Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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.

Navigation tools[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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (252)
  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 (731)
  7. missing |chapters= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing chapters (19) DONE (what is possible)
  8. missing |members= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing members (682)
  9. Missing ZIP code" IF the other address fields are present
  10. missing |website= Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing website (109)
  11. Missing short descriptions. - tracked here DONE
  12. Orphans - via WP Orphanage search and petscan DONE
  13. missing |status= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing status (102)
  14. Redirects - available through the table on the WP landing page. But this does not tell us which ones are on our watchlist as notable organizations.
  15. Article name does not match infobox - DONE
  16. Missing infobox
  17. Missing countries
  18. Cleanup/Needing attention
  19. Unreferenced or Refimprove
  20. Primary sources or One source or More footnotes needed
  21. Notability
  22. Missing Fraternities and Sororities template
  23. "| colors" is missing one or more color boxes in this format: "{{color box|#FF0000}}", with any HEX code. I prefer not to use borders or inset words in these swatches, so please also flag variants of that tag, like this: {{color box|#930e06|Red|white}}.
  24. "<span>" tag is used in a colors parameter field.
  25. Needs color boxes:
Rublamb (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missing website is not working--it is empty which cannot be right. Rublamb (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was setting up the check assuming |status= was filled in. Adjusted now. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful link, showing colors, flags and addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German and Polish fraternities. Jax MN (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short Histories of Sororities.[edit]

Banta's Greek Exchange in the 1910s had a series called "Short Histories of Sororities" by Ida Shaw Martin . The one for Beta Sigma Omicron was at https://books.google.com/books?id=He8TAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA341#v=onepage&q&f=false , and that has about three times the information we have in the article. Even for some of the groups which are still active, it might be worth it to work through them. (That google "book", the year (four issues) had Alpha Sigma Alpha, Alpha Xi Delta, Beta Sigma Omicron &Chi Omega) Naraht (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to look through later issues to see if this extended (presumably next would be Delta Delta Delta (followed by Delta Gamma)Naraht (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax[edit]

Our watch page syntax list sets a preference for the term "general" when refering to the typical college social fraternity or sorority. I noticed that List of social fraternities and sororities refers to them as traditional under the heading Traditional Emphasis. Whereas List of general fraternities refers to non-collegiate organizations. Doesn't there seem to be a conflict in our use of terms? Should List of social fraternities and sororities be using the term "general"? Should List of general fraternities be moved to List of Non-collegiate Fraternities--as this would seem clearer to eveyone? Rublamb (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jax MN, @User:Naraht, and @Primefac: Either everyone missed this or no one want to dig into this mess. Rublamb (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just haven't had time. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had another thought. General Fraternities might be Community or Community-based instead Rublamb (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with non-collegiate. There may be some overlap, groups like Alpha Phi Alpha still view on the collegate campus as a model. I think the closest to true confusion collegiate vs. community is probably Commons Clubs. Note, the Philippines is a *completely* different discussion here.Naraht (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've wrestled with this too. Some time ago I settled on use of "Social" and "Academic", using them interchangeably, to describe the traditional undergraduate fraternities and sororities that do not self-select into a tighter segment, such as (Mono) Cultural or Multicultural types. For me, these terms supplant (replace) use of the modifier "General", which had (with "Social") been common in various Baird's editions, a word (General) which has evolved to take a broader role in describing groups like the Masons, Odd Fellows, and many others. Conversely, the Cultural fraternities can indeed claim the modifiers "Academic", "Social" or "Non-collegiate", depending on their identities, but they may also be more carefully and tightly defined by other adjectives: "Multicultural" is the most prevalent; "Latino" is even tighter.
I think we all have a clear idea of when to use "Professional", "Service" and "Honor", though some Social groups slip in the term Service into their bios and their infoboxes because their operational model is on the fence. Baird's editors would have had them pick one or the other. Some years ago, "Recognition" societies, as a class, were apparently adopted into the broader grouping of Honor societies; here on Wikipedia we don't appear to distinguish between them. There are a variety of levels of operational vigor among the honor and former recognition societies, today.
Finally, getting back to the term "Academic", it is a somewhat newer adjective in the present context, I think as a response to the growth of non-collegiate GLOs that describe either community service or military focus. On page I-9 of the 20th ed. of Baird's Manual, an essay by Kent Christopher Owen dated 1991 describes much of this as I have stated, and further notes that "General fraternities are commonly called "social" fraternities, but while the initial use of the term social referred to social development, the term has been mistakenly thought to refer to social functions by members and non-members alike. Actually, the intent was to suggest that a student needed to be "socialized," that is, directed with a proper consideration of one's future responsibilities in society." Owen went on to state (in 1991) that "Fraternity leaders prefer the term general fraternity when referring to organizations that offer membership to students from all academic backgrounds", and are often single-sex. Importantly, in the three decades since this was written, I think that use of the term "General" has evolved and that "Academic" serves its former purpose for GLOs, which may sometimes be replaced by "Social" at the writers option to avoid repetitive prose. Jax MN (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I write these long paragraphs. Sorry 'bout that. I don't mean to be tedious. Jax MN (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: If traditional "social" fraternities are to be called "general", what is the correct name for the non-collegiate article? We are not limited to Baird's here, but can also go with what will make sense to the average person. To me, it is confusing to call the Masons and Alpha Phi Omega the same kind of group; that is, general. The two might have common things (ritual, service and friendship), but the huge difference is community vs. collegiate. Also, I don't think general and academic are the same thing. Aren't there a few groups that are not honor societies or professional societies but are based on an academic field? Rublamb (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may have missed something because of my too-lengthy response. I said I think we ought to use Social or Academic, interchangeably, rather than General. General may reasonably be used for the non-collegiate groups, as so many of these have arisen over the past few decades. Jax MN (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So this means we need to update the watch page, right? Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leland's Annual: The Fraternity-sorority Directory[edit]

