Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FRAT)
Latest comment: 8 hours ago by Rublamb in topic Beta Sigma help needed
Learn more about this page
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.

edit

Scope of the Project, Notability Rules (clarification), and Syntax for the Watchlist are linked here: Watchlist Talk Page. A discussion on the types of chapter status is here: F&S Project talk page, Archive #7.

Redlinked universities and colleges

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have updated the master list of institutions that are red-linked in chapter lists for fraternities, sororities, honor societies, and other groups covered by our WP. This list is alphabetical by school name and includes all known associated groups in that single entry. There are also some sources to aid in creating articles for these redlinks, as identified by various editors. Items can be removed from the list, once an article is created. Rublamb (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Substandard chapter lists

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago18 comments3 people in discussion
This section is transcluded from /Substandard chapter lists. (edit | history)

This is a working list of articles with substandard or missing chapter lists, which merit the attention of Project editors. For examples of lists, see List of Zeta Psi chapters, List of Beta Theta Pi chapters or the Alpha Delta Phi Society. If you are working on an article, please indicate below. Strike out when the article is fixed. Jax MN (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note that this list had been much longer; editors have reposted it after removing the completed projects. Jax MN (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rublamb (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Substandard lists of notable members

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This section is transcluded from /Substandard notable member lists. (edit | history)

This is a working list of articles with substandard, bloated or missing lists of notable members, which merit the attention of Project editors. For examples of lists, see List of Alpha Omicron Pi members or List of Alpha Delta Phi members, though each of these could be expanded with a chapter location field. As another example, Phi Kappa Theta does a nice job with their notable members list, with the addition of some color title lines. We may opt to use this styling as a way of breaking up a wall of text.

Standard content for a member list is name, chapter and initiation year, notability, and references. Long list are usually divided into careers such as academia, art and architecture, business, entertainment, government (non-political) law, literature and journalism, military, politics, religion, science and medicine, technology, and sports.

If you are working on an article, please indicate below. Strike out when the article is fixed.

To avoid vanity listings, on these page's Talk pages, it would be helpful to add a list of rules for inclusion, as discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_6#Notable_members_2. Jax MN (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many GLO member lists are simple lists of names. This is just a start.

  • List of Alpha Delta Phi members, needs a location field (to clarify, does each line need a location of that chapter? or skip this?)
  • List of Alpha Omicron Pi members, needs a location field (to clarify, does each line need a location of that chapter? or skip this?)
  • List of Acacia members, alphabetize lists by last name, alphabetize sections, needs references
  • Delta Zeta, inset list of names, ought to merit a list article with table.
  • List of Eta Kappa Nu members, simple list, few references, needs chapters and locations. As a point of clarification, for honor societies that award membership as honoraries (~mid-career) it seems we should simply note that they are an honorary member of the national society if they were not initiated into a specific chapter.
  • List of Sigma Alpha Epsilon members, needs table(s), needs references

Cleanup project

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The main list of infobox issues can be found at Category:Fraternity articles with infobox fraternity issues.

I have these here from other discussions so they are easier to find:

  1. "| coat of arms or "| crest" where "| image_size" is null or missing. (The size parameter is manually adjusted, depending on actual image size.) - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing image size (4) --Done. Note that I downsized somewhat the crests and other infobox graphics, too many of which had crept so large that they were inadvertently expanding the infobox width. Of course, if someone wants to see a larger image of the crest, they can click on it, or go to the original source. Flag images are now typically 120px, and member badges appear about the size of an actual badge, or maybe up to 20% larger. Jax MN (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. "| founded" where the tag structure "{{Start date and age|yyyy|mm|dd}}" is NOT used - tracked at petscan DONE
  3. missing |affiliation= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing affiliation (253)
  4. missing |type= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing type (8)
  5. missing |scope= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing scope (1)
  6. missing |member badge= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing member badge (732)
  7. missing |chapters= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing chapters (19)
  8. missing |members= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing members (683)
  9. missing |website= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing website (109)
  10. Missing short descriptions. - tracked at petscan DONE
  11. Orphans - via WP Orphanage search and petscan DONE
  12. missing |status= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing status (77)
  13. Article name does not match infobox - DONE
  14. Missing infobox - DONE, if had WP F&S Rublamb (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)}Reply
  15. Missing country
  16. Unreferenced - working list pulled and shared in a new section below 29 June 2024
  17. Notability - working list pulled and shared in a new section below 29 June 2024
  18. Primary sources - tracked at petscan
  19. One source - working list pulled and shared in a new section below 29 June 2024
  20. Has bibliography but lacks inline citations - tracked at petscan
  21. Needs color boxes (Helpful link, has colors, flags and, addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German, and Polish fraternities)

Rublamb (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fraternities and Soroities Guideline

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is it possible to make a comprehensive guideline article for how a standard fraternity or sorority page should look? I've found Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice to be incredibly helpful. Of course each page would have a level of uniqueness to it, but just as any university there are some standard characteristics that should be recommended.

