Talk:Fraternity (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

This page needs to be pared down

Currently this article is an disjointed combination of an attempt at an article, with a list of disambiguation entries slapped on at the end. Would anyone object if I stripped this down into a true disambiguation page that, per WP:MOSDAB, contained nothing but simple list to several different types of fraternities and fraternal societies? I suppose if there's anything useful in the current body of the article, someone can move it to new article on the history of fraternal organizations, or something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are the comments at Wikiproject:Disambiguation that started interest in the subject there : Fraternity is currently a disambiguation page. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, it has the fifth highest number of disambiguaiton links to it (over 1500!). I was trying to figure out if there was a primary topic we could get to have Fraternity redirect to. I was initially thinking perhaps Fraternal and service organizations. However, then I saw that Sorority was also a redirect to Fraternity. There has to be a better way for us to deal with these pages (and thus, decrease the number of very incorrect links all going to the disambiguation page Fraternity)! I'm going to keep mulling over it, but many brains are better than one. Thoughts? -- Natalya 05:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought is that we might have an article (or maybe set index) called Fraternity which would concern itself with the "brotherhood organisations" aspect - there could be quite a lot to say apart from just listing them (history of such organisations, how they developed, links between them, differences by nationality, religion etc). This article could then be the primary meaning for Fraternity (disambiguation) which would also include the other entries (like the band etc) not covered by the primary meaning. Abtract (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation

Some people ASKED for content on the subject 'fraternity' in and of itself. That's why it is there. That, in itself, is not a reason to keep it, but they do raise some points.P22575R15 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

After consulting the very WP:MOSDAB, there should be two articles, "Fraternity (disambiguation)" and "Fraternity". "Fraternity (disambiguation)" should be links only. "Fraternity" should be an article that applies to all fraternities of whatever kind. So, I am going to follow the wikipedia policy you suggested, AND not wait around for consensus. Any whiners can post complaints at WP:MOSDAB129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea either, but I had to revert you because you were performing what amounts to a cut-and-paste page move. The history of this page goes back 5 years, so it's not a good idea to suddenly cut out the product of those 5 years of edits and paste them in a new location, where no one can see the article history. The disambiguation info should be on this page (even if we have to rename this page).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's wikipedia policy. It's not my idea. Read the very page you suggested should be the rule. Five years' precedence is meaningless if it is wrong. Nor was this a cut and paste move, the "Fraternity (disambiguation)" page already existed, probably from people having gone through all this before. If this was organized they way these things already have been worked out, we wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel. If you have issues with it, Go to the Disambiguation talk page and bother them, not me.129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to cut and paste something, cut the prose part and move it to some article. The disambiguation and its history should remain on this page, where it began. Then have an admin move this page to Fraternity (disambiguation), if you'd like to change the name. It's more trouble, but it preserves the article history.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You've already violated the 3RR rule. I do not understand your rampant hostility to making this page conform to the very policy that you suggested should be followed. Do you realize how absolutely insane that is?129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding. I want the disambig page to conform to WP:MOSDAB as well--just as you do; But you need to have an admin move the page instead of cutting and pasting text. That way, you can preserve the edit history (to not do so would violate WP:GFDL (particularly, section 4). I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this clearly enough.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's return to the matter at hand. 129.133.124.199 thinks it would be a good idea to split the prose content and the disambig content into separate articles, and I tend to agree with him (just not his cut-and-paste method). Does everyone else agree on this goal as well?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - 129.133.124.199's goal is great. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's method is the way to get there. Although don't we also need the history to reside at whichever article ends up containing the non-disambig text too? -- SiobhanHansa 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

