Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Deletion prod

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

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

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

Maryland Military and Naval Academy

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

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

List of Omicron Delta Kappa Circles.

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

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

Count of chapters to put Chapter Lists to separate articles

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

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

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

Reformed chapters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Alert template

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

Anything we can do to serve notice of important alerts would be valuable to project participants. Wikipedia pings me with every non-minor edit to pages on our watchlist, as I have gone through and made edits to all of them over the years. Our main project page has a couple of links, one showing the daily change log, and the other a link to those articles on our watchlist that are given a PROD or AfD. Jax MN (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@. Naraht, is this something you could help with? Rublamb (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Rublamb can you point me to a project that does this?Naraht (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure. Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries and Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina are two exampes Rublamb (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
We already have it, it is just pretty far down the page. Just search for East Carolina.Naraht (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I guess I had stopped at the box with the same content that had to be manually added. I have moved the altert template higher up on the page and changed its header to match. The place to manually add this content is now deleted. Rublamb (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Bold and Italics

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

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

Multi college chapters

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

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

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

Members placed in fraternity category?

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

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

Another deletion PROD

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

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

Psi U specific

(Since I got a conflict. :) )

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

School Name changes.

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

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

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

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

Draft:Duke University Wayne Manor

This article, Draft:Duke University Wayne Manor, was declined previously and showed up in our WP list. I cleaned up the text and added sources. Does someone (@want to see if it is ready to publish? Rublamb (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Naraht, can you take a look? Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Delta Gamma Chapters.

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

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

Project-independent quality assessments

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

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

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

Sorting of GLOs English with the Greeks

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

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

List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters

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

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

Naraht (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Sigma Phi and Greek Letter Men of New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omega Delta - Optometry

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

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

Bairds vs. Almanac

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

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

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

Pages to be changed

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

Women's Fraternities

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

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

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

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

Substandard chapter lists

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

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

(talk) 17:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

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

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

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


Redirects

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

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

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

with redirects

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

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

Lists of fraternities at schools

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_8&oldid=1159361699"