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....Hayford Peirce 10:51, 5 January 2008 (CST)

An old car with rust and all nonvital functions that are broken still drives; but perhaps it's quite the polluter and provides very poor milage and simply isn't meant for today's roads. --Robert W King 10:57, 5 January 2008 (CST)

We're not talking about old cars, or newer computer models, or Paris fashions, we're talking about knowledge, a fair amount of which does not go out of date or out of style. Would you throw away all books that were written before 1990, say, or even 2000?Hayford Peirce 13:50, 5 January 2008 (CST)

If anyone decides on this course, let me know. I'll pay for you to instead ship all those "old" books to my home address. :D Stephen Ewen 14:09, 5 January 2008 (CST)

If the majority of the book contained information which is innaccurate, invalid, no longer true, incomplete, yes (as it seems like the case is with EB 1941!) Actually, I'd recycle it. --Robert W King 14:42, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I have just bought a 1914 American publication for a mere Euro 20, including shipping. It is the best book I have bought in a very long time, exceeding in quality most modern scholarship which retails at E 150-200 for a normal-sized book, and is actually a major part of world history in its own right. [The International Commission on the Balkan Wars, Carnegie Foundation]. Admittedly, not all old books are so wonderful, but still... --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:34, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Would anyone strenuously object if I re-named this article "Earth's Moon" as suggested by David Volk back in January of 2008? That would differentiate it from the moons of any other planets. Milton Beychok 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd object on the grounds of normal usage, as 'moon' is the usual name for the object, and that object is the normal referent of 'moon'. When was the last time you said 'there's a full earth's moon tonight'? 'Moon (astronomy)' would be better for Ganymede and co, though, for similar reasons, WP's 'Natural satellite' being rather forced. (That definition includes Earth's Moon, of course.) Ro Thorpe 17:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Ro, then I won't do it. But I would like to point out that if I wrote an article about sodium chloride, I would name it "Sodium chloride" even though common usage is "Salt". When was the last time anyone said 'this soup needs more sodium chloride'?

Also, we have an article named Automobile and one named Gasoline. When was the last time anyone said 'I need to get some gasoline for my automobile.'? Common usage is 'I need to get some gas for my car.'. My point being that sometimes we need to be specific rather than choosing common usage. Milton Beychok 18:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactitude trumps common usage, for sure. Seems (to this non-chemist) we need (at least) three separate salty articles: sodium chloride (precise compound), salt (ionic compound in general), salt (table, cooking)... Ro Thorpe 23:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia

According to the good folks at Conservapedia, this article has a "liberal bias". I note the user who added this to their Citizendium article was temporarily blocked as a "parodist/provocateur", but nevertheless the claim that Citizendium's article on our only natural satellite is a hotbed of left-wing radicalism has been allowed to stand. What can they mean? John Stephenson 04:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of your links must be wrong -- I can't find anything about a left-leaning moon.... Hayford Peirce 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's in the references section No.9. They link to a number of article that demonstrate our bias to the left including things like young earth creationism, homosexuality and ... the moon? How can an article about the moon demonstrate left wing bias? Derek Harkness 15:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh now wait I see it. When writing the section on man's journeys to the moon, I mention that the Russian's sent the first probes, playing down the achievements those American's of Apollo. It's not left bias, it's neutrality juxtaposed with conservapedia's pro right, pro America bias (as stated on their home page). Derek Harkness 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it is the allowance for a very old Moon which would possibly violate their Young Earth thesis--proposed back in the 19th by Ussher I think. Given that this is true, they evidently propose that their interpretation of the Bible means that the Earth was formed just a few thousand years ago and thus makes any belief of a much older (millions of years) Earth and Moon a liberal belief. ANd that of course would also mean that their definition of liberal is correct. I think they are mistaken on both counts. They are traditionalists rather than conservatives and their traditions are not very old at that.Thomas Simmons 15:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Would "cretins" or "imbeciles" be alternative descriptions? Hayford Peirce 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I'd say that as people who make generalisations with few facts from a very self indulgent point of view I'd call them . . . . normal.Thomas Simmons 04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you can call them ignorant without being stupid, if you're charitable. Which I'm not.... Hayford Peirce 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps apropos of not much, the International Astronomical Union approves names for extraterrestrial features. Since the Soviets flew the orbiter that took the first pictures of the "back side", they could propose names. They proposed, for one of the "maria", or "seas", the "Sea of Moscow".

It was pointed out that maria traditionally were named for states of mind, such as the "Sea of Tranquillity". They responded that Moscow was a state of mind. The name was accepted. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)