This article disputes the processes and criteria by which the authors of the 17th century lunar nomenclatures developed a variety of language and rhetoric strategies to organise and represent their telescopic studies of the lunar surface as a mapping space. Through a comparison of the toponymic systems proposed by Pierre Gassendi, Michael van Langren, Johannes Hevelius and Giambattista Riccioli, I suggested that the moon toponimies displayed association, analogue, metaphoric and emblematic appointment strategies resulting from academic scholarship, mapping practices and social contexts. These nomenclatures were used to project political, philosophical and disciplinary concerns of their authors.