Carson鈥揘ewman University is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of
Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] 鈥
[Project Page] 鈥
[Project Talk] 鈥
[Assessment] 鈥
[Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
higher education,
universities, and
colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the
discussion, and see the project's
article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Switched to neutral, given discussion below and RfC ideas. Original rationale follows: This is merger of two discrete entities, Carson College and Newman College, not a thing like
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, named after two unconnected people. The en dash is customary on WP (and other academic writing that uses en dashes) for this sort of purpose (and several others, such as joint discoveries). The fact that off-site writers with different style guides eschew en dashes and use hyphens for everything is immaterial; WP doesn't follow their house styles and they don't follow ours.
Heriot-Watt University, linked to by YorkshireExpat above, is not a parallel case of any kind, but something to which a financial benefactor's name was tacked on later; it's not a merger of separate entities, but a single entity since its inception that has changed names several times. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖02:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I did read it. Various people, including the closer, made invalid arguments that amount to "Wikipedia must follow the official version" (against
WP:OFFICIALNAME) and "Wikipedia must use a hyphen because newspapers do it" (against
WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia is not written in news style; it's an example of the
common-style fallacy). If either of those rationales were valid, then WP simply could not have its own style guide, and would always have to use either the officially preferred rendering of something or the version preferred by 50.00001% of sources. Fortunately, incorrect decisions like that do not set a binding precedent. The one argument in that discussion that was valid (the only one that actually supports the move to use the hyphen, which was correct in that specific case for reasons the closer did not understand, is that that specific case was in fact of the same sort as
Wilkes-Barre. This specific case, Carson鈥揘ewman, is demonstrably not. It is not a unitary thing that was named in honor of two people like Wilke-Barre and Heriot-Watt; it's a merger of two formerly separate entities, one named Carson and one name Newman. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to expand on this. I don't see why the fact that it is a merger makes any difference at all. The University is still a single entity as defined in
MOS:ENBETWEEN. Even without this, most primary and secondary sources use the endash, so it is simply arrogance to go against that. As the note at the top of
WP:MOS states, it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I see someone's been monkeying with the text as MOS:DASH again. It used to have a line item explicitly about this, but someone deleted it without consensus. May take a while to unravel. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to have to just open a
WT:MOS discussion about it; the change was long enough back that various RMs have proceeded as if the rule never existed, and we now have a sprawling
WP:CONSISTENT policy failure, with a whole lot of articles using en dashes for this purpose and a whole lot using hyphens, and this needs to be resolved with a broader discussion, instead of what amounts to individual move-warring by one faction against the other on this question. In the interim, here are two that should be RMed:
Gardner鈥揥ebb University and
Hampden鈥揝ydney College; in both cases, they are unitary institutions that were simply named after multiple invididuals, so they are exactly like
Wilkes-Barre and
Heriot-Watt University and should have hyphens (they are not mergers of previous institutions individually named Gardner and Webb or Hampden and Sydney, respectively). 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose There seems to be a recent trend to flout
MOS:DASH by invoking COMMONNAME, which isn't actually relevant here as this is a style matter. Most websites in the real world deliberately ban en dashes because they're not on a standard keyboard. But Wikipedia doesn't follow external style guides.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
06:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:DASH "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." - Carson & Newman is the compounded proper names of a single entity. It's aking to "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people". Also, not sure why we would assume the source is using a hyphen when they intend to use an en dash. Why would we not defer to the source and common sources themselves in this situation?
glman (
talk)
14:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Absolutely right. In the Heriot-Watt University chat, people were arguing that because 'University' followed the compound that an endash should be used. Here others are saying that the history of the formation of the compound determines the dash type. Nonsense!
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The MoS is not absolute; occasional exceptions do apply. But you asked me why the MoS "takes preceden[ce]" over other PAGs, and the answer is, there are no other PAGs that apply. (If you were alluding to IAR, that's more of a policy on policies rather than a policy on style or content.)
