Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconFraternities and Sororities Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikiProject Fraternities and Sororities is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Navigation tools[edit]

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

Redlinked school pages[edit]

I have updated the master list of institutions that are red-linked in chapter lists for fraternities, sororities, honor societies, and other groups covered by our WP. This list is alphabetical by school name and includes all known associated groups in that single entry. There are also some sources to aid in creating articles for these redlinks, as identified by various editors. This page can hold drafted text for each item until enough info and sources exist to publish as a stub. Items can be removed from the list, once an article is created. Rublamb (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substandard chapter lists[edit]

This section is transcluded from /Substandard chapter lists. (edit | history)

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

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

Rublamb (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substandard lists of notable members[edit]

This section is transcluded from /Substandard notable member lists. (edit | history)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next possible Category Organization- Films![edit]

There was a successful CFD for the renaming of Category:Films about fratricide and sororicide to Category:Films about siblicide. Unfortunately, most of the films there are Fraternity/Sorority Horror films which don't really belong. (I've reached out to the proposer)

However, more generally, we have Category:Films about fraternities and sororities with two subcats: Black Christmas (which is really a film and two remakes) and the Revenge of the Nerds series. There are quite a few other pairs of films that would be reasonable for Categories if there was a third film (Legally Blonde & sequel, Neighbors & sequel, Beta House & sequel), but I'm not sure there are any others with three films. As a *macro* split, I could *maybe* see the cat being split into comedy and horror, but that doesn't seem quite right and certainly leaves some out (School Daze if nothing else).

So any ideas? Any movies that you expect to see in the cat that you don't? Naraht (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about fraternities and sororities in Watchlist?[edit]

Should the films in Category:Films about fraternities and sororities be added to the watchlist? While the category's talk page shows it as part of the project, the individual films under it generally aren't marked so.Naraht (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that there was a page that listed all the fake fraternity names used in movies. Four or five years ago there was a discussion about this, and the fake names were removed, with some dissent. Were they removed from the category page? This occurred before I expanded the Watchlist, which is now 5x larger. I wasn't really invested in the discussion, as a newer editor at the time, so I didn't weigh in. But today, I'd say these are probably worth tracking, as an aid to reduce confusion, and to help those planning for new local (or movie) names in avoiding copyright or trademark problems. Jax MN (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter lists, old or new name of school?[edit]

Chapter list for Mu Mu Mu. Gamma chapter was founded at the school when it was Cow Normal College, school changed to Cow State College while it was active, the chapter went inactive and then the school became Cow State University. At this point, I think that most of what I've seen has been Cow State University, but for the founding chapter, it gets mentioned in the *text* that it was founded at Cow Normal College (now Cow State University). Right? Naraht (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the norm was to use either the name when chapter was founded or the name when the chapter closed (depending on what has a link in Wikipedia). I prefer the latter as is usually closer to the school's current name (Cow State College vs. Cow State University). I add efn when the name is significantly different, as in Cow Normal School for Exceptional Dairy Arts is now Wisconsin State University. On a practical note, once a chapter is closed, we no longer need to update that entry in a list. Trying to track the changing name of a college not only adds work but also means that we are not using the data provided by the original source (assuming it is Bairds or the Almanac). Rublamb (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rublamb has it correct here, that the name at chapter closure often aligns with the present name. Typically this reflects the shift from College --> University. For clarity, where the name shift is a significant departure, I have been providing the former name in parentheses. I.e: the case of Trine University (formally Tri-State University). EFNs are also quite helpful, where the situation is unclear. Jax MN (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short Histories of Sororities.[edit]

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

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

free_label on Merging[edit]

For merger of equals into a *new* name, I *think* we have only two examples: Phi Kappa and Theta Kappa Phi into Phi Kappa Theta and Kappa Omicron Phi and Omicron Nu into Kappa Omicron Nu. I changed Kappa Omicron Phi's free_label to match Omicron Nu, but the Phi Kappa and Theta Kappa Phi are inconsistent with that. So our choices (before my change are)

  • free_label=Merged
  • free_label=Merger
  • free_label=Merged, to create

This may also affect whether the text afterwards looks like "February 29, 1999 into Mu Mu Mu" or "Mu Mu Mu (February 29, 1999" (Note, this is *not* for group A merging into group B, though we may want to look to make sure *that* is consistent.) Opinions? (and let me know if we have any other merger of equals into new name)Naraht (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would love some guidance on this--whatever we decide should be officially added to the WP instructions just in case it comes up again. When creating the infoboxes for Kappa Omicron Phi and Omicron Nu yesterday, I really did not know what to use for the free_labels because there were several facts: which group it merged with, the date of the merger, and the name of the new group. Thinking about it now, the name of the successor group and the merger date are what really matters. That being the case, "merged to create" is more exact, even though it is longer. The date could follow the name as in Mu Mu Mu (February 29, 1999) OR it could be separated with a hard return. Should we also decide on the free_label for the new group, something like "Formed from" or "predecessor"? For "normal" mergers, I prefer Merged: February 29, 1999 (Mu Mu Mu) but have no idea why. Maybe because the ending date of the group seems more important. However, I am also okay using "Merged" as the free-label in all cases and not treating these differently. (By the way, if you do know of any other groups like these that lack articles, let me know.) Rublamb (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only other merger of equals that springs to mind is Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha, but with them keeping both names, it may be less needed. I'll keep the splits in mind.Naraht (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: Looks like Delta Theta Phi was a merger of three "equals". But it has more issues than the infobox. Rublamb (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case this train hasn't yet left the station, I support use of the free label "Merged", as it signifies past tense. No need for "to create", as it is implied by use of the separate free label for "Successor", which I also like. Nice work on this. Jax MN (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Successor is the term used in the Infobox Organization, so it provides consistency too. Rublamb (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omega - Memorial chapter and Sorting.[edit]

Specifically to Omega Phi Chi, though I'm sure there are other situations. If Omega is a memorial chapter (and thus has no date), what should happen on a date sort

  • Fake an invisible date in the sort so it stays between Psi and Alpha Alpha
  • Let it drop it to the bottom in sort (so that it acts like it is at Jan 1, 9999), which is what it does automatically.Naraht (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that we use an invisible date, and render it in alphabetical order. These were generally adopted early in an organization's development, and indeed may have been created with establishment of national intentions. So this would be a courtesy listing, but alphabetization is a recognized standard. Better than have it show up at the end of the list. Jax MN (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related issue: Often, the memorial chapter does not have a charter date. If the chapter list is in date order and it is a group that randomly assisgned names, where to do put the memorial chapter? At the bottom of the list? Or maybe leave it off? Rublamb (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject specific GLO templates[edit]

Given some of the longer "see also"s, should there be templates specific to GLOs on a particular subject. I'm thinking specifically one for legal and one for medical. I'm against including the Filipino GLOs in this, and I'm not sure on whether to includes the groups that are inactive. Opinions?Naraht (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you think there are too many to have to one template for all professional groups? Yes for medical, with a divison for active and inactive (many still in articles for creation). Maybe pharmacy could go in the same template? And, would you divide dentristry or leave it mixed? Looking at Professional fraternities and sororities, there are not that many legal (unless there are a bunch of articles for creation). What is the number that makes something template worthy? Because music has the same number as legal. Rublamb (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably we have one for all of the Professionals. I'm thinking about having one *crossing* the Professional and Honoraries. (the See alsos have often included both). Dentistry is *very* definitely separate, though we have close to enough for that. And Music, we already have Template:NIMC. (Templates should always have five entries or more).Naraht (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about a template organized by emphasis, rather umbrella group affiliation as that would be more like the long lists often found with See Also. Including the honor groups makes sense. (I just found that Phi Delta Kappa considered itself an honor society at one point). Rublamb (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal[edit]

OK, lets look at Legal First. We start with the 7 (when I started) in Category:Professional legal fraternities and sororities in the United States.