Does anyone have access to this for 1967 or 1970? The snippet in Google shows that these editions included Eta Upsilon Gamma, which was not included in the 1962 Baird's. I am hoping this might provide some clues to the ending of this sorority. Rublamb (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local chapter misconduct sections.[edit]

Should they be newest to oldest or oldest to newest? Naraht (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable question, as any History narrative begins with the oldest sections. Yet for misconduct, I think starting with the most recent makes sense, trailing into the older items. Then, after a period of years (ten?) these would normally fall off. Maybe even earlier, to be relegated to a chapter EFN. Of course some items would remain persistent, as they are of notable significance, like the fraudulent Phi Kappa Psi / Rolling Stone story. Jax MN (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your thought process, but I would stick to chronologic order, per Wikipedia's guidelines. Another idea is the create two subsections: current and historic. That way, the majority of the list would be in date order and the most current could be at the top of the section. Rublamb (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong preference here. My instinct is to strive for clarity, and lead with information that casual researchers would want to find. If you happened to have looked up Wikipedia guidelines for this, you might reference them here, for review by others. Jax MN (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is briefly mentioned in MOS:LISTSORT Rublamb (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, oldest first is preferred...Naraht (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternities and Soroities Guideline[edit]

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]

Type for European Groups[edit]

The missing Type cat showed us that the European Groups have been left deliberately empty. Do we use Studentenverbindung for these?Naraht (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might check on what they do for other language Wikis. Here on the English Wiki we could simply create a new type for European or Asian-based. Jax MN (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at a couple that are German, they are described as Studentenverbindung, but even the ones from farther east, which end up at pages that translate as student corporation, end up at Studentenverbindung as the German equivalent which we have an article for in English, so unless there are objections, I'm going to put that on the groups from that tradition.Naraht (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German article gives the impression that „Studentenverbindungen/ Studentenkorporationen/ Student associations“ are a special form of a student society at German universities. In fact, this is a possible – but narrow – understanding of the term. The Staatslexikon and the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit do not provide a clear definition of the term. Although both initially see the term as a synonym for versatile student societies, which would therefore also include forms of student associations in other countries (such as student nations in Sweden or fraternitis in North America), they then narrow it down to the German phenomenon and cite the customs and traditions common to german student associations today (separation of members into Füchse, Burschen und Philister; Kneipen; Wichs) as common characteristics. It would perhaps be useful to set out the narrower and broader definition of the term „student association“ in the article. Instead of „Studentverbindung“, the article should perhaps be renamed „German Student association“, as the English version of the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit does. The term fraternity is a rather unfortunate choice. --Teutschmann (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Teutschmann[reply]
This may be a moot point, as the English Wikipedia need only have the basic structure. The German Wikipedia may be the best place to include more detail on how these are categorized. However Teutschmann, if you have a more accurate, generic terms for ALL of these German student groups, better than Studentenverbindung, then let us know. In our Watchlist we aim to list the student groups that are most like US fraternities. We argue about where to draw the line. Jax MN (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German term „Studentenverbindung“ or „Studentenkorporation“ corresponds to the term „[German] Student association“ (German not in the sence of the State Germany). What a (German) student association is and what it is not, is clearly defined. Only student associations have the institution of the Kneipe. I would also like to point out that the authors of the article on student fraternities are wrong in almost every statement in the article. And I'm not joking, it's downright bizarre to read through. If I started correcting here, I'd be immediately banned for alleged vandalism.  Hardly any statement in the article is correct. Teutschmann (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teutschmann: If you are referring to Studentenverbindung, much of that article is unsourced. An update with sources would be appreciated, not challenged, especially from someone who has a better understanding of these groups. Rublamb (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information field - defunct[edit]

