Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
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.
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 made an updated Master List of Redlinked Colleges and Schools that are 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 sandbox 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[reply]

Substandard chapter lists (updated again)[edit]

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[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[reply]

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

Consistency of Names - Category:Lists_of_chapters_of_United_States_student_societies_by_college[edit]

OK. For standardization of Category:Lists_of_chapters_of_United_States_student_societies_by_college. Rublamb, you indicated you preferred "List of XYZ University fraternities and sororities". I'd actually prefer "List of Fraternities and Sororities at XYZ University". The question is whether we keep things like "List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology fraternities, sororities, and ILGs" and "University of Kentucky student life" in the category. Or to put in another way, if the article also includes groups that would never have ended up in Baird's, should it still be in the cat?Naraht (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should not update those that include more organizations than GLO--good catch. I don't feel strongly about naming preference, other than it is shorter. As in, "List of XYZ University alumni" is preferred over "List of alumni at XYZ University" or "List of Delta Delta Delta alumnae" is preferred over "List of alumnae of Delta Delta Delta." Rublamb (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of MIT, three of the five active ILGs were created from Greek Letter chapters with long histories, which later opted to become independent. Hence it is reasonable to include them on that list. I don't know that forcing consistency here is advantageous. On the category page some of the lists are forced to alphabetize by the name of the school, which is helpful. Down the road, separate pages may be useful for big systems, including a GLO page and a page for other student life organizations. Maybe some would warrent a third page for secret societies. --But only a few robust campuses will have enough content and citations to warrant two or three separate pages.
As to the placement of the word University, before or after Fraternities and Sororities, I don't mind either style, but we should note any other common hatnoted articles, like lists of sports team pages. Would these offer a precedent? Jax MN (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is any issue with what is included in the category. I meant that we would not want to change the article name to "List of XYZ University fraternities and sororities" it includes more than GLOs. The phrase "student organizations" or "student societies" works fine there. My desire for naming consistency probably comes from my librarian background. Having a standardized naming format makes it easier for people to find information. Otherwise, we are depending on default sort instructions which may or may not be included in each article. You are correct that a given college might have several of these subpages, meaning that the college name first (before the phrase fraternity and sorority) would be preferable in the long run. But it also might mean that we should consult WP:UNI before proceeding on changing the name of any article. Rublamb (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After hearing nothing from WP:UNI, I went ahead and updated most of these. I still need to go back and update the ledes. We have numerous redirects from articles that no longer exist that now go to subsections of university articles that have been reduced to "This college has several fraternities and sororities." or the like. If it weren't such a hassle to delete redirect pages, I would say we should get rid of these as they aren't really helpful. Thoughts? Rublamb (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I probably need some help on this project; my intention was just to update the lede to reflect the new article title. So far, all three of the articles that I have worked with lacked any sources and had not been updated in a while. I am using the Almanac and the Greek Life section of the university's website to update. I also am going to US New & World Report to get the percentage of students who are members of fraternities and sororities for the lede section. I think that covers the need for significant coverage.