Please let me know if I am missing something on the project page, but I currently do not find the templates section to be sufficient. Pancake621 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pancake621. I note you recently joined the Project. We welcome you. Reading your question above I was intrigued to note the support document for college and university articles, originally written back in 2007. I'm sure it has been heavily used. It was thus a factor in the decade when most of those articles were created. We could certainly use it for our efforts to finish writing articles about dormant schools. Meanwhile, as to your query about a similar style and syntax guide for fraternity and sorority articles, while we may have benefited from such, years ago, alas, I don't know that anyone ever created a similar guide. However, much of the direction you seek is here in the archived TALK pages of this Project page, with a few key items pinned to the top. We track substandard chapter list pages, missing school pages, and discuss the details of stylistic points here. Several of the most active project editors operate with a strong consensus gained from these earlier discussions, but that doesn't really help you if you don't have a ready-reference.
Because this is 2024, and many of the GLO articles are much advanced from their origin as stubs, and the many list pages we track are quite improved from fifteen years ago, I'm less inclined to write this document. However, many points from our archived discussions could be summarized or hyperlinked to quickly form the framework of a new guidance article. Are you interested in working on it?
Yours was a fair question, and I realize that, had we had such a document a decade ago when I was beginning to work on these articles, perhaps we could have corralled other new editors to the Project, and maybe avoided various AfD battles. A guideline like this would have been a solid framework for consensus. Still, we're far more organized and these articles have been much improved over the past decade. Jax MN (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the welcome!
I'd be happy to help refine a draft! I feel as tho I am far too new to this WikiProject and wiki-editing in general to create a helpful guideline. (for example, I am a bit unsure of how'd to create that page on the backend for everyone to access).
I also agree that many articles seem to be beyond an original draft, but I've still used them to improve start- or c-class articles for the university wikiproject. I also think it would be good to have a reference for people looking to improve their own organization's page to have some easy to reference guide. Pancake621 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that is a good idea. Although some groups have variations specific to them, there is a format we tend to use. In addition, there a plenty of discussions to pull from where we decided what content to include in a given section or format for content. It is something I keep meaning to draft. Rublamb (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd be happy to help refine a draft! Pancake621 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will get to it eventually. Currently working on a bear of a project. Rublamb (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unknown

edit
Latest comment: 30 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is it worthwhile to have an "Unknown" (not sure on the word) status? I've seen a couple like Delta Epsilon Iota where we don't seem to have surety.Naraht (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. I agree. The word will also gather answers to the little mystery. Jax MN (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
|status= defaults to {{{status}}} if it doesn't match one of the given values, so |status=Unknown would still show as "Unknown". Primefac (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Once we get the number of missing statuses down to a reasonable (which might be zero), we might want to generate a directory where the value is something other than the given values. (so Unknown and foobar would both drop things into further research needed)Naraht (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Eljohnson15 Anything you can find would be useful. I'd really like to have enough to create the CIPR page (or have someone else create it, I'm not picky. :) )Naraht (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grove City College redirects.

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The local fraternities and sororities at Grove City College all have redirects to the college. Given that they aren't even specifically mentioned in the article anymore, I think they should be nuked. Naraht (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather that the body text for the school article be adjusted to list them. Without WLs, probably. I thought that there were one or two that had actual articles. Did you check each of them? Jax MN (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I checked. Grove City fraternities with articles include: Adelphikos and Pan Sophic, along with numerous redirects. Jax MN (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Rublamb (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just remembered: As I mentioned above in Chapters of Greek Societies by Campus, there also redirects in our Watchlist section "Chapters of Greek Societies by Campus" that go to removed content from the university article. The problem in all of these cases is that the unviversity article was trimmed without addressing the related redirects. Does anyone in our WP have authority to delete redirects? I have not had luck with this before because I was not the one who created the redirect. Rublamb (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

GLOs by "level"

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I don't have a good feeling here for this, but I'd like to start a discussion on the types that I see. As far as I can tell, we have

  1. High School groups (both High school honoraries and the groups like BBYO and Scouts Royale Brotherhood).
  2. Two year college groups (Like Delta Psi Omega, which right now is combined with Alpha Psi Omega, its 4 year equivalent).
  3. Four year college groups (including those that have community chapters and/or alumni chapters)
  4. Four year college groups allowing two year college chapters (started and focused on four year colleges but allow two year college, some professional, some honorary)
  5. Requires a Bachelors to be even be at the school that has the chapter (Med School Fraternities, Legal Fraternities)
  6. Entirely community based.

I'm not honestly sure if these should be part of type, or called something else. Not sure that four year GLOs should really be distinguished if they allow chapters at 2 year schools (Alpha Phi Omega has about 30 charters at 2 year schools as opposed to over 700 at four year schools as well as some of the older fraternities and sororities which had two year schools early in their history that they'll never go back to.Naraht (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For your suggestion of there being two "Four year college" types, one of which supports some Two-year school activity, I don't think those need to be split out. I'd also note that some honor societies are entirely post-grad, while others support tapping early in the undergrad years, or while in grad school. There is also a distinction to be made between variants of the community-based (i.e.: non collegiate) organizations, but this can be clarified in the "emphasis" field.
Is this discussion for the purpose of creating new categories? Or for the infoboxes, or for a new column in our standard chapter table? Jax MN (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
if I have to pick one, I'd say infobox parameter. The primary question that led to this in my head is "How should the infobox for a High School Mathematics Honorary be shown differently in the infobox from a College Mathematics Honorary?". However, I could easily see this being a question for categories as well.Naraht (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe I am consistent, but that is where Emphasis is useful. For example, it can say High School Mathematics or Junior College Mathematics, depending on the org. I also use this for honor societies that go by class year, meaing Freshmen, Juniors, Seniors, etc.
We also need to address gender. Since the infobox does not specify fraternity or sorority, you cannot tell which the group is at a quick glance. My general thought it to use "Social fraternity" or "Social sorority", instead of "Social" but that would be big update. Also, the infobox does not have a place to indicate that a professional organization or honor society is geneder specific, rather than coed. I vary in putting this detail in Type or Emphasis, so it would be good to set guidelines. Rublamb (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given the wide variance of gender rules, I tend to move these facts to the body text. Until about ten years ago, the three options were consistent: men's, women's and co-ed. Today, some groups proudly lead with "nonbinary" or trans-friendly in the lede. Others have no interest in further differentiating. Forcing the point seems to tread into political matters and may evoke edit warring. It would be a significant project to keep track of which groups have effected which level of policy on this. I, for one, don't have time to research this, nor keep track of annual legislation. Let's let each individual group opt to adjust their body text, if it is that important to them. Many will not, and are satisfied with declaring "men's", "women's" or "co-ed" in the lede. Jax MN (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are two different issues. 1) One is my proposal to identify fraternities vs. sororities/women's fraternities for social organizations. This is something that we essentially do in many cases by including umbrella org affiliation, but since we should not assume everyone knows what those umbrella initials mean, this detail would make that info more accessible. Indicating what the group calls itself is not necessarily a reflection of the membership's makeup, so we are not getting involved in identifying who can or cannot join. I agree, that that is beyond the purpose of the infobox.
2) The other issue is the best way to include GLOs that have a gender focus which is a key aspect of the organization. For example, if a professional sorority's purpose is to help women become leaders, not including the gender focus is akin to ignoring that a group is multicultural, Jewish, or historically black. We could indicate this by noting its Type is a Professional Sorority or that its Emphasis is Women's Leadership. Does anyone have a preference or another suggestion? We already include LGBTQ in Emphasis if that if the organization's purpose/mission. The rare women-only or mens-only professional, honor, or service groups seem to be the outliers. Rublamb (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