As an additional field that won't necessarily display, I'd like to add a defunct parameter to the infobox. We could at *minimum* use this to make sure that some group that merged in more than 100 years ago doesn't complain about not having a website. (Defunct will include merged)Naraht (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should display. I'm actually surprised we don't have a parameter for the closing/defunct/whatever-you-want-to-call-it date. If that does get added in, though, we can easily use it to trigger other things (though it is possible that defunct orgs, even those from 100 years ago, could theoretically have a website). Primefac (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several fields in the Infobox Organization that we could copy, including Predecessor, Merged, Successor, Dissolved, and Status. Also, we should add an Affiliation field, rather than having to add it as a free field. Another area to review is the Chapters field. We could expand this to provide the option of Active Chapters, Dormant Chapters, Alumni Chapters, and Graduate Chapters. These could stand alone or populate the Chapters field, the way Lifetime goes into the Members field. That would let us added chapter options without having to immediately address the many variations of data currently in the Chapter field. Rublamb (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac I missed the proposal to display. I'm neutral to positive on that idea.Naraht (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal -> Status[edit]

Status parameter.

  1. 3 values. D for Defunct. M for Merged. A for Active. Also accepting the full word.
  2. If Status = Merged and Merged_with field has a value, display. (Could be Multiple).
  3. Website/Homepage displays regardless, but only "complains" if Status = "A".
  4. Remove Former from text in affiliation (other?), add programatically if D or M.

I figure that even with all of the organizations we have, filling in that would take us together a few days. Naraht (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the full words spelled out, rather than D, M or A. It's more clear, for casual researchers. This will be a helpful addition to the infoboxes. Jax MN (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on the full words requirement. Setting up a maint category if the value is anything else is fine.Naraht (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coding-wise it's not that much more onerous to have extra values (since we'd likely be using a #switch statement anyway) but I'm happy to work with whatever gets decided. I do suppose if there are other triggers then simpler would be better. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac I think we are go on this. I figure create the parameter, add it to the infoboxes, use it to limit the no website category and then see what else we can use it for. The Defunct and Merged should correspond with the entries in Category:Defunct fraternities and sororities and their subcategories, but I'm not sure that is something worth putting into stone.Naraht (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, given that some GLOs sort of fall apart and have chapters brought in, I'm going with the following distinction between merged and defunct based on the Delta Sigma Epsilon merger into Delta Zeta. If all (or most) alumni members of organization A are offered membership into organization B then it is a Merger, otherwise it isn't. (I'm not saying all because if Organization B has a chapter at the same school as Organization A, often those chapters are released without the undergraduate members of Organization A being offered membership). Alumni members of the chapter of Organization A at that school can get tricky).Naraht (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Also, I'm pretty sure we should use status rather than Status as a parameter. Consistency on lower case.Naraht (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about adding one more standard word for the status field? "Withdrew" to be followed by a specific year in parantheses. This is for now-local chapters at a few schools which were once affiliated with a national fraternity. Does the current rule set for this param allow for additional words? Jax MN (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Infobox refers to the organization (not chapters), it doesn't make sense to "withdrew" in the Infobox status field--a GLO cannot withdraw from itself. This term only makes sense for a chapter list. Rublamb (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of this would be the Dartmouth locals that have Wikipedia articles, but which were once part of national fraternities, like Chi Gamma Epsilon. Jax MN (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about a "new" local GLO, why wouldn't its status be Active? It did not withdraw from itself. A better solution would be to include a predecessor field. Rublamb (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Chi Gamma Epsilon, they previously had listed their founding as a Kappa Sig chapter, 120 years ago as their founding date. However, as they are/were schismatic, I switched that to note their new founding date as a local, and following Rublamb's suggestion I'd noted the Kappa Sig origin using free fields. I suppose this is best. Jax MN (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown[edit]

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]

Scope[edit]

I'd like to define what should be used in each of the following situations.