Question--with the information in the Almanac, we can also include former organizations and dates. Is this worth doing? It will take longer but would provide added information that will probably keep these articles from being challenged as just a list of organizations. Also, should the defunct groups be in a separate section? The first article I updated with dates and defunct groups was easy because all groups, including inactive, were already in one table. However, most of these articles are organized by an umbrella association. There could be an active and inactive subsection under each umbrella. Of course, the university section of the Almanac does not include the umbrella group, so that is more work. Rublamb (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully support the idea of including dormant groups. As to format, List tables are OK, but this exact issue is why I settled on the style evident in the U of MN page, the Cornell page (before it was adjusted to a table, to Trine's list, to MIT's list and Wooster's. While this style hides some of the field information in references, it's not too hard to get to. More importantly, it graphically highlights the active groups (bold), separating those that changed names or died, and fairly cleanly shows the predecessor linkages. It ain't perfect, and I have a bias towards this style, but will work with the results of whatever dialog we have here. I wrote the Minnesota and rewrote the Cornell pages back in 2014, fairly early in my tenure as an editor. I had a lot of catching up to do as Naraht had been active for about eight years by that time. But these two big list pages were a valuable lesson in editing. Jax MN (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, there is always the GA status article, Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities, as an example in narrative form. That would be ideal, but time-consuming to create. List of Colgate University societies is the article I updated that was already in a combined table, so it was easy to add our usual date range and status column, bold active chapters, and add defunct groups Somehow, that table feels more substantial than the lists of the other articles (but not as easy to comprehend). Maybe this is because I am not as convinced that umbrella groups are important or meaningful to the average reader and/or are really the best way to organize this information. Certainly, the Almanac and Baird's never made such distinctions. But I know I am probably in the minority on this one. I don't hate your format but find the changed name section confusing as some of these are mergers rather than name changes. Obviously, a table with an efn would better serve this content and would also provide a way to include groups that are not part of the umbrella org system. What do you think about including honor societies, secret societies, and professional GLOs in these articles? Again, I have already run across this content being included. Rublamb (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Colgate list that you circulated is quite interesting. The way the honor societies are noted for their affinity is helpful. Mulling it over, I think that style, where GLOs are listed along with literary and oration societies is an overall effective presentation. I think it would work best with smaller schools; the Big Ten schools each presently have 1,000 to 1,300 student groups, so if implemented for Michigan or Minnesota, such a list might become cumbersome or fail to the "Wikipedia is not a directory" complaint, subject to deletion. --You raised a point that by listing inactive groups, it becomes a historical record, and helps mollify that concern about being a directory. So for large schools I prefer that we divide by type. Listing the umbrella groups as a distinct field is less important to readers, I suppose, versus the more helpful dividing them by type. Hence, as a practical matter, someone searching to join a standard academic fraternity, with housing, would prefer not to have the distraction of sifting through the groups that are markedly different from his aims. The same for a Latina who is not interested in a GLO with housing, but which specifically allows her to celebrate Hispanic heritage with a tight group of sisters. Jax MN (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this is not going to be a one size fits all kind of project. Unless we go for the full on Dartmouth approach. I like and dislike the Colgate table; there is weirdness in mixing proper literary groups with GLO but at least the data is sourced and current. For now, I am doing a quick fix to all of the ledes (to match the article title). Next, I will make sure all have sources and try to update the lists of active groups in whatever style is currently in use. Adding the dates and all former orgs will be the final step, giving plenty of time to think about it. Unless you get into working on this--which would be fine by me. I am still creating the world's longest chapter list, so this is a diversion rather than a main project. Rublamb (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention that I have a critical view of the Dartmouth or RPI model. These early versions of what became our Project's "List" articles were set up with one or more paragraphs for each chapter, which have had a tendency over 15 years to gather puffery and bloat, and to mistakenly inspire new editors to attempt to use the articles to push their biased marketing information at readers. It encourages a game of one-upmanship Jax MN (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Campus list style[edit]

