Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 482: Line 482:
Does anyone know a source for info on PR-based fraternities? [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know a source for info on PR-based fraternities? [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
:Not particularly. I tried Google searching for the first two on the list of Puerto Rico Fraternities (Mu Alpha Phi and Phi Eta Mu) and didn't get anything particularly focused. I'm not sure it is as bad as the Philippines, but still not as easy as USA.[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 12:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
:Not particularly. I tried Google searching for the first two on the list of Puerto Rico Fraternities (Mu Alpha Phi and Phi Eta Mu) and didn't get anything particularly focused. I'm not sure it is as bad as the Philippines, but still not as easy as USA.[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 12:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
:Please let me know if there is anything specif you would like to know and I can try and find a source even if it is in spanish. Most sources for Puerto Rico GLO will be in spanish. [[User:Eljohnson15|El Johnson]] ([[User talk:Eljohnson15|talk]]) 17:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


One source for all, not so much.. The oldest ones were included in very old copies of Bayrds. I have included a lot of references for [[Phi Sigma Alpha]], including a recent a local bill to declare a state Fraternities and Sororities Day that mentions the oldest ones. [[User:Eljohnson15|El Johnson]] ([[User talk:Eljohnson15|talk]]) 15:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
One source for all, not so much.. The oldest ones were included in very old copies of Bayrds. I have included a lot of references for [[Phi Sigma Alpha]], including a recent a local bill to declare a state Fraternities and Sororities Day that mentions the oldest ones. [[User:Eljohnson15|El Johnson]] ([[User talk:Eljohnson15|talk]]) 15:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:59, 3 May 2023

WikiProject iconFraternities and Sororities Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikiProject Fraternities and Sororities is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Scope of the Project, Notability Rules (clarification), and Syntax for the Watchlist are linked here: Watchlist Talk Page

NIC Associate Partners

I noticed that https://nicfraternity.org/member-fraternities/ Delta Phi and Psi Upsilon are listed as being Associate Partners of the NIC as they don't meet criteria to be full members. Does anyone know when that started? Delta Phi is one of the *founders* of the NIC...Naraht (talk)

Groups falling under this WP with information members would consider private on Wikipedia...

I think our current count is two: Kappa Sigma and Groove Phi Groove. I'm specifically thinking of things which would in the normal process of the fraternity today would only be revealed in ceremonies.Naraht (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, someone removed info from St. Anthony Hall giving the reason as "deleting information that has been disclosed." I believe the source was a national magazine. I did not restore the info as I was not sure how to deal with such edits. Rublamb (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider exposures like this to be legitimate sources or of encyclopedic value. Dozens of other Project editors tend to agree, and delete such content as unreliable, or harassing for the group in question, or note that it conveys far too much detail for WP. Exposures may also create a situation of liability for WP. Jax MN (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Kappa Sigma, the information is from their own (very early) fraternity magazine and Baird's. For Groove Phi Groove, from the Howard University Student Newspaper.Naraht (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fraternty's magazine would be a primary source and, therefore, really shouldn't be used--and wasn't considered public publishing at the time as they never anticipated digital reproduction. If Vanity Fair isn't a solid source for this type of content, than a student newspaper certainly would not be. However, anything in Baird's should be fair game as most of the content was knowingly provided by the organizations for mass publication. Rublamb (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Active and Inactive chapter lists...

Is there any reason *not* to merge the lists if a GLO has two lists, one of active chapters and one of inactive chapters (preferably in a table). Just saw the changes to Omega Phi Alpha and my first thought was to merge the lists.Naraht (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly merge such lists, having encountered this numerous times. Standardization is a benefit in itself, as casual readers may get confused when a chapter name doesn't come up in its apparent order as it would for other national groups. They (the reader) may continue to the bottom of the page, or notice that the top of the page list contains only the active groups, but warts and all, I think it better to show which chapters were formed, default sorted by date of chartering. I assume that some groups chose not to publicize their inactive groups to avoid highlighting the fact of campus failures. But that is a marketing choice which we reject here. I think Kappa Beta Gamma was one of those where I merged the Active and Dormant list. As we slowly build out these lists, I much prefer to list all the chapters formed, in order, in a single table, even if some are closed. I quickly scanned some of the more muddy situations, and note that the List of Chi Phi chapters is a significant challenge in this regard, and may be so complex that it indeed requires separate subheaders.
My practice has been to diverge from this single list model only when clarifying how a merger situation was resolved, with sections for earlier chapters from various branches carefully labeled under a clear subheader. Sigma Mu Sigma and Phi Chi (note, NOT Chi Phi) are examples of this special treatment. The Phi Chi page may still need work. The Sigma Mu Sigma page may be a good template for how to handle the list of Chi Phi chapters, referenced in the previous paragraph. Jax MN (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominees
I'll take a look when you clear the In Use tag. We've normally bolded or italicized the chapter names. Thus I would switch those incidents where the words "active" or "inactive" are in bold or italics, unless you are suggesting these to be new format and syntax ideas. . I'd also add a reference or notes column. Jax MN (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That idea is better than mine. Have fun.Naraht (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above; unless there is a good reason for splitting things, having one list (or more usefully, a table for sortability) makes much more sense. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive vs. Dormant.

It seems to me that using Dormant rather than Inactive is a euphemism, similar to saying "passed away" rather than died, which is discouraged. Is there any reason to use Dormant rather than Inactive?Naraht (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I can think of is if the fraternity or sorority uses that term itself in their official documentation, but from a consistency standpoint I would be more inclined to just use "inactive" across the board on-wiki. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was "taught" to use dormant by Jax. Is it the historical term, going back to Baird? Rublamb (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've used both, switching in order to maximize clarity. Primefac mentioned a good rationale, where the term should be used if that is what a national fraternity chooses. There are times where I have opted for Dormant because that word pops out, more so than Inactive/Active which are so similar. In the Status column I'd prefer to keep these as single words, with any detail pushed to the Notes field or even better, to an EFN. In case it helps, I wrote this up as a guideline on the Project page itself, some time ago, to clarify what words to use in the Status field:
------------
Options for the Status field should be short. As examples, use one of the following:
  • Active - (indicates there is current or imminent chapter or colony activity on the campus)
  • Colony - (or some derivative. Associate Chapter, or Provisional Chapter may be used instead.)
  • Consolidated - (for when two chapters of the same national merge. This is used when schools merge, or when chapters in two departments of the same university merge.)
  • Dormant - (or Inactive, typically for those chapters that close, clearly prior to a merger or a national closure.)
  • Disbanded - (when a chapter goes dormant at the time of a merger.)
  • Memorial - (to note when a chapter name is reserved to honor deceased members.)
  • Merged (ΑΒΓ) - when two chapters combine under the name of the successor merger partner. In the Notes field, use "Joined the existing XX chapter" or "Became the XX chapter" to differentiate between types of mergers. Also used when two schools merge, merging chapters.)
  • Moved - (used when the charter is moved, the charter following students to an adjacent school; not when reissued to another chapter. There must be a link between the groups.)
  • Reissued - (used when a charter is given to a new group at a new school, but where there is no connection to an earlier student group.) Optionally, "Reassigned" may be used for the former chapter, while "Active" (or another status) denotes the latter, receiving chapter.
  • Unassigned - (used to note a chapter name that has not yet been assigned.)
  • Withdrew - (when a chapter does not participate in a main merger. Use "Withdrew, (local)" or "Withdrew, (ΑΒΓ)" to indicate their successor, if any.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you recommend for a chapter that doesn't end, but changes its name for mysterious reasons (such as the fraternity chartered duplicate names). Or a chapter that goes dormant, but is recharted with a new name in the same year. I have followed your example of see see xxx in the name column, but am still not sure about status. Rublamb (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they change their name, just put (formerly ΣΣΣ). If a chapter gets shuttered and then re-formed, it is essentially two different chapters and should be listed as such. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we agreed to these updates? I think it is time to move the new additions, such as memorial, to the WP main article. Rublamb (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Primefac. Hope you are well; it's been sometime since we've had a dialog. May I ask why you inserted <code> around the Greek letters in the example above? Was that just shorthand where you meant the alternative language template, like {{lang|grc|ΣΣΣ}}?
To the substance of Rublamb's question, I've tried out several variations on a theme. Lately I've just been adding something like "''(See '''{{lang|grc|ΣΣΣ}})'''" where a chapter merged into another, successor fraternity and where it is presently active. I italicize the Greek letters if the chapter has gone dormant. I had previously inserted three non-breaking spaces (   ) to inset the successor name, attempting clarity, but several instances of this had been deleted by other editors, and it became a battle I wasn't convinced enough to fight. As this can become complex, I've differentiated by alerting readers to the proximate new name with "Became {{lang|grc|ΣΣΣ}}", and then "See {{lang|grc|ΜΜΜ}}" when Tri Sigma eventually merged into or became Tri-Mu. Jax MN (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put <code>...</code> tags around text where I want to highlight it; in this case to emphasise that the parentheses were also part of my example. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
------------
(Thanks for adding my signature, Primefac) I wanted to mention that I offered this guidance on the Status column as a starting point, and am certainly open to our process of dialog and consensus. Jax MN (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed these options, and realized one logical situation wasn't addressed, which happened from time to time after the Civil War. I added a line for this, "Reissued". I also updated the language on the Project page. Jax MN (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect--because I have previously used reissued! Rublamb (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both

On aKDPhi's website page about chapters, they actually have two different categories of chapters, so for them Inactive and Dormant are different... https://www.akdphi.org/chapters

Lifting of membership restrictions...

In general, is it noteworthy for the purposes of a GLO article the years in which membership restrictions were lifted. For example, in doing research after getting email from the Grand Historian of Alpha Chi Sigma, I found that Alpha Chi Sigma allowed Jews in 1948, Blacks in 1954 and women in 1970. Those belong in the article (appropriately referenced), correct? Naraht (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously included this info in the membership section. I found newspaper articles as sources, but it is also in the updated version of Bairds. Rublamb (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb Interesting. That would be for Social GLOs, I presume (since you are referring to the online which is Social only I presume) and as such gender would only be included on a few.Naraht (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With Bairds, yes. But I have also included this in for societies and orgs that are non-Greek. It is something they like to use as a bragging/talking point. Although we are getting to more than 50 years since these restrictions were legal, it is part of their history. Rublamb (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that major shifts in membership restrictions are reasonable, provided adequate coverage. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see if when the single gender Socials open themselves to Trans membership is ever grouped together in discussion the way that opening to all races or all religions are.Naraht (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure quite what you mean - I've seen a few statements made regarding trans membership (mostly allowing it). Primefac (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed some coed groups are now saying they are gender-inclusive rather than co-ed. These are changes being made at the national level. That could be covered in a Wikipedia article, but I doubt you will find newspaper articles about the change unless someone sues a group under discrimination laws or violations of university policies. Rublamb (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phi Sigma Rho is open to women and non-binary individuals. Rublamb (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bairds vs. Almanac

Pet peeve as a librarian. Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities and the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities are not the same and should be cited as different resources with different names. Baird's issued twenty editions between 1879 and 1991; many editions are found digitized through the Hathi Trust and other websites. As explained at the Almanac's website, Carroll Lurding compiled a new resource called Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities which is published online by the University of Illinois' library archives. Although the Almanac follows in tradition of Baird, it is not a continuation of Baird's and resulted from decades of research of using a wide range of materials. Baird's was one of these resources, but not the only one, making this a unique work attributed to Lurding. The Almanac is updated on a monthly basis by Fran Becque.

