Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Lifting of membership restrictions...

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

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

Merging Active and Inactive chapter lists...

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

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

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

Latino Greek article merger

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

I'm good with merger under the list name. the categories for the LGM article seem very diffuse.Naraht (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
We (certainly I) can reasonably be described as having, upon occasion, stretched the boundaries of what Wikipedia defines as a list page. Though the Latino Greek Movement article could use some editing and is missing a few early examples, it provides a decent summary of how and why these organizations came about. If an updated summary, similar to what is now on that article were to be merged into the List of Latino Greek-letter organizations as an intro, that would be good. I sense that readers would benefit both from the summary and the list. But if much of the content of the former page were to be lost, in paring down to "just" the table and an introductory sentence, then I'd say no. If that was to be the outcome, rather, just cross-post the two articles, clean up the former page, and leave it be. Jax MN (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I am proposing a true merger, moving the text over and cleaning it up/finding sources either at the same time or later. I prefer to drop "list" from the article's title, giving room to expand the text as more content is available. As long as there is not an an existing redirect for the new title, changing the name is easy. @Jax MN, feel free to take this on if you want. Just something I came across. Rublamb (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Merger completed. Rublamb (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mu Mu Presidents

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

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

Complete lack of chapter lists?

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

I guess we need to do an inventory. I have been surprized by the organizations that I have made lists for recently, including older and major groups. I don't mind taking on Alpha Phi Alpha's chapter list; it is smaller than two lists I have already created. I am almost finished adding locations to Beta Gamma Sigma and Alpha Phi Alpha or any other NIC/NPC can be my next project. Let me know what you think my efforts are most needed. Rublamb (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I am working on PIKE now (NIC). Do any others stand out from the substandard list above? Rublamb (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Moving on to Sigma Gamma Rho (NPHC). I think this is the last NIC/NPC/NPHC on the substandard list above that completely lacks a chapter list. The others appear to be service or professional groups. Rublamb (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I have reviewed current members of NIC and NPC. They all now have a chapter list; any with substandard lists are now included in the project list above. There are still a couple of the NPHC that are lacking chapter lists--I have added them to the project list above. These have in excess of 1000 chapters but appear to be the most important to work on. Are there any founding members of NIC or NPC that are not current members? If so, I did not check those. Rublamb (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Lists of fraternity and sorority national conferences

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

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

Chapter web pages in External Links.

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

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

Theta Tau split-outs?

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

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

Getting ahead of deletion challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha Eta Rho chapter list

Hit a jackpot in terms of dates from AHR on archive.org, the group *used* to have the chapter lists public *and* charterings dates for all but four chapters through that point. I put the results table-ized on Talk:Alpha Eta Rho. I'll try to get back as I can, but wanted to post the info here.Naraht (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Chi Rho Omicron

I have rescued Chi Rho Omicron from unaccepted drafts and moved it to the mainspace. If someone can find a illustration of its shield, that would be great. Rublamb (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jax MN, any luck with this? Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Found it. Uploaded and added the crest, along with color swatches. Jax MN (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Skull and Bones#Requested move 23 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Skull and Bones#Requested move 23 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Article alerts

Can anyone (@Naraht?} figure out why a merger discussion isn't pulling into the Article Alerts? Specifically Skull and Bones. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fraternity and Sorority Template

Should we include professional and service groups in this template? Rublamb (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

NIC Associate Partners

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

List of Tau Beta Sigma sisters

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

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

Order of chapter list tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omega Delta Phi -Not to be confused with.

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

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

Other Not to be confused with

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

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

Order of chapter lists

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

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

Draft:Dr. Charles Richardson

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

It had failed review, but I updated and have published. If someone has access to a newspaper database, his obituary in the Fayetteville Daily Democrat is referenced, but needs a more complete citation and might provide more content. It is not in Newspapers.com. Rublamb (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Delta Phi Kappa - Founding date inconsistency...

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

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

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

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

DAB articles.

