Talk:Moon

Move

May I suggest a page move, possibly to The Moon? The thing is, [moon]] aught to be left for a page about moons in general, explaining what a moon is, and talking about others, Titan, Ganymede, etc. Tom F Walker 16:41, 31 December 2007 (CST)

It's best to avoid article titles beginning with an article, if you'll excuse the unintentional pun. Wikipedia gives Earth's moon for Moon and provides disambiguation links: I think that's right. (And welcome to CZ, Earthling.) - Ro Thorpe 18:10, 3 January 2008 (CST)

As Ro said, we don't usually put 'the' or 'a' in front of the articles title. There should be mention near the beginning that 'moon' is also a generic term for all other planet's natural satellites and there may be space to make a section discussing some of these moons and maybe a list of them in the article too. The generic article about Moons could live at natural satellites or something similar. There is more than one term for these objects.

I think moon is okay for Earth's Moon, but for any additional moons around specific planets, I would probably lump them into their name, with the planet name in parenthesis; for example Moonname (planetname) or Moonname (moon of planetname). Whaddayathink? --Robert W King 09:26, 4 January 2008 (CST)

why not "Earth's Moon"

Why not call it Earth's Moon, which is the most accurate, a page Moon, describing what a moon is in general? It would naturally have links to Earth's Moon and the other moons in our solar system. David E. Volk 09:40, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I believe "Moon" is the proper name for Earth's moon as determined by astronomers, but I could be mistaken. --Robert W King 09:52, 4 January 2008 (CST)

This is one of those issues that will never be settled. In recent months, for instance, the New York Times has *sometimes* been calling it the Moon. Then in the next article, it will be the moon again. You might as well flip a coin.... Hayford Peirce 11:09, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Robert is right, but the line between astronomical context (Moon) and everyday use (moon) is rather fuzzy, so that's probably why the NYT mixes it up a bit. Ro Thorpe 11:43, 4 January 2008 (CST)

It is very clear that the correct notation in everyday usage is "the Moon", for the Earth's moon, just as it is the Earth and not the earth. Unhappily, Americans and Brits are ignorant of the function of proper nouns, which is to avoid confusion. I suggest that we retain correct usages on CZ, regardless of whatever semi-literate journalists write. I am certain that EB will do the same, because there is a logical reason to keep this nomenclature. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:45, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I am looking at page 778 of Vol. 15 of the 1941 edition of the EB, where the first of four pages appears about....drum-roll...."the moon" -- at least that's how it's referred to throughout the article except in Headers, where it's capitalized, along with all the other words. The first sentence of the article reads: "MOON, in astronomy, the name given to the satellite of any planet, specifically to the satellite of the earth...." Note the lower case for "earth", also. I myself am a great believer in the use of caps and have fought over the years with various copyeditors of my books about them, the CEs lowercasing some words, and me restoring the caps....Hayford Peirce 14:00, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Well there is also "earth" as in "ground, mud, clay" just as there is "moon of Saturn". --Robert W King 14:45, 4 January 2008 (CST)

We need to use proper nouns when there is potential confusion. If it is clear that we are talking about the Earth's moon, then maybe only the first appearance of Moon need be capitalised. This is what is done in our article, and it looks OK to me. I always use upper case for Earth, because there is far too much potential confusion with mud etc: again, this is done in our article. I am disappointed with your 1941 EB, Hayford :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:32, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Me too. They consistently say things like "The duke of York went to battle." It looks *so* strange to me. I believe that the esteemed Fowler, in his Second Edition of Modern English Usage has a long rant about the lack of capitals and their ruthless weeding away by, particularly, English editors, not American. I think he may cite the EB of a certain edition as being a particularly egregious example.... Hayford Peirce 17:04, 4 January 2008 (CST)

'The duke of York' is just plain wrong: from gutter press to local rag, I never saw the like in Britain. Seems the EB is an eccentric old don in need of retirement - Ro Thorpe 17:51, 4 January 2008 (CST) - Ah, well, in 1941, it was WW2 & capitals were in short supply... Ro Thorpe 17:55, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Terrible! How about the "queen of england" or battle of britain"? They all look ridiculous, because they are clearly wrong! I withdraw my former good opinion of EB: glad I never bought one! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:27, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I don't understand why you bother referencing an encyclopedia that is over 50 years old, it seems like the most foolish thing to me. --Robert W King 21:29, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Well, in the era of BI [before internet], we all used to save up to buy a printed copy of the multi-tomed EB -- and it was not cheap! So, having bought one, most people are reluctant not to consult it, unless it obviously would be out of date. I guess Hayford wouldn't check the definition of Internet in it:-) Or the current monarch of the UK :-)) On the other hand, you might reasonably expect it to have conventional formal English in the articles, which would be helpful with regard to discussing the modern trend of attrition of proper nouns. It sounds as if the bloody thing was instrumental in the decline of our language, though! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:41, 5 January 2008 (CST)

May I suggest a defacto depreciation model similar to that of automobiles for old encyclopedias; the older and more out of date they are, the less value they retain! ;) --Robert W King 09:28, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Not necessarily. I remember reading some years ago, say 1960-1965, in a reputable source such as a New Yorker book review, that many people still regarded the old 1887 (say, I don't know the exact date) EB as the best one every produced -- that the level of scholarship by the learned Victorians had never been surpassed. Obviously that book was quite dated by the time those words were written, but I suppose that there was still a kernel of truth in what was said. In the same way, I still consult my 1933 Merriam-Websters New International Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (mine is the 1941 update, with new pictures and a few new words, but basically the same), over any other dictionary produced since. It is prescriptive rather than descriptive, as the 1961 Third Edition replacement was, and that suits my personality and world-view. The Third Edition, incidentally, has still not yet given way to a Fourth Edition, so there is still some value in older things -- witness Sofia Loren, for instance, as the decades passed....