I'm not sure if the three that merged into Delta Phi should be mentioned until they have articles. I'm also not sure there are any inactive ones outside the merge. To this we add the four groups mentioned in the "See also" of Phi Delta Phi

Any others? The other question is a group has changed between type of organization (professional -> Honorary -> Legal Association) do we use how they started or how the ended/today.

First Draft[edit]

Comments welcome.Naraht (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring your work, just lacking Internet access. There were more than I thought. Great job Rublamb (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Society founders...[edit]

We have Category:College fraternity founders and Category:College sorority founders, but, I don't think Alan A. Brown belongs in either, so an Category:College Honor Society founders category would make sense, right? (Professionals go with their gendered socials, here...) Naraht (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that category ought to be created. No need for a male version and a female version, since honor societies have essentially been co-ed since inception. Some holdouts, but separate categories are not warranted for them. Jax MN (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: were you going to create this? I just wrote an article for William E. Warner who founded Epsilon Pi Tau. I could not find a category to cover this relationship. Rublamb (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb created as Category:College honor society founders, uncapitalized.

Alpha Tau Sigma[edit]

In terms of Notability, Alpha Tau Sigma was on only one campus, and active for 52 years. (1912-1964). In general, should articles meeting this level of notability be created?Naraht (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability rules for Project article creation would indicate that this group rises to a level of notability. While not having three or more chapters, it existed for multiple decades, likely owned property, and articles are available to cite. I also tend to think that, if a successor national holds that group as a chapter, and notes its earlier incarnation as a local as part of the EFN notes on the chapter list, there is no need (at present) for a separate Wikipedia article for the local. Phi Sig, for example, absorbed a 102-year old local at the University of the Pacific, called Rhizomia, creating its Phi Tetarton chapter. Apparently, the group was faltering, and a national connection didn't result in stability; it died out. It was essentially two decades older than the entire national. I don't see a need to create a separate article for it, unless it had withdrawn to revert to local status, as a continuing, active group. Jax MN (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should invest time creating articles for local group unless there is extensive coverage or fame (think Skull and Bones). Being in Baird's is not enough to prove notability for Wikipedia, and this article would need at least one other non-college/fraternity source to fight an AfD. However, Professional fraternities and sororities is the perfect place to include these local groups that are in Baird's but not detailed elsewhere. Rublamb (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial names[edit]

You may find this page useful. List of colloquial names for universities and colleges in the United States. An editor named Choster started it, whom I used to see a lot around here. I hope he is OK. Jax MN (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen him around in a while. Page is *completely* unreferenced. :(Naraht (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Choster remains active, but on other WP projects. Regarding the list of colloquial names, I added it to our watchlist as interesting to our Project. You are correct, of course, that that page is unreferenced, though the school pages themselves should always reference these abbreviations in the lede, and probably do. If not, it would appear to be an omission/error. I note too that List pages don't have the same stringency regarding citations, though maybe they should. Jax MN (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think I'd be more comfortable with that page moved from mainspace to a reference subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education. Naraht (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should you wish to do so, I won't mind. While useful to us, occasionally, it is more germane to their project. Jax MN (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add this to a list of useful references, rather than addopting it. Do we have such a list? I also found the similar List of university and college name changes in the United States and List of university and college mergers in the United States. Rublamb (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to adopt it either. But a least the last two have some references.Naraht (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still around. I don't remember creating this article but if I did, it was almost certainly over a decade ago, when both the standard for referencing and the use of disambiguation pages were rather different from today. It may still have some use for editors working in higher education topics, but it's probably obviated now that the dab infrastructure is much more built out.-- choster (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax and standards[edit]

Naraht, I had sent you a note offline, but you may not have seen it. Another editor is methodically reverting incidents of {{official website|MuMuMu.org}} to use the {{URL|MuMuMu.org}} template. I recall that you had made a point to switch this to "official website", and I had been following that example. Would you confirm why you preferred the official website template? And ought we standardize on one form or another?

Additionally, I'd like consensus on a few other minor editing points. Please weigh in.