A correct citation for the Almanac is: Lurding, Carroll and Becque, Fran. Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities. Urbana: University of Illinois. Accessed mm/dd/year. You can also insert the specific chapter/section title in quotation marks, such as: Lurding, Carroll and Becque, Fran. "The Founding of the North-American Fraternity and Sorority System" in Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities. Urbana: University of Illinois. Accessed mm/dd/year. Of course, citation styles vary, depending on your preference. I consider Lurding to be an author rather than an editor because, unlike Baird who used various writers, this was his work. Rublamb (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much agree with the above, though I'd prefer if the Almanac had a consistent cite web. Though the question is whether the fraternity document and the sorority document need to referenced differently.Naraht (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to indicate that you used the all male, all female, or coed section as it is pretty much self-evident. But you are certainly welcome to do so. Rublamb (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have come up with another variation of this citation that might be more useful (see below). In this instance, the fraternity name is linked to the specific PDF with the content cited, while the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities is linked to the Almanac's landing page. This will be helpful if the url for the PDF changes and will also link to more details about the resource for researchers since you cannot get to the landing page from the PDF. Note that I have also included a date following the editor/authors. That is the most recent edit date which is found at the end of each PDF. The date is correct citation format and will also be helpful in determining whether or not an article includes the most current information. The only question I have unresolved in my mind is whether Lurding and Becque are editors or authors, but that is really a minor detail.
Rublamb (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages to be changed

I did a search for insource:/Baird's Manual Online Archive/ and got 191 hits in mainspace. I figure that all of these need to be altered. It may not cover everything, but I think It is a good start.Naraht (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Fraternities

I was looking at the Article for Delta Gamma. The header refers to it as a sorority, but all of the below text refers to the fraternity. I know that DG is a "women's fraternity", but any ideas on where the proper place would be for refering to that and transitioning the article?Naraht (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would let the group's preference guide this one. The history section of their website says that it was called a fraternity because it formed before the term sorority was in use. They refer to themselves as a fraternity. I also found the term "woman's fraternal organization." I would remove the term sorority from the article, and include this history of this being a fraternity. Rublamb (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the text to reflect what I found on their website. I also created a new article List of Delta Gamma chapters. I have not added all of the possible efn regarding the organizations that were absorbed to form various chapters from the Almanac. We can add that to the list of projects for someone else to help with. Rublamb (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for those NPC members that are a "woman's fraternity" where should that be used other than on the wikipedia page about that organization? For example, are any of the following preferred over the others.

Naraht (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to respond. I would use your middle option or : Smith was a member of Delta Gamma. If the reader wants to know more, they can follow the link. Rublamb (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing Fraternity or Sorority (and with/without Inc.)

Looking at the capitalization of Fraternity/Sorority and wanted to throw some cases out here to get opinions on capitalization (and sort of the use of Inc./Incorporated)

  • Smith was a brother of Sigma Nu fraternity.
  • Jones was one of the six founders of Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
  • Abrams was the architect of three historical buildings including the Sigma Nu Fraternity House. (note, this also leads to the question of capitalization if Sigma Nu Fraternity House is an article.
  • Brown was made an honorary member of Sigma Nu fraternity (does it matter if they were made a national honorary member?)
  • Grant was the 16th National President of Sigma Nu Fraternity (not really sure here whether it should be capitalized and if capitalized, whether it should have inc.)
  • Chester was the 4th National Chaplain of Sigma Nu Fraternity. (similar to Grant)
  • On the Sigma Nu wikipedia page, First sentence can have Sigma Nu Fraternity, Incorporated
  • References aren't limited. If the publisher is shown in the book as "Sigma Nu Fraternity, Incorporated" that is how it is in the references.
    • tables.
    • table of members of councils at a University. No capitalization, no inc. Only include fraternity/sorority if mixed names in the council (so Sigma Nu in the IFC table, Delta Sigma Theta sorority in the NPHC table).
    • table of members of councils on wikipedia page about that greek umbrella (so National Pan-Hellenic Council for example)

I can't come up with any cases where fraternity/sorority are uncapitalized *and* the inc/incorporated should be used. And yes, I'm using Sigma Nu here, even though the NPHC groups (and to some extent NALFO) are where I run into my largest questions. Naraht (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My short version of the answer is "I think it depends on the context". I see nothing horribly wrong with with any of your examples, and it mostly comes down to whether we are referring to The Fraternity or a fraternity. Founders, presidents, etc would be more referenced to "The", whereas simply being a member is "the". Of course, any time the full title (with or without Inc) should be capitalised. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: In 1958, the fraternity added a new chapter. (lower case is preferred). Rublamb (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to say preferred by MOS:INSTITUTIONS. So, yes, capitalize when using as part of the formal full name; no cap if using as a stand-along term even if referring to a specific group. Putting my grammar hat on, "Sigma Nu fraternity" should be correct vs. "Sigma Nu Fraternity" because 1) it is not the formal name and 2) "fraternity" is an adjective in this instance, with "Sigma Nu" being the noun. That why it works as either "Sigma Nu" or "Sigma Nu fraternity". Does that seem right? Rublamb (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a long-ish back-and-forth with a few other editors on this. For clarity I tend to veer from this in one specific area: In a discussion about Kappa Sigma, when mentioning that specific fraternity in body text without its formal name, I will use something like this: "Johnson noted that the Fraternity set up its endowment fund in 1950..." --Here, "fraternity" is capitalized because it is referring to a specific fraternity, and by capitalizing the word it indicates such specificity. I do enough contract editing work that I follow this rule which may have entered common use from that angle. Defined terms, or what's called "terms of art" are capitalized, in all manner of legal and technical writing. I feel pretty strongly that this helps us be more clear. Jax MN (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of conversations back when I worked in university fundraising. The vice chancellor insisted that we capitalize university, as in "Things are going really well at the University this year." However, the staff of the PR office, who were the division's proofreaders, maintained that this was incorrect and that lower case should be used. Of course, they were using the Associated Press Stylebook which minimizes capitalizations for space in typesetting. Because the boss said so, we agreed this was an internal style rule. That and the Oxford comma. Since then, I have used the AP Stylebook for work in public relations and both MLA, APA, and Chicago for graduate school. Chicago was my undergrad stylebook and still tends to be the most formal, although it has changed over the years. In its current edition, Chicago says that shortened institutional or company names, as in university or fraternity, are lowercased when used alone. However, it notes that these terms are "routinely capitalized in promotional materials". This is consistent with both your work and my experience at the university. Granted, Wikipedia does not follow a single style guide. However, Chicago is the only one that I know of that allows any exception for this type of capitalization. My read on this is that such capitalizations are promotional in nature and, therefore, would not be correct for an encyclopedia entry. Rublamb (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multi college chapters

While working on List of Lambda Upsilon Lambda chapters, I ran into a new one--multiple colleges as part of the same chapter. Originally, the various colleges were listed in the same cell but that was problematic as some institutions had dropped out while others remained active. Can someone take a look and let me know if my solution makes sense? Are there other examples of this that I can refer to?

Also, someone had updated the status of many chapters to inactive; this inactivity apparently took place during COVID. I cannot confirm this in the Almanac or on the fraternity's national website, but did find that all of those chapters are no longer listed on their respective university's website. Although I can't use this lack-of-a-presence as a reference, I decided it was reasonable to leave as is until we get out of COVID and national's website catches up and/or the chapters become active again. Rublamb (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which chapters have some dormant and some active?Naraht (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zeta, according to the comments left by another editor. Also, there is something weird with Alpha. I have a gut feeling that there this fraternity may have chapters that are operating despite not being affiliated with the university.Rublamb (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start a discussion with that editor (DovahDuck, I believe) and for other fraternity/sororities in that situation (for example everything at Harvard that stayed active), I've seen simply no change (Active is still Active) or changes to "Active to unrecognized by school". As far as I'm concerned the National Organization has the say on that. As for groups which are Underground (Unrecognized by their National), it should simply be inactive unless something really odd is happening.
To put some structure around this, while today's model of a single chapter assignation going to a single school is the far dominant model, in some cases, things had diverged. Sigma Thêta Pi is an example of a fraternity that where a single chapter serves multiple universities. The Divine nine have many chapters that are community-based, and may serve multiple schools. Conversely, there are single schools that have had multiple chapters of the same fraternity or sorority, but in every such situation I recall (save one), these have coalesced into a single chapter, with the other branches "retired". There was one engineering school, Kettering, I think, that had an academic model where the students would spend half their time in practical work in the field, and half in the classroom. An engineering fraternity there had an "A group" and a "B group", depending on which of them was presently in the classroom, each with separate leadership. Last I checked, one side was stronger than another, and the situation may have led to a merger, since 2019. (If anyone looks it up, please edit this comment for accuracy.) Some of these odd situations evolved at formation, at the site of an Alpha chapter before the national model of one-chapter-per-school came into place. I recall that one NPC sorority or a predecessor group had three chapters at the same school, groups of perhaps six girls, later merging into one unit. There are several early examples of this among the professional fraternities: check the Chiropractic, Osteopathic or Homeopathy fraternities before 1900; see A.T. Still University of Kirksville, etc. Jax MN (talk) 19 December 2022
I am thinking of the kind of underground where the fraternity is either banned or kicked off the campus, but still has a charter with national and meets in secret. In some cases, the college does not care. In others, students are told they will be expelled if caught. Rublamb (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could simply call these sub rosa, independent or "community" chapters. This constitutes a range of linkage to a campus, to your point. MIT has one of these, a multicultural group called Chi Lambda Mu that operates around the university, accepted, but without representation in a sanctioned body. On the other end of the scale, Delta Psi (St. Anthony Hall) has been rumored to have a sub rosa chapter at Williams College that is completely underground, if it exists. Jax MN (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the action that a university will take if they find out that a student is a member of an unrecognized chapter of a national group is something that does *not* belong on either the page for the fraternity or the page for the chapter list of the fraternity. It may belong on the page for the university or the page for the Greek Letter Organizations at the University.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As Jax said above, for the list we just need to know if it is considered active or not. For example, St. A's Williams, if active underground, would be inactive on the list, while Chi Lambda Mu would be included. In this instance, I was simply trying to determine the disconnect between the national list and the campus fraternity lists, but never mind.
Back to my main question, what do you both think of my solution for the table itself? Rublamb (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused on your example, Is St. A a fraternity (St. Anthony's Hall?). As for the table, I'd feel more comfortable with the change if the one example of a split for the Rhode Island chapters actually had a reference. If it is referenceable, then I'm fine with this, but I'm not convinced the change is specifically needed for all of the fraternities that have multi-school chapters (so for example, doing this to Alpha Epsilon Pi wouldn't be a high priority at all.Naraht (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, St. Anthony Hall. I don't think a change is needed with other articles until there is an issue. The three possible issues I can think of: different joining dates (as in the Tau chapter of Lambda Upsilon Lamda), different cities represented within the chapter (as in the Zeta, Xi, Omega, and Nu chapters of Lambda Upsilon Lambda), or differences in status between chapters (as in the Zeta chapter of Lambda Upsilon Lambda).
I too would be more comfortable with a source on all of the chapter closings for this fraternity (except Epsilon which has sources). Right now, I can prove they don't exist as a campus recognized entity. We'll see if I get a response from DovahDuck. Rublamb (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just discovered a benefit of listing each chapter on its own row (with the other data merged into single cells). When you sort by institution, each member of the multi-chapter will sort alphabetically with the other data attached. See Sigma Iota Alpha that I have recently worked on and try sorting by institution. Rublamb (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Substandard chapter lists