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

:Can you look at St. Anthony Hall (Delta Psi) and Delta Psi (Vermont)? Rublamb (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Nevermind. I created DAB for St. Anthony Hall and Delta Psi. Rublamb (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I list those I know of, searchable with the string "DAB", on the Watchlist page. (From Jax MN)
This is now a separate section on the wishlist page, along with some others I found. I also cross-checked against the article list, making sure that all have the WP tag. At this point, the Watchlist page and the Article List should match. Rublamb (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Chapters for the deceased

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

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

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

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

List

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

In Letter Sequence

(GREEK LETTER ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Not in Letter Sequence

(GREEK LETTER ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Not an entry

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

Discussion at Template Talk:Infobox Fraternity

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

National Interfraternity Council Yearbook

Does anyone have this book from the 1950s or 1960. I found a snippet in Google Books which suggests an origin story for the name "Mother of Fraternities." I can see that someone named Davidson gave the name to Union, but have no idea who he is or when this was--whch is why I am looking for access to the entire page. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Playing with the google snippets is something that I have been doing for a *long* time. :) I added davidson to the search so that it would grab the first instance in the snippet as well (https://books.google.com/books?id=GjijBWbyGsUC&q=%22Davidson+declared+gave%22+davidson&dq=%22Davidson+declared+gave%22+davidson&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiluNLshtGAAxVFD1kFHQM9BKcQ6AF6BAgHEAI which revealed that the person is the 13th President of Union College (https://www.union.edu/about/history-and-traditions/presidents/carter-davidson) and thus the president at the time of the Yearbook (which due to the original phrase being found twice in slightly different google book archives) it can be determined the quote is from the 1956 Yearbook.Naraht (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Rublamb Sorry, didn't alert you for my response.Naraht (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Naraht: Thanks for sleuthing. I was hoping for someone in the 19th century. As of now, the NYT is the oldest published source I can find which is better than a president of the university in question any day. Rublamb (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Rublamb No problem.Naraht (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you know suggestions

Since St. Anthony Hall now has GA status, I have week to nominate it for inclusin in Did You Know on the Wikipedia landing page. I could use some help with ideas for the Did You Know. Especially from someone that has not lookeda at this content as much as I have. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Substandard chapter lists (updated)

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) Rublamb (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I sort of squeed when I saw that dts was needed for list of triangle chapters. Please me know if any other lists need dts. I'll get to Triangle as soon as a have an hour or so free.Naraht (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Happy to make your weekend. Here is what I found: Alpha Eta Rho, Alpha Kappa Kappa, Alpha Omega Epsilon, List of Detla Sigma Theta alumnae chapters, List of Delta Sigma Theta collegiate chapters, Farmhouse, Kappa Delta, Omega Delta Phi, Sigma Tau Gamma, and Theta Xi, Rublamb (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting request

One of the fraternities that I contacted after creating a chapter list back in February finally responsed. They are requesting/suggesting that we stick to charter dates only and removed the status column because this info is too difficult to track and, therefore, will typiclly be inaccurate. As this ia a professional fraternity, I don't disagree with their perspective. I explained that this is the format we use and that fraternity members tend to help update content. But they are not wrong that it would be much easier to keep content accurate if we streamlined what we put in the tables. Rublamb (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, *but* this is a strong argument for all chapter listings to have an "As of February 30, 2023..."Naraht (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I make sure that the sources have a date; even the Archive has a most recenlty editd date that should be specified. I am not seriously proposing a change but am acknowledging that a chapter going active or inactive currently has to be updated in three places: format of chapter name, charter/range, and status column. I have noticed that non-WP editors tend to only update one of those columns, requiring WP members to go behind these edits and do a clean-up. Somehow, there must be a way to make this easier? Rublamb (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I am somewhat torn on this particular issue, and it's something I've gone back and forth about in my head before. If we do include "active/inactive" designations, they are very likely out of date the minute we edit them, never mind that it is often very difficult for casual confirmation of a chapter's status (even with my own fraternity I usually spend 5-10 minutes just remembering how to find that information on their website). On the other hand, a generic (undated) list of "here is every chapter ever started" does not give an indication of the current population of the org. I do like the idea of using an {{as of}} call, but is that just one more thing that needs to be updated? Primefac (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

One NPC left.

