary.

We do not have to give the article this title. We could call it "Civil Code of France" and redirect from "Napoleonic Code" and "Napoleonic code". That is what fr:WP does, as "Code civil (France)" - very reasonably, since the book is published in France semi-officially under the title Code Civil (capitalised and uncapitalised every which way). But capitalisation of the en:WP article title would still have to be decided on. --Wikiain (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Even so, in the body of the article it would be necessary to mention the official title. --Wikiain (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiain:

Earlier you wrote: "... I'm not going to claim, as the proposer here, any entitlement to a last word." Just let us know, do you still mean that? With respect, your reply to me is rude and wildly inaccurate:

Noetica, you're still not beginning to understand the topic - that is, that which is the subject matter of the article.

You claim, in putting forward a late argument when your others were at least balanced by sound counter-argument, that the article is about a book (and presumably nothing else), and you build a case on that. A case that I have answered, just above. But note:

1. The word "book" does not appear anywhere in the article.

2. A book and its contents are in the normal course of events coeval. There is no good point to make about that.

3. Nothing in the lead of the article supports your assertion. Selections from the lead, with my remarks:

The Napoleonic Code — or Code napoléon (originally, the Code civil des français) — is the French civil code, established under Napoléon I in 1804.
[No mere book is a civil code; no mere book is "established"; codes, as abstract bodies of law typically set forth within books, are established; and the entity bore (as you yourself have allowed) a different title anyway.]

The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs go to the most qualified.
[Since we must speak accurately for present purposes, no mere book forbids; a code does that.]

It was drafted rapidly by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on March 21, 1804.
[Books are most aptly said to be written; codes and laws are most aptly said to be drafted. No book "enters into force"; codes do that.]

And so on.

4. The remainder of your present submission is mere repetition. (I had hoped to avoid more of that.) OED disagrees with you; so do several reliable academic sources. Where there is such disagreement (manifest also here, among highly skilled users of written English – and academic English), Wikipedia's guidelines regard capitalisation as unnecessary, and not to be applied.

Noetica^Tea? 23:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear - I really would rather that this got wrapped up, but you keep saying things that seem to me to need a response.

• You say that "codes" are "abstract bodies of law typically set forth within books". Nonsense: laws do not have an "abstract" existence apart from being published as authoritative texts. The text itself may be published in various formats - see here. It may also appear online - see here. Or also in loose-leaf file format (as is, or used to be, the German Civil Code). But all of these are modes of concrete existence, which are the sole modes of existence of the text. (If you want to take me up on the difference between "abstract" and "concrete", I'm not going to bite.)
• Yes, I introduced the word "book" - by way of explanation. I was seeking to distinguish such a work from a "code" in the sense of e.g. Morse C/code. Unlike a "code" in that sense, a code of law is not a set of meanings in which another set is re-expressed, as in Morse C/code the letters "SOS" are re-expressed as blips of varying length. "Established" is not, to my knowledge, a legal term of art anyway. I don't see that I've done anything wrong there. (By the way, though, German for "code" in the legal sense is Gesetzbuch.)
• One can easily say that a law is "written" - indeed, Roman law distinguishes importantly between "written law (ius scriptum)" and "unwritten law (ius non scriptum)". One also often says that a novelist produces "drafts" of their novel. There is nothing in these points. --Wikiain (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiain, no one will be impressed by descent into such talk. O dear, indeed. Whatever the value of my remarks above, I credit you with the intelligence to distinguish them from "nonsense". On the rhetorical level alone, your accusation is ill-advised. It would look desperate, even if it were not in fact desperate.

You claim that laws are not abstractions, and preemptively refuse to discuss what it means to say such a thing? No one will be impressed by that, either.

Laws (along with codes as aggregates of or constructions out of laws) are distinguished from books in many ways. In plain language, even. "Book" has several meanings; but in none of them are books strictly and robustly identical with laws, or with codes. The etymological connection through codex, even with side excursions into German, doesn't help; you can easily have a code that is not associated with any book. You might as well say that laws are books because you can "throw the book" at someone, meaning hit them with the full force of the law. What you throw at them metaphorically is a book of laws, not a law (or set of laws) that is identical with a book.

But if you want metaphors (and I think your argument can only be defended, if at all, by use of them), try these: Laws can be "on the books", books are never "on the laws" (except in a quite different sense); laws can be written, yes (I did not say otherwise), but books cannot be drafted or enforced; laws can be set forth in books, but books cannot be set forth in laws. So what, to all that? Well, your argument is unusual in that it relies on a strict identify of some laws (or codes, etc.) with some books. If that is to be sustained, the interchangeability must be demonstrable, and resistant to all manner of attacks – including examination of relations between the two classes of entities. Are laws ever identical with books, sensu stricto? If they are, you will have a job proving it. You have tried for traction with accidental facts (if facts they be): A certain code and a certain book came into existence at the same time. (Debatable! And certainly not decisive in establishing identity. All manifestations of a book go out of existence, or are forgotten. Does the code perish or pass into oblivion with the book?) A certain code and a certain book are referred to – and only sometimes in their careers, as you admit – by the same expression. (So what? Look at my example of a book called "A list of New York nightspots", which it bears as a proper name; the list may reasonably be referred by deploying the same words: but now it is not a proper name, but a sort of description. Even if there are many lists aptly referred to like that, there may still be only one book so named. And if this book were named instead "Look between the covers for high times after dark in the Big Apple", or perhaps "Hey there!", the list it sets forth would not be well denoted by those strings of words: certainly not in the same descriptive manner as with the first string.)

Playful, quirky points? They are nevertheless fatal for your argument, which invites them by being itself an odd sort of affair. Those points are all against just one link; but I have shown that, even the early links hold, the argument still fails. Proper names are not the issue that can decide the question for this title. OED and our guidelines show that, and only by ignoring them and my argument that calls on them can anyone think otherwise.