This is a working list of substandard or missing chapter lists, which merit the attention of Project editors. Strikeout when each article is fixed. The comment thread below discusses good template examples. Jax MN (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) (R) indicates a Redirect page has been created.Naraht (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at BSP's website. There are 5,444 entries on the list. To pick a semi-random city, there are 5 in Medicine Hat, Alberta. I'm sure the two-letter code that starts the chapter number means *something* but not sure what. I simply can't see getting a list of 5,444 on Wikipedia, perhaps we shouldn't have one for Beta Sigma Phi. Naraht (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-collegiate group, they are lower on my priority list. That is a big number of people claimed as members for a group I never hear about. Jax MN (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But the following piece of information may help explain. From BSP membership rules. "Membership in a particular chapter is limited to 25 members." I'll change the number on the article to the 5,444 and I agree a lower priority.Naraht (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Naraht and Rublamb, the list for Chi Omega is a larger project, and I would like your advice. It being one of the earlier contributions to WP, the original list, while limited in detail, was one of those that used a grey highlight color to note inactive chapters. I've kept that style option, and kind of like it. Your thoughts? Also, I'm using their terminology for dormant, reassigned chapters, where they would refer to one as Upsilon (Old). Methodically working through the Baird's Archive I've caught several missing chapters, both here and in the Archive. Finally, note that Oglethorpe's original chapter name was re-assigned, post WWII, but an Oglethorpe chapter was re-established under a new name. Shall I call the earlier version Sigma Gamma (Old), and note it as Reassigned? Or Inactive? --I was thinking that "Inactive" could be read as "no chapter at the school" for the casual researcher, and I wish to avoid that. This list, when done, will have an enormous number of EFNs. Thoughts? Finally, is it enough to simply note at the top that most lines reference the Baird's Archive, thus avoiding noting this among the references for each chapter? It's repetitive. I could, of course, barrel through this 'boldly,' but we're collaborative, I value your contributions, and also wish to capture this conversation for newbies. Jax MN (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC) (later updated for tense, and a redirected WL.)[reply]
Jax MN. Yes, I can see it. I used the highlighting for List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters, still not sure it was worth it. I'm fine with their terminology. Reassigned is fine when Phi was used for U of Michigan before and now is Cal State Fullerton. The other situation we already have a chapter list with the situation List of Kappa Alpha Psi chapters. Where up to a certain point,the school had "Alpha Beta" chapter, but after that point, it was "Gamma Delta". They use "Letters Retired" and that seems appropriate. And if I've got a chapter list where 90% of the information comes from a single source, I just put it up at the top (even if I have to make up a sentence stub to attach it to.Naraht (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to take so long to respond. Thanks for tackling this one. I have been avoiding the ones with colored cells. I am going to say no on colored cells for reasons of redundancy, work load, and accessibility. We already define inactive with a status column and bolding/italic of the chapter name. A third identification seems excessive. As Naraht indicated, it is another level of work. More articles lack this formatting than have it, so it would be adding a huge project. Finally, and this is my most important note, I am pretty sure that the reduction in contrast between the font and background color negatively impacts the readability for people with certain visual impairments. Rublamb (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the national groups have added "their" colors as highlights, or at subsection breaks. I totally understand taking that level of care to dress up a page you care about. These mostly appeared long ago, before we started to standardize. So, when I left the Chi Omega grey highlights in, I wanted to respect that early effort. But you do raise a valuable point with the lack of contrast. Hmm. Shall I experiment with a lighter grey? Also, when it comes down to it, I sense that allowing this kind of mild customization helps us nurture new editors, and respecting their growth, I don't want to be so rigid about a small issue. Jax MN (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I have steered away from colored lists. Rublamb (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the Chi O list I lightened the gray (grey?) highlight color by about 50% from its earlier saturation. This will allow better contrast on varying types of screens. Maybe it is my old eyes, but I am starting to like the use of that highlight color, even though it is redundant. I also like the use of a trailing medium dash after the year, where a chapter is active. Even better than using, say, the word "present". Thoughts? Jax MN

(talk) 17:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

I did not respond previously, but it is correct to list the source in the sentence before the table and/or to create a sentence as a placeholder for the source. When I am updating a large table, I will frequently add the source to each row as a note to myself that I have verified that content against Bairds or whatever source I am reviewing. It is an over-sourcing according to most people, but it helps me identify content that did not come from the listed source (which is frequently the case). However, providing a reference for each entry is helpful if a mix of sources is used. But if just one source is used for every single entry, then listing it at the top seems to follow MOS. The exception to all of this is if there is a source that is specific to one or two chapters or their efn, such as an article about a chapter being banned. That source should always be listed in the table, not at the top. So, yeah, don't get influenced by my excessive sourcing--it is a tool that could actually be changed after I have finished the edit/review. With regards to using either a hyphen or "-present" after the chartered date for active chapters, I guess I tend to be minimalist on this one as I do not do either. Or maybe I get this from the Almanac? I don't think it matters as long as the style is consistent throughout the list. The only consideration might be that any of the editors who update Greek articles are not familiar with the different hyphens or how them, resulting in the need for more corrections. Rublamb (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enos733 A few additional points. To be standard, I think the dates should be of the format {{dts|1999|12|31}} but the current format does allow for proper sorting, which is a surprise. Also, the only fraternity that I've seen that IMO makes sense to split by country is Alpha Phi Omega, because they are separate national organizations which, for example, don't have control over the other creating new chapters in their country. Unless there is something similar for Kappa Sigma in Canada, I think they should be combined.Naraht (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian chapters are combined in the main list. Some editor (a while ago) split out the Canadian chapters individually, so they are listed twice - my guess for readability for viewers from Canada who may be searching for Canadian chapters. - Enos733 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Done Rublamb (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list, now much updated, was originally collected by Jax MN (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of defunct national Greek organizations, and their chapter lists may also need work. Jax MN (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jax MN Which fraternity or sorority do you think should be used as the model? Naraht (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. There are two solid template types, one using a standard template model, such as List of Zeta Psi chapters, and others using a generic list with ad hoc columns designed for that purpose, such as List of Beta Theta Pi chapters or the Alpha Delta Phi Society. The latter of these two added a useful column to note the dates of origination in ADPhi Fraternity, and also a date of establishment into the Society. I'd suggest those as good examples.
Prior to our Project group's efforts to standardize there were some good ideas offered, such as color coding. I also don't know what to do about the split between Canadian and US chapters. --I think the reason these were offered is to provide some visibility to the fact of a Canadian presence. I can accept that as a reasonable accommodation, for the purpose of clarity and not just as a marketing tool. Where some groups have listed only their active groups, or have pushed these to the top, where this has come up I have opted to include inactive groups by date in their lists. Also, where I prefer to list groups by date of initial charter, it appears some groups have divided these to take the focus away from earlier chapter failures. While I understand the desire by these closely-involved editors not to lead with the fact of such closures, still, that appears to be purely a marketing decision which we tend to dismiss. This had come up with Kappa Beta Gamma and with List of Theta Phi Alpha chapters, both of which we revised to show inactive groups by date. We've done some really good lists lately, such as Delta Phi, St. Anthony Hall and Zeta Psi, which nevertheless may still need some touchup. But with this list I wanted to identify the major updates to these lists that are still waiting for attention. Jax MN (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask that if a volunteer embarks on a multi-day project, they would please note this visibly against the national organization name here? It may avoid duplication of efforts. Thank all of you for working on these pages. Jax MN (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Redirects

I'm quite willing to make the redirects. I believe that the standard should be the following. Mu Mu Mu should have a section called Chapters and List of Mu Mu Mu chapters should be a redirect to Mu Mu Mu#Chapters. List of Mu Mu Mu chapters should be in Mu Mu Mu.

Does that look right?Naraht (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And a standalone List page is preferable to a redirect, when the chapter count reaches, say, 25 or more. Jax MN (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. a "real" list overwriting a redirect isn't exactly uncommon. :)Naraht (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

with redirects

So List of Delta Phi Epsilon (social) chapters or List of Delta Phi Epsilon chapters (social) ?Naraht (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the existence of List of Georgia (U.S. state) companies and List of Washington (state) companies , I think List of Delta Phi Epsilon (social) chapters.Naraht (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC) (R)[reply]
Good addition. I agree. Jax MN (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of fraternities at schools

Rublamb added the following lists-by-school under the header of substandard lists, articles which may need attention. Our current effort to update lists-by-fraternity is substantial, so I thought it is preferable to split this new category of updates to a separate effort. As a framework, please see the note on our Watchlist, explaining the types of these lists-by-school. I strongly prefer the Cornell model, but as I was closely involved in developing it, I invite criticism or suggestions. Here, I came to support the more condensed list (as in the Cornell, MIT, Wooster and Minnesota pages) rather than forcing use of a table. In these instances, I think the more tight presentation meets the needs of the audience, while Wikilinks, refs and notes easily allow further detail.

Bold and Italics

When was consensus reached about putting active chapters in bold and inactive chapters in italics. I personally think the use of bold and italics is visually unappealing, especially if we can sort a table by "status" - quickly finding out whether a chapter is currently active? --Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been that way for years. This formatting adopted the model used in the print editions of Baird's, and even the online Archive. Jax MN (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that the use of bold and italics here runs counter to this community's manual of style, where the use of bold and italics are limited to certain uses - Enos733 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Remember that these are guidelines written as broad instructions, aimed at making Wikipedia clear and succinct. This manner of usage is consistent across all these Greek Letter Organization articles and their related articles, and is consistent with a standard developed over 140 years by our premier reference in multiple volumes, and from that, many, many subsequent books and publications that have followed that GLO style guide. Thus one would fight uphill to make that significant of a block of changes. Many, many users would be alarmed to see an accepted stylesheet, internally consistent along thousands of articles, be questioned and, to their view, degraded in quality. Wikipedia is collaborative and users are encouraged to change it for the better. So you might of course start changing all of these articles, but while that may meet an exact interpretation of the MOS, still, the MOS is a guideline; its purpose is to achieve clarity. The uproar over this would take away from the important work of bringing the stubs and incomplete articles up to a minimal level of quality. Therefore I suggest there are many other places where experienced editor labor is needed. But by bringing this up correctly, on the Talk page as you did, at least we can discuss a consensus position, which I think already exists. Jax MN (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this to a primary discussion to invite more participation. The column with status is fine when the chapter list is short but is not very helpful for longer lists. Sorting that column isn't a perfect solution because active/inactive are not the only status options that we use. A chapter could be inactive, but fall under withdrawn, merged, or reassigned for its status. Active chapters could have the status colony. Thus, the bolding/italic system is not completely redundant to the status column. A key advantage of the bolding/italic system is that it calls attention to the active chapters, especially with long lists. When we merged tables of active and inactive chapters (a system previously used in many articles), this was an important strategy in keeping everyone happy with these changes. As in: we know it is harder to spot the active chapters in a merged table, but the bolding helps. I also prefer the bold/italic system over the use of colored cells, which we have found in some articles. I agree that as we move data into tables, being able to sort makes this system redundant. Although I am totally willing to discuss a change, Jax MN is correct that it would be a major decision to change this component, impacting way more articles than I care to think about updating. Rublamb (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the use of bold and italics is visually unappealing" – yes, and this is not an MoS-sanctioned use of either. WP follows its own style manual; we do not willy-nilly import "rules" from off-site publishers, especially ones like this which contextually mean nothing at all to 99.9999% of our readers, only big fans of the GLO style guide.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Greek Letter Organization (GLO) style for sure, showing up in both publications and websites of many of the groups, not just in Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities (published 1879-1991) and the current Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities published by the University of Illinois. Since I regularly remove excessive bolding from articles I run across, I can see how this might be off-putting in GLO articles. Having said that, many WPs have their own style that breaks from MOS. I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that it is something that is common and not necessarily a deal breaker in the decision here. (This WP also use tables rather than bulleted lists which is in progress of becoming a new the Wikipedia standard, but has not yet been added to MOS.) To me, the best case for making this change is not esthetic, but that it potentially would be much easier for new editors and those outside of the WP to participate and make changes if the WP follows MOS whenever possible.
Another editor and I recently discussed that it is more important to get coverage and accurately sourced content for the GLOs articles than to worry about the details of how we punctuate or format the data. So, even if the decision is made drop the bolding and italicizing of chapter names moving forward, I am not sure how much effort should be put into making changes to a decades worth of articles. Our group's tech guru would need to confirm, but I do not think we could automate this change across existing articles. It would be quick to fix tables in visual editing as you can highlight and change the entire column with a few clicks, but many of the articles still lack a table or were created using the WP's template that has to be updated manually via source editing.
In addition, if bolding/italic is removed from the first column, we should consider the location of the Status column, which is currently to the far right, last only behind notes and references. I would advocate for repositioning the Status to a more visible location, such as immediately following the Chartered/Range column. Certainly, we need to consider all issues that will be impacted before making a what seems like a minor change, but will actually have a huge impact on the WP and its work. This impact and the large number of impacted articles being a the best reason not to make a change. For those who would like to see this change, are you willing to commit hours of time fixing articles? This is important to how I view this possible change. Rublamb (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter web pages in External Links.