  1. Besides the link in the infobox, should we include an official website link in any See Also section?
  2. Rather than including a space before and after a dash between two dates, I strongly prefer the use of the ndash, this "–" between two dates, such as here: {{dts|1859|11|12}}–{{dts|1960|1|12}}. With multiple date ranges this would look like this: {{dts|1859|11|12}}–{{dts|1960|1|12}}; {{dts|1973|10|12}}–{{dts|2019|2|12}}; 2022 Basically, an NDASH is a half-dash, and the WP styleguide notes it ought to be used between two dates, where expressing a range. I think the alternative, expressed with extra spacing, is confusing. Rublamb, you may have another opinion on this, and I hope to clarify our rule.
  3. After one range of dates, we should use a semi-colon to separate any following ranges.
  4. Where a year is unclear, expressed such as "198x", we should set off an additional question mark after a space, expressing it as "198x ?" --This will help facilitate other editors noting the omission, and hopefully curing it.
  5. Where we have a group that splinters, and a chapter's status is shown as "Withdrew", I'd like to coalesce on allowing the Greek Letters of the successor group within parentheses and bolded, like this: "Withdrew (ΘΧ)" --Maybe with a link from the Greek letters to the other fraternity. Thoughts?
You may have other small syntax considerations; please add to this list. Jax MN (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this, I think "Official website" would be preferred. Can we invite the user who is doing so here.
  1. See also in general seems to be for things not otherwise mentioned and internal. www.mumumu.org would belong in external links if it belongs anywhere.
  2. I'm fine with using the ndash if it is policy somewhere.
  3. I wasn't aware of any place we weren't using the semi-colon, but if I remember correctly adding a <br> after the semicolon actually makes the box shorter.
  4. I think 198x{{?}} would be even better, that I think is specifically designed for that.
  5. Unfortunately, that hits my desire that the spelled out Greek letters should be included anywhere that Greek letters for a fraternity are, though with the space limitations...
  6. In Notes explaining what happened to chapters, should any occurrences of GLOs that have pages be linked?Naraht (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yedaman54, you've made some edits to various GLO pages, adjusting a number of links to "Official websites" to use the URL tag, instead. Would you clarify why? Is it just space saving, or is there a benefit to switch to that template? Jax MN (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly space saving. I was also seeing a lack of standardization when it came to the links. For example some would be "AXO official website" or "TKE homepage" (these aren't specific examples btw) and I felt like having the standard link made everything easier. Also, outside of GLO pages I haven't seen many infoboxes with the offical website template. Yedaman54 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check, Jax MN, are you referring the URL in the infobox, or the URL in the External links section? I don't know of any instances where I have seen {{official}} inside of an infobox. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yedaman554, Primefac the URLs being changed were in the infobox. I believe that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Order&diff=prev&oldid=1202530738 is typical from what Jax MN and I saw. Before: {{official website|http://www.kappaalphaorder.org}} After: {{URL|http://www.kappaalphaorder.org|kappaalphaorder.org}}.
Indeed. Jax MN (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. As I said above, I don't think I've ever seen {{official}} used in an infobox, so I would not disagree with Yedaman's edits. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asked at Template talk:Official website.Naraht (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "official" used in GLO and some other infoboxes but tend to use the {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} format myself. The infobox instructions for this field should be added. Maybe that will be the outcome of @Naraht's query to Template talk. Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the primary advantages to Official are
  1. The template doesn't *need* to include the URL if it is already in wikidata
  2. If the URL is included and it doesn't match wikidata, then it is brought to the attention of users.
Frankly, using www is so common that I'm not sure that using the www is need any more. So I'd be fine with something that doesn't include either the http or the www, and with that, I think that official and the URL templates would be equivalent and the official website would be better for the reasons above.Naraht (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be late to this discussion. I am responding to the long list of original questions above:
  • 1: Including an organization's website in External links (not in See also) is standard throughout Wikipedia. However, MOS says that we should normally include just one website for the organization.
  • 2: According to MOS, the ndash is what is supposed to be used with dates. MOS specifies spacing around the dash when a full date/month/year is used, and no spaces around the dash for just year or month/year. Following MOS, makes it easier for others to edit the articles that fall under our WP.
  • 3: Whether to use a comma or a semi-colon between a list of dates does not seem to be specified in MOS, but I started using the semi-colon between sets with full dates under the general punctuation rule of using a semi-colon between items in a list that includes commas (since month/date/year includes a comma). I have used a hard return between sets of dates since your prior suggestion; I like that it makes the column shorter and also makes it easier to scan date sets. However, it is not something that we can expect those outside of our WP to follow.
  • 4: You taught me to use 19xx ?, so that is what I have been doing. However, my understanding was that this helped the date sort correctly. We now know it does not. Would 19?? make more sense to random readers? I am not going to hunt for it again but recall that MOS does not specify how to list partical dates other than using c. for circa.
  • 5: I have started using Withdrew (MMM) in the status column following the guidelines on the WP Talkpage but agree that an organization's abbreviation should not be used unless the full name of the group, as in Moo Moo Moo (MMM), is used elsewhere in the article. I have found some articles where the Greek letter abbreviation is linked to the group's article. That is better than randomly adding a Greek letter abbreviation to the table. But, since we are now adding this information in an efn, I don't know that Greek letters are needed in the status column. Either way, I don't feel strongly. Rublamb (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. So the issue is that the infobox would point to something.org and the external link would point to www.something.org or is it that there are actually two links, which would make putting it in the infobox at all problematic?
  2. A little more complex, but I'm fine with it.Can you please give examples?
  3. I'm good with semicolon, but I'd like to see whether including <br> helps with vertical height.
  4. maybe 19xx{{?}}
  5. The question becomes whether the fact that what used to be Upsilon chapter of Mu Mu Mu is now Delta chapter of Alpha Beta Gamma belongs in the table, or in an efn. If it is in the table, they adding Alpha Beta Gamma in english is too much, if it is in the EFN, that should be fine.Naraht (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naraht, Following are all the variations of dates that I can think of, along with the correct format for those dates per MOS.
    Date examples with no spaces around the dash:
    • 1902–1977
    • March 1902–1977
    • March 1902–December 1977
    • 1902–December 1977
    Date examples with spaces around the dash because of the inclusion of a full date/month/year
    • March 1, 1902 – 1977
    • March 1, 1902 – December 1977
    • March 1, 1902 – December 17, 1977
    • March 1902 – December 17, 1977
    • 1902 – December 17, 1977
    Rublamb (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has become a fairly complicated subheader. At some point, one of us ought to draft a list of bullet points that clarify the consensus (and MOS) stylepoints. Two more items to confirm:

  1. In the infobox, where declaring scope or country, do we use "United States", "US", "U.S." or "USA" ?
  2. (non-controversial), where we encounter an article like List of Alpha Delta Pi members or a similarly-named list of chapters, we should always insert a param like "listas=Alpha Delta Pi members" in the banner/project markup language, on the Talk page, to aid in searches. Jax MN (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 – United States is never incorrect as abbreviations are to be avoided--and is probably my vote. However, U.S. and US fall under abbreviations that can be used. MOS:ACRO says: "Both U.S. and US are used, but avoid mixing dotted and undotted within the same article; use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations (e.g., UK, UAE, USSR). Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality. USA, U.S.A. and U.S. of A. are generally not used except in quoted material." There is also more info at MOS:US but its may take away is to not use U.S.A. Also, note that in whatever format, U.S. should not be linked.
No. 2 – yes. But I often forget. Rublamb (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the dates, as we've discussed recently, we *rarely* have a MDY for a date of inactivity and little interest in adding them. Given the way we enter dates, those needing dashes would be done one of three ways
  1. {{dts|1234|5|6}}
  2. {{dts|May 6, 1234}}
  3. May 6, 1234
The first could be detected by being [0-9]|[0-9]*|[0-9]*}}- and similar regex for the other two.
Let me know if you want a detector for the lack of listas. Naraht (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we have little interest in researching *exact* dates of closure. However, I'd include these if known. My preference is to add the dash, without space, and then either "1234" or "May 6, 1234" if the exact date is known. I don't think we should remove detail (month, date) if we have it, and while the DTS template is only used in the initial sort it does provide a clean way of expressing a date. For some time we (at least, I) added DTS to all dates, not realizing its limited use at present. I see no need for a separate effort to remove that template. Maybe a future iteration of Wikipedia would make use of the DTS template for a secondary sort tool, for closures. Dunno.
Yes, a detector for the lack of listas would be highly beneficial. Jax MN (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dts isn't useful only if every one of the dates is in one of the specific formats that the sorttable can handle. As soon as we have a 197? or a spring 1983, it decides the field is for strings and sorts all of the Aprils together. I still *strongly* support its use.
listas detector. This isn't perfect, but does show all list-class articles in the wikiproject that don't have the string listas: [1]. There are a few here that sort of surprise me that they are in the wikiproject, but that's a different story.Naraht (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of names for separate member pages[edit]

If there are 50 chapters of Mu Mu Mu, we create the List of Mu Mu Mu chapters. How many *referenced* Mu Mu Mu members with wikipedia pages (even with a primary source like a list on the Mu Mu Mu national website) do we need before the chapter list gets split out? Is 50 a target here? More, less? (For example, I think right now, Alpha Chi Omega is at 43. Also if they are split out, is just splitting out what is there now, OK even if it doesn't fit the nice neat tables of something like List of Alpha Phi Alpha members?Naraht (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. I look at the total number of names but also the visual aspect when making the decision to move alumni lists to a new article. Because we divide alumni lists into sections by profession, the overall appearance appears longer even if the count is less than 50. In this case, I would go ahead and create the new article, with the assumption that there more names will eventually be added. With regards to format, I now try to create the new article with the same format as the orginal list, because that covers copyright issues. Then, I divide the list into sections by profession and make any needed additions or changes. Tables are not needed for lists and probably should not be used unless the chapter is known for essentially the entire list (making a table that provides name, chapter, notability, and references). In fact, WP:UNI hates tables for alumni lists, and I have given up that fight. A neutral editor in one such debate noted that an empty column is not needed and is distracting if the majority of the individuals lack chapter/class year content. Rublamb (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like 40 alumni would take up about the space as 50 chapters, and given copyright issues, that the procedure would be if it meets that level, then to do a cut and paste creation, and then split by profession if needed. As such, List of Alpha Chi Omega members should be created.Naraht (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that. I will be happy to do this one. Rublamb (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just picked that as an example since it was the first that I saw. I'll take a look at your process and post here if I have any questions. :)Naraht (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: For some reason, I tend to work on alumni lists for dormant groups more often than active groups. Maybe I like the data to be a "closed set" or the ease of finding obituaries as sources. Also, there are no issues with members adding themselves or other non-notables. That being said, there are many groups that have no notables listed, so this could become a new project--even if we just add those names found through a Wikipedia search. Of course, newer organizations are less likely to have notables with Wikipedia articles, but I find it hard to believe that a long-standing honor group has no notables. Rublamb (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On several pages, the list of Phi Sigma Kappa notables, for example, I wrote a short guideline for the Talk page that sets the criteria for inclusion. Something similar might be cut-and-pasted to many of the others, adjusted for nuances. Jax MN (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois[edit]

Statement and question...