Noetica^Tea? 10:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikiain: It is a questionable procedure to suggest that editors post in an RM, as you do at one talkpage at least. SusanLesch now comes in (see below) and gives an abbreviated form of your own recently added argument. If I were to solicit editors to defend their early and sketchy appeals to proper names – all dismissed in subsequent detailed argument – where would it end? Mere echoes of arguments that have already been fully addressed are not weighty; nor are old posts that have been answered, if those editors now fall silent. Let's just stop, all right? As I have said, I have no attachment to the outcome here; but I would like the RM to be an extended example of sound process and intellectual honesty. Noetica^Tea? 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica and all, two things. I agree that solicitation isn't good but I have been up to my neck in another project and I appreciate being informed of this discussion which I would otherwise miss. Also please let me add that my argument in this argument was my own. It was not abbreviated from anybody else's view. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgive my assumption, SusanLesch. You will perhaps understand it. You came in late and gave an abridged argument that looked for all the world like a shortening of the one to which Wikiain now resorts. I will accept that you came up with that independently; but if so, what is your articulated refutation of the counterarguments I put above, even before you posted yours (and now supplemented)? They tell against your argument as much as against Wikiain's. It is hardly fair to come in and make what amounts to an assertion, when that assertion has been attacked at length already, and expect it to carry any independent weight. You are busy? So am I! I have no time left for this. Let's stop: once you have given the detailed response that my own detailed arguments (which took time and care to present) call for. Noetica^Tea? 10:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've read this whole discussion three times and don't find whatever it is you think I'm supposed to "give a detailed response" to. My opinion is on record here. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem? Fine, SusanLesch. You can't see how I have responded in detail to assertions about the strict identity of 1) a code and 2) a book sometimes referred to in the same way, and how I have dealt with the argument that includes the identification as one link in a chain – a chain that fails anyway? I will not press the matter. Instead, I respond directly to your one-line submission below. Noetica^Tea? 06:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful, Noetica. I did NOT "solicit" support. (This comment was written before seeing SusanLesch's post just now, and I have to be away from any screen for the next few hours. It is a response solely to to Noetica.)

• SusanLesch proposed on 10 September that there be a move to "Napoleonic Code" and invited someone to do it. I took that up in a formal RM, which however was unsuccessful. I later referred to her view in requesting from Vegaswikian an opportunity make a new formal RM. In the new RM (which is the current one), her view was included by reference. What she has said just now is therefore not actually new even to this RM. As you have seen on her talk page, I merely indicated that her view would not be taken into account for this RM unless she made a contribution within the RM.
• I have not written to anybody else about this RM. All of my postings about it are in it.
• "Let's just stop, all right?" All right. But don't say that and then go on to query your opponent's honesty. OK: let's STOP. --Wikiain (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be careful yourself, Wikiain. I described factually how you made an approach to SusanLesch. Neither you nor she had revealed that on this page, though it might been thought appropriate to do so. I did not use the word "solicit" concerning your approach, but about what I might conceivably have done if I were minded to. Short contributions from those who have left the discussion, and who do not stay to share the hard work of debate, should not be thought as significant in determining the outcome as other contributions – like mine and yours. Noetica^Tea? 10:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiain, you write:

Noetica, I wasn't seeking to cast any aspersion about you not saying which OED edition you were using.

Don't worry, I didn't think that you were.

Does the edition actually matter here, however? Actually, no [...] I'll say again, then, that the OED is not much help here.

Here I must object. It is you who raised the matter of the edition! You now essay points (omitted here: they can be read above) on the entry that you posted at length (see a subsection below), but you ignore the points that I made: that many entries are relevant to the present issue, and that the far more focused material, directly on "Napoleonic code", is very recent in OED – no mere outmoded legacy material.

As to dictionaries generally, let us remember that they are written by dictionary writers - indispensable people, but almost never specialists in what they are writing about. An encyclopedia entry, however, is preferably to be written by specialists on the topic.

That may be a useful point about dictionaries in general. I collect them, use them all the time, and am often a severe critic of them. But please do not lightly (even implicitly) dismiss the preeminence and excellence of OED as a solid scholarly resource!

As to voting, I agree that the numbers should not be decisive and I don't take JCScaliger to be suggesting that - the search, as Noetica says, is for consensus. In that search, one should take particularly into account what are the views of those who have a specialist knowledge of the topic (there is no elitism in a preference for expertise). Because the substantive issue her[e], as I see it, is not whether the title should be changed from being X to being Y but what, in any case, should be the title (decapitalising "Napoleon" has mischievous attractions). And the specialists, Kuralyov and myself, are strongly in favour of "Napoleonic Code".

The ways of consensus are themselves dark and disputed, but I'm glad we agree that mere numbers are not what it's about. In fact there will never be a true consensus (properly so called) in this RM. True consensus is a worthy aspiration on Wikipedia, like world peace. As for appeal to content experts, there I take exception. For a start, you have no idea what my areas of expertise are. I do not reveal them. I am firmly against any such credentialism on Wikipedia, which derives a huge advantage from standing apart from various "expert" treadmills. Expertise is necessary, of course; but expert editors on and off Wikipedia are forever correcting naive and insular notions of language that content experts hold dear. Even if it were otherwise, the "experts" do not speak with one voice on this present case! That is another fine reason to have style guidelines (and to apply them), to refer to OED and other external resources, and to discuss at RMs with an eye to the generalist needs of a worldwide anglophone encyclopedia.

Noetica^Tea? 00:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikian's responses to Noetica and to Dicklyon:

Noetica:

1. Yes, I raised the question of the OED edition. But you said: "The phrase 'Napoleonic code' occurs nowhere in the full text at 2004; so what I cite above is later than 2004 in OED." That made me even less sure which edition or version you were referring to. I then looked up "Napoleonic code" in OED online (which no doubt I should have done earlier) and it is there, within the entry "Napoleonic": I've reproduced the whole "Napoleonic" entry as a subsection below. That entry is in OED3. I had been wrong to think that the entry for "code" was also in OED3: they haven't got back to "C" yet; they started with "M" and have just digested "Ryvita". It is in OED2, with draft additions which appear only in OED online. But I have been right, I'm sure, to quote from the online OED, which for every entry is the current text.
2. BTW - OED2 with some draft additions may be what is on your CD. OED online says:

   Version 4.0 of the Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) on CD-ROM offers unparalleled access to the world's most important reference work for the English language. The text of this version includes the Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series (Volumes 1-3), published in 1993 and 1997, and now almost 7,000 new words and meanings from the OED's ongoing research programme.