  1. One chapter active - Many nationwide inactive
  2. Half a dozen chapters but spread from coast to coast
  3. 200 chapters - all in the USA
  4. 200 chapters - 197 in the USA, 3 in Canada
  5. 80 chapters - all in the Philippines.

Naraht (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My responses assume our options are local, regional, and national.
  • 1. That one's complicated and gets into the legal status of the national organization. Has the last active chapter disaffiliated (either before or after the national group ceased operations) and is now operating as a local OR is the last chapter still considered part of the formerly national org (the national never ceased operations)? I have dealt with both situations in the past two weeks. In one instance, there is only one collegiate chapter left, but the alumni and governing board of the national still meet. This could be either Local or National (former), although the latter seems a better response. In the other, the national closed for good, but two rogue chapters continued to function in isolation, not even aware that the other existed. We could treat this as an inactive group, with a status of National. I think this is why fields that indicate active/dormant status and action/dormant chapter numbers is important. That way, scope can address the bigger picture, not the last breath of a group.
  • 2. National (US)
  • 3. National (US)
  • 4. International
  • 5. National (PH). I have decided this is the best way to describe this situation as this is English Wikipedia not Wikipedia US. Note that I have started including which country the group is national in within the field. However, this is an unneeded duplicate if the country field is also included.
  • 6. Adding another one to discuss. Active GLO has chapters cross the US but used to have 5 chapters in five other countries. All international chapters are now defunct. I tend to go with National here.
Rublamb (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International is of course an option. :) I *think* the only National possibilities that I've seen are US, PH, & CA. Of course the question is whether the Puerto Rican Fraternties are Regional or National.
For Regional in the USA, In the 20th and 21st century, I tend to use Regional if the covering convex polygon is less than 1/3 of the country. Prior to the 20th century, I tend to use whether it had chapters in both the Northern and Southern States. So a fraternity with chapters in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and North Carolina would be Regional if it was 21st century and National if it was 1856.
For Regional in the Philippines. There are three major Island groups of the Philippines, Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao. Regional if multiple chapters and in only one Island Group, National if it has chapters in more than one of the three. (and yes, I've seen that definition used in other context in the Philippines, such as Basketball leagues)
Agree on #6 Naraht (talk)
Heck. We clearly need to define these terms and provide guidelines as User:Pancake621 suggested. Looks like we could also use the help of non-US editors.
My use of regional has been much tighter, based on what I found when I first joined the WP. My interpretation has been a group with several chapters in one state (usually California) or two or three chapters in two or three adjacent states. Maybe the former is better described as local which I have previously used to mean a single-location GLO? (I do have a hard time describing a two-chapter GLO with one chapter in LA and another in Sacramento as "local" given that this is the geographic equivalent of one chapter in Georgia and another in Pennsylvania. Fortunately, there are not many of those.) I am fine with Regional being used as you suggest as it relates the "normal" use of that word, as in North, South, Northeastern, Western, Southwest, Midwest, etc. of the United States. However, I will have some correcting to do as my ratings and those of others may not conform.
I treat Puerto Rico as a state (meaning local) but could be convinced to do otherwise by those more familiar with its 78 municipalities. I am against calling a GLO "international" because PR is in the mix for a US-based GLO. That is just wrong.
National could also apply to European groups. There are list articles for organizations in Germany and France, so those to countries are in the mix. When I come across them, I have attempted to correct articles that indicate groups limited to one country (Germany, France, PH, etc.) are international when they are, in fact, national, regional, or local.
Your knowledge of the Philippines from working on APO is significant and valuable here. In the rare case that I come across PH GLO articles, I have limited my selections to local (one chapter) or national (more than one chapter), but regional should be an option. Same with other countries. Thus, we need a few international editors, or at least, editors who are willing to do some research. Rublamb (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For groups that fall under our Wikiproject, 99% of the organizations fall into a few categories.
  1. Founded in the USA/Canada and falls easily into one of the Baird's cats
  2. Founded in the Philippines
  3. Founded in Germany/Eastern Europe (areas that would have been considered Central Europe pre-WWII) based on that german model ( Studentenverbindung) Note this does *not* apply to the French group..
  4. Founded in Puerto Rico. I *think* some of these have spread to Florida.Naraht (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right. Rublamb (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you all have been busy. FWIW, I like to consider how a fraternity refers to itself, regarding whether it is "regional" or "national". Chi Tau was certainly regional, as most chapters were in North Carolina. A California-centric multicultural group, which spawns a chapter in Vegas would also be regional. If they suddenly open in SUNY-Buffalo, they'd probably refer to themselves as national. Nothing much else to add on this specific topic, and I concur with the general plan. Jax MN (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About 10 minutes after reading this, I was working on the list of articles with stub notices and came across a group from the Netherlands and and group from Chile (but affiliated with Germany). Doesn't change what you wrote but was strangely funny. Rublamb (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option for US and Canada groups: North America