While I recognize the effort that went in to changing a page I developed, frankly, I don't think it's an improvement. No information was lost in the new presentation, but I miss the compact nature of the earlier version. I also strongly prefer to list campus chapters in order of formation, not in alphabetical order. See these examples:

Anyone want to weigh in on this? Jax MN (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With lists of fraternties and sororities, such as List of social fraternities and sororities and Professional fraternities and sororities, we had previously decided to sort by alphabetical order. I made these changes following that pattern. I think alphabetical order is easier/more logical for average users and also helps avoid duplicates in the case of date issues (this happens) or problems with no known date. However, if these lists were moved into tables, it would solve the order issue; part of the reason I removed the Greek letters at the head of each entry was getting this ready for tables. (I was just pondering if these active/inactive are too long to be merged in this case). I also thought that using Greek letters instead of the spelled-out names in the Name Changed section was confusing for average readers. Yes, the Greek letters were associated with the spelled-out name in the section and the section above, but it was still forcing readers to use a "key" to understand the content. As we have discussed above on this page, Greek letters alone are not ideal because it forces knowledge that many do no have. Finally, having looked at most of the articles of this type in the past couple of days, the prior format was an anomaly, rather than the norm. The division of groups into three categories (active, name changes, inactive) is only found in a couple of articles within all of our WP's lists, and we almost never have lists with Greek letters as the first thing in the name section/column. I do get that you were trying to solve a complex data set when previously working on this article; however, the option to use dynamic/sortable tables significantly reduces problems and might make the content easier to read. Rublamb (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naraht, I know format of data is not your thing, but could you weigh in on using Greek letters vs. speling out the organization's name? It would help to have a third opinion here and I think that is the biggest issue. Rublamb (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer two column (the single column seems to waste quite a bit of space, and I like the Greek Letters. I'm leaning toward alphabetical since that would help people looking for it, but I'm closer to neutral on that.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about table vs. lists? My plan was to more this into a table, but I don't want to go to that trouble if I am the outlier here. Rublamb (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I'm strongly in support of the list format for the school GLOs pages. The default, listing by age, is a reasonable nod to how campus Greek Systems were formed. --A two-year old Acacia chapter shouldn't default to the top of the list, versus a 150-year old pioneering Delta Phi chapter. Regarding the list model, I also like the highly visible way that predecessor groups may be traced on these larger campuses. While I like tables elsewhere, here, they seem antiseptic, in a way. Eh, I've made my points. Naraht or others? Jax MN (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jax MN, Just came across this post from several months ago Talk:List of Cornell University fraternities and sororities#Fraternities, reordered by date of campus founding that has an example of a varient format. Rublamb (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amount of Leadership listed[edit]

How much of the National Leadership for the GLO is appropriate to list (not what is minimal needed, but rather beyond which it should be trimmed)

  • National President
  • National VP
  • Other officers national in scope
  • Officers in charge of a geographical subset of the GLO ("Regional President", etc.)
  • Officers assisting in supervision of a geographical subset ("Regional VP", etc.)
  • Executive Director (Hired or not)

Naraht (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Naraht, the exective director makes sense to me (is there a spot in the infobox for this?). I guess the current president makes sense as well. However, the others feel like directory info rather than enclopedic content. But let's take this to the next level. What about those lists of past presidents that many articles have? When working in the articles on cities (including one that I took to GA status), I was instructed by members of that WP that a list of all past mayors is not encyclopedic and that only the current and notable individuals should be listed. Notable being defined as having a Wikipedia article. Certainly, a mayor is more notable than a fraternity president, meaning that these long lists should not be included and past presidents should be included only if notable.
This is a really good question, and whatever we decide should be included in our instructions for articles so that we can be consistent and fair in enforcement. Rublamb (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up. I generally favor including the current Executive Director or national secretary, plus the national president. For larger societies I'd allow expansion of this list to include others who are presently active: regional presidents, for example, but would not extend this to minor titles. Some articles include past presidents, which, to my thinking, is puffery. I don't see the need to include lists of past leaders. Jax MN (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few groups keep the immediate past national president on the board, so *maybe* if that is there for a list, but I agree, for a 150 year old group, a table that includes who was president from 1912-1914, doesn't seem appropriate. I wonder if it would be too broad to include anyone currently with a vote on revoking a charter (if this can be done without a decision of the National Convention).Naraht (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where multiple names could help are in clarifying the succession order. If the president of an organization has been Richie Rich for some years, and he is suddenly retired, placing bookends around him could be helpful. Deputy Grand President may thus be listed, as well as Immediate Past President. I don't have a problem with that, as it provided direct value. I also think that some of these groups listed their presidents from 100 years ago to provide historical filler. Jax MN (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local chapter misconduct[edit]

IMO, these sections are getting *far* too filled with detritus. I just removed an entry in Pi Kappa Phi was about one student's actions and didn't even mention Pi Kappa Phi) IMO, entries added need to meet one of two characteristics (and I wouldn't be annoyed with requiring both).

  1. The chapter at *least* loses school recognition. Charter Revoked, members Jailed, are of course well beyond that.
  2. The reference should *not* be to the school newspaper.

