Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Chapters

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

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

Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha Confirmed inactive

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

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

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

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

Single Line infobox fraternity usage

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

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

Beta Sigma help needed

I have worked on the Draft:Beta Sigma Fraternity that was declined in draftspace and have it ready to go. However, it brings up the Grove City redirects again (see discussion above). There is a redirect for a local frat at Grove City that is not mentioned in the college article. The fraternity in the draft has over 100 chapters, including international locations. It clearly should have the Beta Sigma title. @Primefac, do you have the abilty to delete the redirect or to fix it so that we can publish this draft as Beta Sigma? Rublamb (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Uh... neither Beta Sigma Fraternity nor Beta Sigma have pages there, though I do note that the latter was just deleted a few hours ago via {{db-afc-move}}. That or {{db-move}} are the best ways to get redirects that are in the way deleted (for future reference). Primefac (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I have the afch tool which marked this when I tried to approve it. I'll check on status when I get home. Naraht (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The Beta Sigma redirect was still live when I checked. I think @Naraht had submitted requests to delete all of the Grove City redirects and it just happened to have perfect timing. Thank you both for looking at this. Rublamb (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
No problem. Looks like it went through. I'll need to look at the cats for it, I didn't expect when I requested the deletion of the redirect that it would go as far as it did.Naraht (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Just like I wasn't expecting to find secondary sources for a Philippines fraternity... Rublamb (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

UP Cineastes' Studio

The *first* edit on this page was creation with the Infobox Fraternity, and it hasn't changed, but I'm wondering if Fraternity or Organization is more appropriate, opinions?Naraht (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I would think organization since it doesn't seem to have the characteristics of either a GLO or honor society. I will make the needed changes. Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It does appear that one applies for membership, maybe that's the reason?Naraht (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Membership is open to all students and does not have restrictions for academics or area of study. It sounds more like a club than a GLO, professional or honor society. Rublamb (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing status

Nineteen left. All are ones that I'm not quite sure of how to put the status, ranging from small GLOs that apparently had a website (but don't have any more) to groups that have been active, lost all of their collegiate chapters but continue alumni activities to I have *no* idea. Could someone please take a look at the remaining?Naraht (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Some were ones I had worked on previously, so I have made progress. Rublamb (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Theta Phi Alpha

Would appreciate eyes on the article. Over the last 4 months, there have been several attempts to delete motto and patroness, but still listed on the sorority website at https://thetaphialpha.org/collegians/Family-information Naraht (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox needed...

Naraht (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities

Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jax MN, do you have time to look at this? Coincidentally, a couple of days ago I decided to work on our FL, FA, and GA article that have declined. I am in the middle of another article (that is in much worse condition) and would rather not jump to another project. Rublamb (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It's on my list, but I too have several other items in the queue. If someone else gets to it prior to me, that's fine. I'm not regularly involved with FA and GA analysis or nominations. Jax MN (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking more about adding needed updates (new or defunct chapters), as that should address any concerns. Rublamb (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This lost GA status. I am fine with that as it has an updates needed tag. However, I guess we need to address the reviewer's statement that this is a list article. I disagree with that and have given the article a B class, one level down from GA. To me, it has more detail than would be included in a list. Thoughts? Rublamb (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

German Burschenschaft

Can I get a second opinion of German Burschenschaft? It has a fraternity infobox but appears to actually be an umbrella organization. Should it be added to Affiliation? Rublamb (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it does count as an umbrella, but how many do we have underneath it? Bring it up on the talk page of the infobox.Naraht (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how many we have but it claims to represent 70 fraternities. Rublamb (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Good catch. It should be added. Jax MN (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I changed the infobox type and moved this within our watchlist. Rublamb (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Yup. Umbrella.Naraht (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Unknown

Is it worthwhile to have an "Unknown" (not sure on the word) status? I've seen a couple like Delta Epsilon Iota where we don't seem to have surety.Naraht (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree. The word will also gather answers to the little mystery. Jax MN (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
|status= defaults to {{{status}}} if it doesn't match one of the given values, so |status=Unknown would still show as "Unknown". Primefac (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Once we get the number of missing statuses down to a reasonable (which might be zero), we might want to generate a directory where the value is something other than the given values. (so Unknown and foobar would both drop things into further research needed)Naraht (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No infobox

I don't want us to forget that we want to identify articles without an Infobox. We could start with any article that has a WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities tag and see what that yields. Rublamb (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

That would probably be a Petscan, I think. I'm not quite sure how to do this but the following springs to mind.
  1. Include Category:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities articles (In the talk page)
  2. Exclude Category:List-Class Fraternities and Sororities articles (in the talk page) Alternately Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society, Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college and Category:Lists of members of United States student societies and subcats from page
  3. Exclude Template:Infobox Fraternity (and any redirects to it manually if Petscan doesn't handle them)
  4. Exclude Category:Fraternity and sorority houses and subcats

Ideas for other exclusions?Naraht (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I had previously tried Petscan, using Category:WikiProject Fraternities (talkpage) and Sororities without Template:Infobox fraternity. However, I did not get any results. Can you try and see what you get? Rublamb (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
How did you specify that the category was talkpage? I don't see anything on the Category tab to specify that. I tried putting both in the template with WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities in the has all with talk checked yes and Infobox Fraternity in the has none and didn't get any hits, and I think I should (at least the chapter lists.).Naraht (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a check box below the place where you enter Category. Rublamb (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I see checkboxes for that in template, not category. Looking at https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28171132 where is the checkbox?
You are correct--under the three template boxes. I was just using template options: items with "WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities" and lacking "Infobox fraternity" as I thought anything with the {{}} was treated as a template. Rublamb (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Merged/Dormant add year?