Chapters[edit]

10 Active chapters, 5 Inactive chapters, should chapters = 10 or chapters = 15? Naraht (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered that when I see the infobox in the wild. If anything we should change the wording of the label to be "Active chapters" to make it more obvious. I don't think the number of inactive chapters is particularly useful. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the wild indeed. What about a defunct group that used to have 375 chapters? Would that be zero? I tend to go with the number of active chapters if the group is still active and the total lifetime chapters if the group is defunct. But what about a case of 125 total chapters with only 3 active? Some editors solve this issue by something like: 3 (active), 122 (dormant), but not everyone does this and I think it clutters the field. See my suggestion below. Rublamb (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting my suggestion for the chapter field from above: We could expand this to provide the option of Active Chapters, Dormant Chapters, Alumni Chapters, and Graduate Chapters. These could stand alone or populate the Chapters field, the way Lifetime goes into the Members field. That would let us add these chapter options without having to immediately address the many variations of data currently in the Chapter field. Rublamb (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply Rublamb (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only quick comment here is that I *hate* using the term dormant in this context. If a GLO uses that term fine, but using it across the project, ug.Naraht (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive works for me. That terminology would align with our chapter tables. FYI: I just came across an article that had something like: 123 (chartered), 12 (active) in the Chapter field. Rublamb (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least useful. A group down to 10% of charters. Oof. Naraht (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, by "I *hate* using the term dormant in this context," do you mean we should reserve "dormant" to describe an entire organization, and use "inactive" for individual chapters? I'd be OK with that. And again, I support the general plan as discussed. Jax MN (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN All contexts...Naraht (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico[edit]

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]

Thanks for the Infobox project[edit]

Thanks for all the work going into the infobox project. I have aleady started working on the needed updates. This is a perfect break from working on a long chapter list or article creation. I have not yet added the links to the WP main page; I want to review other WP pages to find layout for this. If anyone finds a layout they like on another WikiProject page, let me know.

Clearly, this project is uncovering other issues, but that is also really good. We now know we need to define what we want in the infoboxes and how to apply those terms--and document those decisions. And, as a reminder, I also want to add a link to Category:Fraternity and sorority stubs to the enhanced work list we create for the WP main page. Some of these are on articles that are no longer stubs. I am going to run through the list right now and complete a quick cleanup.

Besides infoboxes, there are a few other items to attempt. No rush on this. I just wanted to document my thoughts while I was thinking about it.

  • Articles without short descriptions. - tracked here
  • Redirects - these look like articles in our watch list, but could be articles in some cases.
  • Articles that are orphans (not linked to other articles). I doubt we have any of these, but I want to check, just in case. I may be able to find these using tools in WP: Orphanage. I will check.
  • This is the big one: articles with issue notices. These are usually posted above the infobox, but are sometimes in or above the reference section, at the top of a section, or within the text section of the article. There are a lot of these notices, and many variations are possible because of bot-added dates. The ones most commonly used for articles under our domain are {notability}, {Unreferenced}, {Refimprove}, {nofootnotes}, {original research}, {POV}, {One source}, {More footnotes needed}, {Primary sources}}, {more citations needed}, {More footnotes needed}, {cleanup}, {Multiple issues}, {COI editnotice}, and {copy edit}. These should be within the text only: {Unreferenced section} and {Citation needed}.