As far as I can tell, 25 of the 26 sororities in the NPC have separate chapter articles, with Delta Phi Epsilon being the exception. I did find a list of all chapters up to 2011 at http://onlinedigitalpublishing.com/publication/?m=19112&i=76707&p=54&ver=html5 .Naraht (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This list is long enough for its own article. Of course, it needs some improvment as it is missing some of the normal columns. Does its name have to be the awkward "List of Delta Phi Epsilon (social) chapters"? There is already a redirect that we can move the list to but I really, really hate that name. Rublamb (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I actually asked over on WT:DAB, and I think that was the one that felt best. Delta Phi Epsilon needs a disambiguation, as otherwise, it could be the contents of Delta_Phi_Epsilon_(professional)#Chapters. Both groups with the same name have good enough articles *and* chapter lists, that something needs to distinguish them. Suggestions?Naraht (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay. I have moved it to List of Delta Phi Epsilon (social) chapters. It is ready for locations and any efn from the Almanac. I am still working on the dates and efn for Sigma Nu (finally finished adding the locations), so if someone else has time to work on this before I do, that is fine with me. Rublamb (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanx. And I don't love the awkward name, but I haven't seen better. :( Note, DPhiE Professional is in such bad internal shape right now that I doubt it will grow much in the next few years, but I don't think that is relevant.Naraht (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Official Calls?

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

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

Notability of founders

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

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

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

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

(Some number of) Proposals (separating the chapter lists)

While I don't think any of these need a format process, I just though I'd throw them out there. (I was doing a quick run through the NIC (& Former NIC) groups to look for which ones should have the chapter list on its own page.

  1. ) Move the chapter list of Tau Delta Phi into its own article. While it only has 5 active chapters, the list of all charters is *definitely* bigger than some other list of chapter articles. (And I think Tau Delta Phi is currently the group active in any of the umbrella groups with the lowest percentage of active chapters. Done Rublamb (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. ) Similarly move the "Chapter" list of Sigma Beta Rho. While counting chapters may or may not get to 50, the number of associate chapters and Colonies makes the entire list that long, I think. After cleanup for inactive colonies, it is now under 50.
  3. ) IAlpha Phi Delta will probably get its own page when the info is all copied from https://www.apd.org/chapters.html Done Rublamb (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  4. ) Phi Sigma Delta while inactive (merged) meets the 50 chapter limit, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to split it out, I'd like opinions. Done Rublamb (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  5. ) Similarly for Phi Sigma Epsilon. Not sure Chapter list is complex with issues on its merge with Phi Sigma Kappa
  6. ) I think Theta Kappa Nu should be split out fixed issues with table, added info and efn, and created article Rublamb (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  1. ) Create subcategories in Category:Lists of members of United States student societies based on the umbrella organizations of the society. So List of Alpha Tau Omega brothers gets moved into a new subcat called Category:List of members of North American Interfraternity Conference organizations or something similar.
  2. ) Similarly create subcategories in Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. So that List of Alpha Tau Omega chapters gets moved into a new subcat called Category:List of chapters of North American Interfraternity Conference organizations.

Naraht (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

5) I say leave as is. The chapter list lacks adequate sources to be its own article. Rublamb (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Dropping out #5, does anyone have any objections to the others and to the subcats?Naraht (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Now that I moved Tau Delta Phi, I really need to know about the anime-style vampire at the top of the castle in their seal. Rublamb (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Disaffiliated...

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

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

Including list of fraternity/sorority founders.

Please indicate which of the following you support in terms of the list of founders of a GLO being listed on that page:

  1. Founders of the GLO should be listed as a list.
  2. Founders of the GLO should be listed in prose.
  3. Only those founders with pages should be listed
  4. Founders should not be listed.

Note, previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_7#Fraternity_founder_lists. Note, this information is generally from Primary sources, but for *most* organizations, non-controversial(Alpha Phi Alpha is the only one I can think of)Naraht (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