SUNY regional fraternities

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just as a note, I think if a page can be created for Delta Kappa, the NY Regional forced to have its chapters or at least the ones in New York forced Local, we *should* be able to do the same with others from the SUNY system like Alpha Delta Sorority which I think is older. In the 1929 SUNY-Brockport yearbook (https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstreams/65b23998-922a-46d6-b663-85fb5385b774/download) , it had chapters at Brockport, Cortland, Geneseo, Oneonta, Oswego, Plattsburgh, Bloomsburg and Fredonia. Agonia Sorority also had about the same number over the SUNY schools. Naraht (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Patron X

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I definitely undercounted. Patron Saint has at least: Phi Mu Delta, Mu Epsilon Theta, Pi Lambda Sigma, Tau Gamma Sigma, Delta Phi, Theta Phi Alpha, Theta Xi, St. Anthony Hall, AV Edo-Rhenania zu Tokio. Patron Greek Divinity appears to have 16, and Patron Roman Divinity has 5. Wierdest is Theta Kappa Pi which has as its Patron Greek Divinity as Odin the Wanderer (!) which I'm still trying to find a reference for. (added very close to the beginning, which a ref that appears dead. http://mycampus.lewisu.edu/web/170608/about-us .Naraht (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sarcastic me says "guess we need a field fo Patron Norse Divinity". Being serious, it looks like Greek Divinity is the one the change to the new Patron Divinity field, then we can move the others over. Rublamb (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Though at this point, I'm not sure we *need* to change. (ignoring Theta Kappa Pi's situation), I'm not sure that these (at 16, 9 & 5) are the least used of the paramers. I'm guessing both coords and pillars are in the bottom mostly below that. At *most*, I'd want to change this to a variety of free & free_label. (Patron and Patron type?) and does that gain us much? Still wish I could figure out how many are used of each parameter.Naraht (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think Pillars is not used because most groups call these something else (often a made up term or phrase). I have added these when I come across them. Having one Patron Divinity field would trim the long list of options and allow for outliers. I would call it Patron Divinity not Patron to avoid possible confusion with sponsors/founders who might be called a Patron. BTW, Affiliation and Status still are not showing up as options in Visual Editor unless they are already added. So we need to solve that issue before or when we make changes. Rublamb (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see Affiliations and Status at the very end of the list when I use the VE. What is your last one?Naraht (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I saw them there and thought things were good, but then noticed it was missing. Maybe it is there when adding a new infoboxes, but not for older ones? Or maybe it has to do with whether the infobox was added through VE or not. Picked one at ramdon. See Swing Phi Swing. Rublamb (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is putting at the end, any undocumented fields that the parameters exists in that article's infobox. So Swing Phi Swing has factoid and Delta Delta Delta has affiliation and status. (that is the (undocumented parameter) note I'm not sure what needs to be altered in Template:Infobox fraternity/doc, but, I'll try to tweek it.Naraht (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Status starting showing up. Now it looks like affiation is there too. Will let you know if I find any other issues. Rublamb (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Results from the template param list

edit

From the Param list result shown below... (as of June 1)

  • Roman Divinity(total 5):Minerva(3), Mars, Mercury
  • Greek Divinity (total 16):Apollo (2), Ares, Artemis, Athena, Asclepius, Calliope, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hygieia, Iris, Odin the Wanderer (????), Pallas Athena, Poseidon, Themis
  • Saint(total 10): Albert Magnus, Abraham Lincoln (????), Anthony the Great(2), Ben Franklin (????), Catherine of Sienna, Erasmus of Formia(2), Margaret the Virgin, Saint Catherine of Laboure,

I think for the ones with Saint in them, change to the article name for the person.

And as a note, the following parameters have values *less* than Patron Roman Divinity: chartercity, coordinates, charterdate, virtues, postal code, and province.Naraht (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

chartercity and charterdate are not needed as we have Founded and Birthplace. Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Naraht. Your analysis proves we can combine these patron variants into a single field. I also agree with Rublamb that the "chartercity" and "charterdate" are unnecessary. I'd also dump "coordinates" and "virtues", but keep alternative fields "postal code" and "province" out of respect to our Canadian groups. Jax MN (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So replace with two fields: Patron type with an expected small number of choices: Roman Divinity, Greek Divinity, Saint, and *maybe* Divinity (for those groups using Apollo, which doesn't change names between Greek and Roman, and for Odin the wanderer.
Province is used at least once by one of the Philippines groups, which doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't know what countries have something other than State or Province as their first level subdivision, my guess is that we are most likely to run into problems for one of the Eastern European Groups.
Zeroing out chartercity and charterdate will take a few minutes if we are all find for it. Virtues, probably easier to remove them from the infobox entirely.Naraht (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good to me Rublamb (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You might also add the choice of "Hero" to account for persons like Abraham Lincoln, Ben Franklin, etc. Jax MN (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Theta Nu Epsilon?