I'd like to know if the following is too strict a measure. "If a national website exists and is active, no chapter websites should be in External Links". (Epsilon Tau Pi is the one that sparked this thought)Naraht (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should rely on the guidelines for external links. Does the linked website provide added content that is not included in the article? Is it presented in a credible way that could meet the requirement for a Wikipedia source? Meaning not wiki that students maintain, but perhaps something professionally made by the associated alumni group. I am thinking of St. Anthony Hall where the chapter websites include detailed chapter histories and sometimes panoramic photos of the historic chapter houses (look at their Trinity chapter website, for example). This is added content that is not on the national website.
When I look at the Epsilon Tau Pi example, the chapter websites don't seem to add anything, and I agree that they should be removed. However, the foundation website could stay (but I would rather scoop info from it and use it as a source in the article).
I do see some nuance for St. Anthony Hall. Not quite IAR, but I can understand it. The National website should of course be used in the infobox and I simply can't see a situation a national website of *any* quality isn't going to be used for *something*, even if number of active chaptersNaraht (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree in principle with this. No need to duplicate the national website, as long as it is linked in the infobox.
In the very few instances where an historical chapter building is featured with its own article, this may reasonably be an exception to the rule of ~chapter websites, not that it is an external site, but that such a building's WP article might be featured as a link.
The St. Anthony websites are interesting due to the fact that so many of their buildings are on the national historic register, or are architecturally significant. A few chapters of other fraternities could reasonably be noted, on that basis. Jax MN (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found the answer when digging deeper into the guidelines for external links. WP:ELMIN says, "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances." So, generally, links to chapters' websites should not be included in the external links section. We don't need a WP rule, but can apply this guideline as needed. Rublamb (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

School Name changes.

I noticed that Houston Baptist University is now Houston Christian University What is standard procedure for chapter lists that contain it?

  1. No change, the redirect is fine and it should have the name of the school when it chartered.
  2. Change now.
  3. Something else?

Naraht (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How I've been addressing this depends on the (subjective) notability of the school, and how recent the name change was. In the case of Samford University I call out its former name of Howard College in EFNs. As a stylistic point I've been naming the EFN and posting it both in the ref field and against the school name where the change is recent. In the case of Houston Baptist, I'd ramp this up a bit, and place a parenthetical note against the new school name noting the previous name; in a few years that can subside into an EFN. I routinely update school names to their current syntax in Wikipedia, for example editing University of Nebraska at Kearney in place of University of Nebraska-Kearney. In our List pages I think it important to note school name changes when they occur, but giving amateur sleuths the tipoff where grandma's school had a different name than it carries today. Like Duke University, versus its old name. In the case of George Washington University, that name change was so long ago that even the youngest alumni of Columbian University are no longer alive; but I still note the name change as a reference item because old GLO charters or documents will refer to it. Just my thoughts. Jax MN (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying I am always consistent, but I try to use the current name if the chapter is still active and the older name if inactive. I have also added a note if the school had a completely different name when the chapter was founded. In the example of Duke, if the chapter went dormant in the 1890s, Trinity College would be the institution name in the table. If the chapter was founded in the 1890s but is still active, I would use Duke University but should add an efn indicating that the college was called Trinity when the chapter formed. Another thought--sometimes the historic college name does not exist as redirect in Wikipedia. Being lazy with regards to creating the redirect I have used this format: Trinity College (now Duke University) with the link being on the latter. (Obviously Duke is not a real example of this). Jax, I think the key is using notes as you suggest. Rublamb (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Members placed in fraternity category?

Roshjogers is adding notable members of Psi U to the Psi Upsilon article, and frankly doing a pretty good job of it. However, he is also adding those people to Category:Psi Upsilon which I don't believe is appropriate. I'd like to discuss here. (If we are sure, then I think we need to do the equivalent to Category:Delta Sigma Theta, though in that case, they are all in a subcat Category:Delta Sigma Theta members.Naraht (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht first off I appreciate the compliment. For context I added members that were listed in Psi U's General Catalogue (found here: https://archive.org/details/twelfthgeneralca00psiurich/) and have been able to match names to wikipedia pages (e.g. there ages, years they got their degrees, etc. line up). In terms of adding members to the category, I was following precedent but if that needs to be changed then I am all for it. Our wikipedia pages were looking pretty rough/depleted and I've made it a personal project to add a lot of context but if there needs to be a more formulaic system for that then I am happy to help however I can. Roshjogers (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht, you are our expert on setting up and using categories, but I believe @Roshjogers is correctly following precedent in using the fraternity category for individual members. But your point for discussion is valid. My general response is that changing to having both a fraternity and members category for most fraternities/sororities is going to be lot of work. Is there really a need for two categories--the fraternity and fraternity members? I am trying to think of a reason to use the fraternity category, if not for members, and can only come up with historic buildings with stand-along articles and links to photos in Wikicommons. Are there so many of these that it is confusing to share the same category with individual members? I honestly have never looked, but am thinking there are more members than the other uses. What is the general rule about creating categories and determining a need for it? Rublamb (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb I believe that the issue is with WP:CATDEF. That membership in Mu Mu Mu is not a defining characteristic of a person in the way that being born in Maine or attending Harvard University. OTOH, being President of Mu Mu Mu is. I'll take a look through the archives for catdef and defining. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_6#Lists_being_created_of_members_of_Sororities Which also includes links to three AFDs. Adding a call to Primefac for his expert opinion. Naraht (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psi U specific

(Since I got a conflict. :) )

Roshjogers that's a pretty good start. If you have access to a later issue of the General Catalogue (even if not online) then go ahead and use that as a source, references don't have to be online. If you have an "almost" line up, I'll be happy to give an opinion. As for the category, I started it here to get more comments. At *worst*, I'll take care of cleanup. :)
The chapter list could use somework as well. See above discussions for which have been brought up to standard as examples. The primary thing that you can help with is pulling the chartering *dates* (and inactivity dates if possible) from the General Catalogue (or elsewhere) if they exist. the format used is {{dts|1999|12|31}}, but anything that you can provide.
The fact that you used "Our" indicates a Conflict of Interest. (which some most of us here do). I'm pretty sure that putting the text {{User PsiU}} on your user page will take care of it.Naraht (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off I appreciate the help! I completely agree with Rublamb's point about potentially having a need for two categories. It's tricky because like he said, if we move all alumni to an 'alumni of Psi U' page, that would leave like two or three things in the Psi Upsilon category. I understand that our page definitely needs a lot of clean up and I'd be happy to assist with that. as to your first point I couldn't find a later version but I am very confident that all of the names I added coincide with whats in the book (degree, degree years, grad/law schools, towns/careers all line up perfectly). I have not touched chapters at all but I think that would be a fun overhaul project and I'd be happy to get to work on that! I'm happy to help anyway I can. If it wasn't obvious I am a Psi U member and I am excited to keep working on this page! I'm excited to work on this with you! Roshjogers (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still more accurate, IMO, than simply having them all in Category:Psi Upsilon. Oh, it was obvious. :) Have fun. I did some merging of references. Long term, you may not want to have a link to the page, and consider using Template:rp. that would allow for all of the entries for the General catalog to be merged in the ref table.Naraht (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Tau split-outs?

Could people take a look at Theta Tau and indicate whether the convention section and/or chapters section should be split out into separate articles? Both seem long/complete.Naraht (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that certainly, the list of chapters should be split out to a separate page. While the information value of the list of conventions seems lesser, maybe that should be its own page too. Not as much a priority in my opinion as splitting the chapter list page. One could make the argument that the convention list table is historical, and should fit under that subheader. Jax MN (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologizing in advance for being blunt, I do not believe that convention dates and locations belong in Wikipedia, other than mentions of the the first national convention or of a convention where mergers or major changes to the constitution/by laws were made. A list of convention dates, themes, and hotels clearly falls under WP:NOT. I have yet to remove such a list from a fraternity/sorority article because I do honor the level of work put into creating it, but I would never give such a list its own article. Firstly, this content is usually unsourced, comes from an insider, or is from primary sources and, therefore, should not be in Wikipedia. Secondary, simply having a convention is not noteworthy. Almost every association, organization, society, and club has annual conventions, annual shows, annual meetings, or annual events at the national, regional, and/or local levels. Thirdly, many of these groups are marginally notable based on a lack of sources, much less their conventions. If you apply just the standard for reliable sources, does Theta Tau's list of conventions meet the Wikipedia standard for an article? Rublamb (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion that these convention lists were added because a society didn't have much to write about. I side with you on this, that these lists aren't really useful for Wikipedia, except noting specific conventions where substantial actions took place. (Title IX changes, or first convention, or major legislation, etc.) Jax MN (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; lists, no, significant conventions, yes (in prose of course). Primefac (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reconsidering my original thought of leaving existing convention lists. I just realized that others may copy this format, resulting in more of this unnecessary convention lists. I am not going to hunt for them, but will remove if I come across them--unless there are objections. Rublamb (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Phi and Greek Letter Men of New York.

I've added in most of the Sigma Phi alumni mentioned in Greek Letter Men of New York. (A few, I'm not sure were Wikinotable) Among the entries, there are *Eleven* entries that are some version of [[United States Congressman]] from New York. These have all be verified. Note, I found https://history.house.gov/People/Search/ *very* useful in tracking down congressmen from last names (in one case misspelled!) and initials. Naraht (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico fraternities

Does anyone know a source for info on PR-based fraternities? Rublamb (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. I tried Google searching for the first two on the list of Puerto Rico Fraternities (Mu Alpha Phi and Phi Eta Mu) and didn't get anything particularly focused. I'm not sure it is as bad as the Philippines, but still not as easy as USA.Naraht (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if there is anything specif you would like to know and I can try and find a source even if it is in spanish. Most sources for Puerto Rico GLO will be in spanish. El Johnson (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One source for all, not so much.. The oldest ones were included in very old copies of Bayrds. I have included a lot of references for Phi Sigma Alpha, including a recent a local bill to declare a state Fraternities and Sororities Day that mentions the oldest ones. El Johnson (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAB articles.

I've got a list of GLO related Disambiguation pages at User:Naraht/Greek dab. If you know of any more, let me know and I'll add.Naraht (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I list those I know of, searchable with the string "DAB", on the Watchlist page. (From Jax MN)

Chapters for the deceased

List of Omega Psi Phi chapters is a good example showing that a specific chapter (in this case Omega, which is probably the most common) is reserved for the deceased. However, I'd like to talk about what should be done in general.