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
18:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure that right. But also not sure it's relevant. I think
WP:MOS is pretty clear that a hyphen should be used here. I'll put my argument at the MOS talk page later on.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Well of course AT applies to article titles. It does not, however, apply to deciding whether to use a hyphen or en dash, which is governed by
MOS:HYPHEN and
MOS:ENDASH. To stress once again, this is a style matter, not a COMMONNAME matter. Even if, say, many sources enclose a film title in quotation marks rather than italics, we would still use italics per
MOS:MAJORWORK. Even if many sources place a comma before "Jr." in a person's name, we would still omit the comma per
MOS:JR.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
04:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
We need an RfC on it. Since I'm not partisan on the matter and just want there to be a clear answer, I'm probably in a good position to draft one. PS: InfiniteNexus is entirely correct that COMMONNAME is not a style policy. Every attempt to shoehorn any style question of any kind into AT or any other policy has been shouted down, because the community absolutely does not want any style quibble elevated above guideline level. That said, the guideline in question has drifted away from clarity and can now be interpreted however you like, and is resulting in
WP:CONSISTENT failures: every article of this sort is randomly moved to either hyphen or en dash depending on who shows up and argues more. That's not tenable. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A tiny handful of respondents here are not "the community" and don't override 20+ years of actual community consensus not to treat COMMONNAME as regulating style questions. This page may move or not, but it won't settle a long-standing problem of about half the articles with names of this form going one direction and half the other, based on different arguments about an unclear guideline line-item that has become less rather than more clear over time. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖23:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, in that case where is the community when it comes to backing up a cut-and-dried move? Going by
WP:DASH moving that page isn't even controversial. Maybe the community has moved under everyone's feet.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
10:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No, they're arguing against a move using COMMONNAME. As I say, according to policy, I would agree that move here wouldn't even be contraversial if, as you say, COMMONNAME is irrelevant.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
19:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I meant that the RM on the other page does not mean there is consensus in this discussion for a move. The other RM is correct because unlike an en dash vs. a hyphen, an en dash vs. a slash is an extremely large and noticeable change. For this reason, we don't and shouldn't alter proper names, quotations, and the like. You'll see that
MOS:CONFORM (and
MOS:TITLECONFORM) only says to correct hyphens, curly apostrophes, American-style quotation marks, nonstandard capitalization, and titles of works in quotation marks. COMMONNAME is not relevant here because MOS:DASH applies, but MOS:SLASH does not apply there and COMMONNAME thus applies.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Interesting no one who's on the other move has raised CONFORM. You know, we could save a lot of effort if people would explain themselves first time out. I don't know if you know the expression
'blood from a stone' but it seems to apply to plenty round here?
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
23:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. Here is a book, Carson-Newman University: From Appalachian Dream to Thriving Educational Community[1], which distinguishes between dashes and hyphens throughout (e.g. "1832鈥1851", "pre鈥揥orld War I", "present-day"). It uses "Carson-Newman University", "Carson-Newman College", and standalone "Carson-Newman". Similarly for
[2]. Even if we assume that it's not so useful to consider sources which don't distinguish dashes and hyphens at all, it isn't a license to also ignore the sources that do distinguish. So, for reasons similar to
Talk:Heriot-Watt University#Requested_move_8_May_2022, I support. (Historical origins don't determine the present title. And, at the margin, metaphysical philosophizing about what truly is a "single entity" becomes inconclusive, so I wouldn't want to overrely on that.)
Adumbrativus (
talk)
11:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that what you've said is that
WP:DASH applies, but not said how, and you've attempted to contradict my argument, so I'd say you're
at level 4 at best, when I believe you should be aiming for level 5 and up. What do you say @
SMcCandlish (your graphic聽:))?
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between [empahsis added]. According to this article, this University was formed as the result of "Carson College" and "Newman College" 鈥 two separate entities 鈥 merging into one. The infobox says that its former name is literally "Carson and Newman College".
MOS:DASH gives this as an example: Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but
Minneapolis鈥揝aint Paul, an area encompassing two cities. Carson鈥揘ewman University is not a university named after a guy named Carson and a guy named Newman (I mean, technically it was, but that is not the origin of its compounded name); it is a university formed by two colleges uniting under one banner, or if you think about it from a different angle, it is a university that consists of an entity named Carson College and another entity named Newman University. Perhaps even more pertinent: Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound.Seifert鈥揤an Kampen theorem,
Comet Hale鈥揃opp, ...