3. My references to people with "expertise" were, as I had thought to be clear from the fact that I was referring to Kuralyov and myself, references to people with expertise on the subject matter of an article. I was in no way referring to expertise on WP formats or policy. There are experts on that and you appear to be one of them - I just, respectfully, disagree with you on whether this article should read "Code" or "code". If "Code" would conflict with the MOS, then I think the MOS should be tweaked - but I don't see a conflict once it be accepted that "Napoleonic Code" is a proper name.
4. I don't think I was dismissive of the OED - I have nearly fathomless respect for it. But it has been criticised. And I think one would show less than respect for it if one didn't speak up if one sincerely thought it was wrong. Surely we don't disagree on that?
5. My attention to the OED is confined to the entries for "code" (section 1) and "Napoleonic". The further sections of the entry for "code" do not seem to me to be relevant here.
6. Now, as to "Napoleonic". I've included the whole entry for "Napoleonic" since I cannot, for the life me, see why it should say "Napoleonic code" but "Napoleonic War" (I can't find a capitalisation policy in OED online) First: because, whatever the name-status of "Napoleonic code", "Napoleonic War" is given as a common name. Second: because in neither cases does the usage seem to be supported by the OED's own quotations. The only recent quotation for the c/Code, in a good academic journal in 2002, capitalises. And every quotation for the w/War(s) has lower case, except the most recent - which, however, is a newspaper article (although in a newspaper with high editorial standards) on horsemeat.

Sorry Wikiain: there are answers to give, and simple clarifications to issue. But it is late here in Australia, and I have run out of WP time. I'll try to get back before too long. Noetica^Tea? 10:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, here we go:

1. and 2. I have already explained my references to OED. Like you, I use the current online edition by default, and I signal if I am doing otherwise. OED is an extremely complex resource; for that reason, I normally do not use its often obscure and misleading version numbers. I refer instead to a CD-ROM version current at 2004, for example. It is updated with all new material added before 2004; not that this is relevant for the present case. I have it installed on each of my computers.

3. Yes, your meaning was perfectly clear, and I answered you according to that meaning. You do not know what areas of expertise I have, whether in editing or in content. I have several such areas; but I do not make an issue of them on Wikipedia. One thing is well known about me: I am heavily involved with the development of the Manual of Style (note the caps!). If you think its provisions should be altered, I suggest this procedure: take that to WT:MOS in the first instance, to alert editors there; then a full discussion might proceed at WT:MOSCAPS.

4. We agree about the value and relevance of OED, it seems. I too find faults with it. How could it be otherwise? Like many others who have improvements to suggest, I have notified the editors of these and they have received them gratefully.

5. I note what you say about which parts of OED are relevant to this discussion. I agree that a great deal of what has been posted (by you, in those complete entries below) is not relevant; but I have highlighted things that I think are relevant, days ago in my first posts in this RM.

6. Whatever OED's policies might be about capitalising "war" and "code", the central point I reiterate from OED is unassailed: clearly it is not necessary to capitalise "code" in "Napoleonic code", if recently added material in that preeminent authority gives the phrase first without capitalisation, and alternatively with capitalisation in parentheses. That is what OED contributes most pertinently here. Wikipedia guidelines do the rest, as I have shown. Note that the few citations OED gives for "Napoleonic code" are not selected with a view to settling questions about capitalisation. We get confirmation from other sources (some of which are no doubt written by academic specialists) that the capitalisation is optional, and therefore best not adopted on Wikipedia.

Noetica^Tea? 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon:

1. This is not just "lawyer's format" (as you suggest below) - "le Code Napoléon (trans. "the Napoleonic Code)" is the book's official name. By comparison, both lawyers and non-lawyers would simply be wrong to write not "the Tax Act 2010" but "the Tax act 2010" (although "the tax act of 2010", using the words "tax act" as a common name, would be ok). Therefore the words "Napoleonic Code" are a proper name and, whenever used as such, they should both be capitalised. I have offered reasons above why in this article title they should be used as a proper name. If that argument be accepted, I think that it is sufficient.

   Wow, amazing how many "not just" I had to search through to find this in the edit window. It was JCSaliger who wrote "They are in the conventional lawyer's format." I'm just saying that that carries no weight here. Obviously we can all agree that an odd mix like ""the Tax act 2010" would be nutty. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

2. As to your comment just now in a new subsection on "specialists" and specialisation - I stick by what I said earlier. It is not a matter, as you have said before, of what lawyers may "hold dear". The spelling of an official name is not optional and, if specialists know what it is and why, I think they have a duty to insist on it. If one doesn't like an official name, one can use another name - as the French Left refer to the Centre Georges Pompidou, named after a right-wing president, as "the Beaubourg (le Beaubourg)". But an official name is just what it is: one can write "the Washington Monument" as a proper name and "the Washington monument" as a common name (meaning "the monument dedicated to George Washington", but surely never "Washington d.c." any more than "George washington". --Wikiain (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