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi All,

Was just talking with @Naraht over some deletions I made over at Theta Nu Epsilon. Long story short, about a decade ago a bunch of sockpuppets put a whole bunch of fake history on that page and I'm trying to sort out the legit from the totally bogus. There is a whole talk page about it, but complicating the issue is a bunch of the sockpuppets engage in a fake fight with each other. Anyway any help folks could give in cleaning up the article would be greatly appreciated! Jjazz76 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Primary source used for the chapter list that was recently deleted is the one from a website that someone put together, which can https://web.archive.org/web/20150403113708/http://thetanuepsilon.org/13Chaplis/ChapterList.html . Other lists that I have found (mostly by googling "Theta Nu Epsilon" and picked at random from the first list Bowdoin) include https://books.google.com/books?id=xbU0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA233 and https://books.google.com/books?id=PfDmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA228 . The second although without letters, is from Banta's greek exchange. Note, normally I'd consider Banta's and Baird's as being neutral secondary/tertiary sources for articles about GLOs, but for Theta Nu Epsilon, they would be viewed as *somewhat* antagonistic. Went through my copies of Baird's, and wierdly enough some of the index entries in some editions were screwy, but they best I could do is the 1930s Baird's which had a list of those that were part of the 1925ish reconstruction to be more acceptable as a GLO like those in the NIC (no double membership, etc). This is missing quite a few. For example, *every* source I can find has the chapter list starting Wesleyan, Syracuse, Union, Cornell and Rochester. I'd also suggest editions of the Wesleyan Olla Podrida, for example https://books.google.com/books?id=va8PAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA67 .Naraht (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Baird's 20th has a list of 17 chapters. I'd suggest we roll back these edits and begin looking for sources that confirm each of the groups previously listed. Jax MN (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the effort to improve this article but I agree to a rollback is best in this situtation. Some of the recently deleted content appears to have legit sources, such as athe chapter list. If content with a citation is going to be removed, there needs to be documentation as to what was wrong with that source, probably on the article's talk page OR replacement content with a new/better source. If these edits are being made based on personal knowledge and not sources, that falls under original research. Rublamb (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some of the sources, as far as I could tell, didn't exist or were legitimately made up. The archive talk page way at the bottom, from back in 2008 describes the issues further. But again, if folks think I've deleted too much, I'm totally fine with that. Just trying to work on an article that is a bit of a mess. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
References: Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[1][2] Jax MN (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for these. I just want to make clear I have no issues with Baird or any of the standard reference volumes. There is also a good NY Times article citation in the article that discusses these 1910s to 1920s issues. But the article as it stood, base on a mid-2000s website, list well over 100 chapters many of which had no documentation in Baird, standard reference volumes, or some of the college newspapers I looked through. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good faith, certainly. I found some of the claims to be dubious or worse when I worked on that article. However, after I cleared out some of the chuff, I left the long-ish list of chapters as a breadcrumb trail to help others start their searches for individual chapter references. I also wrote the summary reference (#1, below), which I think is a fair round-up of a couple of sources. I use that language elsewhere, so had copied-and-pasted it from the U of MN list of fraternities on Wikipedia. More broadly, it may be useful in a revision to the TNE article. Others here are better researchers, and we welcome additions to our ranks. I anticipate that the legitimate TNE chapters will surface in one or two references, somewhere. Jax MN (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
GLOs rarely show up in campus newspapers after the 1980s unless there is a hazing incident or chapter house fire, so that does not prove or disprove a chapter. Frustratingly, even yearbooks are not accurate in the last quarter of the 20th century. And, since Baird's last edition was in 1992, we would expect there to be a difference between it and an organizational chapter list from the 2000s. A lot can happen in 2000 years! I will see what I can find--just give me a few days to wrap up other projects. Rublamb (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Baird's and other sources note ΘΝΕ was an ill-favored national due to its recruitment of sophomores who were already members of other fraternities, and a policy of secrecy about the active members – those same sophomores tapped each year. It was NOT an honorary, nor a service society. (Freshmen were not eligible, juniors and seniors were advisory only.) Hence, ΘΝΕ became a bit of a pariah, and members were pressured to quit lest they be expelled from their primary fraternities at Minnesota (see ΦΣΚ Rand History); in 1913 the NIC advocated vigorously against its collegians joining ΘΝΕ. Struggling for a workable path to legitimacy, several varying models developed on ΘΝΕ's campuses, where some chapters became standard fraternities, and other public inter-fraternity groups. At Alabama, it even became a political machine, while other chapters took yet other forms. Later, with the adoption of changes, ΘΝΕ briefly joined the NIC in the 1930s, but ceased operations after WWII. Several chapters reformed the society as a smaller entity, some becoming co-ed in the 1970s. The fraternity reports a few chapters that remain active today. --All information compiled from Baird's 19th, from the cited ΘΝΕ website, and a note about Theta Nu Epsilon in ΦΣΚ's Rand History, in a reference cited under that fraternity, p190.
  2. ^ Frank Prentice Rand (1923). Phi Sigma Kappa: A History 1873 – 1923. Northampton, Massachusetts: The Council of Phi Sigma Kappa, via The Kingsbury Print. p. 190ff.