Cox鈥揨ucker machine. And
Carson鈥揘ewman University. Is that a good enough explanation?
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Awesome, getting there! To sum up my argument, I'd say that when the two entities merged, Carson-Newman University became a single entity (and Carson College and Newman College both ceased to exist), and that name was chosen by the people who agreed to the merger. This is different to the
Seifert鈥揤an Kampen theorem, for example, as no one chose that name, it simply acquired it due to the history. The name of the University is not attributive, but the name of a single entity, the same as
Wilkes-Barre. This is my interpretation. Thanks.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
09:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose 鈥 This parallel naming from two schools named for two people is exactly the kind of thing that
MOS:DASH says the en dash is for. Per InfiniteNexus, we don't let outside style, which is dominated by rendering en dash as hyphen, determine WP style.
Dicklyon (
talk)
09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dicklyon Referring to This parallel naming from two schools named for two people is exactly the kind of thing that MOS:DASH says the en dash is for please could you point out where it says this is policy?
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements" applies to the names here. I admit the section about "compounded proper names of single entities" muddies the picture; this was supposed to be mostly for married names when we formulated this section back in 2011. I'd say that Wilkes-Barre and Lennart-Jones are compounded proper names, but Carson-Newman is not, because it refers to two entities, not one, that the College/University is named for. It doesn't matter to me that it was through a merger. Lots of proper names of institutions and such use en dash; e.g. Heriot鈥揥att University, mentioned before, can be found in books with en dash, even by authors from there, and I'd say we should do that, too.
Dicklyon (
talk)
10:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It does no good to declare this is "not our style" when the whole reason for this discussion is to decide the style in light of reasonable disagreement about its application (particularly "compounded proper names of single entities"). A discussion resting on editors' original analysis quickly becomes untenable and opinion-based. Objective evidence is precisely what we should look to.
Adumbrativus (
talk)
08:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Carson鈥揘ewman University is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of
Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] 鈥
[Project Page] 鈥
[Project Talk] 鈥
[Assessment] 鈥
[Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
higher education,
universities, and
colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the
discussion, and see the project's
article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Switched to neutral, given discussion below and RfC ideas. Original rationale follows: This is merger of two discrete entities, Carson College and Newman College, not a thing like
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, named after two unconnected people. The en dash is customary on WP (and other academic writing that uses en dashes) for this sort of purpose (and several others, such as joint discoveries). The fact that off-site writers with different style guides eschew en dashes and use hyphens for everything is immaterial; WP doesn't follow their house styles and they don't follow ours.
Heriot-Watt University, linked to by YorkshireExpat above, is not a parallel case of any kind, but something to which a financial benefactor's name was tacked on later; it's not a merger of separate entities, but a single entity since its inception that has changed names several times. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖02:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I did read it. Various people, including the closer, made invalid arguments that amount to "Wikipedia must follow the official version" (against
WP:OFFICIALNAME) and "Wikipedia must use a hyphen because newspapers do it" (against
WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia is not written in news style; it's an example of the
common-style fallacy). If either of those rationales were valid, then WP simply could not have its own style guide, and would always have to use either the officially preferred rendering of something or the version preferred by 50.00001% of sources. Fortunately, incorrect decisions like that do not set a binding precedent. The one argument in that discussion that was valid (the only one that actually supports the move to use the hyphen, which was correct in that specific case for reasons the closer did not understand, is that that specific case was in fact of the same sort as
Wilkes-Barre. This specific case, Carson鈥揘ewman, is demonstrably not. It is not a unitary thing that was named in honor of two people like Wilke-Barre and Heriot-Watt; it's a merger of two formerly separate entities, one named Carson and one name Newman. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to expand on this. I don't see why the fact that it is a merger makes any difference at all. The University is still a single entity as defined in
MOS:ENBETWEEN. Even without this, most primary and secondary sources use the endash, so it is simply arrogance to go against that. As the note at the top of
WP:MOS states, it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I see someone's been monkeying with the text as MOS:DASH again. It used to have a line item explicitly about this, but someone deleted it without consensus. May take a while to unravel. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to have to just open a
WT:MOS discussion about it; the change was long enough back that various RMs have proceeded as if the rule never existed, and we now have a sprawling