   It is exactly a matter of what different specialties hold dear. I've worked on over-capitalization across enough areas to be sure of that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment/recap. At its heart, this is not a matter of style. The threshold question - really, the only question worth asking, is whether or not we, at Wikipedia, think that "Napoleonic C/code" is a proper name. Only after we have that answer does the MOS offer us guidance - namely, if we decide it is a proper name, then we capitalize it. If we decide it is not, then we don't. Thus far, a clear majority of editors has explicitly stated that they consider this a proper name. Most reliable sources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, apparently agree. Dohn joe (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  Comment and recap in response. I'm glad that you would like to see an end to this, Dohn Joe. May we take that to be your summation? Here is my summary answer to it then. At its heart, this is a matter of style. Therefore the threshold question – really, the only question worth asking – is this: "What do Wikipedia's policies and style guidelines recommend for the present case?" Every publisher decides on capitalisation according to its house style. In the relevant senses, Wikipedia functions as a publisher and is no exception. As for what the majority of editors here allegedly think about whether the title is a proper name, that is not decisive. First, they are not all experts on the issue of proper names, which by my detailed testimony and evidence, and that of the article Proper name (philosophy), is enormously difficult; and second, Wikipedia's guidelines do not call for us to answer the question "Is it a proper name?" They make a loose and conventional link between capitalisation and proper names; and that is the only sort of link that can safely be made. The point has been stressed repeatedly: WP:MOSCAPS calls for no unnecessary capitalisation. Regardless of various theories or opinions about proper names, and for the moment setting aside the irrelevance of the question, it is not always possible to make a clear assignment to that category anyway; and "Napoleonic code" is one of the uncertain cases (being also a definite description). OED lends strong support to this line of reasoning, for all of us here; not least for those do hold that this is a question of proper names, and who believe – as I think you do, Dohn Joe – that OED is an authority of central importance and that absence of capitalisation is some indication of not being a proper name. The "reliable sources", though they are not decisive for style on Wikipedia, give support: "Napoleonic code" is variously capitalised or not. No unnecessary capitalisation on Wikipedia? Then do not capitalise "code" in this title. Noetica^Tea? 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how you count or what your evidence is. How can you conclude that most sources agree? Most legal sources have a style of capitalizing the phrases they've chosen to use to refer to laws (like "Homestead Act"), whether they are proper names or not (and they typically append years to disambiguate them, since there are multiple acts on similar topics sometimes). Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was largely using this ngram and Noetica's search from long, long ago.... Dohn joe (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Code is an English title (of a book). French could be entirely lowercase (including napoleonic). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Susan, see my detailed responses to Wikiain's recently added argument, which you briefly echo here. Noetica^Tea? 23:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

SusanLesch, I invited you to respond to detailed argument that I put in response to Wikiain, whose line of reasoning may be construed as a more developed version of your own, here. I see that you have nothing to say about all those details, nor even about Wikiain's submissions. So I'll just comment here on what you do say, in support of the RM.

"Code is an English title (of a book)."

Is it? The title we are talking about is "Napoleonic code" (uncapped at least for convenience, here and below). The entire phrase is important in analysing this title. After all, there are many codes, but the article proceeds on the assumption of one code being picked out – identified by adding the qualifier "Napoleonic". And then, even if we take you to mean "Napoleonic code is an English title (of a book)", so what? Even if a book did unequivocally bear that name only (which is admitted not to be so), that does not preclude the same expression being used in denoting a code also, as a separate entity. See, if you like, my points about a book named "A list of New York nightspots" as opposed to the list presented in that book. Or consider "Babar the Elephant", which bears one relation to a certain imaginary elephant, and a different relation to a real book about that imaginary elephant.

The only other point you offer is that French and English capitalise differently. Granted, but irrelevant.

You do not address the clearly presented and recent judgement of OED (again, see above), nor the specific points I make about WP:MOSCAPS (among other guidelines), nor the starting principle at that most pertinent of Wikipedia guidelines: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." I have shown, from the evidence of OED and other sources, that capitalisation is unnecessary in the present case; our guidelines therefore call for no capitalising. With respect, an eight-word assertion of your opinion to the contrary does not outbalance OED and the Wikipedia style guidelines; nor does it counter the reams of argument above, since it does not engage with any of it.

Noetica^Tea? 06:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

[Moved to this main section by Noetica:]

• Support. This article is principally about the Napoleonic Code, which was renamed the Napoleonic Code (code Napoléon) in 1807 according to the current article [1]. Andrewa (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Andrewa, have you looked at the discussion above? It's long, but there is a lot that is relevant if anyone wants to give an informed vote here – one that takes the subtleties of the case into account. I think many would accept what you have just said. But what do you say about OED giving the uncapped version by default, and how that fits with the clear first principle at WP:MOSCAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization"?

Noetica^Tea? 06:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see my vote as not informed. Yes, I have waded through your essays above, in which the point about the OED is of course made repeatedly. I think they are adequately answered there. Oh, any particular reason for the extra indent? Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Andrewa, I appreciate your concern with one extra of indentation that I applied. I have earlier refactored here quite radically to keep things in order. Please feel free to do the same. Fixed now.

Thank you for your declaration about my "essays": "I think they are adequately answered there." Do you indeed? Care to say how they are answered? When editors make mere declarations, without actual engagement or attempts at analysis (let alone refutations), they are likely to be met with repetition until they do so. You repeat what others have said, but do not address the detailed discussion that follows what they have said. If you prefer, we could simply vote without engaging and then leave it. Why bother to engage at all, if our "essays" (as you pejoratively call serious discussion) are ignored anyway? Noetica^Tea? 22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my comment pejorative, it's not intended as that, but I do think that the above contains excessive rhetoric. The closing admin will weigh up the comments for what they're worth, and I don't envy them the job. Perhaps I can save them a little time by offering an informed comment that while the long exchanges above are apparently rewarding to the participants they aren't all that relevant to the move decision IMO. See also Andrew's Principle corollary two. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pejorative through sarcastic use of "essays", yes: reinforced by "wading through": "Yes, I have waded through your essays above." Well, those are your own rhetorical choices, exhibiting your own style, right? I merely point them out. If you think that anything above "contains excessive rhetoric", you might like to avoid adding to the excess, and focus instead on substance – to which you do not, so far, appear to add.

If the job of closing this RM is done diligently, it will be hard indeed. RMs are not always closed with due attention to the substance of the arguments. It will be interesting to see how this one goes. I request, of course, that the reasons for the decision be given in clear detail.

Noetica^Tea? 00:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And I recommend that the closing comments be brief, and that we all then give it a break. Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• We should perhaps decide what the article is about. If it's about the French civil code, then I think it has to be Napoleonic Code (or Code Napoleon, which appears more common, even in English, if Google Books is to be believed). But if it's about Napoleonic codes in general (i.e. not specifically in France), then the small letter seems right.--Kotniski (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And your response to the detailed reasoning that opposes your impression of the case, Kotniski? See above, especially concerning OED and current Wikipedia guidelines. Noetica^Tea? 06:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how either the OED or the guidelines settle this one way or the other. Most sources seem to capitalize it; if it's being used as a proper name, then we'd expect to capitalize it. If a general noun, then not. Like I say, either meaning is possible. If it's a problem, then let's go with Code Napoleon, where the issue of capitalization doesn't arise (although that of the diacritic might...)--Kotniski (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In Google Books, "Code Napoleon" appears almost entirely in books of the 19th and early 20th centuries - sometimes one has to dig under the date of a recent reprint. I wouldn't put it down just for that: indeed Bernard Schwartz (ed) The Code Napoleon and the Common Law World (1956) is by top-rank scholars of the time. However, "Napoleonic Code" (usually with both words capitalised) appears in many books of the 21st century. Google Books isn't a rigorous survey, but what it finds might be put into the pot. --Wikiain (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Love the lateral thinking, but I don't think it will fly. Andrewa (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is the title of an actual book, see 1810 book cover. This article is about the book. This article is not a general article about "the codes created by Napoleon". This is similar to Codex Theodosianus and other books at Category:Law_books.