Order for status

edit
Latest comment: 28 days ago15 comments4 people in discussion

After I've added Status to a number of articles, I've seen someone else go in and Status get moved to before Type. Is this done automatically when Visual Edits are done to the Infobox, or is this being done by hand. And in either case, should I put it prior to Type rather than at the end. (Yes, I know it works in either place, but so that it doesn't have to get moved) Naraht (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have not moved any but have used VE to added Status. With VE, Status seems to go after Type. Rublamb (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Eh, "Someone" here. Truly Naraht, sorry to cause any annoyance. I appreciate the collaborative work. Yes, the Infobox forces a specific order to these, which appears fully workable. As I go through the list of pages missing the image_size field, and as I generally review all edited pages, I routinely move the metatext fields to their approximate or exact position to match how the infobox presents them. I know that you are helpfully adding these using Visual Editor. My intent is to ensure newbie and even more experienced editors don't get tripped up by varying presentations of the infobox code. Hence, I add spacing and move these fields to a consistent position. It makes it clearer to read, when in basic edit mode. Jax MN (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Jax MN That's fine. I very much *do not* use VE. (the only thing I find useful in VE is being able to add/delete/move columns in tables). If it helps with consistency I will add it before type. I figure that type is a field that we go out of our way to fill in, so it will always be there. I do support consistency of infoboxes in the behind the scenes, and very much appreciate standardization with the | on the far left followed by a space and the parameter and then the = signs in a column as much as possible.Naraht (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. We've all been solidly consistent in ferreting out the rules for our infoboxes, tables and the general project itself. In this pass through the watchlist I've been focused on the size and presentation of crests, and my cleanup of the other params is incidental. Hence I have been grouping them and may have missed adjustment of where they fit into the exact order listed in the infobox template. My order has been: name/letters/crest/founding, then status/type/emphasis/scope/affiliation, then symbols/colors/mottos/etc, then free fields, then address fields in order, then website, then ending with footnotes. I am detail oriented, like other editors, but not so much that I am scrutinizing beyond these general placements.
By the way, I am, however, a diligent proofreader. I have done it for so long in my professional life that I can't really turn that off. When you see adjustments made or typos corrected, please don't take offense. I often see them before the red underline of my browser app kicks in to alert me. I will try to avoid any edit conflict sessions and keep an eye on the "In Use" templates.
Some day we should have a Zoom call, and share a virtual glass of port or wine, and you all can give me the barbs I deserve. Jax MN (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Naraht: I think we should always use VE to create chapter tables because other editors will be able to update status and dates with either visual or source, depending on skill level. Whereas, a table created in source can only be edited in source, excluding less experienced editors from contributing. (If you prefer source, simply create a three-row table in VE, save it, and then work in source). The downside is that VE doesn't always insert the spaces--which are not required for the code to function. I have decided to see such things as personal preference, rather than essential, but do understand how spacing makes it easier.
Rublamb I was under the impression that regardless of how the table was made, either single pipes at the beginning of each line or double pipes that allow for multiple entries that VE could handle it. I prefer one data element per line, that can be handled by VE, correct?Naraht (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
VE does one data element per line in tables. The spacing I am talking about is within the line, such as |Alpha vs | Alpha. Rublamb (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jax MN: When adding the crest or seal to the Infobox using VE, a template note indicates that the image will automatically be sized appropriately to the preferred norm of 220 (set by MOS). IF no size is added. Thus, it is no longer necessary to manually add a size for these images. As a result, the only cleanup needed would be for images that need to be smaller because they are blurry or images that were historically given a smaller or larger than normal size. Unfortunately, our cleanup project is for "no size" when we actually need a report for non-standard sizes. Rublamb (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Jax MN So you would prefer a category for image_size is neither blank nor 220?Naraht (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I responded hours ago, but it was on my phone, and I think the connection flaked out before it posted to Wikipedia. My point was, the native size of these graphics, as they display, varies widely. Thus the default isn't very helpful. Very few would look correct expressed with only the default 220px. Perhaps 20% of all of them I have seen. I use sizing anywhere between 100px to even 300px to make them all come out similar in display size. As for the member badges, these typically are enclosed in double square brackets, with a pipe instruction to display somewhere between 40px to 60px. Finally, some of the flag images had been set to 150px, but I've been backing those off to 120px. Seems to work well, visually.
I'll use that trick with VE when first creating a table. Didn't know that. Jax MN (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense. For clarity: the default image size is just for the crest or seal--the two that connect to the image size field that is that is part of the report @Naraht set up. The flag and badge fields always require manual sizing and positioning if placed in those fields. Rublamb (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, it is when a table is created with the FratChapter template that makes it uneditable in VE. Rublamb (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The order of parameters in an infobox on an article does not matter, they will always show up in the same order on the observed template. If parameters get rearranged during the course of updating an infobox, we should not care. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Primefac, I am accustomed to reading Metadata as I code websites. I agree that for us on the 'active Project team', we can navigate fine. My rationale for caring about back-end order is two-fold: first, our current pages are used as templates so consistency breeds better pages. Second, some editors will find it easier to navigate consistent views where we add extra spacing and lines, and place params in anticipated spots. Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's fair, I suppose my point was more that it doesn't necessarily need to be a "cleanup task" (as I myself maintain a few infoboxes where it drives me nuts when people put things in a non-standard order). Primefac (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Motto & translation