Beta Sigma Omicron has been edited to Merged (1964). Do we want to include that on ones where the date is known? I'm concerned about that working with the code to drop groups that are merged from those where it complains about missing website.Naraht (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean edited to be Dormant (1964). Not a problem. I have only done this with a few. Maybe we should look at Infobox University which has a "Date closed" field. If provided, this the closure date automatically combines with the "Date established" field to give a date range. In reality, status would not be needed if we instead used "Date closed" and would be more specific. We could use the defunct category to find closed groups and only undate that smaller group, rather than all infoboxes. This also makes more sense to me--I think it is weird to indicate 85 years since being formed for a group that only operated for 10 years in early 20th century. Rublamb (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Problem. Changing Sigma Sigma Omicron from status = Merged to status = Merged 1964 adds it *back* to the needs database category. We need to either
  1. Stop adding dates
  2. Change the software to handle the added date
  3. Add in a merged_date and/or dormant date

Naraht (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Number 1 is the easiet for now. But take a look at the way the dates work in Infobox university. I like the way the closure date field merges with the opening date. Rublamb (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand and agree with you, Naraht, that this creates difficulty. This particular example shows the value of inserting the date, adjacent to the "Merged" or "Dormant" term. Sigma Sigma Omicron had several name changes, making it more difficult to understand the eventual outcome except if one reads the body text carefully. But the problem you note, remains. If Rublamb's helpful suggestion of using similar code to the University infobox is workable, that may be the best resolution. I will defer to consensus, but am strumming that same string: aiming for clarity even when it means I/we have to ask someone with more skills in this matter to do some additional coding for us. By the way, I know that in working through a few hundred situations where "image_size" was missing, that I likely filled your inboxes with alerts that you had to review, so that you could continue tracking each of these societies. Thanks for enduring that.
I think there is a way to accept all such changes without individual review, but I know that I prefer to look at each one. Again, I am a chronic proofreader; never assume that my following up your edits with another "cleanup" edit is in any way trying to upstage. I welcome your edits of my own work. Jax MN (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lambda Delta Sigma and Sigma Gamma Chi - Merged or Defunct?

Given the fact that the Church functionally merged them into LDSSA, would these count as Merged or Defunct?Naraht (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it did not merge into another GLO, I would use defunct. Rublamb (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking for a website

Right now, a group being merged or defunct in Status removes it from the list of websites needed. I sort of wish we also give a pass to "Secret Societies" (Skull and Bones is unlikely to havea web page) and just about anything in the Philippines (I think Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) may be the only one with what we would want for a website).Naraht (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Also maybe Location PR and Type Confraternities. (I know the one confraternity has a website but that is an excpetion, like APO Philippines). Rublamb (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Neveremind on confraternities. I have found more websites. Rublamb (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Former_affliation for groups that went local

For groups like Chi Tau and half the Dartmouth GLOs, the situation is that they were members of fraternities in the NIC and then left the Fraternity. It doesn't feel right to have NIC as an affiliation, the independent GLO was never in the NIC.Naraht (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Rublamb (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

And Our first *three* former group organization.

Sigma Phi Delta. Member of PIC, PFA and NIC and now independent. Have to think about that.Naraht (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you put more than one value in the former affliation field? Rublamb (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Not and have it do the autolink. May make sense to do a former_affiliation3. I'm *really* in favor of treating PFA and PPA as separate groups given there was a merger with PIC, not simply a name change.

wl jewels and flowers

Based on the July run, I'm going through and wikilinking Jewels (and when in the same infobox, Flowers). Not that major, but I think worthwhileNaraht (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

free label comment

The free labels (and 1 and 2) should match with the displayed labels. In the Displayed Labels, the only words which aren't first that are Capitalized are Greek and Roman. I think the Free Labels should be held to that as well, so "Cardinal principles", not "Cardinal Principles".Naraht (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any controversy here. This suggestion follows the clear naming rules for subheaders. FWIW, I agree. Jax MN (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I think any you are finding are either random editors or typos. Rublamb (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
For the Cardinal Principles on Alpha Phi Omega, I may have put it there, but I'd have to check the edits from prior to 2010.Naraht (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Report not refreshing