  1. Deceased is, I believe, a discouraged term based on my reading of WP:EUPH . Should we change the terminology?
  2. Should these chapter designations be in the tabled list of chapters (in this case, between Psi and Alpha Alpha) or not. For at least one of the groups I've found, the group won't reach their "chapter for the deceased" for decades.

Naraht (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. Maybe we should routinely call these Memorial Chapters. In some cases (like Chi Omega) all chapter names with "Omega" in them have gone disused. Edits are coming in from their archivist, so I still await a definitive word from them for the reason these are not used. But for the prime series, Omega chapter is specifically denotes as a memorial designation. Jax MN (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fran indicated to me in an email last week that this had come up in a 2014 discussion on the death of Louis Zemperini, a Kappa Sig. He was noted by them as having entered the Chapter Celestial. Pi Beta Phi responded they do not have a specific designation. Chi Omega noted theirs as Omega Chapter. Phi Kappa Psi similarly has a Chapter Eternal, as does Phi Sigma Kappa. Phi Gamma Delta terms them "Ad Astra", or "To the Stars", part of a larger phrase they use: “Fratres qui fuerunt sed nunc ad astra” (Brothers who were, but are now with the stars). Fran quoted all this from a July 5, 2014 discussion on a Facebook page for F&S Archivists. One of the newer Asian-interest multicultural sororities, Delta Phi Lambda reserves their Delta chapter to denote deceased sisters. A sister of that group shyly mentioned it to me as if it was somewhat of a private matter. When I told her that most groups used a similar designation, she explained the missing chapter letter among their groups, for which I had been searching, so I simply noted it on their list as "Reserved". Jax MN (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To specifically answer your question, I would include this in the table, in order, without date of establishment. If the group hasn't yet reached Omega in the alphabet, I would simply place it last on the table. Then, label it Memorial or Reserved, and in cases like Fiji, note the Ad Astra designation in an EFN. It should neither be bolded nor italicized, but rendered in plain text. Jax MN (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like "Memorial". It seems to be neutral and non-Euphemistic. I'm not sure where we should place one that isn't in the normal sequence (like chapter eternal) though.Naraht (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be a perfect solution that works elegantly in all cases, but I too like Memorial as a generic descriptor, and would place it wherever in the alphabet it comes up (at "Omega" or "Delta", etc.), or at the end of the table if they haven't placed it yet. Jax MN (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I do not think any "memorial" chapter should be listed in the list of chapters as they are not a regular chapter. I do like the note of prose in List of Omega Psi Phi chapters mentioning the fact that the organization does have a chapter for deceased individuals but reserves a Greek letter for the deceased. I also do not think that other mentions, such as "Chapter Eternal" need any mention in the list of chapters. --Enos733 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Enos. I understand your point, and offer this. When a fraternity or sorority chapter name is missing from among the 24 letters of the standard Greek alphabet, people will question this, and wonder what became of it. Was there an error or omission? By listing it, we reduce the need for a frustrating search on their part. Further, some fraternities write articles posthumously about important alumni, noting they are "in the Omega Chapter" a euphemism, certainly, but without understanding the person is deceased, or that that chapter name is a simple memorial marker, it could lead to confusion where a family researcher is attempting to hone in on a person's chapter and school. Because of these two reasons, we allow for a line listing the memorial chapter name. Jax MN (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to put the note in the prose before the list of chapters. - Enos733 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List

From above plus study. Listing the fraternity, entry may be in separate list page. (https://www.franbecque.com/page/58/ , when I found it, contributed about half.)

In Letter Sequence

(GREEK LETTER ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Not in Letter Sequence

(GREEK LETTER ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Not an entry

The Alpha Delta Phi chapter at McGill is known as the Memorial chapter, but is a normal chapter.

Delta Sigma Theta

I'd appreciate additional eyes on the end of the year changes to Delta Sigma Theta. I thought I'd ask here and then on the talk page.Naraht (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Delta Sigma Theta or Delta Sigma Theta (professional)? Jax MN (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first.Naraht (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large "see also" by type of group.

Recently, I believe that a large number of see alsos were added in order to have all pharmacy groups have see alsos to other. I think that in this case and similar, that having templates by type of group would be better.Naraht (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too. I did nothing yet, but thought about changing to the specific Pharmaceutical and pharmacological sub-section of the Professional fraternities and sororities article. Is that okay, or is it only correct to refer to the main article? Rublamb (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, I see them as crossing over between Professionals and Honorary.Naraht (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created those subsections, following the model used for medical and legal fraternities. These show both professional and honor societies, allowing comparison by casual readers. By "template by type", do you mean that these subheaders and their content would be removed, and access to these links would be demoted to a group link at the very bottom of the page? Jax MN (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Template, yes. These are a consistent group of links (minus the one for the article). That is a perfect example of what a template *should* be.Naraht (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar idea, but easier for the current problem. List both Honor society and Professional fraternities and sororities under See Also, removing list of individual chapters (unless it is a sister or brother chapter). This should cover all related groups that @Jax MN wanted to include and will allow us to update the lists within the Honor society and Professional fraternities and sororities articles without worrying about changes impacting a large number of pages.
If we want to be more inclusive, we could create a template as @Naraht suggests that is a "master list" of all of the articles that list the various types of fraternities/sororities/societies. This master list would include in all specific fraternity/sorority/society articles, regardless of type. That way, Jewish fraternities, service, LBGTQ, social, professional, honor society, etc.—which might relate to a given article currently or sometime in the future—would be present. As an added benefit, this would give greater visibility to the WP efforts. The downside of such a comprehensive master list is that some lists might not relate to a given article in any way and would, therefore, be a bit confusing. Regardless, I like the template idea. Wishing it could be implemented via automation, but there are probably too many existing variations to consider. Thoughts? Rublamb (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer simply creating by type. For example, for those with all of the other Optometry groups (honorary or professional) in a see also, there should be an optometry GLO template.Naraht (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really worth it to have a template that only reflates to five or six articles? Templates are new to me so I am trying to see the advantage of one for this situation. Rublamb (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Delta - Optometry

While looking at the Professional Fraternities without references, I found quite a bit on Omega Delta. Given that it is in 1977 Bairds (and at least one prior edition) as a national (at least 11 chapters at some point). I'm going to try to create a draft page for it. May not be ready today, but soon. Naraht (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back I wrote an article, Epsilon Psi Epsilon, also for an optometry society. I found a number of locals and a museum that may provide you some additional citable information. Staff was helpful. The Epsilon Psi Epsilon article notes Omega Delta, in the "Other Optometric professional fraternities" area. I left this as a breadcrumb trail. Jax MN (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion prod

Project participants may be interested to know that Sigma Mu Delta has been nominated for deletion. Jax MN (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I *really* think we need to find external references for this.Naraht (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Note too that the Alpha chapter was suspended for hazing. The person who offered the AfD prod is engaged in a discussion on the deletion page. Jax MN (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sigma Mu Delta article was updated with sources, so the deletion discussion was extended. Rublamb (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion prod has been extended to a third week, where normally it's only a single week. It may be a case of the deletionists themselves doing some canvassing. Usually, those who vote to delete fraternity pages are names I've not seen before. We Project participants may need to formalize and fight for a policy offering for the generic Notability rules that allows "quiet performers" like these societies to maintain articles in spite of a lack of extensive media coverage. I'd argue that their validity is easily provable, and that it veers to an unbalanced view of the category as a whole when only those groups with significant coverage are allowed pages. --It tends to highlight those with salacious stories, picked up by the media, rather than the hundreds of counterexamples (as a ratio) of groups that operate quietly, and un-controversially. Jax MN (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The third week of this deletion discussion is curious as the original challenger was a no-show and there were no delete votes in the second week. I cannot speculate as to motives for this extension but feel an sense of doom for many articles under our WikiProject guidance. Rublamb (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted, but not before we really annoyed the other editors with a vigorous fight. Rublamb (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Greek article merger

I am thinking about merging Latino Greek Movement and List of Latino Greek-letter organizations into one article, maybe called Latino Greek-letter organizations. Or should the title remain List of..., but with a longer intro? I know I can add the merger notice or boldly complete the merger, but thought I would get feedback here first. Rublamb (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with merger under the list name. the categories for the LGM article seem very diffuse.Naraht (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We (certainly I) can reasonably be described as having, upon occasion, stretched the boundaries of what Wikipedia defines as a list page. Though the Latino Greek Movement article could use some editing and is missing a few early examples, it provides a decent summary of how and why these organizations came about. If an updated summary, similar to what is now on that article were to be merged into the List of Latino Greek-letter organizations as an intro, that would be good. I sense that readers would benefit both from the summary and the list. But if much of the content of the former page were to be lost, in paring down to "just" the table and an introductory sentence, then I'd say no. If that was to be the outcome, rather, just cross-post the two articles, clean up the former page, and leave it be. Jax MN (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing a true merger, moving the text over and cleaning it up/finding sources either at the same time or later. I prefer to drop "list" from the article's title, giving room to expand the text as more content is available. As long as there is not an an existing redirect for the new title, changing the name is easy. @Jax MN, feel free to take this on if you want. Just something I came across. Rublamb (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dr. Charles Richardson

Draft:Dr. Charles Richardson has been created by an editor. Dr. Richardson is the Kappa Sigma Alumnus who is viewed as a founder of Chi Omega sorority. Could you some tweeks (less praising of Chi Omega), but probably can be turned into something for mainspace.Naraht (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mu Mu Presidents

Should it be a subcat of Category:Mu Mu or Category:Mu Mu members? (Mu Mu is fake, just for example)Naraht (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would think members, but is it really needed? Rublamb (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, (Delta Sigma Theta, I think) there are more than a dozen articles that go into the category.Naraht (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should know better than to ask. You are the expert on categories. Rublamb (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fraternity and sorority national conferences

Given the opinions here on the Theta Tau article, does that mean that all articles in Category:Lists of fraternity and sorority national conferences should be AFD'ed? (disclaimer, I worked heavily on the one for Alpha Phi Omega)Naraht (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm not that sure that it is that different than an article like List of Annual Scientific Meetings of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia.Naraht (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious comparison you found there, amigo. Whilst these are not articles I would peruse at night, rather than enjoy a long winter's nap, still, I see they may have value to some readers. I'm not rushing to delete them. There are far, far too many beneficial things to do around here than to become a Deletionist, for sport. Jax MN (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That is why I leave this content when found--even though I do not find it encyclopedic. On a lighter note, I had to Google the Human Genetics Society of Australasia to see it this was a major group or five guys in lab coats. This led to Google suggestion that I wanted to know "How do I become a geneticist in Australia". Pretty sure I am now going to see ads for universities in Australia.... Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ahead of deletion challenges

After having participated in two failed attempts to stop the deletion of articles about fraternities, I have some thoughts that WP editors should consider moving forward.

  • The Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities is not considered significant coverage. It is great as a source for details on chapters, but its lists of chapters is not enough to make a Greek letter organization notable in the eyes of editors who are outside of this WP.
  • Although the WP has its own criteria for notable organizations, that will not hold any sway in deletion conversations. Editors are looking for significant coverage as defined in Wikipedia:Notability. This means there must be a sizeable article about the organization by major media or in a publication that has statewide or national coverage.
  • Coverage by the university is not considered independent, regardless of institutional policies stating otherwise. Articles in student newspapers are not considered significant because these sources have a limited audience. These resources are fine as references but are not going to provide notability.
  • Similarly, articles in local or community newspapers did not pass the test for significant coverage. I assume that this would be a different matter if the local newspaper was for a major city.
  • It doesn't matter how many citations an article has if it lacks a reference that is significant coverage.