  1. ) *Any* organization with a founding date at U of Illinois prior to the 1960s is refering to the main campus, neither the Chicago or Springfield campuses existed until the 1960s.
  2. ) For U of Illinois main campus, can we standardize on the city? I propose *just* [[Champaign, Illinois]]

Naraht (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind standardizing on one or the other, for brevity's sake. However, I just called the Greek Affairs office there, and it was explained to me that the chapters are roughly split between the two cities. Jax MN (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question then is are we indicating the city/state of the institution of higher education, or the city/state of the fraternity house? In my opinion, the answer is the first, because otherwise we couldn't do the honoraries/nonhoused Professionals/nonhoused socials.Naraht (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may want to standardize on the city where the school's oldest campus is. For some years I'd thought that Champaign was the more important of the two, but even old maps show the importance of Urbana to the campus. This won't come up often, and appears to be an UIUC issue. Again, for brevity? Maybe use Champaign. But I don't have a strong opinion either way. Anyone else want to weigh in? Jax MN (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: Because the campus and chapter house locations are the same for most organizations, I don't really think about which we are actually indicating in the location field. However, Illinois and Minnesota Twin Cities are always an issue, along with a few New York colleges that have several campuses under the same name. For historic/defunct chapters, I try to figure out which campus used the listed name at the time (but often give up and let @Jax MN figure it out). For active chapters, I look for a chapter website or page within the college website to see if there is a physical address. Even with honor societies, there is usually a campus address or contact. But not always, which is where it gets tricky. For example, with a multi-campus college and a professional/honor society with no specific address, which location do you use? Although the college or university is located in two or three cities, doesn't it have a specific address with just one city? Rublamb (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb I think we have two very different situations here.
  1. ) One campus, with Fraternity/Sorority houses in the neighborhood around campus where the fraternity house might be over the line where the post office (or even incorporated city) change. For example, at University of Maryland, College Park (to pick a campus that isn't under discussion yet), it is within the realm of possibility for a fraternity house to be over the border from College Park, Maryland *to* University Park, Maryland. In that case, I'd still support using College Park, it doesn't make sense to change the entry if they get a house in Fraternity Row on campus.
  2. ) Multi Campus college. If Beta Alpha Psi's Alpha Alpha chapter is chartered to Long Island University, then it should be investigated whether it is chartered to LIU-Brooklyn or LIU-Post, if to *both*, then both college and cities should be listed. If not known, don't list a city (and leave a note, either visible or not, that it should be investigated).Naraht (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've developed a preference for selecting the location of Honor societies as the location of that particular college within a university. It made sense as these are managed by academic sponsors or departments. For landed professional houses and social fraternities, seeking out the physical location will be more important. Where that information is completely ambiguous or unknown I have been linking to the largest and oldest campuses. The beauty of being, I suppose one could say "Highly Directionally Correct" is that many lurking editors rise up to correct single errors and gaps, who wouldn't otherwise bother if there are lots of missing fields. Heh. Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we both are saying that we prefer to look for the organization's location, not just that of the campus. Maybe the short answer to @Naraht's suggestion of standardizing complex campus locations is that that would be as a last resort. Rublamb (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Phi Beta Kappa would be wherever the campus address is, but the Geography Honor Society would be based off the location of the Geography department? That seems unnecessarily difficult. It does get particularly interesting with Illinois, because the question becomes with lack of location, is that because it isn't known if the house is in Urbana or Champaign *or* if there is some question whether it might have been at Illinois-Chicago or Illinois-Springfield.Naraht (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Think of it this way. If a school has an agricultural campus and a main campus, I'd place the agricultural honors society on that Ag campus, while placing a general honor society at the pinnacle address in the hierarchy. For a while, Yale had a separate Sheffield school. That was the location of many honoraries during that time, but now that they have merged into Yale as a single institution, so I'd use the Yale address going forward. It's not the best example, as both were in New Haven. The trigger for me is that I want these fields to answer the question, "on the campus, where would I find them, or someone who manages that society?" Jax MN (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN, I'm curious, where have you seen a main campus and an ag campus that far apart?
Naraht, three examples come to mind. The Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota is approximately seven miles away from the St. Paul campus, which was originally its Ag Campus. Several other unrelated academic units are now situated there, because they had available space. This includes Fashion Merchandising, and some design departments. Hard sciences and liberal arts remain on the East Bank of the Minneapolis campus, which itself is split by the Mississippi River, with many newer buildings on the West Bank (Econ, soft sciences, dance, theater). So that is one example. I believe Cornell has a geographically distinct farm campus, too. Rutgers has three campuses but it remains a single school. Jax MN (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter naming.[edit]

It *looks* like Kappa Kappa Gamma does something unique. The chapters that have rechartered (apparently including their founding chapter) are refered to as Deuteron. So apparently they were founded at Monmouth College, the chapter there went inactive and the chapter that rechartered there is referred to as Alpha Deuteron rather than Alpha. Should we

  • keep it the same, with Alpha Deuteron being the name corresponding with Monmouth
  • split it so that Alpha and Alpha Deuteron have different entries.
  • something else?

Naraht (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're going to the extent of giving a rename, then it sounds like they are treating it as a "new" chapter. If so, adding some sort of † as an indicator that this renamed happened would probably be reasonable. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: JAX and I have been using a strategy for this very situation. Give each instance (Alpha and Alpha Deuteron) its own row. Then, create an efn for the later indicating that Alpha Deuteron was a re-establishment of Alpha, and an efn for the former indicating that it was re-established. In the chapter name field, add a "see" note. For example: Alpha (see Alpha Deuteron) and Alpha Deuteron (see Alpha). Rublamb (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters of Greek Societies by Campus[edit]

On the WP Watchlist, Chapters of Greek Societies by Campus includes many redirects to university aticles. I don't know if this happened because the original article was deleted or because the university article once included externsive content on fraternities and sororities. However, because of the recent activity of one WP:UNI editor, most of the GLO content has been removed from these universityarticles. As a result, most of the redirects go to useless content (such as, "The university has numerous fraternities and sororities.") In on article that I checked, the Greek Life section was completely removed.