Can someone figure out why Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing affiliation is not refreshing? Rublamb (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Because you are using a custom field instead of |affiliation=. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Affiliation still does not show up in VE. Rublamb (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been going in and replacing your free fields with affiliation. If that is all you are doing, I suggest changing out of VE. I'm guessing something isn't set in the infobox, but for now, the free_field additions are a half measure requiring cleanup.Naraht (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Altered the Infobox doc. Hopefully that should help.Naraht (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I will. Didn't know this was an issue. Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

SUNY regional fraternities

Just as a note, I think if a page can be created for Delta Kappa, the NY Regional forced to have its chapters or at least the ones in New York forced Local, we *should* be able to do the same with others from the SUNY system like Alpha Delta Sorority which I think is older. In the 1929 SUNY-Brockport yearbook (https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstreams/65b23998-922a-46d6-b663-85fb5385b774/download) , it had chapters at Brockport, Cortland, Geneseo, Oneonta, Oswego, Plattsburgh, Bloomsburg and Fredonia. Agonia Sorority also had about the same number over the SUNY schools. Naraht (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Order for status

After I've added Status to a number of articles, I've seen someone else go in and Status get moved to before Type. Is this done automatically when Visual Edits are done to the Infobox, or is this being done by hand. And in either case, should I put it prior to Type rather than at the end. (Yes, I know it works in either place, but so that it doesn't have to get moved) Naraht (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not moved any but have used VE to added Status. With VE, Status seems to go after Type. Rublamb (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Eh, "Someone" here. Truly Naraht, sorry to cause any annoyance. I appreciate the collaborative work. Yes, the Infobox forces a specific order to these, which appears fully workable. As I go through the list of pages missing the image_size field, and as I generally review all edited pages, I routinely move the metatext fields to their approximate or exact position to match how the infobox presents them. I know that you are helpfully adding these using Visual Editor. My intent is to ensure newbie and even more experienced editors don't get tripped up by varying presentations of the infobox code. Hence, I add spacing and move these fields to a consistent position. It makes it clearer to read, when in basic edit mode. Jax MN (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Jax MN That's fine. I very much *do not* use VE. (the only thing I find useful in VE is being able to add/delete/move columns in tables). If it helps with consistency I will add it before type. I figure that type is a field that we go out of our way to fill in, so it will always be there. I do support consistency of infoboxes in the behind the scenes, and very much appreciate standardization with the | on the far left followed by a space and the parameter and then the = signs in a column as much as possible.Naraht (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. We've all been solidly consistent in ferreting out the rules for our infoboxes, tables and the general project itself. In this pass through the watchlist I've been focused on the size and presentation of crests, and my cleanup of the other params is incidental. Hence I have been grouping them and may have missed adjustment of where they fit into the exact order listed in the infobox template. My order has been: name/letters/crest/founding, then status/type/emphasis/scope/affiliation, then symbols/colors/mottos/etc, then free fields, then address fields in order, then website, then ending with footnotes. I am detail oriented, like other editors, but not so much that I am scrutinizing beyond these general placements.
By the way, I am, however, a diligent proofreader. I have done it for so long in my professional life that I can't really turn that off. When you see adjustments made or typos corrected, please don't take offense. I often see them before the red underline of my browser app kicks in to alert me. I will try to avoid any edit conflict sessions and keep an eye on the "In Use" templates.
Some day we should have a Zoom call, and share a virtual glass of port or wine, and you all can give me the barbs I deserve. Jax MN (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Naraht: I think we should always use VE to create chapter tables because other editors will be able to update status and dates with either visual or source, depending on skill level. Whereas, a table created in source can only be edited in source, excluding less experienced editors from contributing. (If you prefer source, simply create a three-row table in VE, save it, and then work in source). The downside is that VE doesn't always insert the spaces--which are not required for the code to function. I have decided to see such things as personal preference, rather than essential, but do understand how spacing makes it easier.
Rublamb I was under the impression that regardless of how the table was made, either single pipes at the beginning of each line or double pipes that allow for multiple entries that VE could handle it. I prefer one data element per line, that can be handled by VE, correct?Naraht (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
VE does one data element per line in tables. The spacing I am talking about is within the line, such as |Alpha vs | Alpha. Rublamb (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jax MN: When adding the crest or seal to the Infobox using VE, a template note indicates that the image will automatically be sized appropriately to the preferred norm of 220 (set by MOS). IF no size is added. Thus, it is no longer necessary to manually add a size for these images. As a result, the only cleanup needed would be for images that need to be smaller because they are blurry or images that were historically given a smaller or larger than normal size. Unfortunately, our cleanup project is for "no size" when we actually need a report for non-standard sizes. Rublamb (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Jax MN So you would prefer a category for image_size is neither blank nor 220?Naraht (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I responded hours ago, but it was on my phone, and I think the connection flaked out before it posted to Wikipedia. My point was, the native size of these graphics, as they display, varies widely. Thus the default isn't very helpful. Very few would look correct expressed with only the default 220px. Perhaps 20% of all of them I have seen. I use sizing anywhere between 100px to even 300px to make them all come out similar in display size. As for the member badges, these typically are enclosed in double square brackets, with a pipe instruction to display somewhere between 40px to 60px. Finally, some of the flag images had been set to 150px, but I've been backing those off to 120px. Seems to work well, visually.
I'll use that trick with VE when first creating a table. Didn't know that. Jax MN (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. For clarity: the default image size is just for the crest or seal--the two that connect to the image size field that is that is part of the report @Naraht set up. The flag and badge fields always require manual sizing and positioning if placed in those fields. Rublamb (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, it is when a table is created with the FratChapter template that makes it uneditable in VE. Rublamb (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The order of parameters in an infobox on an article does not matter, they will always show up in the same order on the observed template. If parameters get rearranged during the course of updating an infobox, we should not care. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Primefac, I am accustomed to reading Metadata as I code websites. I agree that for us on the 'active Project team', we can navigate fine. My rationale for caring about back-end order is two-fold: first, our current pages are used as templates so consistency breeds better pages. Second, some editors will find it easier to navigate consistent views where we add extra spacing and lines, and place params in anticipated spots. Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
That's fair, I suppose my point was more that it doesn't necessarily need to be a "cleanup task" (as I myself maintain a few infoboxes where it drives me nuts when people put things in a non-standard order). Primefac (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Mergers of equals to new name.