So what does this all mean? Articles for older, well-established fraternities and sororities that were included in the print editions of Baird’s are fine as it qualifies as significant coverage. Unfortunately, groups that formed after 1991 (the last edition of Baird’s) do not have that coverage and need other sources to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. This has major implications for the articles for most of the multicultural, Latino, LGBTQ, and international organizations. As another editor noted in a recent deletion debate, the only Greek letter organizations that get major coverage in today's newspapers are those that have major scandals. If Wikipedia content is limited to misbehavers and the good old boys (and girls), it will skew to depiction of Greek letter organizations within Wikipedia.

Currently, there are many articles about fraternities and sororities that have notices indicating that they need more sources, lack sources, or lack independent sources. I believe we should prioritize finding significant coverage for those articles. Don’t bother to add a chapter list or other edits to an article that lacks sources to prove its notability for Wikipedia. Instead, see if you can find a references to prove notability. Editors who have a print edition of Baird’s from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1991 can help by checking to see if organizations that lack the necessary references are included in those editions. Other books about Greek letter organizations can also help but must include significant coverage, not just a mention. The same applies to expanding and moving an article out of draft space; if it lack significant coverage, the article is not ready for Wikipedia.

Many fraternities and sororities have decades of history and hundreds or thousands of members but are unable to meet the notability threshold for Wikipedia because of a lack of significant coverage. I am wrestling with this concept because I know certain groups are worthy, but it is nevertheless the truth of Wikipedia. These fraternities and sororities can still be included in our comprehensive articles and lists, such as Honor society, Professional fraternities and sororities, List of LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities, List of Latino Greek-letter organizations, Service fraternities and sororities, etc. Just be sure to provide an reference for the group that is not the fraternity's website. Rublamb (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, WP:NCORP "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." I suggest that any guidance in this WP becomes more closely aligned with NCORP. However, lists are different (see WP:NLIST). As long as the list article includes a complete list of a specified (notable) topic, all fraternities and sororities can still be included. - Enos733 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Enos. I will review WP:NCORP to see if clarification is needed for this class of organizations. Broadly, those hard-fought rules make sense, but as you know, editors experienced in each of these project categories can add value to the articles on their various watchlists, and to the Wikipedia's generic rules in light of their experience in working with each category. There may, or may not be a need for a carve-out here. I address this in my comments further down.
Rublamb, I agree. This is disheartening, as we continue to make strong arguments in favor of keeping these articles. My sense is that the Deletionists in these cases offered ad hoc AfDs without a comprehensive effort to work on a fair standard for this class of articles. They did not offer assistance in improving them (work in progress) or dealing comprehensively with the category as a whole. It appears to me that they see their role as Wikipedia editors and admins (some) to simply hold a tight, universal standard, wielding a heavy broom, and that they can be perceived to operate more as bullies than as advocates for clarity and inclusion in these cases. (I'll address why in a moment; I don't want to emotionalize it as an us vs. them fight.) To the most recent AfD, I think we made it clear that Sigma Mu Delta existed. The article was much improved during the review. As this AfD was challenged, with rational arguments, the points were brushed aside by claims of bludgeoning. (A lawyer might say that when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When they are not, attack your opponent.) The merits of your arguments, Rublamb, were not vigorously analyzed, except for perhaps by one of the deletionist voters, and by the time the 3-week review passed, those arguments were ignored in kind of a pompous way. When adversaries for these AfD PRODs here get their hackles up, they rush to circle the wagons - do they canvass? -- and simply won't change their votes, perhaps out of a fixation that their narrow view shouldn't be questioned. They dismissed your comments, Rublamb, as if they were bothered by your points, maybe unwilling to read what they perceived as a wall of text. It's easy to be a bully when you have a little power, and can hide behind anonymity.
But I wanted to address why this occurs. I agree, there is value in many AfD proposals. We don't see these editors often, and as I look on their user pages, they seem to work across the domain, with a lot of edits, lots of AfDs. Wikipedia, broadly speaking, has so many publicity-seeking new articles, full of puff language, which are transparently promotional. It seems every minor band puts together an article to promote each song they release, or tag on to more important articles with the same sense of publicity seeking. There is a band called Honor Society (band) which had inserted its name as a hatnote at the top of our Project's Honor society page; ours gets 150-200 page views a day, while the band article gets 15-30. I deleted that hatnote a few years ago because there was simply no rationale to assume that the two topics would be confused. Maybe these sporadic deletions come about because those who propose deletions (for articles on our Project's watchlist) have a frame of reference where most of their other deletion targets are flimsy and annoyingly promotional. Thus deleting "cruft" becomes a habit, and they see themselves routinely as guarding the gates. I note that one editor claimed you, Rublamb, and I were bludgeoning, and he/she mocked us with a "yeah, our project is special" comment that blew off the merits of what we had to say. This indicated to me that he/she was accustomed to fighting specious arguments.
I think it was a very clear and rational point to raise, that because negative articles provide, for a handful of organizations, the blue chip media coverage that these Deletionists seek, and without such coverage they assume the many other "quiet performer" organizations aren't noteworthy: that this skews the perception about fraternities far toward the negative. It may be time to bring this to a higher admin discussion and seek a carve out for our articles and to bring our Project's working notability rules to serve as more broadly acceptable guidance for groups that aren't just social media publicity seekers. As we argued, this isn't a flimsy chess club, soon disbanded. The organization met our bar for notability, with three campuses, and has existed for almost 30 years, among other indicators. A reasonable admin may be swayed by the argument that blue chip, but negative coverage that a fraction of these groups get, unfairly skews the perception of all such groups because the others are broomed off, which is then contradictory to the principle of WP:BALANCE, or some such principle. Comments welcome. Jax MN (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to mention, too, that I heartily agree with your point that the current situation pushes the newer historically Black, and most Asian, Hispanic, LGBTQ+ and other cultural affinity pages out of Wikipedia, as most of these have emerged since the last edition of Baird's was printed. Unless we can carve out an exception to the broad notability rules that account for the needs of this category, it unfairly will leave any casual reader the impression that fraternities, sororities, and similar societies don't have a strong multicultural embrace. The result would be a racist bias, and a false assumption. Wikipedia is not served by this biased, and imbalanced perception, which I think would be an inadvertent result of this tight application of the notability rules here. Jax MN (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does need to re-think its policy on the types of publications considered for significant coverage if it is truly committed to diversity and inclusiveness. By definition, marginalized people and related groups are not covered in major/national publications. If we can find something similar to the existing books on the Divine Nine or Jewish fraternities, it would be a huge help. (I will buy a copy). Print sources have the advantage of being difficult for the deletionists to critique. We could encourage sources by pitching the LBGTQ and gender-inclusive trend in GLOs to a national publication such as the Advocate. That kind of coverage could provide a reference for some of those groups. Rublamb (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that these print sources are more difficult to critique, but print sources make it more difficult for those critics who sit in anonymity, tossing bricks, who cannot be bothered to look beyond a quick Google search or perhaps go to the library. I've found, through my life experiences that it is far easier to destroy, than to build. It's one reason why I am an Inclusionist here. Jax MN (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tau Beta Sigma sisters

I'm creating the mirror of the List of Kappa Kappa Psi brothers for Tau Beta Sigma at User:Naraht/TBS. Looks like there are enough that it makes sense to break out. I've mostly combined their pledge manual (from 2011, oddly the same year as the one for KKPsi) and the existing list on Tau Beta Sigma.Naraht (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is your plan to create a table for this? Jax MN (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, at this point, I'm working on collecting names. There are a *lot* of pages in Category:Lists of members of United States student societies that don't use Template:mem/f. So if it doesn't have a table, it will be in good(?) company. Part of it is that unlike many other groups, KKPsi and TBS will have lots of entries where notability boils down to "Notable Composer". :)Naraht (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another deletion PROD

This one is for an SAE founder, a blue-linked name that somehow was missed on our Watchlist. I've added him to that list, and have provided my own vote regarding the AfD. See Abner Edwin Patton. I also wrote to SAE, asking if they could offer a citable reference to a photo and additional historical notes for the man. Jax MN (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've really improved this article. Take a victory lap in that, at least. The vote continues. Jax MN (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I had added a photo of Patton, sent to me by the archivist at SAE. But it seems this was a scan of a portrait at the Levere Memorial Temple, and while based on an original photograph, that specific image was created later as an artistic, interpretive work. After the mis-match was questioned by an admin I substituted my earlier uploaded version of the portrait, with the darker background, with a cropped and reduced version of the original image. It should be acceptable. The PROD vote continues... Jax MN (talk)

Omega Delta Phi -Not to be confused with.

For the addition of the two lines at the top of Omega Delta Phi Isn't there a template that should be used instead. I'm not remembering off the top of my head.Naraht (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish|xx in double brackets yields the text "Not to be confused with xxxx". Rublamb (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly, these are "hatnotes". Major types:
  • Distinguish - for terms that can cause confusion with another topic
  • About - for two articles with similar titles
  • Other uses - to link to a DAB page
These offer varying degrees of clarification, up to the level provided by a DAB link. The WP article about hatnotes will provide more clarity, numerous templates, and show correct/incorrect usages. Jax MN (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other Not to be confused with

What is our limit here? My Fraternity, Alpha Phi Omega in addition to Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) has been used at least 11 times for local groups including at least one that existed as a local for more than 30 years, should any of them be mentioned?Naraht (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was surprised at the number of GLOs where most of them didn't repeat the same name. Later, working with the Baird's Archive I realized that there are upwards of 200,000 past and present local chapters that occasionally do repeat the name.
To answer your question, my view is that current or dormant, national organizations (3 or more chapters) with matching names may reasonably be noted with a hatlink. Existing locals or those of lengthy tenure (like Delta Psi of Vermont) also deserve one. Some of these may also deserve an article; some will not. Locals that are dormant, or which merged into a national fraternity do not merit such a hatnote, and and their origination may simply be noted in chapter lists. Jax MN (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So for Omega Delta Phi, a defunct local that existed for 39 years and an active local that has existed for 62 years. Those meeting the criteria, I guess. I'll take a look at the amount of time for each. Can't reach the google doc from work, but I'll post the situation with the two that went more than a decade.Naraht (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These notes are intended to have a linking component, sending readers to the right article before they waste time reading the wrong article. Obviously, this function is gone when there is no related article. It makes more sense to me to use these notes for organizations that have an article in Wikipedia or that meet the criteria for an article (i.e. a group that is big enough that someone would likely be looking for it or will be creating an article in the future). Most local GLOs are unlikely to have the significant coverage needed to prove notability and a mention in the Almanac does not qualify. In these instances, I would instead mention in the article's chapter section that the chapter at xx Universtiy was local only and has never been affiliated with this GLO. Rublamb (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of chapter list tables

I just completed a set of major updates to the List of Phi Delta Theta chapters, adding our standard columns. There are some variances on this one, with the inclusion of Phi Delt's own provinces in a column. I added EFNs for originating chapters, etc.