Rublamb (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly using Infobox Fraternity (for most) allows a lot of searches to be done for the infobox and for the text of the article issue notice, so sticking in
"This article needs additional citations for" insource:/nfobox Fraternity/
into an infobox will get *most* of the articles in the project with {more citations needed} Naraht (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: I used petscan to find articles missing short descriptions and can see how it will work for the various notices. I feel sure there is a way to use it to find articles in our WP that don't have an infobox, but have not yet figured out the right place to put the search criteria. Rublamb (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grove City College redirects.[edit]

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]

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]

Chapter List merger, micro vs. macro.[edit]

For the Theta Upsilon Omega chapter list, there are eleven chapters marked Merged (ΣΦΕ) , and while that is true, seven of the chapters moved from Theta Upsilon Omega to Sigma Phi Epsilon and became new chapters of Sigma Phi Epsilon, and four of them merged with the Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters on campus. (https://archive.org/details/ourjourneyofbrot0000eske/page/48/mode/2up?q=%22theta+upsilon+omega%22) There is a third possibility, (that I think I saw on either AEPi or ZBT) where a merger led to one of the chapters from the group merging in restored an inactive chapter of the merged into group. Is this worth noting in the Status for the group merging in?Naraht (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually explain this as an EFN, with the table sometimes reflecting the eventual successor for that chapter. It seems this information is both interesting and germane, but also the explanation is too long for an infoxbox field. Jax MN (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the EFN suggestion. At some point, I would like the EFN to say what chapter it became of the successor, not just the successor's name. That would make it much easier for someone to track this type of complex history. Rublamb (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homepages for merged groups.[edit]

For Zeta Beta Tau, they have a page for each group that merged into ZBT for example, https://zbt.org/about-zbt/our-antecedent-groups/kappa-nu/ Should this be Kappa Nu's homepage in their infobox? (there are a *few* other places I've seen similar) Naraht (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the perspective of a later researcher, it would be helpful to offer separate pages for dormant, but merged groups. --Just as we offer them for fully dormant groups. Dunno if much else is needed, as the first incidence of Kappa Nu would reasonably include a Wikilink. ZBT's predecessor groups are really the best example here. Beta Kappa going into Theta Chi is another. Jax MN (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include this webpage or the successor group's website as the Infobox website. I assume this webpage would be a source for the article, so it would already be included. In addition, there would be a link to the successor's Wikpedia article that would have the website link. Sometimes, I have seen the successor group's website listed in External Links. But on a practical note, one thing I like about inactive org articles is that we don't have to worry about updating their infoboxes. Adding that webpage link just give us something else to monitor. Rublamb (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY regional fraternities[edit]

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]

Four year groups *sponsoring* two year groups[edit]

In addition to the Alpha Psi Omega /Delta Psi Omega relationship, it looks like Alpha Phi Gamma sponsored a Journalism honorary at two year colleges called Beta Phi Gamma. Naraht (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Psi Chi sponsors Psi Beta, for two-year schools. The English honorary may do likewise. Jax MN (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, went through a few and found that we do have a category at Category:Two-year college honor societies, In the short term, I think I'll added enough about Beta Phi Gamma in a section and then create a redirect with possibilities and add it to the cat. Not all of the groups in the cat have a relationship with a four year group, but I think that's the place to start. (And yes, the two year english honorary Sigma Kappa Delta does have a relationship with Sigma Tau Delta.Naraht (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the honor societies have college/high school divisions. Some even have middle school (junior) divisions. Most I came across are a subdivision of a professional associations, rather than stand-alone organizations. Some are already included in the Honor society list. However, I suspect the only source is going to be the professional organization's website. Rublamb (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patron X[edit]

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]

Merged definition[edit]