I think the groups we have articles coming from a merger of multi chapter groups (>5 chapters) to *new* name are Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha, Phi Kappa Theta, Kappa Omicron Nu and Delta Theta Phi. Now that Rublamb has done the work on splitting out DSR and TKA. That leaves Delta Theta Phi which was only formed from a merger of multi chapter groups, it later had another group merge into that. Any others spring to mind? Naraht (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Founding fathers order.

Let's say that a GLO has 8 founding fathers and *always* lists them in a particular order, (let's say the primary founder, and then the order that brought the others into the ritual). Would this ordering be appropriate in the article and would it need to be proved or otherwise, it would be perfectly reasonable for an editor to alphabetize. I'm currently watching a video about the history of Alpha Kappa Rho in a language I don't understand (Tagalog), but the order is clearly not alphabetical for the founders.Naraht (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

My preference is to list these in alphabetical order by last name, or if a specific founder is given preferential notification by the national organization, I think it reasonable to follow their ordering system. But this latter situation may only impact 5% of the organizations, if I were to take a guess. Jax MN (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I prefer alphabetical order. The order of initiation of founders is organizational trivia, rather than encyclopedic. Generally, the source for initiation order is going to be a primary source. Baird's would be the preferred source and did not specify this info, which I think sets the standard. If there is a primary founder, this is typically mentioned in the text of article. Rublamb (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

zip code parameter value

Does it really matter if what is input is a 5 digit zip like 20853 or a Zip +4 of 20853-3272? Naraht (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. I also think we should combine Postal Code and Zipcode into one field called Post Code. That way, it will work for all countries. Rublamb (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I prefer ZIP+4, where we have it. The additional four numbers code mail to a particular bag or carrier, making the address complete, therefore. As to combining ZIP and Postal, I see the marginal value in 'downsizing' but don't think the effort improves clarity, much. I'd keep both options. Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Wait... what?
The postcode isn't being used for anything, so whether it's five digits or twenty five doesn't really matter. Also, I'm not really sure what folks mean by "combining" the terms other than the fact that {{{ZIP code|}}}{{{postal code|}}} is used like that verbatim in the code, i.e. it's basically alternate names for the same parameter. While I'm going to tweak the code to make that a little more explicit, I don't really see a need to add a third parameter into the mix that would require updating all transclusions. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
By combining, I meant that we don't need two options, as "postal code" covers it for all countries. I know most of you never use VE for infoboxes, but the list of options is quite long and not in alphabetical order. Getting rid of any unnecessary options will make it more user friendly. Rublamb (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. there are a *lot* of cases where parameters are mutually exclusive. In fact the only change that I'd make is having Postal Code and Zip code report an error if both are present.

Added Former_Affiliation to template

I added Former Affiliation and Former_Affiliation2. These have the same choices as Affiliation and Affiliation2 plus AES (Association of Education Sororities), PPA (Professional Panhellenic Association) and PIC (Professional Interfraternity Conference). I've also added columns to the former members of the PFA (which included former members of the PIC and PPA) and indicated which they have joined, the same should probably be done with the active members, I'll get to that as I can. With that, I'm not sure what other umbrella organizations should be added to the possible Former Affiliation.Naraht (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I support this change but have concerns about having to update hundreds of articles. At a minimum, we would have to update the Infobox for every defunct GLO, any GLO that were members of a defunct umbrella, and any former members of active umbrella. In terms of what to include: everything, as active and inactive umbrella groups would be possible responses. You can also remove defunct umbrellas as options for Affilaition and Affiliation 2, although that might have to wait until we make the needed corrections to 700+ articles. The big question would be former names of active umbrellas--do both umbrellas now get listed; one as active and the other as former? Rublamb (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
And I've already gotten started. Didn't include AES, PPA, or PIC in the Affiliation/Affiliation2. Working my way through using the parameter lister. And *NO* to listing National Interfraternity Conference as former for a member of the North American Interfraternity Council. (and similar)Naraht (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Down to 86 with (former) in their infobox. Will pick up in the next day or so.Naraht (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Great progress. Rublamb (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo

Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo is a member of PFA, but not collegiate (forestry). Should it have the infobox fraternity, or stay as is?Naraht (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I randomly checked other groups included in the List of general fraternities#Fraternal service organisations. I did not find any that use the Infobox fraternity. They appear to use either the organization or business infobox. However, I did find that they have official colors and a symbol/mascot which would lend itself to the fraternity template. Rublamb (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
So PFA affiliation in the prose...Naraht (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess. Should I add an organizational infobox to the Hoo-Hoo article?
Sure. Loyal Order of Moose has that infobox.Naraht (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Side note: this took me down the rabbit hole of the List of general fraternities. (If you have read the Hoo-Hoo article, you will see what I did). I removed the groups that are fictitious/rumored to exist as well as the hereditary organizations such as DAR and SCF. Does any non-collegiate GLO belong on the general list? If so, the list is missing many such organizations. Also, does a group have to call itself a fraternal organization to be included in this list OR should that be the guideline? I am not really sure that all of the civic/service clubs are fraternal. I was pondering membership for life vs. being a member only while you pay dues, but I am not sure if that even works here. Rublamb (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Individual chapter pages

Over the past couple of days, Sigma Pi's Mu chapter has launched an article about that specific chapter at Cornell. I put a link to it on the F&S Project Watchlist; if you have a better suggestion, let me know. Here is the page: Sigma Pi, Mu Chapter.

I placed it under this subheader: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist#Greek_Housing_and_Buildings. Thoughts? Jax MN (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft, rejected, moved to mainspace without resubmission *by* the creator. Barry Weiss referenced to wikidata and placed by creator in the page. Gerson reference *not* in Obit and overall no references anywhere outside the Cornell Sun. And in terms of the House, other than burning down when under construction, I see nothing notable. Our list of chapters of National Fraternities is more or less those that were notable prior to joining the National. I'm perfectly willing to put up for AFD.Naraht (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Rejection of the draft was the correct decision, and I would support an AfD for this article (or a return to draft space) based on WP:BRANCH. Local sources, although numerous, don't fully meet notabiliity or else every local club and association could have a Wikipedia article. In terms of precedent for WP:ORG or WP:F&S, can you imagine every Rotary Club, Mason's Lodge, or Boy Scout Troop having an article in Wikipedia? GLO chapters are exactly the same. Unless there is some reason that a specific chapter is notable on its own, such as being the basis for Animal House, chapters should not have their own articles. As indicated in WP:BRANCH, notable alumni and chapter list articles are allowed because they would make the main article too long. However, these lists are still about the larger organization which meets notability. Note that articles on historically significant chapter houses are about notable architecture, not about the chapter itself. Rublamb (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I started to muse about this on that new article's Talk page. To open the doors to individual chapter articles would mark a significant expansion of Project scope. Completion would take many years. AI-driven? Maybe this would speed things up. I don't have a problem with such pages, per se, in terms of notability, but these are outside of our established scope today. Does a local chapter of a national merit an article only if it hits the century mark? Or 40 years? Or has an historically-significant building? Or is host to a major crisis? Surely this inclusion rule shouldn't rest on notoriety versus more positive notability. Jax MN (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there is some merit to the argument of "if it bleeds, it leads" determines news coverage that makes for Notability, *but* that is what we have. Having a page for every chapter (even every active chapter) horrifies me. That would be at *least* a 50 fold increase in articles. And most of our articles on the Houses are because of notability requirements that are outside the Wikiproject (almost all are NRHP). We don't even do articles for chapters of National Organizations of that are that old, we don't have one for the founding chapter of Kappa Alpha Society chapter and that was active 1825 – 2003; 2011. I'd be surprised if we had a dozen articles on chapters whose notability occurred after they joined a National. I'm going to respond on the talk page (probably rewrite it a few times to seem less bitey), but as I said, I'd be quite ready to do an AFD.Naraht (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I read your analysis on both Talk pages. Indeed, this could spark a massive increase in the number of articles under the project. A factor of 50x? It's a good estimate, if daunting... It would spark the natural impulse that drives readership and drives interest for a whole new generation of newbie editors. What this would also do is allow us to steer Wikipedia toward a more Inclusionist tact; we could support and guide these new editors, and it would allow us to once and for all resolve the argument over what constitutes Reliable Sources for this context. We've long argued that the lack of scholarly, citable articles, journals and reference books (aside from Baird's and Banta's) doesn't mean the groups didn't exist, or were somehow not notable. They just perform quietly, without notoriety. I would add, most GLO chapters are well-behaved, campus citizens, and it is clearly the fringe outliers that get into trouble. The bias toward requiring significant sources distorts this view, far toward the negative. Even campus portal pages are dismissed by some as being too close to the subject matter, a view I reject. Jax MN (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The thing that I most agree within in what you have said is "steer Wikipedia" because while under certain circumstances Wikiprojects can add tighter rules than the entire enwiki, they can not loosen them. IMO, having the level of notability *currently* shown by this article at this time would probably allow for most campus organizations to fulfill the requirements for a wikipedia Article. And I think the enwiki's general reaction to Lsjbot, I think shows the reaction that an AI proposal would likely get.Naraht (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Phi Psi textiles