Of the two items remaining, one is to add a column for city, which I might do as a future project. But before I do, I wanted our group's comments about the default order. Today, the rather lengthy list is rendered by State. This is common for some of the larger GLOs, often found in sorority lists, which may be an attempt to facilitate an easy search. But this runs up against our emerging standard where we list by date of first chartering. I tend to favor the ordering by date, but wanted clarity on what the rest of you think. Which style provides the most research value? Which is the most clear? Ought we remain neutral on this, and support either style? Jax MN (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With sortable tables, it is not as important to have a specific order anymore. I like having a standard but think there are more inportant things to work on. For example, I found that the list of Sigma Alpha Epsilon had never been compaired to Bairds and had last been updated against a 2003 list--how many other top fraternities or sororities are similarly outdated? Then, of course, there are all the articles that lack the required sourcing and are at risk of deletion. Maybe leave this one of the list to work on at a future date? Rublamb (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Military and Naval Academy

After wanting to create a page for the location of Kappa Sigma's Delta Prime chapter for quite some time, I finally did it today. Maryland Military and Naval Academy Oddly enough, Kappa Sigma wasn't the only fraternity with a chapter there, Gamma Delta Psi (which today is viewed as a High School Fraternity) also had a chapter there.Naraht (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rublamb for all of your improvements!Naraht (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was happy to learn that I was not the only one who has a list of articles to write that are based off of GLOs. Updating chapter lists is my usual way of procrastination. In this instance, I had no idea I would find so much in Newspapers.com. You never know--and what a weird twist that ended the school. Wonder if they ever caught the con man? Rublamb (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. You could always look for him on newspapers.com. :)Naraht (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of chapter lists

I keep thinking we might want to reconsider our policy or odering chapter lists by date. With the sortable table, it is easy to put a list in date order or alphabetical order. However, it is not possible to put a list in Greek letter order via sorting. Wouldn't it be more useful to leave the chapter list in Greek letter order, giving users three ways to view the list vs. the existing two ways? I am not proposing that we go back and change lists--just something to consider as we move more lists into tables. Rublamb (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm using Lambda Chi Alpha as the example here because if we can do them, we can do anything. :) All we need to do is have |data-sort-value="000001" for Alpha chapter and |data-sort-value="000002" for Gamma, etc. I'm suggesting strings because for most groups that have a more normal order, it can be much easier to calculate the values just by using the 01-24 for the greek letters. So Omega Omega chapter of Alpha Phi Omega would get 002424 for Omega Omega chapter. (I've looked at this for Alpha Phi Omega which goes up to three letter chapters in many ways over the years, including Excel).Naraht (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Omicron Delta Kappa Circles.

Can someone (I don't have time at the moment) add the {{dts| and }} around the dates. the current ordering is being messed up by those that look like May 25, 1932-xxxx which get pushed to the end. {{dts|May 25, 1932}}-xxxx should be properly placed in the sorted order.Naraht (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it now. Jax MN (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jax MN (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU. There is a little bit of a wierdness, but I'm not sure what we can do. If this is clicked to be done based on date, certain entries with the same date flip order. For example, 308 and 309 have flipped order. Since 308 actually has a closing date, it is now (even with dts) after 309 (which doesn't have a closing date) in the sort order, I think it affects 150 and 151 as well. I'm not sure that anything other than moving closing dates to another column would leave it alone. :(Naraht (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I tried a couple of variations with that particular example. This appears to be a limitation of the template. Both chapter dates are correct, and the addition of a space, either trailing the date for Fort Hayes, or inserted prior to the hyphen for the USC chapter's XXXX closure date didn't fix the error. Neither does switching to {{dts|2003|04|27}}. Since ODK lists them in this order as their Circle number, it appears clear that the date sort should default to the same order. Thus my suggestion that this appears to be a bug in the template. Jax MN (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, I recall that there may be some available metatext to address this, forcing a specific sort, as part of the detail for that template. You may want to check that. Jax MN (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN found it. addkey= . I've updated the table. Note there are still some that switch around correctly where apparently circles chartered in different order from circle number during a semester.Naraht (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Phi Kappa - Founding date inconsistency...

Could I get some eyes on Delta Phi Kappa and a founding date, through mergers and name changes, the article seems inconsistent on what the founding date is. (I'm going through and adding Category:Student Organization established in XXXX and this one seems a little confusing. Naraht (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the text and sections of its history. I believe it makes more sense now. (I found a good source on symbols and will add that later). Delta Phi Debating Society formed in the 1869 but went defunct in 1904. It reformed sometime around 1930 and merged in 1931 with the Friars Club which was formed in 1920. The name changed in Delta Phi Kappa in 1961 because there was another group with the same name on the east coast. Looks like they claimed the 1869 date as they said they were the oldest fraternity in Utah--but I am not clear if that was legit. All three groups--Delta Phi Debating Society, Friars Club, and what became Delta Phi Kappa seem to have different missions--debating, religion, and social/religion--respectively. Does this help? Rublamb (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on this some more. All of the LDS sources consider the start date as 1920. That is now the date in the infobox and the article intro. Rublamb (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters

For List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters. Found a ref for the chartering dates (month/day/year). https://issuu.com/sigmaphiepsilon/docs/lrob-2015 . The question is should we merge everything into a List of chapters by founding. (The notes are going to get either removed or make into a notes refs and moved below)Naraht (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's another of the non-standard, but good-faith lists. Yes, I think you are right: the tables should be merged, listed by founding date, and the notes placed as EFNs. As ΣΦΕ is one of the largest of the GLOs, after the name column -- for clarity -- I'd suggest we split out the abbreviation as an adjacent column (if it fits; it's not as important as the other project-standard columns), and keep the narrow column noting national roll number. They use that number, and it won't hurt to retain it. Of course we should add columns for city and state. Jax MN (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what does a row look like (and I'm quite willing to move this to Talk:List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters...
  • Chapter Roll : 999
  • Chapter: West Virginia Omega (do we include the (WV Ω), I presume we *are* including the RLC)?
  • Institution: Southwest West Virginia Institute
  • City: Mars
  • State: West Virginia
  • Status: Inactive
  • Notes:
  • Ref: ?

Naraht (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use this template:
Roll # Chapter Abbreviation Chartered/Range Institution City State Status References
137 Virginia Alpha VA Α November 1, 1901–1997; 2001 University of Richmond Richmond Virginia Active [a]
  1. ^ This chapter had its origin in the Saturday Night Club (local), formed earlier in 1901.
The information on this example entry is correct. I do not know why ΣΦΕ numbers its Alpha chapter as merely #137. It likely is the rank in terms of length of active tenure. Assuming that is the case, I am less convinced that roll number is important, at least from Wikipedia's perspective. And for reasons of space, the name abbreviation may not be needed. (Seriously, isn't there a shorter word for the word "abbreviation"?) Sortability is the trigger that makes all this work. Place the chapters in default order by date of original installation. The Fraternity may have an interest in noting age of service: check their national website for an indication of this. If it was just a 'good idea' from an early Wikipedia author, without strong national usage, maybe we should delete this column. Jax MN (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have used symbol instead of abbreviation in other lists. This covers both Greek and Hebrew letters. Rublamb (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is probably a good idea to move this discussion to the Sig Ep talk page. Note, I just added the Baird's Archive to the chapter list page as a reference, and I think we should probably retain the RLCs, within the table as they presently are shown. Jax MN (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Count of chapters to put Chapter Lists to separate articles

If possible, can we set a guideline number for chapter lists that if a GLO has more than X chapters and they can be put in a table (which for our purposes means that chartering years are available for a decent number) then they should go into another article (Presuming we have a reference which could be any Baird's or the Fraternity/Sorority Archive.

To me, X should be somewhere around 50. (For a Greek that puts chapter in common order, that gets us to Beta Beta). Note, this is not a *MUST BE MOVED* as soon as it reaches X, but rather a suggestion. Naraht (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC) And yes, Rublamb this was triggered by the work on Gamma Iota Sigma :).Naraht (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, with the source qualifier. Anything we do these days needs to be notable according to its sources. Are there other considerations? If the rest of the article is only a couple of paragraphs, sometimes removing the list would take the article back to start class. (Although, I think most of us tend to also add content to the article in that case). With something like Gamma Iota Sigma, more than half of the list is from a primary source. Does that make a difference? Do you think I am good with Baird's for part of the list? Rublamb (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some of my early writing, I noted this number (X) is subjective, and that separate page lists may be appropriate at 30 or so. But 50 may be a more workable number. The table style guide wasn't as advanced then, as it is now. Jax MN (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will create the new List of Gamma Iota Sigma chapters article after getting feedback here. I just moved Kappa Psi's chapter list to a new article and am working on its content and format. Rublamb (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is someone capturing these decisions into a WP guideline document? Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us sporadically add the outcome of these discussions to a summary note, here, or on the Talk pages against the Watchlist or template articles. But perhaps a guideline article would be a beneficial addition. With a primer intro for new Project participants? How far down the rabbit hole does one go? Jax MN (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of GLOs English with the Greeks

Template:Professional fraternities is currently inconsistent. The organizations that have Greek Letters are ordered Alpha to Omega. However, Block and Bridle is ordered as if it started with Beta but in another sublist Pershing Rifles, Scabbard and Blade, and Scarab are at the end of the list.Naraht (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Block and Bridle. Decided to be B, waiting for the RD. :)

There appear to be two types of Greek Letter Organizations that have "names" for their chapters: Law Fraternities (where you have each chapter named after a significant legal person) and Architecture Professionals where chapters were named after significant architectural Locations (like "Luxor") or significant ancient architects. What are the guidelines on providing Links to the "honored person/location" if that information is known? Naraht (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have run into these with linked chapter names previously. I am not a fan but recognize that the info could be of interest to readers. Another option would be to add an efn indicating who the chapter is named for. However, the link is less clunky and quicker--and more likely to be used by those outside of this WP. For some insight, I went to MOS WP:LINK which seems to give a couple of options: Linking in this instance may be correct because could enhamce the reader's understanding of the article. On the other hand, we could also expalin the fraternity's naming system without links; for example, simply stating that the fraternity names it chapters after significant architectural locations. There may also be an issue with linked names being bolded per MOS, which we run into with active chapters in our lists. Rublamb (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template Talk:Infobox Fraternity

Mean as custard has deleted Mission/Vision entries from multiple usages of Infobox Fraternity. I've started a discussion over at Template Talk:Infobox Fraternity over those fields, to see if we can come to an agreement on whether those fields should be kept or whether the parameters should be deleted.Naraht (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complete lack of chapter lists?

Other than Alpha Phi Alpha, Is there any current or former (either by going completely inactive or by leaving) member of the NIC or current of former member of the NPC that we have an article for, but we have no chapter list (either in list or table form) at all? Naraht (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we need to do an inventory. I have been surprized by the organizations that I have made lists for recently, including older and major groups. I don't mind taking on Alpha Phi Alpha's chapter list; it is smaller than two lists I have already created. I am almost finished adding locations to Beta Gamma Sigma and Alpha Phi Alpha or any other NIC/NPC can be my next project. Let me know what you think my efforts are most needed. Rublamb (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on PIKE now (NIC). Do any others stand out from the substandard list above? Rublamb (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on to Sigma Gamma Rho (NPHC). I think this is the last NIC/NPC/NPHC on the substandard list above that completely lacks a chapter list. The others appear to be service or professional groups. Rublamb (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed chapters

Rublamb is doing a wonderful job of creating the massive chapter list for Alpha Phi Alpha. Alpha Phi Alpha has several cases where (random example) Alpha Rho was formed at University of Michigan, Alpha Rho went inactive (let's say for hazing) and a new chapter was started later at University of Michigan with the letters Beta Sigma. We've got this with other groups and I'd like to come up with a common methodology. Rublamb is doing it as (for the older chapter)... The chapter name gets Alpha Rho (See Beta Sigma) and the status gets inactive, reformed.

On the one hand, I'm not thrilled with the term reformed since while a valid way to describe it, doesn't seem to be the first definition that would associated with "Reformed". What other terms have been used for chapter lists? Naraht (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having created many lists lately (and this is not the longest one), I have tried using some of the newer ideas and have come to really like the (see) notes that @JAX MN recently came up with for another group with many of these duplicate locations. In this instance, the use of "reformed" is for my benefit as I create the chapter list in my sandbox. As a result, I anticipate that "reformed" would go away in a final edit when I double check for efn and (see) notes. However, I believe I have used "reformed" in other tables that do not have the (see) note. I think the status "Inactive" is fine for the APA list given the use of two efn and the (see Beta Sigma) in the Alpha Rho name cell. I know we have redunctant aspects to our tables, the formatting of the chapter name and the status column come to mind, but I do feel like I would be documenting the chapter's re-establishment four times with APA if "reformed is left in the status column. Rublamb (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb, my apologies if that came off as there should not be information in both Alpha Rho and Beta Sigma, I'm just flailing for a better word than "Reformed". :(Naraht (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I should leave "reformed" in the status when published? Is this one we want to add to the list of status options? I had been thinking of it as a working tool for my draft, rather than something official. Rublamb (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been mulling this over. My more recent edits have used the term "Re-established". It's more clear, as the term "Reformed" can have a double, or triple meaning. Jax MN (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Can you add it to the list? Rublamb (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta Gamma Chapters.