To me, having a status of merged has a fairly high bar. (Assuming not one of the few merger of equals to new name) It is a corporate merger, to the point where if Alpha Beta Beta merged into Delta Epsilon Zeta, Delta Epsilon Zeta controls the trademarks of Alpha Beta Beta. Merged into various seems wierd to me, Either it is defunct, and one particular group just picked up a majority of the chapters or it is a merger and a few chapters were released as part of the merger. Often a telling clue is whether alumni of Alpha Beta Beta (especially from inactive chapters can become members of Delta Epsilon Zeta based on the merger agreemen.Naraht (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the Status of the entire GLO in the infobox: If the various chapters "scatter" or join a number of organizations, I agree that this would be more correctly be described as defunct. To me, a merger means the entire GLO joined another and changed its name to that of another group or to a new name for both. I don't think we need to define this at the high standard of trademark status; there is also a cultural merger and/or the merger/transfer of assets and debts. Note that some of these mergers took place before trademarks for such things existed or were common. If the source says there was a merger or that one group joined another, that is good enough for me.
When discussing Status in a chapter table: When an individual chapter left a GLO, I used to use "Inactive" with an efn. Lately, we have been using "Merged (MMM)" for both individual chapters and organizational mergers. However, since there is almost always a gap between leaving one group and joining another, I suspect this use of merger is not totally accurate. Techninically, the individual chapter usually became a local that later merges because of poaching rules. I would prefer to use "Withdrew" over "Merged (MMM)" but that is currently defined as leaving the fraternity at the time of a national merger. I like "Withdrew" better than "Inactive" because it is more accurate and implies that the former chapter continued, rather than closing or being suspended. Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Nu Epsilon?[edit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Displaying status?[edit]

Did we decided that status was going to be a displayed field?Naraht (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDK but it seems yes. At least, I hope so because I have been actively adding this to Infoboxes. Rublamb (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged/Dormant add year?[edit]

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]

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]

Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha Confirmed inactive[edit]

Could someone please take a look at my changes and tweek if necessary. Naraht (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I really want to split this into three articles, but we have such a small amount on the merged group that this is not possible yet. Rublamb (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch Naraht, on that 2019 announcement. Thanks for jumping on the editing review, Rublamb. I hadn't known of their demise. This is a great example of where it would be helpful to include the year of their demise in the infobox. Jax MN (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN, can you see if the joined group is in Baird's 19th or 20th? I would like to divide this into three articles, but the details post-merger are lacking. In the meantime, I am going to create the chapter list for Tau Kappa Alpha from 1963. Rublamb (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sent, via email. Jax MN (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So eventually (sort of like what happened with Kappa Omicron Nu), I *think*, a DSR page, a TKA page, a DSR-TKA page, a DSR chapters list, a TKA chapters list, and a DSR-TKA chapters list. I don't know if to be glad or not that we don't have any list of notable members.Naraht (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I have not yet look for notables. LOL. There probably won't be enough for a list article. Rublamb (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to do other than the APsiO chapters. :) :)Naraht (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Also, avoiding a GA review with really picky comments. Rublamb (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm avoiding is trying to figure out how to express the three separate articles in the ACHS page and ACHS template.Naraht (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were the former groups ACHS members? Rublamb (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I can tell, dsr, tka and dsr-tka were all members, I need to confirm.Naraht (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it; recovered an old ACHS page Rublamb (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanx. still thinking about it.Naraht (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we probably should have separate articles for the Theta Kappa Phi and Phi Kappa chapter lists.Naraht (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this plan. Jax MN (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers of equals to new name.[edit]

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]

Too Many Dates...[edit]

I give you Albion chapter of Delta Sigma Rho (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzDwOOLLApYC&pg=RA3-PA40&lpg=RA3-PA40&dq=%22gavel+of+delta+sigma+rho%22+isc&source=bl&ots=dhAWVqOFiq&sig=ACfU3U37qZgbVqWC_gUWzy4rLQ85BJXNDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5gZHw-syGAxVRL1kFHRFRCsIQ6AF6BAgZEAM#v=onepage&q=Complete%20Records%20of%20Albion%20College%20Chapter&f=false)

Dates listed include

  • date charter applied for
  • date charter granted
  • date chapter installed
  • date ritual and secret matter acknowledge received
  • date charter for chapter was ordered
  • date charter was ordered engrossed
  • date charter delivered to and acknowledge received by chapter...

Note, DSR is sort of like Alpha Phi Omega Philippines, the key dates kept track of are the date the charter is approved by the national board, *not* the date that the first rituals occur on campus. Naraht (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put those details into a book, eh? Wow. So useless, so uninteresting. Were they facing a lack of more helpful content, when discussing that chapter? Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Delta Kappa[edit]

