Language desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 4

General term for a baker or cheesemaker, or similar?

They do the job of Food processing, but they are definitely not Food processors. What can I call them? Card Zero (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tradesman? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but that includes the candlestick-maker, the laptop-repairer, and various workers not dealing with food. I need something narrower. Foodmaker seems to be a word used in business-speak, but that's an ugly language (and anyway it applies to corporations, not individuals). Card Zero (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with "food maker" as a general term. --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skilled craftworkers who make foodstuffs by hand using traditional methods can be referred to as food artisans. --Lambiam 10:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purveyors of comestibles? --Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purveyors are one step further down the supply chain. Artisan could work, but it's a bit over-nice. Not sure there's such a thing as an artisan renderer. What am I saying, this is the 21st century, of course there are artisan renderers. They're probably on TikTok right now, dancing around some lard. Card Zero (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly victualler is more to do with provision than production. Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, this is for a historical context, so maybe I'll go with food processor after all. It's not really misleading, it just sounds funny, like computer (somebody whose job is to compute). Card Zero (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After listening to John McWhorter the other day, I recognize that (at least in American English) we would stress the two usages differently. The people who do the work are "food PROCESSORS" while the machines are "FOOD processors". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An exponent of the culinary arts (which article suggests "culinary artist" and "culinarian")? --Verbarson ^talk_edits 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Lunar" or "lunar"?

Hi there! I am working on articles relating to the Moon. The literature and related Wikipedia articles have been capitalizing the Moon, but it has been inconsistently been applied to "Lunar"/"lunar". Now I have been introducing writing "Lunar", but the argument has now been raised that things like "lunar regolith" should not be capitalized. Now it was suggested to ask here what you think.

Thank you. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a capitalized usage of lunar.--Khajidha (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said it has been an astronomy issue because so many moons throughout the Solar system have been found that it has made sense to capitalize the Moon, the same goes for Lunar, but if it referse to the Moon and not any moon. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put the question differently: are collateral adjectives of places capitalized? Or even more so, can collateral adjectives be proper adjectives? And if so how is it with "lunar regolith"? For example would you write "terran soil" or "Terran soil"? Nsae Comp (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "Terran" is pretty much exclusive to science fiction. The usual word is "terrestrial", which I have never seen capitalized. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Terran" is used when the Earth is viewed from an outside perspective, as an alien planet. "Terrestrial" is the preferred word when the perspective is from the Earth itself. JIP | Talk 20:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the editors who wrote that article used lunar without initial capital, and they ought to know. MOS:ARTCON says the subject's own style should be followed, which is not helpful as the Moon lacks an official website or embassy. Here's an example of NASA using a lower case l, it's probably a good idea to follow their lead. (Actually that page uses lower case for "the moon" as well. NASA scientists seem evenly divided on that one.) Card Zero (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Excursion Module, for one. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that is a very specific object, so a proper adjective is applicable in that case. In the plural case, one would probably write 'lunar excursion modules'. Praemonitus (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user said he'd never seen it capitalized. Now he has. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martian crater, but I've never ever seen Lunar crater. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latter would apply if the standard English word for our satellite were Luna. But it's not. "Lunar" is derived from the Latin name, just as "solar" is derived from the Latin name for our Sun. The fact that we sometimes capitalise our Moon and Sun to differentiate them from other moons and suns has no bearing on this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luna is the name of one of my granddaughters, btw. I just thought you'd all like to know that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually happy to know that! Thanks, Jack, and best wishes to your granddaughter! --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Very kind. I'll pass your regards on, and I'll do it to the tune of the "Anvil Chorus" in your honour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

But you do write Solar, e.g. Solar system in caps, so I cant see your argument. In fact it is a good example for the use of Lunar in caps, since Sun is like Moon and Sol is like Luna, therefore also Solar is like Lunar. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsae Comp: No you don't. Bazza (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From our article Solar System: "Capitalization of the name varies. The International Astronomical Union, the authoritative body regarding astronomical nomenclature, specifies capitalizing the names of all individual astronomical objects but uses mixed "Solar System" and "solar system" structures in their naming guidelines document. The name is commonly rendered in lower case ("solar system"), as, for example, in the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary." --Khajidha (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage appears to be inconsistent, but there is clearly a strong preference for lunar (lower case) in practice. Here's an attempt at analysis: Sun is not like Moon, and solar is not like lunar, although in a subtly different way. In standard English, a proper noun is capitalized, whereas a common noun, such as the generic name of a category, is not. There's only one "Sol" (and only one "Mars") but there are lots and lots of moons. Logically speaking, this should give additional weight to capitalized expressions like Solar system (or Solar System), and Martian atmosphere. In actual usage, solar system may be used to refer to any planetary system (google "how many solar systems in our galaxy?). When referring to some other star, in my opinion, solar system *must* be lower case; the problem occurs with usage when referring to our star, Sol. In actual use, there is a large preference for lower case 'solar system'. (I haven't checked to see how much of this usage applies to our planetary system, but I suspect most of it does).

In theory, one might think we should use Lunar when referring to our moon (i.e., the Moon), and lunar when referring to any other moon, but actual usage doesn't confirm that. Perhaps this is because expressions like lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar surface invariably refer to the Moon, and not to, say, Titan (see e.g. Huygens (spacecraft)). In the end, we should pick one style and stick to it, and given the pattern of usage in the wild, it should be lunar. Maybe in the future when there have been hundreds of missions to other moons, this will change. Ping me in 2092. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think "lunar" is just out of place when used about any moon other than the Moon. Cue the B-52's. I'm not sure what the adjectival form of "natural satellite" is, but it's not "lunar". --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you for the refreshingly nuanced and considerate answer. I see you then in 2092, you can count on it, I am planing to be there 8D. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore:, not *yet*, you mean. WP:NODEADLINE.

Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]