edit
Latest comment: 28 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

For the Infobox University, there is a motto and a motto_eng as well as a field for the language of the Motto. While we don't need the last, I think, should the motto and it's translation be split into separate fields?Naraht (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Five or six years ago, didn't you try to capture all the text found on various crests, to place in one of the table columns on the one-page list of all the IFC and NPC organizations? I think after some discussion we decided it was fruitless, and agreed it was an unnecessary capture. Somewhat in the same way, I think we are OK in just placing a line break between the Greek and the translation. I sometimes place the translation in a smaller font, if the fit is better. I think that is probably adequate. Jax MN (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking up Delta Upsilon's "Justice, Our foundation" (which is one of the public, easy to get ones that I can't imagine not getting). It looks like the effort was as part of the greek on the coat of arms at List of social fraternities and sororities. (No page other than that one and Delta Upsilon have that text). User:Gts-tg was the person who started the effort in 2017 a. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_social_fraternities_and_sororities&oldid=794058619 Naraht (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe that is correct. Of couse, the phrase on the ceast is not always the motto. Rublamb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am neutral on having two fields. It would look nice (if we can make sure that the two fields are adjacent) but would be another big project. Also, many of the mottos are now in English only. I have followed the practice of the Latin/foreign language version first, followed by the English version in parenthesis with no line break. At least, that seems to be the most common format. I personally do not like the smaller font. Rublamb (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Colonies, alternative name

edit
Latest comment: 20 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Primefac, you might be best suited to make this adjustment. I don't think it will be controversial. We have a current parameter that forces a swap from the standard name of "Pledge" to read as any alternative name denoted in the associated fields, "pledge pin" and "colony pledge pin". Yet we still have "Colonies" as the only option for emerging groups. Either we include the terms "Associate Chapters" and "Provisional Chapters" that would be allowed synonyms, or we (er, you) create an open-ended field that populates an alternative word for this field. I think those are the only two synonyms I've encountered. Note that the syntax should be plural, i.e.; "colonies". Jax MN (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the same issue that exists with Pillars which might be called principals, core beliefs, values, etc. There are other names in use for colonies, especially with the newer GLO and/or multicultural groups. In the chapters section, I state what the group calls its colonies and, then, use the term colony in the table (making it match the infobox). Are we also going to expand the terms used in chapter lists? Honestly, colonies are transitional in nature and not as important to count, IMO. Baird's only provided a total count for active and inactive chapters. Rublamb (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Frankly, I wouldn't be that sad if the entire concept of colonies disappeared from the infobox.Naraht (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That would be fine with me. As I said, they are temporary thing. Rublamb (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are we removing or allowing for an alternate label? Primefac (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not the most important field as it is transitory. However, I'd like to keep it. It may serve the Project by increasing participation by new editors who update these fields from time to time. Additionally, I don't believe I've ever seen this particular field vandalized on any of the GLO pages over the past decade. Keep it. Jax MN (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No infobox

edit
Latest comment: 25 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I don't want us to forget that we want to identify articles without an Infobox. We could start with any article that has a WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities tag and see what that yields. Rublamb (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That would probably be a Petscan, I think. I'm not quite sure how to do this but the following springs to mind.
  1. Include Category:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities articles (In the talk page)
  2. Exclude Category:List-Class Fraternities and Sororities articles (in the talk page) Alternately Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society, Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college and Category:Lists of members of United States student societies and subcats from page
  3. Exclude Template:Infobox Fraternity (and any redirects to it manually if Petscan doesn't handle them)
  4. Exclude Category:Fraternity and sorority houses and subcats

Ideas for other exclusions?Naraht (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had previously tried Petscan, using Category:WikiProject Fraternities (talkpage) and Sororities without Template:Infobox fraternity. However, I did not get any results. Can you try and see what you get? Rublamb (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
How did you specify that the category was talkpage? I don't see anything on the Category tab to specify that. I tried putting both in the template with WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities in the has all with talk checked yes and Infobox Fraternity in the has none and didn't get any hits, and I think I should (at least the chapter lists.).Naraht (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a check box below the place where you enter Category. Rublamb (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see checkboxes for that in template, not category. Looking at https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28171132 where is the checkbox?
You are correct--under the three template boxes. I was just using template options: items with "WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities" and lacking "Infobox fraternity" as I thought anything with the {{}} was treated as a template. Rublamb (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merged/Dormant add year?

edit
Latest comment: 24 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Beta Sigma Omicron has been edited to Merged (1964). Do we want to include that on ones where the date is known? I'm concerned about that working with the code to drop groups that are merged from those where it complains about missing website.Naraht (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you mean edited to be Dormant (1964). Not a problem. I have only done this with a few. Maybe we should look at Infobox University which has a "Date closed" field. If provided, this the closure date automatically combines with the "Date established" field to give a date range. In reality, status would not be needed if we instead used "Date closed" and would be more specific. We could use the defunct category to find closed groups and only undate that smaller group, rather than all infoboxes. This also makes more sense to me--I think it is weird to indicate 85 years since being formed for a group that only operated for 10 years in early 20th century. Rublamb (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Problem. Changing Sigma Sigma Omicron from status = Merged to status = Merged 1964 adds it *back* to the needs database category. We need to either
  1. Stop adding dates
  2. Change the software to handle the added date
  3. Add in a merged_date and/or dormant date

Naraht (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Number 1 is the easiet for now. But take a look at the way the dates work in Infobox university. I like the way the closure date field merges with the opening date. Rublamb (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand and agree with you, Naraht, that this creates difficulty. This particular example shows the value of inserting the date, adjacent to the "Merged" or "Dormant" term. Sigma Sigma Omicron had several name changes, making it more difficult to understand the eventual outcome except if one reads the body text carefully. But the problem you note, remains. If Rublamb's helpful suggestion of using similar code to the University infobox is workable, that may be the best resolution. I will defer to consensus, but am strumming that same string: aiming for clarity even when it means I/we have to ask someone with more skills in this matter to do some additional coding for us. By the way, I know that in working through a few hundred situations where "image_size" was missing, that I likely filled your inboxes with alerts that you had to review, so that you could continue tracking each of these societies. Thanks for enduring that.
I think there is a way to accept all such changes without individual review, but I know that I prefer to look at each one. Again, I am a chronic proofreader; never assume that my following up your edits with another "cleanup" edit is in any way trying to upstage. I welcome your edits of my own work. Jax MN (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Negative issues in lede...