Comments?Naraht (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; these sections appear to generate a significant amount of unbalanced, non-encyclopedic bloat. In addition to your two comments, I'd add this:
  1. The sections themselves should be renamed "Local chapter or individual member misconduct" unless the issue shows a clear, and adjudicated example of systemic, national failings or even collusion.
  2. Items that made the national news in a significant way, such as the Stone Foltz death, or the fraudulent Phi Kappa Psi rape accusation at Virginia, may reasonably be called Notable, and continue in the article.
  3. However, minor news stories (Someone bothered someone ten years ago), which did not result in a closure or discipline, are not notable and should not be listed on a summary article about a national fraternity.
  4. For the middle ground, where there is/was some coverage in a significant newspaper, and where there was a closure or adjudication of some individuals, that may reasonably be placed as a footnote against the chapter on the list of chapters.
Without a systemic approach like this (and I am open to discussion), these articles attract unbalanced copy edits.
There is no encyclopedic value in keeping content about former students with whom an ongoing chapter has no further connection. Thanks for bringing this up as a discussion topic. Jax MN (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I'd actually prefer that "or individual member" *not* be in the header. Generally, unless there is more than one member who does something, the chances of it rising to national notoriety are *very* small.
  2. The Stone Foltz death or the fraudulent Phi Kappa Psi rape accusation will definitely have references *far* beyond the school newspaper.
  3. Agreed
  4. Yes, having that as a note as to why is fine.Naraht (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be OK with removing the "individual misconduct" term from the standard header. In special cases we can add it. I had originated the shift to "Local chapter or individual misconduct" in place of the onerous "Controversies" subhead that had crept in as a standard term, using the new language instead to redirect the framing and spotlight that these are typically, and almost exclusively the actions of a one or more bad actors or a self-destructive chapter; there is nothing controversial about hazing or sexual assault. These actions are simply bad, and harmful, and uncontroversially so. Jax MN (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was looking at University_of_the_Philippines#Student_organizations, any ideas on improving the section other than blowing it up and starting over? I'm actually tempted to use a list *rather* than prose for this. (And as far as I can tell, the alumni mentioned are *from* the chapters at UP rather than elsewhere.Naraht (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I favor blowing it up and starting over. Figuratively, of course. Yes, a list would be far better. Jax MN (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably should be removed entirely (including the section) since the article is about the entire system. This is equivalent to saying the fraternities and sororities of the University of California system. Besides, the same text (almost exactly, I think) is at University of the Philippines Diliman and needs fixing there.Naraht (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

1905 Baird's not currently on Wikipedia[edit]

Went through the table of contents of the 1905 Baird's and pulled out the groups we don't currently have. In this, if it doesn't say women, it is for men and Medical Regular implies *not* Homeopathy. I was surprised to see a General Fraternity we don't have an article on, but it had 6 or so chapters and disintegrated in 1907.


  • Omega Pi Alpha - General Men (on Watchlist)


  • Alpha Phi Gamma - Women Musical (not on watchlist, others with name are)
  • Alpha Delta - Women Medical (not on watchlist, others with name are)
  • Alpha Kappa Phi (law)- Legal (merged with Delta Theta Phi, section on that article)
  • Alpha Mu Pi Omega - Medical Regular (not on watchlist)
  • Alpha Omega Delta - Medical Regular (not on watchlist)
  • Beta Mu Delta - Biological (not on watchlist)
  • Delta Epsilon Iota - Medical Regular (not on watchlist, other with name is)
  • Delta Mu - Medical Regular (not on watchlist)
  • Epsilon Tau - Women Homeopathic (not on watchlist)
  • Eta Tau Alpha - Theological (not on watchlist)
  • Gamma Eta Alpha - Legal (not on watchlist)
  • Kappa Delta Epsilon - Women Musical (not on watchlist, other with name is)
  • Mu Sigma Alpha - Medical Homeopathic (not on watchlist)
  • Omega Psi - Women Medical (not on watchlist)
  • Omega Tau - Legal (not on watchlist)
  • Phi Alpha Sigma - Medical Regular (on watchlist)
  • Phi Mu Epsilon - Women Musical (not on watchlist)
  • Phi Sigma Psi - Medical Regular (not on watchlist, other with name is)
  • Phi Theta Chi - Medical Regular (not on watchlist, other with name is)
  • Pi Lambda Sigma - Women Library Economy (not on watchlist, other with name is)
  • Sigma Rho Alpha - Architecture (not on watchlist)
  • Sigma Tau Theta - Women Musical (not on watchlist)
  • Theta Lambda Phi (law) - Legal (merged with Delta Theta Phi, section on that article)
  • Zeta Beta Tau - Medical Regular (not on watchlist, other with name is)
  • Zeta Phi - Women Medical (not on watchlist)
I have added or corrected all of these, updating the Watchlist. Jax MN (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honorary Fraternity[edit]