WP:CONSISTENT policy failure, with a whole lot of articles using en dashes for this purpose and a whole lot using hyphens, and this needs to be resolved with a broader discussion, instead of what amounts to individual move-warring by one faction against the other on this question. In the interim, here are two that should be RMed:
Gardner鈥揥ebb University and
Hampden鈥揝ydney College; in both cases, they are unitary institutions that were simply named after multiple invididuals, so they are exactly like
Wilkes-Barre and
Heriot-Watt University and should have hyphens (they are not mergers of previous institutions individually named Gardner and Webb or Hampden and Sydney, respectively). 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose There seems to be a recent trend to flout
MOS:DASH by invoking COMMONNAME, which isn't actually relevant here as this is a style matter. Most websites in the real world deliberately ban en dashes because they're not on a standard keyboard. But Wikipedia doesn't follow external style guides.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
06:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:DASH "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." - Carson & Newman is the compounded proper names of a single entity. It's aking to "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people". Also, not sure why we would assume the source is using a hyphen when they intend to use an en dash. Why would we not defer to the source and common sources themselves in this situation?
glman (
talk)
14:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Absolutely right. In the Heriot-Watt University chat, people were arguing that because 'University' followed the compound that an endash should be used. Here others are saying that the history of the formation of the compound determines the dash type. Nonsense!
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The MoS is not absolute; occasional exceptions do apply. But you asked me why the MoS "takes preceden[ce]" over other PAGs, and the answer is, there are no other PAGs that apply. (If you were alluding to IAR, that's more of a policy on policies rather than a policy on style or content.)
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
18:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure that right. But also not sure it's relevant. I think
WP:MOS is pretty clear that a hyphen should be used here. I'll put my argument at the MOS talk page later on.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Well of course AT applies to article titles. It does not, however, apply to deciding whether to use a hyphen or en dash, which is governed by
MOS:HYPHEN and
MOS:ENDASH. To stress once again, this is a style matter, not a COMMONNAME matter. Even if, say, many sources enclose a film title in quotation marks rather than italics, we would still use italics per
MOS:MAJORWORK. Even if many sources place a comma before "Jr." in a person's name, we would still omit the comma per
MOS:JR.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
04:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
We need an RfC on it. Since I'm not partisan on the matter and just want there to be a clear answer, I'm probably in a good position to draft one. PS: InfiniteNexus is entirely correct that COMMONNAME is not a style policy. Every attempt to shoehorn any style question of any kind into AT or any other policy has been shouted down, because the community absolutely does not want any style quibble elevated above guideline level. That said, the guideline in question has drifted away from clarity and can now be interpreted however you like, and is resulting in
WP:CONSISTENT failures: every article of this sort is randomly moved to either hyphen or en dash depending on who shows up and argues more. That's not tenable. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A tiny handful of respondents here are not "the community" and don't override 20+ years of actual community consensus not to treat COMMONNAME as regulating style questions. This page may move or not, but it won't settle a long-standing problem of about half the articles with names of this form going one direction and half the other, based on different arguments about an unclear guideline line-item that has become less rather than more clear over time. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish鈽垄鈥凁煒尖23:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, in that case where is the community when it comes to backing up a cut-and-dried move? Going by
WP:DASH moving that page isn't even controversial. Maybe the community has moved under everyone's feet.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
10:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No, they're arguing against a move using COMMONNAME. As I say, according to policy, I would agree that move here wouldn't even be contraversial if, as you say, COMMONNAME is irrelevant.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
19:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I meant that the RM on the other page does not mean there is consensus in this discussion for a move. The other RM is correct because unlike an en dash vs. a hyphen, an en dash vs. a slash is an extremely large and noticeable change. For this reason, we don't and shouldn't alter proper names, quotations, and the like. You'll see that
MOS:CONFORM (and
MOS:TITLECONFORM) only says to correct hyphens, curly apostrophes, American-style quotation marks, nonstandard capitalization, and titles of works in quotation marks. COMMONNAME is not relevant here because MOS:DASH applies, but MOS:SLASH does not apply there and COMMONNAME thus applies.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Interesting no one who's on the other move has raised CONFORM. You know, we could save a lot of effort if people would explain themselves first time out. I don't know if you know the expression
'blood from a stone' but it seems to apply to plenty round here?