Also, capitalized in both legal and historic dictionaries, a brief sample Dictionary of politics, Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law, The American dictionary of criminal justice, Historical dictionary of law enforcement. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about a book. It is about a code as an aggregate of laws. In the normal course of events, such aggregates are published in books. Many things are published in books, and it is rather common for books to bear titles that indicate their contents (see pictures in the present article, as an aid for those who struggle without images of concrete objects). None of this is surprising; and it is all thoroughly dealt with above, in detailed argument that you, Enric, have not addressed.

Against the preference of OED you set some other sources. Fine. Of course sources disagree. This one that you post is questionable; this one attempts consistent capitalisation of "code" where there is definite reference, but may not achieve it; and Burton's legal thesaurus (4th edition, 2006), which you do not cite, has lower case: "Napoleonic code".

What are we left with? Just like the publishers whose works you link, we turn to our own in-house style guidelines. As I have again and again pointed out (and you, Enric, have not addressed this), WP:MOSCAPS settles things at its first sentence: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." Capitalisation for the present title is amply shown to be unnecessary. I don't want to repeat myself; but in a rational debate we do address each other's points, yes? ☺. You have not done so.

Noetica^Tea? 22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Citing "avoid unnecessary capitalization" strikes me as begging the question; our purpose here is to determine whether capitalization is appropriate, not whether to put aside that question and add capitals anyway. Let's keep that guideline in reserve until we come face to face with Methods For Comparing Top Chess Players ThroughOut History or something equally terrifying. Notwithstanding some of the more arcane formulations above, the question to my mind does hinge on the nature of the codification: if we are simply labeling a collection of juridical material as somehow pertaining to Napoleon, i.e. imposing a category in the "abstract," then a capital is inappropriate: Napoleonic era. If, on the other hand, the code "was not a collection of edited extracts but a comprehensive rewrite" rising into the light of day on its own two legs, then it finds itself elevated beyond the adjectival and becomes a candidate for that even higher honour: The proper noun. As goes Indian Penal Code or, for that matter, Napoleonic Wars, so goes Napoleonic Code. Meanwhile, Justinian capital-C Code, I should probably remark in passing, looms over us as the well-nigh universal formulation, but "Justinian's code" or "the Justinian code of laws" are not uncommon, following the distinction outlined above. Albrecht (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well articulated, Albrecht. But it seems odd to reserve the very first sentence of the key guideline for special cases, as if were some mere codicil. I submit that we ought to treat it as primary. There is no begging the question here; rather, I apply a specific test (again and again: as often as I need to, when people appear to ignore it). In the first sentence of my first post (way up above), I allow that usage varies: "Published sources vary on this. Significantly more use uppercase than lower case ...". But we find, most tellingly, that OED gives the uncapitalised form first, and the capitalised form as an option. We also find some respectable sources keeping "code" lower case – in "Napoleonic code", "Theodisian code", and comparable cases. This surely counts as solid evidence: capitalising cannot rationally be thought "necessary" here. Some respected writers and publishers do not do it; OED specifically does not require it. So the Wikipedia guideline is applied, and we don't capitalise. Now, you might adduce counterargument: but it cannot be that the appeal I make is question-begging. Show otherwise, if you can. Noetica^Tea? 02:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

as i think we can see, capitalization is never literally "necessary". what i assume is meant (OK I'll stop that now) or at least, what ought to be meant, by that guideline is that we don't use capitals unless they help in some way. In the case of "Napoleonic Code", the "C" in "Code" does help in some way, by indicating that we're talking about a specific law rather than a more general concept (that's assuming that we are talking about the specific law, but the lead of the article seems to indicate that to be the case).--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Kotniski! In response, I am withdrawing my opposition to this move. Rather than reiterate dogma, you have actually read the main line of argument against the move, and have respected its force. You have agreed on identifying an element in Wikipedia style guidelines that is crucial to the matter at hand, and offered an alternative interpretation of it. While I could fault that interpretation, I am not here to be difficult but to offer evidence and argument in a finely balanced question. And to be persuaded by argument. If we are not able to respond like this, the RM process is indeed a waste of time, along with a great deal more on Wikipedia. There is much to learn from recent RMs, and some reforms are needed. This has become a fine example to look back to. In due course the larger issues should be explored. We especially need to re-examine old formulae like "proper name", for which people cleave to an inadequate traditional understanding that fails in cases like this. See my first post, above:

On balance, there is a strong presumption in favour of "Napoleonic code" – strong enough for that to be retained as more consistent with practice. In particular, simplistic and circular notions of "proper names" (or "proper nouns") can only retard or befuddle processes like this. It's more subtle than can be addressed by any invocation of such comfortable formulae or slogans.