  • Mu Phi Alpha - engineering, honorary (not on watchlist)
  • Phi Lambda Mu - chemistry, honorary (not on watchlist)
The immediately preceding listing is clearly a typo in Baird's 6th ed. While that name IS listed as Phi Lambda Mu, the badge AND body text shows the letters Phi Lambda Upsilon, an active fraternity which continues as a chemistry honorary, also founded in 1899, and at Illinois. --Too much of a coincidence to be otherwise. Jax MN (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inactive General[edit]

  • Alpha Kappa Phi (Not sure on watchlist, need to dive deeper)
  • Alpha Sigma Chi (Not sure on watchlist, need to dive deeper)
  • Delta Epsilon (Not sure on watchlist, need to dive deeper)
  • Kappa Alpha (UNC 1859 founding) (Not sure)
  • Mu Pi Lambda (on watchlist)
  • Phi Alpha Chi (Not sure on watchlist, need to dive deeper)
  • Phi Phi Phi (on watchlist)
  • Phi Mu Omicron (on watchlist)
  • Phi Sigma League (not on watchlist)
  • Pi Kappa Tau absorbed by Phi Alpha Gamma (not general, but apparently on list)
  • Psi Theta Psi (on watchlist)
  • Sigma Alpha (Black Badge) (not on watchlist)
  • Sigma Alpha Theta (on watchlist)
  • Sigma Delta Pi (Vitruvian) (on watchlist)
  • Upsilon Beta (on watchlist)
Naraht (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At one point, I was working on the medical fraternities, but stopped after a couple. There are way more lacking per your list then I had imagined. Are this already redlinked in the WP watchlist? Rublamb (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added or corrected all of these, now on the Watchlist. Jax MN (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other day, I compared the defunct school list in the Almanac with Wikipedia and created a more comprehensive list colleges related to GLOa that need articles (in my sandbox). Along the way, I discovered several nationals that do not have articles. I was hoping your list has these covered, but we can add the following as needing articles too:

  • Sigma Iota Chi - (comment by Jax_MN: 2-yr college women's general? If so, it's on the Watchlist.)
  • Zeta Mu Epsilon - (comment by Jax_MN:2-yr college women's general? It's on the Watchlist.)
  • Eta Upsilon Gamma - (comment by Jax_MN:2-yr college women's general? It's on the Watchlist.)
  • Phi Mu Gamma - (comment by Jax_MN: originally women's general, but became women's drama, music, art, creative writing, and dance professional, you mean this one?)
Rublamb (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added comments. It appears most of the general groups may be on our watchlist already, including a large number which appear to have been absorbed into Beta Theta Pi. Will dive deeper to give exact info. Most of the Professionals & Honoraries aren't in the watchlist.Naraht (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rublamb, I reviewed the four you added immediately above this sentence, and have added my comments. If the four you mention are the ones I found on the watchlist, we're good. If the ones you found were different from these, let me know. Jax MN (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other books to Wikisource[edit]

Right now, as far as I can tell, the only document related to this project on Wikisource is the 1879 Baird's. Is there any else that should be added?

  • Other editions of Baird's up to whatever the most recent version is that is out of copyright? (is that 1923, 1927 or 1930?)
  • Any of Banta's Greek Exchange?
  • I think there was a book on google that I can't find prior to 1940 that was basically for sororities (don't know if it is Public domain yet)
  • Any other ideas?