Questions: Considering that these redirects and hundreds of others are included in the table of WP articles on our project page, do we want to remove these redirects from our watchlist? Is anyone actually monitoring the Greek Life content of thesef university articles? Should these redirects be deleted from Wikipedia? Rublamb (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions:
  1. I'd like to see a separate article for each campus with a Greek system, with a short history and a comprehensive list of chapters, past and present. Fully cited, noting impact, architectural significance (if any) and campus traditions. For some schools this will be extensive, and for others, the article will be modest.
  2. Where these articles are not yet written, we should set a placeholder list, like this: UIUC Greeks or Michigan State Greeks. To facilitate new editors joining the Project, a Talk Page primer may be offered, pointing to example pages as templates. I wish, for example, that a Greek-friendly editor, someone who knows the main Illinois campus, or Purdue, would write a page for those campuses similar to the ones I did for Minnesota, MIT or Cornell.
  3. Where even a placeholder list is not available, we should include a list of the active chapters on the main college or university article, in some cases, reverting any recent deletions of these sections that Rublamb cited. I hadn't known of that effort, and find it unsupportable. These same articles may list an obscure, trendy environmental point about a campus building, or offer a paragraph about a campus radio station, yet that editor feels they ought to delete a single sentence noting the existence of GLOs which may serve 10% to 20% of the campus? Ridiculous.
  4. To track the long effort to write and improve these pages we should keep the redirects. The Watchlist may be improved by noting against each page name what its status might be, either broken anchor, redirect, bare list, or full treatment.
Good catch. Jax MN (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of creating 500 or more redirects that don't link to useful content and have no realistic timeframe for article creation. Although your goal is within the WP scope, we are a small group that is challenged to oversee the creation and updating of organization articles and chapter lists. Plus, we know from experience that these campus Greek Life articles have a difficult time fighting AfD challegnes and are very likely to become dated or inaccurate since they will not have an active champion to make the needed annual updates (if WP members create them, rather than someone from the college). Furthermore, we have not been successful keeping GLO content in college articles, where it makes the most sense to live for most campuses. In the recent past, there was not WP support for my suggestion to add the Greek Life sections of college articles to our watchlist; creating these redirects would be doing just that.
That being said, if these redirects are created, the current name format (as decided previously in a Talk Page discussion) would be: List of University of Cows fraternities and sororities OR University of Cows fraternies and soroities. All active article titles are now in that format, with some variations for student organizations or societies. I was just "corrected" by an admin for having redirects for "Auburn University Greek life" (the name of the draftspace article) to "List of fraternities and sororities at Auburn Univesity" and the actual article List of Auburn University fraternities and sororities, so I am pretty sure we are only going to be "allowed" to create one redirect. Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Middletown Chapter, Alpha Delta Phi Society[edit]

Normally we don't have articles for individual chapters. Chapters founded in the 1850s may have a chance. Completely unreferenced, and I'm going to undo the changes in the ADPS article. Might be worthwhile keeping an eye on.Naraht (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, because it is well-written. Should we leave its author a note on the talk page. Rublamb (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to create a work list[edit]

@Naraht and @Primefac, is there a way to have a section on the WP page that lists articles with no infobox, no short description, a stub notice, or articles with templates such as peacock, no sources, primary sources? I have seen such things on other WP pages, but don't know what is involved. But think this could be useful in directing our editing time. Rublamb (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what WP pages they are on and I'll try to clone.Naraht (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina/Requested articles. It looks like this is populating using automated tags. If this is not helpful, let me know and I can look for another example. Rublamb (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what I can do. Probably going to be a few days to figure out the copy and JL-Bot appears to only fill on Saturdays. I'll let you know when I have something.Naraht (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek letter umbrella organizations and European Fraternal Societies[edit]

The European Fraternity Societies have sort of an odd relationship with this WP, but I'm wondering whether League of Estonian Corporations belongs in Category:Greek letter umbrella organizations. Naraht (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Historically, the quite-similar German fraternal societies are comfortably within our scope, and while the Estonians use the name "Corporations" in a manner Americans are not accustomed to, still, they fit. These English language articles, of course, are secondary and will mirror those in the Estonian or other closer European languages. Jax MN (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that they seem to fence. Rublamb (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, sure they do. The German fraternities do too, as part of their long-standing culture. Yet the similarities run strongly parallel with US GLOs: collegiate-based, self-selective, initiatory, some instances of "proving oneself" required, a fee to join, connections for networking during and after college, the trappings of regalia including crests, colors and secret rituals, mottos and a set of ideals or guiding principles, and often, buildings owned by a board of alumni or governors. The item of "fencing" as part of their culture is akin to the the practice of "step shows" among Black and multicultural fraternities. It's just an additional thing they do: an affinity. Jax MN (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, they belong in the category, then the question is whether the Category is correctly named: Should it be Category:Fraternal umbrella organziations? Category:Fraternal Collegiate umbrella organizations? (though I think we have a few articles on non-collegiate GLOs)Naraht (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we include non-collegiate groups as a result of their current or former use of Greek letter names, I'd opt to be inclusive here. But defer to your longer history working with categories and how to name this. Jax MN (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given our prior discussions - Removing centered.[edit]

I am removing the "centered" on the status and reference columns in Template:FratChapter.Naraht (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in Template:FratChapter2 which does to different list of columns, *everything* is centered. Note this is only used in *one* article List of Phi Sigma Kappa chapters. Nuke all of the code to do centering there as well?Naraht (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the article I have been avoiding! If it is the only one with that template, I am almost tempted to move it to a visual editor table, so that the template can be deleted. But, then, one of us would have to deal with that crazy article and all of its photos. Maybe getting rid of centering it an easier solution. Rublamb (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. It appears, someone, should work on that article. It was an early effort on my part, and since then we have come to solid agreement on syntax. If someone has a better solution for the photos, I'd love to see it. A scrolling ribbon? Jax MN (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photos have stumped me for two years. Following what we have done for other articles, I think there could be a section on Chapter houses in the main fraternity article. These photos can be in a gallery there under that section. Does that makes sense? Rublamb (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd hoped, earlier, that this would spark other groups to add galleries of house photos. As long as we keep them somewhere, I'm supportive of that change. A scrolling gallery would make the most sense. Jax MN (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other options is photos within the table but I have never been a fan of the those tiny images. Rublamb (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I felt the same way, after seeing examples. I tested several styles. Jax MN (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of members of United States student societies[edit]

I created an ACHS subcat, and a former ACHS under that and then finished up with a Local subcat. As of this moment, there are no articles in the maincat, Category:Lists of members of United States student societies. Now, I don't expect that to last, there are lots of Honor Societies that were never ACHS that would end up in the mainspace.

It does lead to the question, should these sub groupings be done by umbrella group or by type? Baird's has gone back and forth on this, for example, Professional Fraternities (when these were mostly male only) would have all of the PIC groups in Alphabetical order, and then the non PIC groups. Should all of the social sororities be together, so that List of Delta Delta Delta members is in the same group as List of Delta Sigma Theta members and similarly should all of the Lists of chapters of Honor Societies be together regardless of whether they are in the ACHS, formerly in the ACHS or have never been in the ACHS.Naraht (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my limited work with honor societies, the smaller/non-ACHS groups don't seem to have many members with Wikipedia articles. Not to say it won't happen, but I suspect this will not be an issue. For groupings, if you mean for the template, it makes sense to follow the pattern wth our other templates, meaning members, former members, and other. Let me know if that is not what you meant. Rublamb (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Alpha Phi[edit]