Noetica^Tea? 18:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support, and what a long discussion this was to read through! This appears clearly to me to be a proper noun, both by direct representation in the majority of good sources, and in the context of the term's use within those sources. This just doesn't seem ambiguous to me, the subject is a specific, unique entity identified as the Napoleonic Code. A lowercase C alters the meaning, introducing ambiguity (eg. 'a code from the Napoleonic era', as one would interpret 'Napoleonic fashion' for instance). This is, and as far as I know has always been, the primary purpose behind English capitalisation of words within proper nouns: to expressly distinguish between their meaning as a class (in lowercase form) and their meaning as a distinct entity (in capitalised form). In any case, good luck to the admin the has to wade through all of this. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, we can observe a similar (albeit less pronounced) semantic shift with the Napoleonic Wars themselves, which little by little have crept from being a mere class of wars pertaining to Napoleon (the Wars of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Coalitions) to a kind of unified totality distinguished by the capital-W: "the Napoleonic wars" to "the Napoleonic Wars." But that capitalization is, in fact, probably less robust than the one proposed here, relying for its claim to a "unique identity" on the more nebulous terrain of sheer convention, on the purely idiosyncratic practice of somehow "imposing" a proper name, by fiat, on a class of wars which never asked us to receive that honour. (Though as Noetica has argued elsewhere, peel away the reified "veneer" and all such rules turn out to be pure conventions, empty whimsies taking on the outer aura of "natural laws"—a line of thinking which led to that well-nigh Dadaist declaration which left his puzzled interlocutors scratching their heads: "There are only questions of style.") Albrecht (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with TechnoSymbiosis, who seems to presume, with others, that a definite assignment can be made in cases like this. If it is "clearly" a proper name, the finest sources like OED might have seen that and said that (if it is indeed true also that all and only proper names are apt for capitalisation). Why capitalise "Friday" and "February", and not "winter"? There is no plain way to settle this by appeal to proper names. We would be in a more obvious circle than we get into with "Napoleonic code", if we tried. The word "act", in much legal drafting and the like, is routinely capitalised even when it is not a proper name: "An Act to regulate X ...". And so on.

I certainly appreciate Albrecht's new remarks. I stand against easy assignment to categories that are more in line with the Etymologiae than with modern thought about language. "All that is solid melts into air"? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But clinging to outmoded certainties is not a reliable path to finding new and better ones. Noetica^Tea? 19:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought you'd have known the answer to that question already, Noetica. Strictly, the seasons are meant to be capitalised, and it's still taught that way in some schools. The days of the week, as well as the months of the year are capitalised because they're named after gods and almost-gods (such as Augustus and Julius Caesar). Since the beginning of miniscules appearing in Latin script (and its adoption to German), the first letters of these names were capitalised as a sign of reverance and respect. This was done far more consistently throughout the evolution of the English language than capitalisation of other proper nouns, which alternated between either form depending on the education and whim of the author. It should be noted that spelling, too, went through wild variations dependent on the author, particularly in what today would be considered excessive use of the letter 'e'. But I digress; the capitalisation of days of the week is correct, and remains in effect because of a concerted effort to do so by scholars, most of whom through the 'unstable' times of English evolution were religious. The seasons, afforded no such protection, became less well-defined.

What we have today is an exception to the rule, wherein the seasons are treated as common nouns in the same way the acronym LASER is now, in modern vernacular, treated as a common noun. These transformations do happen but would be considered rare, and they are most certainly the exception to the rule, not yet a fundamental shift that redefines the rule. That rule, on capitalising proper nouns, remains firmly intact and isn't as ethereal as you suggest.

The matter of capitalisation in this article title is not an exception to the rule of proper noun capitalisation. It is clear that the Napoleonic Code is a unique, titled entity. Altering the capitalisation of the letter C subtly alters the term's meaning, and that makes it no longer 'simply a matter of style' - style may never alter the meaning of text. The capitalisation is appropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You appear to assume both that there is "an answer" concerning the naming of seasons and that I am unaware of the issues. Unsafe assumptions. Particular flaws in your reasoning concerning months: February was probably not construed as associated with any personal name, despite februalis being applied as an attribute of Juno and Februus being an Etruscan deity. April is not derived from any personal name. May is doubtful (OED, at 2004: "The etymology of the Latin name is obscure; some ancient writers connected it with the name of the goddess Maia"). September, October, November, and December are named from their positions in an earlier calendar, not from any personal names. You are left with five months (January, March, June, July, August) to support your ad hoc explanation. For days of the week you might do better, if you personify the Moon and the Sun; but that remains ad hoc also. I note your points about "miniscules" (sc. minuscules); but the history of scribal capitalisation is notoriously far more complex than you allow. I note also your assertion that "the capitalisation of days of the week is correct"; but it relies on a particular revisionist notion of correctness. You do not comment on "an Act", or other problem cases. Is "an Act" correct? Only as a matter of convention, not obviously connected with proper names. You say: "That rule, on capitalising proper nouns, remains firmly intact and isn't as ethereal as you suggest." Of course I do not deny a connection between capitals and proper names; but no one has shown that it is tight and regular, or that there are no uncertain cases. I still dispute this assertion: "It is clear that the Napoleonic Code is a unique, titled entity." If it is a unique entity, it is not clear that it is a "titled" one, if by that you mean that it has a natural claim to bear "Napoleonic Code" as a proper name. Sources vary, including OED when speaking a definite, singular entity: "a legal code established by Napoleon I and based on Roman law, which was introduced in 1804". It is descriptive, and can reasonably be understood simply as a definite description, like "the Scottish play" (uniquely so identified, in many contexts of utterance, whether or not we construe this as a proper name, or capitalise "play"; see variety of treatments in the search I have just linked) or "the King" (similarly: and subject to uncertainty, and notoriously needing local determination in style sheets for particular editing tasks). I have allowed – from the start, and now toward the finish – that this matter is complex and a matter of arbitrary treatment. Some people are uncomfortable with that sort of thing; I prefer to acknowledge and live with it. Noetica^Tea? 00:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the irony of you assuming I made assumptions about you isn't lost. For the record I did no such thing. There is 'an answer' concerning capitalisation of the seasons because that is the conclusion that experts in the field have reached. I see no reason to discard that answer on the basis 'it might not be right' any more than I have reason to discard the conclusion of physicists that the law of gravity is what makes things fall down because that too might not be right.

Please don't categorise month capitalisation as 'my explanation', I've simply repeated an explanation given by people in a far better position to know than I am (without knowing your own qualifications I can't say how they'd compare with you ;)). There is certainly no requirement for every month to be named after a god to be capitalised, it's a simple matter of consistency (something the Romans, who created this particular capitalisation practice, were quite famous for) that in a set of names in mixed case, one or the other is adopted for all of the items in the set. If you expect a concrete answer on the evolution of ancient language, as opposed to modern, you may find yourself disappointed. However there are plenty of 'dominant theories', in a sense, that quite nicely explain these things. A few notes: April is derived from the Etruscan 'apru', which itself was derived from the Greek 'Aphrodite'. May, as you suggest, derives from the Latin 'Maius mensis', meaning 'Maia's month' (why the OED is unsure of this is strange, since this is widely accepted). February is indeed uncertain but is believed to derive from 'Februarius mensis' or 'month of purification', named after the festival held during that month, thus not named after a god or entity. September through December you're correct, those were named based on their positions in the year. This makes, by my reading, 7 months that are named (or thought to be named) after gods or highly respected entities, and 5 that are not.