Naraht (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See if this list helps: The Online Books Page Greek letter societies -- United States Rublamb (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, based on this

Thanx for the list.Naraht (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

founded vs. founded on[edit]

"Mu Mu Mu was founded January 1, 1902" or "Mu Mu Mu was founded on January 1, 1902"? (Saw a correction from the second to the first and wanted to know if there was a preference.Naraht (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer the second version. Rublamb (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No strong preference, but the second version is clearer (= better). Jax MN (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connected Notability.[edit]

With our chapter lists and member lists, are there issues with Notability? There were notability templates added to List of Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) chapters and alumni associations‎ and List of Alpha Phi Omega members‎. I guess I have COI on those specifically, so someone else want to remove?Naraht (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue with the Philippines may be a reliance on primary sources but I would think a primary template/notice would make more sense. This is why I am reluctant to split off chapter lists when there is a lack of secondary sources. Rublamb (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, Naraht, I do not see any problem whatsoever with a purported COI regarding your edits to Alpha Phi Omega pages. You are an experienced editor, and know how to avoid biased language. The COI rule is to place brackets around inexperienced editors, or those whose contributions trend toward promotion. Fixed the Philippine list of chapters. You've been more than patient with the editor who questioned notability. Jax MN (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

Why the letters were chosen, belongs in Infobox, elsewhere?[edit]

Let's say that Gamma Sigma Phi is a notable Honorary in the field of Geology and that the organization's public history on their website (and/or Baird's 1915 edition) says that the letters Gamma Sigma Phi were chosen because that stands for Geology Students Fraternity. It isn't the *motto*, but where does that belong?Naraht (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think, where interesting or germane, this information would properly be placed in a "Symbolism" section, in a single line of body text. You are correct that it wouldn't appear to be a motto. Jax MN (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would expect that 95% of the cases where this would occur would either be for Honoraries (where this could probably be gotten from the open publishing of the ritual on the group's website) or for groups in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have come across it in professional groups fairly often. I have included this info in the symbolism section. Rublamb (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PFA groups? Can you give an example?Naraht (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rublamb So for example, the sentence in Alpha Rho Chi with the meaning should be moved into a symbolism section from the Lede?Naraht (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe. It should be in the symbolism section, but could be in the lede as well if that is a key fact. I randomly picked a professional group to look at, Alpha Gamma Rho. Although the article does not say this, AGR was clearly selected as its name because this is an agricultural fraternity. My favorite is Epsilon Psi Epsilon or ΕΨΕ which is an optometry fraternity. Rublamb (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know some seem Obvious in both Professional or Honorary, but that would be WP:OR...Naraht (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree that we have to find a source to include this in the article. Rublamb (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing Date.[edit]

Is it worthwhile to note in some way (make a cat???) for GLOs where the founding date of the Organization is not known? I'm thinking groups like Pi Alpha Tau.Naraht (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are very few of these. Delta Tau Delta is one. If a separate category would spur on future research, it might be valuable. But one surmises that many motivated researchers have exhausted the available records. At least I assume this is so for Delt. Jax MN (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, The number of DTD motivated researches for that would definitely be non-zero, as opposed to Pi Alpha Tau.Naraht (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It must be late and, to be fair, my cat is sitting on my lap. But I read "make a cat" literally for a second. Rublamb (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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 , 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[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[reply]