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
23:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. Here is a book, Carson-Newman University: From Appalachian Dream to Thriving Educational Community[1], which distinguishes between dashes and hyphens throughout (e.g. "1832鈥1851", "pre鈥揥orld War I", "present-day"). It uses "Carson-Newman University", "Carson-Newman College", and standalone "Carson-Newman". Similarly for
[2]. Even if we assume that it's not so useful to consider sources which don't distinguish dashes and hyphens at all, it isn't a license to also ignore the sources that do distinguish. So, for reasons similar to
Talk:Heriot-Watt University#Requested_move_8_May_2022, I support. (Historical origins don't determine the present title. And, at the margin, metaphysical philosophizing about what truly is a "single entity" becomes inconclusive, so I wouldn't want to overrely on that.)
Adumbrativus (
talk)
11:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that what you've said is that
WP:DASH applies, but not said how, and you've attempted to contradict my argument, so I'd say you're
at level 4 at best, when I believe you should be aiming for level 5 and up. What do you say @
SMcCandlish (your graphic聽:))?
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between [empahsis added]. According to this article, this University was formed as the result of "Carson College" and "Newman College" 鈥 two separate entities 鈥 merging into one. The infobox says that its former name is literally "Carson and Newman College".
MOS:DASH gives this as an example: Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but
Minneapolis鈥揝aint Paul, an area encompassing two cities. Carson鈥揘ewman University is not a university named after a guy named Carson and a guy named Newman (I mean, technically it was, but that is not the origin of its compounded name); it is a university formed by two colleges uniting under one banner, or if you think about it from a different angle, it is a university that consists of an entity named Carson College and another entity named Newman University. Perhaps even more pertinent: Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound.Seifert鈥揤an Kampen theorem,
Comet Hale鈥揃opp, ...
Cox鈥揨ucker machine. And
Carson鈥揘ewman University. Is that a good enough explanation?
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Awesome, getting there! To sum up my argument, I'd say that when the two entities merged, Carson-Newman University became a single entity (and Carson College and Newman College both ceased to exist), and that name was chosen by the people who agreed to the merger. This is different to the
Seifert鈥揤an Kampen theorem, for example, as no one chose that name, it simply acquired it due to the history. The name of the University is not attributive, but the name of a single entity, the same as
Wilkes-Barre. This is my interpretation. Thanks.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
09:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose 鈥 This parallel naming from two schools named for two people is exactly the kind of thing that
MOS:DASH says the en dash is for. Per InfiniteNexus, we don't let outside style, which is dominated by rendering en dash as hyphen, determine WP style.
Dicklyon (
talk)
09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dicklyon Referring to This parallel naming from two schools named for two people is exactly the kind of thing that MOS:DASH says the en dash is for please could you point out where it says this is policy?
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements" applies to the names here. I admit the section about "compounded proper names of single entities" muddies the picture; this was supposed to be mostly for married names when we formulated this section back in 2011. I'd say that Wilkes-Barre and Lennart-Jones are compounded proper names, but Carson-Newman is not, because it refers to two entities, not one, that the College/University is named for. It doesn't matter to me that it was through a merger. Lots of proper names of institutions and such use en dash; e.g. Heriot鈥揥att University, mentioned before, can be found in books with en dash, even by authors from there, and I'd say we should do that, too.
Dicklyon (
talk)
10:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It does no good to declare this is "not our style" when the whole reason for this discussion is to decide the style in light of reasonable disagreement about its application (particularly "compounded proper names of single entities"). A discussion resting on editors' original analysis quickly becomes untenable and opinion-based. Objective evidence is precisely what we should look to.
Adumbrativus (
talk)
08:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.