Had someone change the List of Delta Gamma chapters page and while there were errors in the change, having done more research, I see no reason *not* to name the chapters the way that they are in the Delta Gamma website lookup page. For that (other than the founding chapter), it appears that the current usage of the chapter gets no suffix and any prior get (I) and (II). I can understand prime being used if there is no information on the usage, but otherwise, I think we use what the GLO uses. Naraht (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our syntax, supported by Baird’s usage, calls for “Prime”, “First”, “Second”, etc., to distinguish between chapters. The exception is if we determine that an organization has its own naming system. Therefore, if you have a source for Delta Gamma's naming preference, you should go ahead and update the list. I suggest also describing their naming conventions in the section's intro, especially if it is unusual or has specific formating requirements such as the numbers being in parenthesis. However, if there is no source for a varient naming convention, just a talk page comment, I do not believe we shoud proceed with this type of change.
If Baird's or the Almanac do not include the group's internal syntax, the organization's preferences will not always be reflected in the the initial version of a chapter list. This happens because secondary sources are specified by Wikipedia and are, therefore, most editors preferred sources. A purist might say we should not even look at an organization's website or publications, meaning it would be against Wikipedia's guidelines to update a chapter list such as this based on the Delta Gamma website. However, as I have created or improved many chapter lists recently, I have contacted the related groups and invited their edits and additions. As a result, we may get more feedback and corrections. Receiving these suggested updates does not indicate that an earlier editor made a error, especially if they were making good-faith edits based on sources and group syntax. Rather, these updates and corrections mean that the process of Wikipedia is working, continuing to improve and enhance articles. Rublamb (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of founders

While I didn't see the deletion discussion, the honest, tough question is "Are founders of Notable GLOs, themselves by definition notable?". IMO, we have *dozens* of articles about people where the single way in which they were notable is that they are considered a founder of a Notable GLO, some of the GLOs have over a dozen articles about people where the GLO counts them as founders.

So fictional example, (flip a coin) Jane Emington was one of the nine founders of Iota Mu sorority which then spread from University of Massachusetts across the country and is now a member of the NPC or NPHC, and Michelle Smith was in her year at UM, and they married similarly and did similar work beyond what Jane did with Iota Mu (but isn't notable). Jane was never president of Iota Mu founding chapter and never held any national office of Iota Mu. Jane's engagement and wedding and obituary are in the Boston Globe in the standard announcements for that type and *everything* else about her life is from Iota Mu sources other than a few overall GLO sources where she is on the list of nine.

Should Jane Emington be considered notable enough for a page? Is there any way in which the Wikiproject can set that as specifically notable? If she isn't, should we be making the AFDs from here in this Project? Naraht (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the founders of a GLO to be inherently notable, i.e. they should still meet WP:GNG etc. This means, as much as I hate to say it, that someone like Ossian Everett Mills is probably not a notable individual per Wikipedia policy. Someone like Ethel Hedgeman Lyle, on the other hand, did things outwith her GLO career (never mind she was co-founder of the first Black sorority) and is thus notable. To look at your fictional example, Emington wouldn't be considered notable because there simply isn't enough independent coverage of her. I don't think we should be making any blanket statements, and look at each founder on a case-by-case basis. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is a case by case situation. However, based on deletion discussions, the general consensus appears to be that someone will not meet the standard of notability if their only claim to fame is founding a GLO. Even the existence of sources providing significant coverage will not change the fact that such an individual will fail the test for notability based on the "related to" rule; meaning just because an individual is related to someone or something that is notable does not make them worthy of an article. The strongest example I have come across of this guideline is with Nat Turner, the leader of the most successful slave rebellion in the United States. In a discussion that I was not involved in, it was decided that Turner would no longer have his own article and, instead, would be included in the article Nat Turner's slave rebellion. This ruling was made on the basis that Turner was only noted for one thing. I suggest that if Nat Turner, who has hundreds of book and articles written about him, does not qualify for a stand-alone article, no individual known just as a founder of a GLO has any hope of meeting the Wikipedia standard. Instead, it would be more productive to created section within the GLO article where brief bios of its founders can be included. I have seen successful examples of this, and the upside is that we won't have to deal with deletion challenges. Rublamb (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This gets to the heart of the Deletionist versus Inclusionist debate. The opinions of informed Project participants should carry significant weight in these notability considerations. If disk or cloud storage space was a concern, one could maybe argue to omit fraternity founders as article topics. Yet we have the space. These persons are usually long-deceased, and there is no trace of publicity seeking. Rather, hundreds, sometimes thousands of collegians memorize the names of these founders or have a semester of pledge education to reflect on "who were these men, or these women?" "Why did they create my society?" "How did they live their lives?" "Were they active in the fraternity or my field after they graduated?" --Such reflection simply begs the fact of notability. I think, for these and similar persons, that a carve-out is reasonable within the generic notability rules. Allowing them supports targeted research by interested persons. The incidence of publicity-seeking is virtually nil; creation of these articles ensures clarity to assure that a particular Jane Emington is "our" Jane Emington, versus the one arrested for booze sales at a speakeasy in Detroit in 1922. AfD arguments to delete these tend to brown-off potential new editors. Finally, the promise of Wikipedia is to become the definitive encyclopedia, globally. Artificial limits based on too-strident, or too-stringent rules for inclusion simply invite the creation of a more comprehensive resource. Given enough deletion pressure, GLO supporters could just start up their own Wiki, as many have done for other categories, adopting more relaxed, community-determined (~Project-determined) rules for inclusion. This is a diaspora that would considerably weaken Wikipedia's role. Wikipedia would thereby be lessened in its opportunity to be the definitive resource, as it shifts to merely being an introductory, and less valuable resource. See? The Deletionist impulse is inherently damaging to Wikipedia itself. Too often, AfDs are troll work -- bullying, even -- led those who see their primary role as cutting content, not in creation, nor in the ongoing improvement and expansion of this resource.
Aside from taking up a few kilobytes of space, I see no downside. Jax MN (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official Calls?

Does anyone have any opinion as to whether the call (also known as official whistle) for a fraternity/sorority (and responses?) belong in an article?Naraht (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably pushing the borders of trivial information, never mind the fact that you're unlikely to find sourcing for that information since it's usually considered secret. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two different questions here. Trivia and sourcing. Sourcing isn't a problem here for the ones that I'm thinking of. For Delta Gamma, the notes of a call are in an issue of the sorority magazine on books google (a *massive* issue, I've see smaller histories hard bound and sold!) and the 1919 Sorority Handbook (6th edition) by Ida Shaw Martin (also on books google) has them (or notes that they have no call) for most of the NPC groups. I can see them viewed as trivia, but then any less than the fraternity/sorority colors? I'm not sure the fact that they've fallen out of favor makes much of a difference. I'm not going to argue this hard, and the entire issue of whether the call is "notes" or words that are sung is a different one. This would *probably* also cover the call/responses of the NPHC groups...Naraht (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough regarding sourcing. I would argue that colours are more obvious/noticeable than a call, so it's not quite the same argument, but for a group that is known for and/or uses a call frequently, I do suppose it's worth including. I guess, in other words, that I wouldn't be comfortable making a blanket "this WikiProject feels that..." statement, but a case-by-case inclusion is probably acceptable. Primefac (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as such, adding it as an infobox entry is probably not even worth considering...Naraht (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support your conclusion, all. Calls (and fraternity whistles) were learned and used at a simpler time. Today, these appear to be a quaint memory. Normally not something that fits within an encyclopedic treatment. Jax MN (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If included, I suggest the placing this information in the text rather than the infobox. Like mottos or missions, some calls might be too long for the infobox? In addition, placement in the infobox might indicate undeserved significance, assuming @Jax MN is correct and these are mostly out of fashion. Rublamb (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROD for deletion, this time a list of GLOs on a campus

Project participants may be interested to know that the article East Carolina University Greek life, was proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina University Greek life. Jax MN (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been relisted to allow time for more comments. Rublamb (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disaffiliated...

(All, I'm bolding the names of these various "statuses" we are discussing, to make this easier to read. -Jax_MN)
In the "List of chapters of ..." Do we have a consistent way of referring to the chapters which have remained in good standing with their national, but the school no longer recognizes them. I'm thinking the Harvard chapters and the chapters in Duke's Panhellenic. Firstly, do we still refer to them as Active and do we still use the school name *unless* the fraternity/sorority has renamed? Naraht (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These organizations always come up with new twists and turns, don't they?
In this case, my instinct is to simply refer to them as Active, regardless of how the school frames them. There are rogue chapters of fraternities that pop up, outside of a formal process of entering the IFC by invitation. If they survive, and flourish, it is typically a matter of a few weeks or months before they are welcomed into the campus IFC. This occurs, regardless of whether they have official sanction from the NIC or FFC, or not. Similarly, in the case of West Virginia, a number of chapters bailed out of the IFC, snubbing university recognition. These continue as valid, working chapters and are rightly considered to be Active. Since we don't name the local or national trade group association (NIC, local IFC, etc.), I don't know that we need to define this further. For prospective members, I don't think they care.
Where a chapter leaves its former national, either for another national or to go local, these obviously, Withdrew, indicating their relationship vis-à-vis their former national, and the target of the list article. Jax MN (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would further point out that, as this is a summary presentation, we ought not delve into variations of "unsanctioned", which we could never keep up with. Things change so fast... Jax MN (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking less of what belongs in the main table, I agree with Active, but rather perhaps in an efn to comment on the change in "school name". (I'm not even sure if that's the best way to refer to it, since the chapter name hasn't changed (It is still Beta Theta, but where it is chartered *to* changes. So perhaps in the school name "Duke University/Durham" or "Harvard University/Cambridge" Alpha Phi Omega has had a few chapters reassigned to new schools, in one case where another school bought the campus. Naraht (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to make sense. It also gets to the general idea of "community-based chapters", so prevalent among NPHC organizations. We have precedent, too in how Sigma Thêta Pi handles chapters that serve multiple schools. There are other Canadian fraternities that similarly serve multiple schools from a single, named chapter. Jax MN (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am favor of an active status with an efn indicating that the chapter was formerly associationed with ABC College and/or that the chapter is no longer recognized or sanctioned by ABC College. The latter is something I have found recently on university websites. Rublamb (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that.Naraht (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Alert template

I have noticed that other WPs have an article alert template that populates with articles for deletion, GA nominations, proposed mergers, articles for creation etc. It looks like these automatically update, but I could be wrong on that assumption. Does anyone know about these template and/or could create one for us? Rublamb (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything we can do to serve notice of important alerts would be valuable to project participants. Wikipedia pings me with every non-minor edit to pages on our watchlist, as I have gone through and made edits to all of them over the years. Our main project page has a couple of links, one showing the daily change log, and the other a link to those articles on our watchlist that are given a PROD or AfD. Jax MN (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@. Naraht, is this something you could help with? Rublamb (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb can you point me to a project that does this?Naraht (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries and Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina are two exampes Rublamb (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have it, it is just pretty far down the page. Just search for East Carolina.Naraht (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities&oldid=1153015222"