edit
Latest comment: 25 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

After seeing the change to Alpha Kappa Rho. I'm generally feeling the following way. Negative issues should only be included in the lede if that is the only thing that the group has notability for at all. the only one that I can come up with that fits that is Chi Tau (local) (where I am fine with the current) Naraht (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

When I was cleaning up that article, I decided to leave the existing lede content related to violence and gang behavior. I agree it could be tempered but this is relevant here because this is not just a service fraternity. Service fraternities do not require police-led peace accords. IMO, it would be like only mentioning that a Nigerian confraternity is a service organization and ignoring its history of piracy. Even given your suggestion of only including negative content if this is why the group is notable, I believe the only sources for this article that are not primary are about its violent history, making that the only reason the group is notable. Rublamb (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Two cents: The lede should be a summary of the article's following paragraphs, distilling in one or two sentences the key points about the society. Indeed, the two examples you mention (three, with mention of the Nigerian group), these three indeed should include the detrimental information in the lede. Jax MN (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jax MN, Do you have time to look at Alpha Kappa Rho and restore some mention of the negative content? You are really good a distilling facts into a reasonable amount of content. Rublamb (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rublamb In regards to peace accords, while you have the mention of peace accords in regards to AKRho and Tau Gamma Phi, it is much broader than that. Please take a look at the announcement of the peace accord at Western Mindanao State University ([1]) which covers AKRho, Tau Gamma Phi/Sigma, Alpha Sigma Phi, Alpha Phi Omega, Order of Demolay and others. (And if negative belongs in the lead, Tau Gamma Phi probably also qualifies. (18 hazing deaths in the last 18 years more or less)) Naraht (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mergers of equals to new name.

edit
Latest comment: 22 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the groups we have articles coming from a merger of multi chapter groups (>5 chapters) to *new* name are Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha, Phi Kappa Theta, Kappa Omicron Nu and Delta Theta Phi. Now that Rublamb has done the work on splitting out DSR and TKA. That leaves Delta Theta Phi which was only formed from a merger of multi chapter groups, it later had another group merge into that. Any others spring to mind? Naraht (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lambda Delta Sigma and Sigma Gamma Chi - Merged or Defunct?

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given the fact that the Church functionally merged them into LDSSA, would these count as Merged or Defunct?Naraht (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since it did not merge into another GLO, I would use defunct. Rublamb (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking for a website

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Right now, a group being merged or defunct in Status removes it from the list of websites needed. I sort of wish we also give a pass to "Secret Societies" (Skull and Bones is unlikely to havea web page) and just about anything in the Philippines (I think Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) may be the only one with what we would want for a website).Naraht (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense to me. Also maybe Location PR and Type Confraternities. (I know the one confraternity has a website but that is an excpetion, like APO Philippines). Rublamb (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rollup of Parameters and values. *VERY USEFUL*

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A bot runs every month (current was done on June 1) that has a rollup of all of the values. (https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+fraternity) This was a *lot* of useful information, for example, for the parameter patron roman divinity , you can show links to all of the pages that use it *or* click on the Unique values columns, see how many unique values there are and for each of *them* see what pages they have. One annoying piece of data, I want to track down. 787 pages with the infobox, 787 with type, 787 with scope, and *786* with founded. Which means *one* article doesn't have it.

It is generated monthly, so we won't be able to see our recent changes for a bit, but it *will* be useful. Let me know what you find most useful!Naraht (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another issue: The Bot reports 787 pages with the Infobox fraternity. The List of Articles on the WP landing page only has only 744. If I understand how the List is generated, this means that 43 articles do not have WP Fraternities and Sororities listed on their Talkpage. I will see if I can find these using petscan. (Anything to avoid fixing the issues with Christian fraternities). Rublamb (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Petscan found seven. Working on it. Rublamb (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

State and Country in Infobox

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  1. ) Do we link to the State and/or Country?
  2. ) Do we abbreviate to Postal Abbreviation/Standard abbreviation in the Display if we do?
  3. ) Additionally what should be shown for the country containing Chicago: US, USA, United States or United States of America?

As far as I can tell from the parameter listing, most common for country is "United States", no link, but not sure on the states for linking. Naraht (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

For US states I'd previously been using the two-letter postal abbreviations. However you or Rublamb have asserted use of the full state name. I'd also read that US Postal abbreviations aren't optimal here, per MOS, so I'm onboard with using the full state name. Note also I don't think we need Wikilinks for instances of "United States" as the country, also per MOS. Jax MN (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jax MN, you are correct. MOS calls for United States, U.S. or US, rather than USA or United States of America. It also says not to link the last item in city, state, country string--so country would not be linked but city and state would be (could be). MOS says to avoid abbreviations but does recognize state abbreviations as being standard. This means that state abbreviations are allowed but the full state name would be preferred, with abbreviations being used where space is a consideration. (You could argue either way on the space issue with an Infobox0. Since people from around the world use Wikipedia, I don't assume that everyone knows what the state abbreviations mean, which is why I tend to spell them out. But either is fine. I started spelling out United States because I spell out Canada, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, etc. rather than using country abbreviations. But, again, the abbreviated form is allowable. Rublamb (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So from this. If the addresses city is Portland Oregon, we should have
  • Choice 1: [[Portland, Oregon|Portland]], [[Oregon]], United States
  • Choice 2: [[Portland, Oregon|Portland]], [[Oregon|OR]], United States
Should we standardize?Naraht (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed additions to Affiliation

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know these organizations don't exist but our usage of adding past affiliations has been spotty. For example, a group that was