Could I get someone to be a second set of eyes on Pi Alpha Phi. Someone changed the "is" to "was" in the article and the national website says that all undergraduate chapters has closed as of 8/1/2023. I'm wondering if it should be moved to dormant organizations and how things should change otherwise.Naraht (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed that this is a dormant group. Still working on retoring some of the scandals that led to its dissolution and were previously removed from the article, according to the talk page. I have edited the article to past-tense and have changed the chapters to inactive. The fraternity lists its former chapters by intitution (no chapter names), so it is hard to tell if some on the list were chartered or if they were still colonies at the time of dissolution. I wll have to go through archived webpages to find out for sure. I will let you update the categories and watch list. Rublamb (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated all of the GLO and university articles that mentioned PAPhi. I will contact the Almanac too. Rublamb (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this made me realize that National APIDA Panhellenic Association members aren't being grouped together in categories correctly.Naraht (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do we need to do to fix this? Rublamb (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax[edit]

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

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

Lambda Alpha[edit]

I am in the process of creating a chapter list for Lambda Alpha and need advice on the order of chapters. I have gone through all online magazines and newspaper articles to look for dates (which are lacking on the national website). I have contacted the national for info. However, the issue still remains that because of its naming by Greek letter/state and the lack of dates, it is not possible to order this list by date or an assumption of charter order. I currently have ordered the list alphabetically by state, then Greek letter order. Thoughts? Rublamb (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One way to do this which I've seen is to list those that have dates first, in order, and then list the remaining chapters. Occasionally, members will look at their chartering records and offer a correction or addition, to improve the list over time. Jax MN (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you order the remainng chapters? Normally, we would say alphabetically, but that may not make sense in this case. Rublamb (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 1 with date, chapter 2 with later date, chapter 3 with still later date, and then the chapters without chartering years/dates in what would be the natural order, in this case Alpha of Alabama, then Beta of Alabama, and then since Gamma of Alabama had a date, that would be followed by Delta of Alabama.Naraht (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting decades from its journals. Slow going is the chapter list is randomly included and not always mentioned on the contents page. @Jax MN, can this photo of their key be used under fair use? Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. One image is allowable as a corporate identifier. I use a crest if possible, and a pin or key if no crest is available. There is another process for adding both a pin and the crest, as long as the pin or key is discussed in body text, in a Symbols section. I'll take care of this one. Jax MN (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jax MN (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have ordered this list based on date, then chapter name. Can someone check through my work? Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense, past tense[edit]

It's a slow train coming. Birmingham–Southern College will be closing on May 1, after the private liberal arts school failed to secure funding for its operations. Apparently it had struggled for some time and has been cited for "financial mismanagement". I was about to start adjusting its several Greek Letter chapters to "inactive" status, but realized that would be jumping the gun. When ought we make the change to these several chapter lists, italicizing the school name and showing the chapters as inactive? At this writing, technically they are not closed yet, but are poised to either go inactive or possibly experience a consolidation or move. I believe it unlikely a last-minute reprieve will be granted to the college. Here is the Baird's Archive list of its chapters. Jax MN (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am too lazy to look for it now, but there is a policy section of Wikpedia that states "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". While I mostly use this to explain why we don't post deaths without an obituary, I think it applies here. We are not supposed to add predictive content or even current events unless documented by a source. So, once the college closes, you could update the GLO chapter list with a source and an efn stating that the college has closed. But, technically, you should not state that the chapter is closed until there is a source to confirm this, such as an updated GLO chapter list. The Wikipedia "crystal ball" policy applies here, meaning, we cannot assume to know the future. It may defy logic, but Wikipedia is pretty clear on this in the "not a newspaper" and "crystal ball" policies. Rublamb (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that assumes that all of the GLOs would declare their chapters inactive, is it possible that for a fraternity like Alpha Phi Alpha, that the chapter would become community or even that it is already a multischool chapter. If Carnegie-Mellon closes, their Alpha Phi Alpha chapter would remain active as it serves all of the schools in Pittsburgh.Naraht (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter lists vs. Member lists.[edit]

I know there is a tendency to hold off the creation of separate articles for chapter lists if the only source is primary, does that also apply to member lists? I'm thinking specifically for Alpha Chi Sigma. (Which could use some secondary sources anyway, probably Baird's to start). Naraht (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so; there's not much point in having a list of notable members if they're only sourced to the org itself. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support your suggestions, here. We've got a workable framework that almost always insists that a person is profiled in a Wikipedia article of their own prior to listing them on a fraternity notables list. With alternative citations they can also be noted. Many of us police these articles with these rules in mind, otherwise deleting non-notables. By the way, Baird's Manual, 20th ed. lists tens of thousands of fraternity and sorority alumni, broken out by field, in the Appendix, pages A-8 thru A-65. Mention here could provide additional citations for individual articles and notables lists. Jax MN (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference I think is that additional Secondary references are probably to single individuals where he primary are often to a much larger list. So consider the following situation for Mu Mu Mu sorority. The Mu Mu Mu sorority pledge manual (downloadable and on archive.org) lists 67 individuals (with what they are famous for) who are Mu Mu Mu alumnae. 30 of those have Wikipedia pages (assume no issue of notability for those 30).
  1. Should the chapter article list those 30 women or *only* out of those thirty the ones who have secondary references
  2. If the following edition of the pledge manual has 50 women who have wikipedia pages, should the separate wikipedia page only contain the ones with secondary references?
I think this boils down to the following concept. If a fact is not controversial, it can be left in a wikipedia article for some time without reference (or only a primary one), but if that slice of the article is split out, it must reach higher standards.Naraht (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I yield to the expertise of others here. My understanding of Wikipedia rules is that a good secondary source that lists several facts may be used to verify notability, while additional 'color' may be derived from more lengthy treatments from citable and verifiable primary sources (is that the correct term?) that is, solid sources, but somehow connected to the person. Our array of sources cannot only be major newspapers of record or scholarly journals. --An example of "good, but not blue-chip references" are national websites or pledge manuals. In the same way, I'd dismiss most factoids from personal websites, Instagram posts or similar, BUT would accept an exact founding date if I discovered it on an Instagram page, improving on another reference that simply lists the year. Naraht, to your point about leaving an uncontroversial fact without reference, awaiting a further mention in a citation, I share your opinion. Jax MN (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My short answer is: There is a difference between the two.
A chapter list is a grouping of non-notable organizations, meaning that notability has to be proved for the article. Since a self-published source cannot be used to establish notability, we need other sources for a chapter list article to survive an AfD. (Same with a list of fraternities and sororities at specific colleges). A list of notable alumni pulls together notable people who already have Wikipedia articles and, therefore, does not need a source to prove that its components or topic are notable. See WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:EXEMPT1E which essentially say notability is given if a person has a Wikipedia article, but you need a source to prove a connection to the fraternity. Best case, the bio article indicates the relationship to the GLO and has a source that you can use.
When I am editing a long GLO member list with no sources, I will often add sources only to red-linked names or if the associated bio article lacks a source. But that is just for speed and does not technically comply with WP:LISTPEOPLE. Yet this seems to suffice for the bulk of the university alumni lists. The sources I use to prove that someone belonged to a GLO: obituaries, Baird's, college magazine articles, organizational directories, features in organizational magazines, Political Graveyard, Greek Letter Men of New York, city bluebooks that list memberships (Washington D.C.'s good), newspapers, old biographical dictionaries, and Who's Who type books. Also, you would be surprised how many wedding announcements mention GLO memberships. I might use a fraternity or sorority's website to find notable names but then look for another source for proof of membership. I think these website lists fall under promotional content and should not be considered a reliable source (harsh, I know). I would prefer that we use GLO directories and magazines as a last resort or as a supplemental source because the other sources are a better fit for the secondary source rule. That being said, you can use GLO publications and websites as a source in a member's bio article (unless the person's only claim to fame is a connection to the GLO) because it is a secondary source in that instance. Following my advice above, you would add the GLO publication to the bio article and would not need to add a source to the list article.
You may notice that I often move unproven or red-linked names that lack sources to the Talkpage pending sources. However, I might leave a name if the person's bio article mentions their membership. This is only if the organization's membership is open and not for something like Skull and Bones. That being said, I am fine with old membership directories, histories, or pledge manuals being used, assuming all are from the national. In reality, we don't seem to get AfD of member lists. Mostly because many people do not know that each element of a list is supposed to have a source. Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My perspective is that WP:SPINOUT provides helpful guidance on when and why to split an article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enos733: Yes. And we also need to be aware of WP:CROSSCAT. Unfortunately, not every GLO meets the requirement for related list articles, despite our goal of consistency of article organization. Rublamb (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reset[edit]