I think that either Rublamb or Jax MN made a comment on Phi Psi (professional) in terms of activity and still being one organization and whether it had multiple chapters, but I can't find it.Naraht (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't me but I just found this which shows that NCSU is active, along with four others TBD. This source should be added to the table. Rublamb (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is a source showing that Alpha is active. Here is the source for Auburn. Rublamb (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
On the NCSU link, mentioned above, the text says "largest of these five active chapters." --This may be in-artful wording, and simply refer to there being five fraternity-like organizations at that same school. Jax MN (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so as context is provided in the prior sentence: "Phi Psi is the only national professional textile fraternity in the United States. NC State’s chapter, Eta, is the largest of these five active chapters." Why mention being national if only one local chapter exists? Also, I found two of the other four active chapters. The other two can probably be found; I will look but am in the middle of creating an article. Rublamb (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Found them. Clemson and Georgia Tech went inactive in the past five years. This is based on no longer being on the university's website (but was there recently) So, there are currently 3 active chapters. Rublamb (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Critera for inclusion in lists

Does one of our list articles for GLO types such as social, LBGT, Jewish, professional, service, etc. have a stated guideline? It seems we could write this once and clone it on the TalkPages for all of these articles. I am specifically thinking about the criteria for GLOs without a Wikipedia articles, stating that a source is needed and what type of sources are allowable (not social media). Something akin to what @Jax MN has used for the notable member lists. Because many of the editors who add these redlinked groups are members of the GLO, rather than an experienced editor, it would be helpful to be able to refer them to a concise guideline. Rublamb (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it should in the Edit warning message like we have in Phi Gamma Delta. (Don't remember how we did it off the top of my head though)Naraht (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Founders in Lead

I'm having a *load* of fun working on Delta Omega Epsilon with (apparently) a national president who *doesn't* get it, and (re-)learning things myself (forgot there was a coords field, need to pull some entries into there). I'm trying to put together a lead paragraph and don't feel the founders should be there, but apparently we do have GLO articles where the founders are in the lead like Delta Delta Delta. Should founders generally be pushed out of the lead paragraph and instead be first mentioned in a history section?Naraht (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I've seen the back and forth. Thanks for fighting this battle. To your question, I do NOT think founders should be in the lede, with perhaps a rare exception for men or women who are absolutely entwined with the prestige (or notoriety) of the group. William Mayo, could have been such, as a founder of Nu Sigma Nu. And he is long deceased. In the case of Delta Omega Epsilon, there is no value in maintaining those founder names in the lede; keeping them is unduly promotional. Their names should be removed, and placed in the standard location within the history section.
In the case of Delta Delta Delta, Ida Shaw indeed is someone of this caliber, like Mayo, but I'd prefer that that lede sentence be recast to note her individual notability as a cross-organizational firebrand, with the listing of all of Ti-Delt's founders set out later, in the history section. Jax MN (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Founders should not be in the lede. The exception would be founders who are notable/generally known outside of the GLO. For example, if Eleanor Roosevelt started a sorority or the president of a university started a fraternity. Even if the founders are famous, the length of the lede needs to be balanced with the length of the ariticle. An article that reaches GA or FA status would be quite long and could have some added content, such as notable members, in the lede. (Note that I am saying "notable members", not just founders). An article that is only a few paragraphs does not need founders mentioned in both the body of the article and the lede, even if the founders have their own articles. We have previously discussd the merit/lack of merit in listing non-notable founders in these articles. With that in mind, most founders are not important enough for the lede. Rublamb (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It feels like these it boils down to, if the founder is notable enough for their own article, then *consider* whether they should be in the lede, if they aren't then, nope.Naraht (talk)
Yes. Since there are articles for founders whose only claim to fame is their fraternity/sorority association and sometimes all ten or twelve founders have an article, I think it is best to "consider" their merit rather than automatially rubber stamp these additions. But in general, we seem to prefer no founders in the lede. Sorry Betty Moo and Cindy Cow, you may not make the cut. Rublamb (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • cough*(rhymes with Delta Sigma Zeta)*cough*. Of course, that brings to mind the question of how to show it when Betty Moo marries Sam Bull. Founder is Betty (Moo) Bull?Naraht (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Summary GLO lists on university articles

A European editor (I think) who appears interested in reducing puffery made an ad-hoc edit to the University of Pittsburgh article. I keep calling him Melkor in my minds eye, but his handle is Melchior2006. (Spelled correctly, the "i" and the "o" are in that order.) Anyway, Mel- deleted the table from the school article that listed its GLOs. Some of these were pioneers on the campus from before the Civil War.