  1. ) PPA: Professional Panhellenic Association
  2. ) PIC: Professional Interfraternity Conference
  3. ) AES: Association of Education Sororities
  4. ) CNHL: (*Maybe*) Concilio Nacional de Hermandades Latinas

Naraht (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Upsilon Phi Sigma

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I got a start on the chapter list for Upsilon Phi Sigma. Can someone take a look at the redlinked colleges? Many on this list have had one or many name changes or are in Wikipedia with slight name variations and no redirects for prior names. Some might be defunct. I found and linked many but still have many redlinks. Rublamb (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look... If it helps, List of Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) chapters and alumni associations has had *many* of the same issues and has somewhat overcome them, you may want to look at some of the names for hints. Also looking for the name in tl.wikipedia.org *can* be useful if only to get an interlanguage link. APO Philippines is probably the most stable in many regards of the GLOs (other than the single school ones like the legal and medical ones), but that is still not a high bar.Naraht (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Theta Phi Alpha

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would appreciate eyes on the article. Over the last 4 months, there have been several attempts to delete motto and patroness, but still listed on the sorority website at https://thetaphialpha.org/collegians/Family-information Naraht (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Additional GLO umbrella

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apparently at one point there was a Fraternity equivalent to the AES: Association of Teachers College Fraternities , Had Sigma Tau Gamma, Phi Sigma Epsilon & Zeta Sigma. (Zeta Sigma has an entry in the 1940 Baird's so probably could have an article. Founded in 1936 by the first two, existed until at least after WWII.Naraht (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No longer active on the collegiate level...

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Groups with descriptions like this, should be treated as Active or Defunct??? Rho Psi is the example, but there are others.Naraht (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have skipped over these hoping to magically come up with a solution. Maybe it depends. Is it actively initiating members to alumni or community based chapters? That would be an active. However, if it just has the dregs of an alumni association or a national board, it might be an active organization but is longer an active fraternity. The same way a defunct college with an alumni association is no longer an active college. I think the main questions in deciding are: Does it still initiate new members? Does it still have chapters? Has it migrated from a fraternity/sorority to an organization based on WP criteria? Rublamb (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jax MN, do you have time to look at this? Coincidentally, a couple of days ago I decided to work on our FL, FA, and GA article that have declined. I am in the middle of another article (that is in much worse condition) and would rather not jump to another project. Rublamb (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's on my list, but I too have several other items in the queue. If someone else gets to it prior to me, that's fine. I'm not regularly involved with FA and GA analysis or nominations. Jax MN (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking more about adding needed updates (new or defunct chapters), as that should address any concerns. Rublamb (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Current list: Infobox fraternity/sorority & Notability or No Ref Tag

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Naraht (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Naraht: can I merge my short list of articles with no sources into this list since the issue is pretty much the same? Rublamb (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure. And Tau Alpha needs To be restored to the list reverted my removal. Currently at Talk:Tau Alpha, would appreciate eyes on.Naraht (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done. Rublamb (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

UP Cineastes' Studio

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The *first* edit on this page was creation with the Infobox Fraternity, and it hasn't changed, but I'm wondering if Fraternity or Organization is more appropriate, opinions?Naraht (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would think organization since it doesn't seem to have the characteristics of either a GLO or honor society. I will make the needed changes. Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It does appear that one applies for membership, maybe that's the reason?Naraht (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Membership is open to all students and does not have restrictions for academics or area of study. It sounds more like a club than a GLO, professional or honor society. Rublamb (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Founding fathers order.

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Let's say that a GLO has 8 founding fathers and *always* lists them in a particular order, (let's say the primary founder, and then the order that brought the others into the ritual). Would this ordering be appropriate in the article and would it need to be proved or otherwise, it would be perfectly reasonable for an editor to alphabetize. I'm currently watching a video about the history of Alpha Kappa Rho in a language I don't understand (Tagalog), but the order is clearly not alphabetical for the founders.Naraht (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

My preference is to list these in alphabetical order by last name, or if a specific founder is given preferential notification by the national organization, I think it reasonable to follow their ordering system. But this latter situation may only impact 5% of the organizations, if I were to take a guess. Jax MN (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I prefer alphabetical order. The order of initiation of founders is organizational trivia, rather than encyclopedic. Generally, the source for initiation order is going to be a primary source. Baird's would be the preferred source and did not specify this info, which I think sets the standard. If there is a primary founder, this is typically mentioned in the text of article. Rublamb (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Beta Sigma help needed

edit
Latest comment: 8 hours ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have worked on the Draft:Beta Sigma Fraternity that was declined in draftspace and have it ready to go. However, it brings up the Grove City redirects again (see discussion above). There is a redirect for a local frat at Grove City that is not mentioned in the college article. The fraternity in the draft has over 100 chapters, including international locations. It clearly should have the Beta Sigma title. @Primefac, do you have the abilty to delete the redirect or to fix it so that we can publish this draft as Beta Sigma? Rublamb (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Uh... neither Beta Sigma Fraternity nor Beta Sigma have pages there, though I do note that the latter was just deleted a few hours ago via {{db-afc-move}}. That or {{db-move}} are the best ways to get redirects that are in the way deleted (for future reference). Primefac (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have the afch tool which marked this when I tried to approve it. I'll check on status when I get home. Naraht (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Beta Sigma redirect was still live when I checked. I think @Naraht had submitted requests to delete all of the Grove City redirects and it just happened to have perfect timing. Thank you both for looking at this. Rublamb (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No problem. Looks like it went through. I'll need to look at the cats for it, I didn't expect when I requested the deletion of the redirect that it would go as far as it did.Naraht (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just like I wasn't expecting to find secondary sources for a Philippines fraternity... Rublamb (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities&oldid=1231710724"