OK, so what it boils down to is "Alpha Nu chapter of Alpha Chi Sigma at Colgate University" is non-notable on its own. Linus Pauling, alumnus of Alpha Chi Sigma *is* notable on their own.Naraht (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the short of it. Rublamb (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I concur. Jax MN (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this writing, our Project group has much to do in completing the many missing pages for all fraternities that emerged with at least three chapters and with a tenure of at least ten years. --Raimond Baird had settled on this bar of entry. Roughly speaking, these fraternities are all on our Watchlist where the missing pages are redlinked. We are engaged in the creation of table lists of chapters and lists of notables that are connected to fraternity articles; many will be spun off as sub-pages. Each fraternity article should have a solid infobox, including notes about successor organizations, with color swatches, crests and a thumbnail of its pin or key; about 50% do. We also support writing articles about the remaining schools, many now closed, which hosted chapters but which do not yet have an article. I'd project that all this will take at least five more years with our present level of volunteerism. This is our present trajectory, along with policing vandalism and cleaning up articles for encyclopedic writing style and clarity.
Of course we have outliers: Most or all of the articles about the Divine nine are twice as long as they ought to be, as are a few of the traditional GLOs. Both sets are subject to good-faith bloat and puffery. While we aren't rushing to create them, there are several dozen articles about notable local chapters, or articles about chapters of national fraternities that have some claim to notability. Long ago I wrote a draft of notability rules for such pages, which offered up a few additional rules that build on Baird's structure. Hence, to be noteworthy a local must own property, have a long-established presence on a campus, have some external media mentions of significance, etc.
If I were to forecast, Wikipedia will continue to expand and the Inclusionists will win over or survive beyond the demise of the Deletionists. Why? Because the natural instinct to "add just one more thing" to articles one cares about, is, in the end, stronger than the instinct to delete someone else's work. Perhaps an AI beast may be engaged in finding more hidden citations and in finalizing the work of rendering articles from our watchlist. I think that eventually, all chapters, active or not, may be viewed as notable, enough for a start page. Why? Because Wikipedia is a honey trap for Aspies and those blessed souls who are driven to be comprehensive and accurate, even where this transcends the goal of being "encyclopedic in style". Eventually, long after the present group of Project editors log out for the final time, our work will become a slice of the World Mind. Why? I surmise that something will have to serve up the database for such an entity, and Wikipedia might as well be part of it. You asked... Jax MN (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Upsilon Gamma[edit]

Does anyone have information on *how* they died. I see them in the 1930 Baird's but have completely disappeared by he 1949 Baird's. I think we have enough for an article. Naraht (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean the dormant 2-yr school sorority. The Zeta Lambda chapter of Zeta Tau Alpha formed as a local under that name at Rider University, forming in 1928, with the shift to ZTA coming in 1967. However, Rider itself had been a two-year or business school, thus its Eta Upsilon Gamma chapter may have been one of that national sorority's chapters, withdrawing to be a continuing, orphaned local. The dates might not line up exactly, with the name switch from "Rider Business College" to "Rider College" coming in 1920, and the approval to confer 4-year degrees coming in 1922. That chapter's website history may go into this further. Jax MN (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying the 1930s Baird's info into Draft:Eta Upsilon Gamma. I've got a few more sources

Created[edit]

Eta Upsilon Gamma has been created. I've found a few other things that I want to add, like a link to the National Junior Panhellenic,( had HUG, BSO and SIX at one point). Also, Alpha Beta is not the last chapter , Woodbury had Alpha Epsilon chapter which apparently also became part of ZTA in 1967-1968. I reached out to ZTA and the Archivist there is truly interesting in cleaning things up, not just for ZTA but across the NPC and other groups.Naraht (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more chapters and dates from the Almanac. I love that this connects to the Junior College of Bergen County that I created as part of the red-link project. Rublamb (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Grouped with Eta Upsilon Gamma in "Junior"[edit]

In general, I think groups that are grouped with Eta Upsilon Gamma are Beta Sigma Omicron (at least early), Sigma Iota Chi, Zeta Mu Epsilon(?) later. Others? Naraht (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the info JAX is getting on the JPHC will reveal more. I am willing to work on articles for any that need them. I am fascinated by early women's history and the era of those those defunct women's schools that seemed to host these groups. Rublamb (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, I had been corresponding with Fran at the archive, who kindly sent several documents from her personal archives relating to Junior Panhellenic, and also about several redlinked schools. Would you also like copies? Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN Yes please.Naraht (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I emailed you the attachments and cover letters. Jax MN (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary image in Infobox.[edit]

Just to verify in order of preference:

  1. ) Color Coat of Arms
  2. ) Black and White Coat of Arms
  3. ) Color Member Pin (may be a "fancy" plusjeweled one)
  4. ) Black and White Member Pin.

Pledge pin should *never* be there. Naraht (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is the logical rule I follow. Jax MN (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Question, for more modern groups, where does their "logo" or wordmark fall into this list? Rublamb (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image upload rule I follow when providing these logos confirms that these will become the primary identifier for an organization, in the infobox, or on the page. A secondary image, for example when I fill the field that shows an organization's pin or key, requires a slightly different rationale: it must be discussed in some detail in the article (usually the symbolism section), and thus support that point. For newer organizations, I've been using their current corporate logo or wordmark, deferring to their own decisions on these matters. So where an organization has formally abandoned use of an old crest in favor of refreshed branding, now widely used, it makes sense to use the new logo. I'm pleased to note that in virtually all circumstances where this brand evolution has occurred for GLOs, the newer image reflects some aspects of the old, showing continuity. The exceptions are a couple of professional or honor groups for women in communications, for educators, and for media professions.
Last night I got a bit of pushback on the pin I'd uploaded for Eta Upsilon Gamma, which wasn't accepted as a matter of routine. Instead, I am required to substantiate its non-free use rationale. I can either go down that road, or I can declare it to be in the public domain because the pin is artwork that has passed into the public domain. There is nothing really unique about the photo of that pin, just that it is clean, and because I crop, color-correct and reduce the size from the original, I can reasonably claim that I'm not impacting its artistic value. I saw the item last night and left it to deal with today or tomorrow.
Finally, note that our infobox allows a field for pledge pin (and colony pins), but I don't recall any articles that use them. Jax MN (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably find for Alpha Phi Omega pretty easily.Naraht (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few infoboxes have a flag or flower photo, as well as the badge and crest. I have placed the badge photo in the article, adjacent to the related text. It makes sense there and the photo is larger than when in the infobox. My only issue with a photo of several pins in the infobox would be sizing: it would be fine if all pin images were the same size or at least the same width. Otherwise, it looks messy. Regarding the photo and fair use: since I only load images through WikiCommons, I don't know your method or how to help. Wikicommons is strictly pre-1928, your photo, or a commons license on the website where the image is from. Which is why I often ask for your help with an image. We can always go back to the Baird's image; I can also look for a cleaner version of that image. Rublamb (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Template:Association of College Honor Societies ?[edit]