After a little research suggest the procedure we should actually follow is the one at WP:Split. -- SiobhanHansa 01:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, I think that's the way to go... and we don't have to mess with technical nightmare of the dreaded HISTORY SPLIT. Also bear in mind that the prose portion is relatively new. So even if we cut and pasted that, we'd be losing far fewer edits than if we cut the much older disambig portion. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's easier than you think provided this page is kept for the content and a separate page for disambiguation ... I have been preparing such pages in a sandbox by cutting out the prose that does not relate to fraternities (for example societies that include women) and separating out the dab part. My proposal can be found here ... feel free to comment (back here might be best?), hopefully it forms the basis of a decent article. Abtract (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Abtract: That's not what we mean or what WP:MOSDAB seeks. "Fraternity (disambiguation)" should be solely redirecting links to other places. Just a long list of what someone looking up the term 'fraternity' might be seeking. the "Fraternity" article should be an article on the word 'fraternity' generally; any time, any place. The idea is, people will type the word 'fraternity' into search. They should get the article. The redirects should all be on another page, so people can go look at that list seperately. If you want to incorporate things from your paragraph into that article, fine, do it. If you want to incorporate things from your list into the disambig page, fine, do it. I can see already you have a broader perspective on the possibilities and should be included in the page. This is wikipedia. Throw your spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.

The Fat: In other words, I should do exactly what I did. Fine I'll do it again.

To conform with §4(I) of the GFDL, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]", to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated.

If a section is split from the original article, a summary section should be left in the original ("main") article. At the top, it should contain a link to the newly created page, easily achieved with {{main|Newly created page name here}} template.129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is the main one, and you should split the newer stuff (the prose) off from this article, not the other way around. Once you've moved the items correctly, then you can rename the articles. You've done it backwards. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Try this..... let's have an admin delete the page that currently resides at Fraternity (disambiguation) to make room for a proper page move. The move, this page to Fraternity (disambiguation). Once it's moved (ie, renamed), split the prose stuff out and paste it back to Fraternity along with an explanatory edit summary per WP:Split. The difference between that and what you did is that the disambiguation information will have the long and detailed edit history associated it--other than that, the outcome is the same. 129, are you okay if tag the Frat (dab) page for deletion to make room for this type of move?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, with an admin's help, I moved the disambiguation stuff here while retaining the article history. Let me know if it looks okay to you. The prose content has been split off and lives at Fraternity.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Abtract: I stole some of your stuff on Religious fraternities. I smudged it into the same framework. However, I took out priests as a fraternity. I don't think they can be construed in that manner. Priests operate in a hierarchical manner, with authority in a central source. Although they mutually assist each other it is under the guise of a pyramidial system. There have been and are religious fraternities, very often from the Middle Ages in Catholic countries, there were institutions called confraternities, and which were often dedicated to executing the festivals of some particular saint's day, among other things, and there are endless numbers of social clubs that exist among (Catholic, especially), communities, and which perform largely the same function. (Or the Greek Orthodox societies associated with a parich that might organize the annual St. George's Day festival, for example.) It's now in "Fraternities (disambiguation)" Put other things in there as you see fit.129.133.124.199 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And then I fudged your definition section into the definition. But I don't think the way you had links constructed was appropriate. It should be "a charitable fraternity, (e.g. Freemasonry)", not "a ((Freemasonty|charitable)) fraternity". if it doesn't suit you, have at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did put the religious fraternities in, someone else took them out. I'm not going to fight over it. Ob la di, ob la da, life goes on, la... 129.133.124.199 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Philippines‎

The list of organizations for the Philippines‎ seems to be Philippine versions of the American system. However, these are also being listed under general fraternities by their proponents, and it begs the question whether these are really student organizations or general organizations. If anyone knows..... P22575R15 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Correcting balance between this page and Fraternity article

I have enlarged the fraternity article by transferring many of the articles that do not belong on this dab page (which must only contain links to articles which could be confused with "Fraternity" see mos:dab) I have also removed all those items not needing disambiguation. When considering adding an article to this dab page don't forget it must be one likely to be the target of a reader typing in "fratenity" of something very similar ... saimply being an organisation like, say, the masons is not enough to justify inclusion because no-one would type in Fraternity when looking for the masons. I hope this all helps and pls don't be offended if I took out your work. If in doubt have a good read of mos:dab. :) Abtract (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see all my work has been reverted with more or less the only reason being that fraternities are not all male organisations .. really? Abtract (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)