Talk:Carson–Newman University

Requested move 21 January 2024

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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. – robertsky (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Carson–Newman University → Carson-Newman University – Per WP:COMMONNAME, Carson-Newman and outside sources use a hyphen rather than a dash when referring to the school. Per MOS:ENBETWEEN we should "use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.", which fits the history and name of C-N. I see no compelling reason to use an endash rather than a hyphen. glman (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: See all the arguments here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• 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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish I think you need to read the talk:Heriot-Watt University talk page. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  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–Newman, 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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish see reply below. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, if you can find and link I will consider it. But I still think the second half of my argument is compelling. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  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–Webb University and Hampden–Sydney 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).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thread at WT:Manual of Style#A worsening MOS:DASH issue (causing mounting WP:CONSISTENT problems).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  @InfiniteNexus do you have any reference to say which policies take precendent over others? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  The only policy that is relevant to this discussion is WP:MOS. Nothing else pertains to the formatting of punctuation in article titles of proper names. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  But if WP:MOS absolute, why would it say at the start that common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply? YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Well, what other PAGs do you think apply here? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  In its article titles section WP:MOS is clear that WP:TITLE applies to article titles (as well as the rest of MOS). You've just chosen to disregard it in this instance. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  I've conceded this here, and you make no argument here for why MOS:DASH shows that this article should use an endash. Seems to be more of a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I don't know where the MOS talk discussion is going. Any update @SMcCandlish? YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish, looks like the community is happy with the COMMONNAME argument here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  Not seeing the alleged "community" consensus in favor of a move. To reiterate, COMMONNAME is irrelevant. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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. "1832–1851", "pre–World 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)
• Oppose per InfiniteNexus. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  But they didn't make an argument? YorkshireExpat (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wow. An argument you don't agree with ≠ an argument was not made. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  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 :))? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  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" — two separate entities — 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–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities. Carson–Newman 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–Van Kampen theorem, Comet Hale–Bopp, ... Cox–Zucker machine. And Carson–Newman University. Is that a good enough explanation? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  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–Van 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)

  The name of the University is not attributive – Now, now. It's "Carson–Newman University" and not "Carson–Newman", isn't it? InfiniteNexus (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. A university named after Carson and Newman, much like Wilkes-Barre Township is a township named after Wilkes and Barre. The Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins are an interesting case, while we're at it. So, yes, named after ≠ attributed to. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, why hasn't this been closed? It's been a month and relisted twice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know. You've written 'strong oppose' in big bold block caps and everything :D. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus, I apologise. I use humour to diffuse. I believe that @SMcCandlish was going to have a go at an RFC on the topic, so don't know if there's an update on that? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  No big hurry, and I'm involved in some on-site drama right now, and some off-site responsibilities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish Thanks. No worries. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – 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)

  @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)

  "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–Watt 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)

  Thanks. A clear line of argument! YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  And also could you address the argument by Adumbrativus. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  He found a source that uses the hyphen here though it distinguishes dash elsewhere. That's up to them, not our style. Dicklyon (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's fine, but going back your argument above with Heriot-Watt, it can swing both ways surely? YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• Support, per MOS:DASH, which does indicate a hyphen in this compound name situation. BD2412 T 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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.