With the creation of the Honor Society Caucus, *but* with only four members, I don't think a separate template is needed. So my idea is the following. Make this template more like Template:North American Interfraternity Conference, in that former members should be split into Active vs. Defunct *and* additionally Active should be split within it in by a subgroup for the Honor Society Caucus. (sort of like Template:Drag Race España has an subgroup for winners). Naraht (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Jax MN (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please take a look.Naraht (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honor society[edit]

What can we do with Honor society? Can this data be moved to a table? Should we include affiliation and status, like with have done with other fraternal lists? Also, a new article showed up in our notice board: Ku Klux Klan Honor Society. Guess it should be added to the watch list? Rublamb (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Good catch. The article is rather fairly written and researched, from what I can tell. I hate to see them "in the club" of our watchlist, but suppose that treating it like any other dormant honor society would be reasonable. The only reason it might fall off is that it only had two chapters, and may perhaps settle in on the single-campus page, not rising to the 'national' attention level. What an ugly incident for both Illinois and Wisconsin.
The page itself should include a data point on when these chapters closed, and probably a table for those two chapters. If memory serves, the mid-1920s represented the high point of Klan activity, even so far as to taking over a national political convention. I think it was called the Klanbake.
On the broader point, I'd support placing the honor societies into a custom table. Jax MN (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank the article notes on the WP landing page for the find. I think the article has the wrong name and is missing a key component. The two yearbook pages included in the article do not call this KKK Honor Society, but Ku Klux Klan. I checked the first source. It says: "The UW chapter of the honorary fraternity called the Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1919 under its parent fraternity Phi Gamma Delta." Given that the article cannot be called Ku Klux Klan, it could be Ku Klux Klan (collegiate) or Ku Klux Klan (honor fraternity). There is also the later name that the group went by to avoid confusion with the actual Klan. Although, more work is needed to prove it was an honor fraternity at both campuses. I also see that all members appear to belong to other fraternities, per the yearbook page. Was this an honor society for fraternity members? Should I start an article name discussion on the article's talkpage so that its creator can be involved? Rublamb (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some additions and edits after scanning the sources. The two chapters actually were connected, with members of "Alpha" founding "Beta". It was a junior interfraternity honor society. No idea what its membership criteria was. There much evidence that is was not Klan affiliated and that any related activities were in jest. For example, their robes were black, as was their color. Still need to address the article name. Rublamb (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Zeta chapter of Delta Sigma Phi at Alfred University started as the Ku Klux Klan in 1901. It withdrew to form Alpha Zeta in 1920. (Baird’s 1927, p. 86) The Almanac incorrectly lists this as Kappa Kappa Kappa. Similarly, the Almanac lists a former local at Illinois as Kappa Kappa Kappa. If related, the Alfred chapter would be the oldest so far. I have found numerous newspaper articles about the group at Illinois. Almost all campus fraternities nominated a represetative to KKK each year. One fraternity withdrew because their membership in it had little benefit. KKK was known for its annual dance. Later, as stated in a newspaper article, it was essentially a bridge club, organizing tournaments for the campus GLOs. Rublamb (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN, do you want to see what Fran has on this? Rublamb (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your note here, I was just thinking I should ask Fran and Carroll about this. Carroll is too careful of a yearbook researcher to have incorrectly listed these local names, especially under such a cloud of notoriety. I assume, therefore, there was a use of euphemism here. But it also seems that the purpose of these local or national groups was divorced from the national racist-political organization of the KKK. The campus groups may have held some level of respect for the KKK (remember, this is in the 1920s and perhaps up to the 1930s, before today's broad and intense revulsion over any hint racism appeared.) But I read that their primary focus was academic honors. The name choice may have been an attempt (weirdly) to gain publicity by ~branding linkage even without direct linkage. I'll ask C and F. Jax MN (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carroll told me just now that "The local at Alfred U that became Delta Sig changed to K. K. K. sometime in the teens (perhaps to make itself more attractive to a national?)" Thus Kappa Kappa Kappa, and not Ku Klux Klan. Makes sense... They may come forward with more information from the files, relating to additional campuses. Even though they don't track honor societies. Jax MN (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been in contact with an archivist at Alfred who did a program on the group. She had no knowledge of a connection to the national. Since Alfred's group formed in 1901 and Wisconsin yearbooks says the fraternity started in 1906 at Indiana, I think we can assume the Alfred chapter was its own thing. I am going to start at a name change discussion on the article's talk page. It probably should be called by its second name as it had 5 chapters as KKK and 13 chapters as Tu-Mas. Rublamb (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local chapter misconduct sections.[edit]

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

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

Draft:Bouchet Graduate Honor Society[edit]

I found Draft:Bouchet Graduate Honor Society waiting for approval. I have made some additions (inlcuding chapter list) and general cleanup of puffery. It could be better but I think it is ready to publish. Will someone take a look and publish if ready? Rublamb (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to mainspace. Not quite sure how to describe, but looks good enough with refs.Naraht (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternities and Soroities Guideline[edit]

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

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

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

Notable member lists[edit]

Before we put a lot of effort into creating this list of new projects, I have some thoughts based on my work in this area. I suggest that we stage this project, focusing first on identifying groups that lack a notable members list. (I have been adding these as I update an articles and find that many lack any notables). Next, we can work on updating existing lists by addimg missing chapters and sources. The latter is required for list articles but can take a signficiant amount of time to find. To me, the least important stage of this project would be changing existing lists from bullet lists to tables. The reason this is list important to me is that the benefits of sorting with this data set is limited to chapter name; many of those are missing and/or difficult to find.

I would also like to suggest prioritizing working on articles missing an infobox and/or lacking graphics for the creast and badge. Rublamb (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think that Naraht offered a search param to find articles without infoboxes. Presently, I work on the infobox and crest omissions when I see an article pop up that has recently been edited. (I track everything on our watchlist.) Did Naraht offer a similar query strong for missing crests? I will continue to work on those as they come up, and with a list, would be willing to aggressively knock them down. BTW, I have both the 19th and 20th edition of Baird's. The graphics which I can scan in the 19th are typically much higher quality than the 20th ed.
Also, I like our practice of pinning tracking lists to the top of the Talk page. Redlinked school names, chapter list, notables, and maybe infoboxes and missing crests/swatches, all would be useful to list our priorities. Jax MN (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Naraht could generate a list of articles missing infox boxes, we probably could also get those articles missing short descriptions. If we could get those that lack an infobox image, we still wouldn't know it the image was of its crest, logo, or badge. But it would be a start. Good idea. Rublamb (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Without infobox fraternity" isn't hard, what is more difficult is determining the universe of those that you would want to see. Do we have a category (we have have it grab all subcategories as well).Naraht (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given your earlier work on articles with the infobox fraternities, I think we would be fine looking at all of them. Rublamb (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is being asked for. A) Articles about fraternities/sororities/honoraries without an infobox fraternity (or redirect) or B) Articles that have infobox fraternity and lack a value for a specific parameter.Naraht (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, let's start with no infobox at all. Then, no short description. We can mess with missing content once we get caught up on the basics. Rublamb (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities&oldid=1220800367"