I've been working my way through the groups marked as needing websites, and ran into Theta Delta Kappa. I know that we've contributed to it, but looking at it, I simply don't see how it meets notability. Other than the school website and the fraternity website (gone, but irrelevent) and the one mention of the vandalism incident, that's it for references. I know we do have articles for organizations that exist at one school (secret societies at various old eastern schools like Virginia), but this doesn't even come close. It was founded in 1992. Let me know if you are OK with me putting it up for deletion. I've struck out on trying to find references. Naraht (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this up for deletion when the Delta Pi Delta is done.Naraht (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a 30-year history, I don't have a problem keeping this one. I'm sure there are some references, in media or the campus website. Jax MN (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Luck. Simply being one of X number of local fraternities 30 years old in a school that doesn't allow nationals doesn't cut if for me. See https://www.leeuniversity.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012-2013-Academic-Catalog.pdf as an example of how all local.Naraht (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned it up a bit and looked for sources. Other than two non-scandles that made the local newspaper, there is not secondary coverage. Unfortunately, those articles do not describe the group and its histoy. The college's website which essentially lists the name of the group and does not give more info. Much of the article lacks sources. I removed one source that did not back up its content. There is enough for it to go in the article that lists GLO but not enough for a stand alone article. I say go ahead with the AfD. Rublamb (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Naraht (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single Line infobox fraternity usage[edit]

I *know* that all templates work if the are all on a single line. Most of the cite templates are intended to be used that way. But for Infoboxes, I find it annoying. Would anyone object to changing single line usages of infobox fraternity to have one line per parameter like the example in the docs? (there aren't many, maybe half a dozen at most)Naraht (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Rublamb (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Delta Sigma and Sigma Gamma Chi - Merged or Defunct?[edit]

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]

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]

Omega Delta Sigma[edit]

can someone take a look at the recent changes here, I'm tempted to completely revert, clearly a COI, but I'm not sure.Naraht (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern is that the edits to the infobox are not to WP or Wikipedia standards: the new name of the infobox does not match the name of the article, the links to city and state were removed, scope was changed from National to United States, United States of American was use which, etc. The exception is maybe the website address. In terms of changes to the text: some are to sections that lacked source before, so that is not such a big deal to me. Although, it does need to be addressed overall. I cannot figure out the changes chapter table. Did they add chapters and also remove chapters? Honestly, I don't know if it is easier to revert and restore the good content OR to keep the edit and correct the problems. If the website is the only "good" addition, I would support reverting as it introduces MOS issues. Rublamb (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restore the correct format to the infobox. Rublamb (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollup of Parameters and values. *VERY USEFUL*[edit]

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]

Articles without citations[edit]

Articles without references is another item for our cleanup project. I just fixed Chi Alpha Omega, but wonder if more are out there. Rublamb (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DVS Senior Honor Society has three references, but none are properly inline.Naraht (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working on a list of 37 that I generated in PetScan. It includes those that just did not get a {Reflist} template and have sources, but also includes DVS Senior Honor Society and those that lack any sources. The latter will be a list that we will discuss for AfD. Rublamb (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corps Rhenania Tübingen is also zero. I'm adding reflist template as well.Naraht (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the remaining ones with no sources. We need to either find sources or nominate for AfD. Rublamb (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References exist, though in German at the German page. I've put in an expanded German template (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources I can find are chapter websites. The majority of its content is not sourced. Do we AfD or just add a primary sources notice?
References exist, though boring and I *really* hope we don't do chapter lists for the HS Honor societies.Naraht (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has 14,611 chapters... Rublamb (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has now added sources. Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phi Sigma Iota has boring references, mostly just school pages and announcements. Probably enough though.Naraht (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Another editor added those after I added the unsourced notice. I added Baird's and other sources; and also fixed its plagiarism issues. Rublamb (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only source is for a notable member. This is a local high school group. AfD is probably the best option. Rublamb (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian fraternities[edit]

The article Christian fraternities appears to be about collegiate fraternities, but does not state this. Also, its list of organizations includes many without Wikipedia articles or sources. Do we want to make a big purge of the non-notable groups? Also, do we really need two articles: Christian fraternities and Christian sororities? We have not divided other subsections of Greek life into two articles, based on gender. Rublamb (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't state it clearly, but that was the feeling that I got from the first sentence. Agree on nuking the text on the ones with no info. Alpha Nu Omega (F&S) probably should have a well researched article. I have actually heard of it. As for the merge, let's see what's left after cleanup, as of right now, the size seems to support the split.Naraht (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State and Country in Infobox[edit]

  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Level or Environment Parameter???[edit]

Primefac (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handling suffixes.[edit]

Primefac (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities[edit]

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]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities

Leave a Reply