On weekdays, the moon and sun were not only personified but capitalised when written in full, as 'Moon's day', 'Sun's day'. The evolution of these names is hardly in question. On 'miniscule/minuscule', let's not argue pointless semantics here, both spellings are accepted in modern English, though I concede the one I typed wasn't the one I meant to type.

Regarding 'an Act', this is an unrelated rule. The rule we've been discussing is what constitutes a proper noun, and whether all words of proper nouns are capitalised. The capitalisation of common nouns is a distinct and unrelated rule and can derive from any number of sources, whether it be legal standards (in this case), religious influence or any other powerful societal influence over the centuries, and it's something of a strawman to try to argue that there might be a case against the capitalisation of proper nouns because there are some common nouns that are capitalised in exception to their own common rule.

Finally back to the relevant topic, you question if Napoleonic Code is indeed a proper noun. I think it's clear that it is a unique entity (irt 'if it is a unique entity'), and that the term 'Napoleonic Code' is a title or name for that entity (irt 'it is not clear that it is a "titled" one'). It has been written in that manner not only in a significant number of high quality, reliable sources, but as the title of a book containing the code as well. I don't ignore the fact that there are also sources that use the lowercase form, or that the OED does such as well. My conclusions here are based on my assessment of the quality and reliability, as well as the number of sources supporting each side of the question. I personally wouldn't hold the OED in as high regard as you do; it's an excellent source, without a doubt, but not significantly moreso than other respectable dictionaries and language resources. They make their share of mistakes the same as everyone else.

My assessment that there are more and better quality sources supporting the capitalised form than the uncapitalised form should take priority over my own opinion, which I also expressed in my initial response, that the capitalised form is indeed correct. I determine those two things separately, and I'm careful to ensure that my opinion doesn't bias my assessment of the sources. It has led to situations, on occasion, where my expressed opinion and my assessment of the sources differ, and in those situations I typically vote based on the sources. Opinions are important, but dominant use and Wikipedia's policies take priority.

Final bits and pieces, on 'the King' this is again a case of a common noun being capitalised, since titles on their own aren't proper nouns. The practice comes from respect and (to some degree) deification similar to the way 'God' and 'He' are always capitalised in religious texts. It's an exception to the common noun rule, rather than an example of a proper noun.

Lastly, I'll note that it seems that your response was condescending. I enjoy discussion and debate (certainly beyond the scope that it's needed on such a relatively minor issue as this) on matters of linguistics and written language, but I don't have any particular desire to engage in respectful discussion with you if you're not inclined to respond in kind. I may have misinterpreted your intention, and if so I apologise, but nevertheless I think this particular discussion has reached the end of its usefulness. I don't think further discourse between you and I on this topic will produce anything relevant to the specific issue at hand that we haven't already covered. Best of luck to you, Noetica, I'm sure we'll run into each other again before long :) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving on is a good plan, TS. I accept that you will not reply, and that suits me. But for the record here, on selected points:

"April is derived from the Etruscan 'apru', which itself was derived from the Greek 'Aphrodite'."

Highly speculative, as are many conjectures involving the name "Aphrodite". And almost certainly not used with intent to connote any person, in the relevant periods of Latin.

"... meaning 'Maia's month' (why the OED is unsure of this is strange, since this is widely accepted)."

You claim it as widely accepted, but excellent sources (like Chamber's Dictionary of Etymology, and closely focused studies of the matter) are unsure.

"Regarding 'an Act', this is an unrelated rule."

Indeed it is; and that weighs heavily against those who claim any simple correspondence between capitalised nouns (and phrases) and proper names.

"It ['Napoleonic Code'] has been written in that manner not only in a significant number of high quality, reliable sources, but as the title of a book containing the code as well."

Sure! Never denied it. Said it, more or less. Certainly qua title of a book presented in title case (unsurprisingly); but this ignores the distinction I have made more than once above – between a book and its contents or the topic it deals with, like "Babar the Elephant" as opposed to Babar the elephant.

"Opinions are important, but dominant use and Wikipedia's policies take priority."

Make that "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines", and we agree.

"... on 'the King' this is again a case of a common noun being capitalised, since titles on their own aren't proper nouns."

And "the King of England"? And "the King of this land"? And "the King to whom I owe allegiance"? And "the Bridge" (spoken of in Brooklyn)? And "the Brooklyn Bridge" (spoken of anywhere)? Are these also easy to classify? Grammars differ. Another time, another place, we might both actually name sources.

For much of the rest, if it is umbrage and perceived affront it is best to leave it to dissipate quietly. I too have felt unheard and insulted for much of the larger discussion here. We get used to that in RMs. I'd like to see changes; but challenging the norms is bound to make one seem difficult, and is no way to make Wikifriends. Of course I'm happy to leave all this, delighted with the many useful points that have been made, and despite the inevitable sparks that fly when sharp intellects whirr together.

Seems that no editors apart from me have altered the vote they started with ☺. Interesting in itself. Best wishes to you, TS: as to all in this RM.

Noetica^Tea? 04:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your point on books using title case is well taken, that wasn't a valid argument on my part. On Kings and Bridges, I agree there are some hairy border cases, though I think that there is still technically a rule that applies in principle/on paper, even if it's different in practice. Those would be situations where I'd defer to the sources, rather than my intuition. And just for the record, I have no hard feelings on this and I don't think you overstepped any boundaries. I respect your knowledge and interest in these topics and look forward to working with you again. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Written with generosity of spirit, TS; and I want to return the same respect to you, with the same good will. These "little" questions are genuinely and surprisingly thorny. I always learn from such encounters; I think I am not the only one. Having leisure and energy to do it all justice, every time? That's a different story!

Till another occasion, then.

Noetica^Tea? 05:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Grumble. The style guide says we should capitalize it if it's a proper noun, and consensus is that it is a proper noun. If other sources say that it isn't a proper noun (regardless of their capitalization guides), that might be relevant. That other sources do or do not capitalize it is not relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Grumble in return. The style guide WP:MOSCAPS makes these recommendations:

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.