I think he rightly noted that there were no citations, so I provided several. He asked for a "Third Opinion" and received a single response. Now, plowing through my backlog of notifications I realize he deleted the table in spite of my adding the necessary references, mistakenly claiming I didn't answer his concerns. He also puffed up the article by noting a couple of hazing incidents. I was clear on the Talk page that these organizations have had a long presence on the campus, which I elaborated by a couple of lines on the article to preface the table. I've had interactions with Mel-, previously, which lead me to believe he has a bias against Greek Letter Org inclusion, perhaps seeing only negative media coverage in the foreign press, and not understanding the popularity of these groups. Should others have an opinion on this, feel free to weigh in. I personally want to support inclusion of tables of GLOs on these university articles, until such time as a subordinate page on Greek life can be hatnoted in. Jax MN (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Attempting to "win" a content dispute by recruiting here is not a good use of WikiProject space per WP:CANVASS. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Others can make up their minds on what to do. No canvassing involved. The thin response to a request for a third opinion only generated a single voice, and not enough to form a consensus. F&S Project members have been busy with direct category articles, and I sensed they missed the one-off adjustment of the UPitt page. While I appreciate that editor's normal efforts to reduce puffery, I do not see the need here, nor is his effort systematic. Jax MN (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I will take a look. Note that third opinion is just that: the response of one neutral third party. I have been active in that group from time to time. One editor, and only one editor, volunteers to respond to the situation. It is not binding but is geared toward conflict resolution. Rublamb (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Affiliation Checker

I changed several groups that went inactive or merged as members of the NIC. As such, I don't think they should *have* an entry for Affiliation. Should having either Affiliation *or* Former Affiliation count for not going in that checker category? Naraht (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this regarding the Infobox? I don't see an issue with indicating Affilation for merged or defunct groups. Just like listing chapters or location when there is a Status of merged or defunct, this information might be usesful and it is obvious that this was a former connection. Plus, we have already added this to almost all of the Infoboxes. Rublamb (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean that right now the template throws into a maintenance category if affiliation isn't filled in. But now we have defunct groups with only a former_affiliation.Naraht (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe update the maintence category to zero value for affilaition or former affiation? Rublamb (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll need to take a look, I know we accept multiples to turn off for website/homepage.Naraht (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Check updated. I would like to kindly request that discussions about the template (in particular, those dealing with the inner workings of the template) be done at the template talk page; this is a very active project talk page and sometimes I miss template discussions in the shuffle. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies. I should have started the conversation here and put a note here about it.Naraht (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Different targets for NIC/NPC/Other former members.

If a page for an umbrella group has a separate section for former members (active or defunct) should the target for the link go there instead of the top of the article?Naraht (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is always better to link to the specific section. This may even be specified in MOS somewhere. Rublamb (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll work on this, NIC is going to be particularly ugly since it would have to include status.Naraht (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

People in the Infobox Fraternity. (and yes, if it needs to be moved to the template talk...)

Various Infobox Fraternity free_label/free combos values have people, ranging from Board Chair to Founder to President elect. Would people be comfortable with a blanket policy that these don't belong there? Naraht (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Rublamb (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Jax MN (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Just checking, are we talking about removing people or removing the |free_label= parameter entirely? Primefac (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac: Removing the people/current officers from the Infobox. We have previously discussed the limited value of this content within the article. The free_label still have great value. Rublamb (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Keep the free_labels.Naraht (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional GLO umbrella

Apparently at one point there was a Fraternity equivalent to the AES: Association of Teachers College Fraternities , Had Sigma Tau Gamma, Phi Sigma Epsilon & Zeta Sigma. (Zeta Sigma has an entry in the 1940 Baird's so probably could have an article. Founded in 1936 by the first two, existed until at least after WWII.Naraht (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Have these been added to the Watchlist? Rublamb (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I can do so, it would be redlinked. though I did find a school newspaper announcing its formation.Naraht (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
You can always creat a stub with that source! Rublamb (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure. I'll try to get to in on Monday.Naraht (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Upsilon Phi Sigma

I got a start on the chapter list for Upsilon Phi Sigma. Can someone take a look at the redlinked colleges? Many on this list have had one or many name changes or are in Wikipedia with slight name variations and no redirects for prior names. Some might be defunct. I found and linked many but still have many redlinks. Rublamb (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look... If it helps, List of Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) chapters and alumni associations has had *many* of the same issues and has somewhat overcome them, you may want to look at some of the names for hints. Also looking for the name in tl.wikipedia.org *can* be useful if only to get an interlanguage link. APO Philippines is probably the most stable in many regards of the GLOs (other than the single school ones like the legal and medical ones), but that is still not a high bar.Naraht (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Colonies, alternative name