For me, it is #1, second choice #2.Naraht (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
For me, its 2 or 1, depending on the number of names. MOS prefers text over lists and can be our guide here, see MOS:LISTBASICS. In a previous conversation with @Jax MN, I believe I suggested prose if there are up to five founders and a list if there are six or more founders. However, both formats are correct and allowed per MOS, so I don't think we should get too picky about this or change the format that someone else has already used. I also like the names to be in alphabetical order, but again, that is just my personal preference. Rublamb (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
My interest is in readability, so for me, short bulleted lists help draw the eye through the page. But I've deferred to others where the list is quite short, as Rublamb described. So, #2, then #1. I certainly want the founders to be listed, and to be comprehensive, they should all be listed, with Wikilinks where they have articles. I think that being a founder of a national fraternity is notable. Jax MN (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I remember learning in high school that you need three or more items for a list. MOS says two items, meaning no list if there is just one founder. A related issue: I think the list of founders should be in the history section, rather than a stand alone section. The exception is if there is also biographical content for each founder. This may be a new feature to encourage for GLO articles—maybe we could find some good examples to share? Rublamb (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I am still in favour of #3; there is little if any encyclopedic value to a list of the names of (for example) ten random individuals with no articles and potentially no other influence over anything else in their lives. Mu Mu Mu was founded by Joey Bloggs and John Doe? Great, but if it's the only place I will ever see their names, there isn't much point; by contrast if there is more to read, then that's great because it ties to another article. By extension, then if the founders as a whole are not notable, they should not be listed (Option 4). Primefac (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Elsewhere, I have said that showing these names in a list, rather than in prose, calls undue attention to mostly non-notable individuals, so I don't disagree with your line of thought. The issue with option 3 is that notability is not determined only by the presense of a Wikipedia article, but by the existance of sources for a potential article. Because of this, listing names with a red link sometimes makes sense, something I find that we rarely do (mostly because the entire list would have a redlink). I was recently editing an article about a newer group where its founder was now a diplomat; he did not have an article yet but clearly had the potential to meet notability. In this instance, a red link could serve as a suggestion to others to work on that potential article. Rublamb (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Kappa Delta Pi or Phi Delta Kappa...

Found out that what I'd thought about Kappa Delta Pi, was actually about Phi Delta Kappa, that they had essentially absorbed other Education honoraries into a corporate structure. Still, I wonder between KDP and PhiDK which has moved farther from the structure that might have been expected of a Honorary in the 1950s/1960s...Naraht (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Psi Chi chapter list

Anyone want to have fun? https://www.psichi.org/blogpost/987366/321764/Find-Out-When-Your-Chapter-Was-Chartered also, Psi Chi *numbers* its chapters (starting at 1). Easiest way that I see to get the numbers (they don't use chapter letters) is on a view source on their chapter search view-source:https://ymapps.psichi.org/Chapter_Search1.aspx?state=DC (yes the page is for DC but it shows all of the chapters. Naraht (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No thank you for so many reasons! Rublamb (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, I am going to give it a go. I've marked it as in progress on the substandard list. Rublamb (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yay for Masochism.Naraht (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't worry, there will be plenty of fun for you. This is going to need 1200+ date templates. Rublamb (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Until you get something other than year of chartering, it will be fine. :)Naraht (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I found a list that includes the full date, but no number (and the linked website above no longer has numbers). I just finished manually splitting the date from the school name in Excel. Although I can change the dates to the September 18, 2023 format, that will require a date template, right? I will try to use concatenate to add the date template in Excel. Had not thought of doing that before! If only Excel could add locations for me! Rublamb (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, what you can do is have the date for the second row in the field say B5, generate another field that contains concatenate("Error in Template:Date table sorting: '",B5,"' is an invalid date") or something like that, and then copy the interpretted results into another column.Naraht (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Banging my head against the wall because it feels so good when I stop.

One of my *first* complex regex searches I did at Wikipedia was looking for situations where a Greek Letter and a Roman letter were next to each other because it probably indicated that the person was lazy in typing them in, for example ATΩ where it is a latin A, a latin T and a Greek Ω. The *first* ones that I tried to fix before I started doing it generally was Phi Beta Kappa, and wikipedia had a*lot* of ΦBK (Phi B K) occurances.

I went looking for them specifically tonight and the first one was in a reference at Madhuri Vijay. The *PROBLEM* is that it is a reference to the Key Reporter, the official magazine for Phi Beta Kappa *AND* the Key Reporter has the Phi B K in the article title. The freaking magazine for *the* first greek letter organization in this country is inconsistent (there are a lot of articles with ΦBK(Phi B K) and a lot of with ΦΒΚ (Phi Beta Kappa). I sent off an email, if I haven't gotten a response by Wednesday, I may call and if I don't get anywhere I may drive down to their Headquarters next week (40 minute drive)! Naraht (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Delta Phi

Request that eyes be kept on Delta Phi in regards to efforts to make St. Elmo's Hall the dominant descriptor.Naraht (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

List of for inactive groups.

Is List of Sigma Tau chapters the only breakout article (chapter list, alumni list) we have for an inactive group (fraternity/sorority/honorary)?Naraht (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know an easy way to quantify this, aside from checking through every article. Can you think of a macro? Jax MN (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
More wondering whether you or Rublamb could remember any off the top of your heads.Naraht (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't recall. Rublamb (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_9&oldid=1179647030"