That does not mean all proper names are capitalised; and neither the link to Proper name (redirecting to Proper noun!) nor the link to Wikipedia:Proper names resolves the issue that confronts us here – even assuming we could settle other issues that need not concern proper names. The link Proper name (philosophy) (which I provide) gives a more realistic conspectus of the difficulties.

Wikipedia does capitalize initial letters of proper nouns, and often proper adjectives. In doing this, we follow common usage, and when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (abelian group, k.d. lang), we follow common usage.

The first link here is to Noun, where we are directed in short order to Proper noun, and there is uncertainty about whether any distinction between proper noun and proper name is intended. "Proper adjective", for its part, is not a term widely accepted in modern linguistics, and the intention with that too is vague. If the sign of a "proper adjective" is that it is the sort of adjective that is normally capitalised, we are in a tight circle indeed.

[Section headings:] Use sentence-style capitalization, not title-style capitalization: Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus Rules and regulations, not Rules and Regulations.

Interesting to extend these ideas (vague as they are) to the present case.

The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun, so it is correct to write "Louis XVI was the French king" or "Louis XVI was King of France". Exceptions may apply for specific offices.

Really? "As a proper noun"? In that it is capitalised, or in what more robust and independent sense?

I will not quote at length from the section "Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents", since it is too full of anomalies and uncertainties to do justice to. But note this:

Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as the Prophet.

Spot the problems – with the Lord and the Supreme Being, for example. And then this, which has some bearing on the topic of this RM:

Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party (each party name being a proper noun). Even so, watch for idiom: Platonic ideas, or even Ideas, as a combination of proper nouns, but platonic love. Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin or transubstantiation.

What to make of it? Is "Napoleonic code like" more those cases, or more like these:

In science and mathematics, only proper names that are part of a name for an idea should be capitalized (Hermitian matrix, Lorentz transformation). A small number of exceptions exist (abelian group).

And that is confused anyway. By most accounts, "Hermitian matrix" is a noun phrase, almost certainly not a proper name, and definitely not a noun; but then, "Hermitian" is not a noun of any sort!

And so on. Arthur Rubin, you claim concerning "Napoleonic code" that "consensus is that it is a proper noun". Sorry, but assertions by editors who have not grappled with the issues I highlight here, or answered the challenges and questions I present them with, are more likely to be working from a vague feeling that capitalised elements and "proper names" somehow hang together, and that this looks like that sort of thing. I don't call that consensus – not informed consensus, anyway.

OED does appeal to the notion of "proper name" (which occurs, often in definitions, 588 times in the current OED); it also uses "proper noun" (of which there are 12 occurrences); it does not use "proper adjective", except once very strangely in accounting for the adjective "cold" ("the proper adjective expressing a well-known quality of the air or of other substances ..."). OED does not use any of these terms in accounting for "Napoleonic code". Do we think we know better, and that we have a consensus? And then, even if "Napoleonic code" is sometimes used unequivocally as a proper name (for a book, perhaps: though even then the "Code" might be a mere artefact of using title case), it has not been shown that this transfers to the code of laws that is promulgated in such a book.

Finally, I approve of this that you say: "That other sources do or do not capitalize it is not relevant." We agree. The matter can be decided by us here, and with what solid principles are to be gleaned from Wikipedia's style guides. But all we can gather safely from those is a principle that makes no mention of proper names: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." Right! I accept that "unnecessary" is open to interpretation. I favour one interpretation, and Kotniski likes another one. At least we three respect local WP guidelines, according to our own lights.

Noetica^Tea? 02:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you said, proper name (philosophy) has nothing to do with the issue. That Napoleonic is a "proper adjective" has little to do with whether "code" should be capitalized; that would relate to whether, in running text, it should be napoleonic code or Napoleonic code; in other words, the comparison between Hermitian matrix and abelian group is inapposite. The question as to whether we have a proper noun is whether this is the name of a specific Napoleonic Code, the description "Napoleonic code" of which there happens to be only one, or to any code (of laws) attributed to Napoleon I, or perhaps even Napoleon II or Napoleon III. I don't think there's any question that it could possibly be other than the first, and there seems to be a (weak) consensus to that effect. It's not a "descriptive name" of which there happens to be only one, it's the actual name of a single object. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources like this one suggest that it's a term of varying meaning, referring to different sets of law over time. And even it it was unique, like the Andromeda galaxy or Halley's comet, it could still be styled lower case, as those two are in a majority of books. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that source suggests it's varying, but our article does not. Furthermore, (although I may have edited my comment while you were replying), it's not just a unique description, it's a name of a specific book and of a specific Code (codex) of law. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say, Arthur Rubin, no one claimed that philosophy is grammar. I said only this: "The link Proper name (philosophy) (which I provide) gives a more realistic conspectus of the difficulties." That is certainly true, and salutary given all of the circularities and vagueness that are swept under the carpet here and in some articles and guidelines I have pointed to. Academic linguistics (sharing a great number of its points of reference with philosophy of language, by the way) is undeniably relevant in resolving questions of grammar, just as academic physics is a resource to which engineers must sometimes appeal. Very little is simple in this part of grammar. See large systematic treatments like this one of 378 pages, from 2007. (Look at the start of "General Introduction", to see how fluid the boundaries of "proper name" have been.) All that aside, I fear you may have responded to what you consider easy to answer in what I write, but not to the genuine challenges. Focusing on descriptive grammar, I have noted that the grammars do not deliver clear or unanimous verdicts for many cases, including those like "Napoleonic code". If you know of a grammar that rules on the problematic cases I adduce above, let's see it please. I have looked, but I have not seen one. As for the uniqueness of the entity referred to in any deployment of "Napoleonic code", that settles neither the question of its status as a proper name (see, once again, OED's competently advised way of handling it) nor the question of capitalisation (again, see OED). Yes, we can use our own informed judgement; but are we better informed that the editors of OED, and do we have a better and more justified consensus than the linguistics literature has?

Noetica^Tea? 04:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[Please continue voting and main discussion HERE, not in subsequent sections or subsections. Noetica^Tea? 11:30, 13 October 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.