Primefac, you might be best suited to make this adjustment. I don't think it will be controversial. We have a current parameter that forces a swap from the standard name of "Pledge" to read as any alternative name denoted in the associated fields, "pledge pin" and "colony pledge pin". Yet we still have "Colonies" as the only option for emerging groups. Either we include the terms "Associate Chapters" and "Provisional Chapters" that would be allowed synonyms, or we (er, you) create an open-ended field that populates an alternative word for this field. I think those are the only two synonyms I've encountered. Note that the syntax should be plural, i.e.; "colonies". Jax MN (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the same issue that exists with Pillars which might be called principals, core beliefs, values, etc. There are other names in use for colonies, especially with the newer GLO and/or multicultural groups. In the chapters section, I state what the group calls its colonies and, then, use the term colony in the table (making it match the infobox). Are we also going to expand the terms used in chapter lists? Honestly, colonies are transitional in nature and not as important to count, IMO. Baird's only provided a total count for active and inactive chapters. Rublamb (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, I wouldn't be that sad if the entire concept of colonies disappeared from the infobox.Naraht (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. As I said, they are temporary thing. Rublamb (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Are we removing or allowing for an alternate label? Primefac (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not the most important field as it is transitory. However, I'd like to keep it. It may serve the Project by increasing participation by new editors who update these fields from time to time. Additionally, I don't believe I've ever seen this particular field vandalized on any of the GLO pages over the past decade. Keep it. Jax MN (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Motto & translation

For the Infobox University, there is a motto and a motto_eng as well as a field for the language of the Motto. While we don't need the last, I think, should the motto and it's translation be split into separate fields?Naraht (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Five or six years ago, didn't you try to capture all the text found on various crests, to place in one of the table columns on the one-page list of all the IFC and NPC organizations? I think after some discussion we decided it was fruitless, and agreed it was an unnecessary capture. Somewhat in the same way, I think we are OK in just placing a line break between the Greek and the translation. I sometimes place the translation in a smaller font, if the fit is better. I think that is probably adequate. Jax MN (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking up Delta Upsilon's "Justice, Our foundation" (which is one of the public, easy to get ones that I can't imagine not getting). It looks like the effort was as part of the greek on the coat of arms at List of social fraternities and sororities. (No page other than that one and Delta Upsilon have that text). User:Gts-tg was the person who started the effort in 2017 a. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_social_fraternities_and_sororities&oldid=794058619 Naraht (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe that is correct. Of couse, the phrase on the ceast is not always the motto. Rublamb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I am neutral on having two fields. It would look nice (if we can make sure that the two fields are adjacent) but would be another big project. Also, many of the mottos are now in English only. I have followed the practice of the Latin/foreign language version first, followed by the English version in parenthesis with no line break. At least, that seems to be the most common format. I personally do not like the smaller font. Rublamb (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity being AFD'ed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity is up, would appreciate additional comments (especially if opposed to mine).Naraht (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I added it to our watch list and our WP to its talkpage, so it now shows up on the WP landing page. Rublamb (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fracket that may be of interest to memberes of this Wikiproject. Rublamb (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Queens' Guard Military Fraternity

Draft:Queens' Guard Military Fraternity has been submitted. Local Honor Guard for William & Mary, formerly part of Pershing Rifles. Not sure whether it reaches notability, but I'd like other opinions. Coverage is local to W&M, but reasonably broad within it. I've done some general cleanup. the submitter has definitely done some work here (copied the fraternity infobox and only had a few things out of place).Naraht (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not bad and would be fine in the mainspace. Question is, can we move it from DraftSpace with the current sources? I feel like there is a higher level of review coming from DraftSpace. Rublamb (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and move it, at least as good as some of the local honor societies.Naraht (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

More Collegiate Societies without Infobox Fraternity

did a search for all articles with Society in its name, but no infobox fraternity and got the following. Not sure whether they reach the level of society where the infobox is appropriate.

Naraht (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, taken care of except as noted above. Rublamb (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hazing Policies

Since hazing is agaist the law in most/all states, anti-hazing policy sections come across as marketing fluff and are usually copied from the GLO website. Any issues with my removing these sections as a general practice? Note that I don't have issue with a sentence in the history section, mentioning when an anti-hazing policy was adopted. I just don't believe we need a copy of the policy or justification for past activities. Rublamb (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Example? (or two).Naraht (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Here's one, Lambda Chi Rublamb (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
If Lambda Chi were the first to "officially" ban hazing, that's probably worth including. The whole bit about defining hazing and their actual policy could probably be removed. So to answer the more general question, if there isn't anything unusual and/or unique about a hazing policy, it probably doesn't need inclusion. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Short description grammar error

Anyone want to tackle this? In an update to Beta Kappa, today, Rublamb adjusted the short description, following Project standards. However, while there was no error on her part, the template automatically inserted the predicate "a" instead of "an", so that it now reads "was a American social fraternity"... Grammar police might take issue with this. Maybe y'all know how to adjust this. It would likely impact many thousands of pages, and I am surprised that a rule within the template to address this (Use "an" when preceding a word starting with a vowel) hadn't been offered up before.

See the comparison for this edit, before and after, here. Jax MN (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_14&oldid=1240903986"