Talk:Carnegie

Untitled

Anyone looking for "Carnegie" is less likely to want the town in Pennsylvania than Andrew Carnegie for example. garryq 08:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

what about "carnegie investment bank"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Investment_Bank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.81.227 (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

for whom many entries on this page are named

Is that necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejo123 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2025

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdewman6 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Carnegie → Carnegie (disambiguation)Carnegie (disambiguation) – In addition to Carnegie redirecting to Andrew Carnegie, an analogous argument may be also made that Morgan should redirect to J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller should redirect to John D. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt should redirect to Cornelius Vanderbilt since they were known to the public simply by surname. On the other hand, their descendants, such as J. P. Morgan Jr., Vanderbilt family tree, Nelson Rockefeller or David Rockefeller were generally referenced by their full names. Since Carnegie had no descendants, the standalone "Carnegie" references him to an even greater degree. Although there is an entry for Carnegie (surname), most entries on the Carnegie#Named for Andrew Carnegie dab page are associated with him. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Leaning oppose - anointing primary topics from dabs with so many entries. However, a lot of the entries are namesakes of Carnegie so I could be convinced. Strongly opposed to the other 'analagous' cases referenced by the nominator: Morgan is just ridiculous; Rockefeller had notable descendants, including the aforementioned 41st vice president of the United States; and Vanderbilt has an eponymous university. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Views of Carnegie that probably correspond to a click towards the Andrew biography 351 (47.4%)
2. Clicks from Carnegie to something that we can't identify (anonymized) 90 (12.2%)
3. Views of Carnegie that probably correspond to a click towards other identifiable articles 109 (14.7%)
4. Views of Carnegie that can't be assumed to correspond to any outgoing clicks 190 (25.7%)

• Per WP:DPT, let's have a look at some usage statistics as opposed to this sweeping "mononymous usage is awesome!" argument :)

Here's a pie chart to the right that interprets the data from Clickstreams and Page views from September), but without relegating filtered clicks and clicks that don't have a matching outgoing click to the dustbin as WikiNav happens to do, as well as including redirect views (Special:WhatLinksHere/Carnegie redirects, meaning 605 is actually 740, per FAQ).

• All-time mass views for all items linked from here
• All-time mass views for all items linked the surname index

I think the existence of the major US university (CMU), the writer ("How To Win Friends..."), the Carnegie Hall, etc puts a significant dent in the idea that the average English reader today associates the term Carnegie so strongly with a single topic that this term would no longer be practically ambiguous. Neither the clicks nor the views towards the proposed primary topic are in a proper majority, let alone an overwhelming one. Andrew Carnegie is the single most common use of the term Carnegie, but does not seem to be the primary topic for the term by usage. A significance argument would have to be much more fleshed out to override this. (Oppose) It's interesting how his legacy outgrew him to the extent that he can't be the primary topic. Which is sort of the point, right? --Joy (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose no clear primary topic for the single word. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on all requests. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can see the rationale, but there are just too many things by this name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2025 (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.