Gamma Theta Upsilon chapter list[edit] has chapter, chartering date and school and in the map above whether it is active or inactive. But about 300 chapters, and I can't figure out how to slice it off of the website and drop it into excel to automate at least the beginning.Naraht (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They do have a merged chapter, though they name the schools wrong. The White and Negro Teachers' Colleges in DC had separate charters which then merged and got a new charter when the schools merged.Naraht (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:Permalink/1197709223 - if you want me to delete a column or two let me know, I'll hold on to the excel file for a bit. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect. I will add this to the article. Rublamb (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if it makes sense to include the departments and we still need to go back to the map to get dates of inactivity. But deleting a column like that is very easy using the Visual editor (adding and subtracting columns to tables is one of the *few* things I use the visual editor for).Naraht (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the basic table ready, with status. Still needs links for college names and locations. Also, closure dates for inactive chapters. Thanks to @Primefac for the conversion (which I could not get to work either) and to @Naraht for finding the chapter list. I know this list is long enough for a stand-alone article but it lacks the sources for notability. Rublamb (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I reviewed JSTOR I found perhaps a hundred various yearbooks that published a page or two in each issue to showcase Gamma Theta Upsilon. With the rather substantive 4-page Baird's 20th reference to cite, the national website that lists newer (post-1991) chapters, and numerous yearbooks, aren't these enough to support a standalone article? It seems to me that the precedent allowing this is clear. Jax MN (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had not checked my print Baird's yet. If it is in Baird's, I can go ahead and create a stand-alone article. Without Baird's, yearbooks won't help in an AfD as they would equate to the college's website to the deletionists. Rublamb (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep; I added it to the page when I was first alerted of it being tagged for no references beyond the national website. I added two. Jax MN (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the notice. Rublamb (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Itis done; both articles have the sources they need thanks to @Jax MN. Also, links are now included in the list. Still needs closure dates but I didn't see that in my edition of Baird's. Rublamb (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added dts (I finally broke down and created rules in AutoWikiBrowser, not perfect, but I can't figure out the three that didn't properly fire off). Also, the only source that I've found for the closure dates is the GaThUp website.Naraht (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the merged chapters, both were formed at the segregated teachers colleges, with the one at the Negro school (Miner) being about three months before the merger of Miner and Wilson (the white school) into District of Columbia Teachers College (which then merged with Federal City College & Washington Technical Institute to become UDC).Naraht (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I was making that jump based on college names and added the efn. Had not caught the third school in play. Rublamb (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NP. There are eleven(!) entries in the former names in the infobox for the University of the District of Columbia and in this case, it partially revolved around when during 1955 the charter came vs. the merger. (and that doesn't count when they split off the UDC-Community College relatively recently.Naraht (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Executive Secretary for Gamma Theta Upsilon just sent me an updated chapter list, with "a dozen corrections" that will also be made to their website. I had asked him for any notes with the years when chapters had closed, but that was not included with this file. He mentioned that, like other honor societies, "closures" tend to be sporadic and short-term while another faculty sponsor is found. For GTU, they note a chapter as inactive if it doesn't host an installation within a two-year period. Jax MN (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love the group effort on this! Rublamb (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny, the Exec Sec actually copied our recently updated Gamma Theta Upsilon list from the Wikipedia page, including our references, then edited it and sent it back to me. I have to go through that list and compare, item by item. He didn't highlight the edits. Jax MN (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That annoying feeling when you try to google to augment what you just added to a wikipedia chapter list and you find that google has already read wikipedia and added it your search results. Now, I understand why people making Atlases added paper towns.Naraht (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dts and pages[edit]

I *think* I've worked through all of the DTS need pages in the last archive. Would appreciate additionals if you see them. Note, if a column in a table *entirely* consists of spelled out dates Example: So Row 1, January 1, 2000 Row2: April 2, 2001 and Row3: December 5, 1968 then it will work correctly (as the sort views them as dates), but if the dates contain things it can't figure out for that (197x or December 13-15, 1968), then the problem is there.Naraht (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantastic. I had not included that list in the update because of your previous mention of the the "entirely" rule. With regards to the 197x issue: If it is 197x, should we used 1970s instead and use 1970 for the dts template? Or we could go ahead and estimate the date with circa. Does the dts template work with a circa notation? I suspect the 19xx are more problematic and don't have good answer for that. Rublamb (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even 1970s causes issues. However, in general if we have a 197x (or 1970s) situation sorts probably don't make as much sense. More common would be Row 1: January 1, 2000, Row 2: Spring 2001, Row 3: September 1, 2002. At this point, my suggestion is that if you aren't sure, just click the sort in the column twice. If there is anything problematic, it will end up at the top after the second click (when it is doing the sort reversed). If the upside down sort seems OK, then it is probably all good without DTS for now. (Just about anything problematic will end up with a larger sort key than the generated ones.Naraht (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the 'good faith' effort to narrow the date to our best estimate where the actual year is not known, rather than just conservatively sorting to 1970 where we know it to be 197x. We often can get it to within a year or so, because most groups follow standardized naming structures and assign names based on when that chapter comes on line (not always, but usually). Therefore I prefer use of the CIRCA tag. Jax MN (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. Not sure how well dts and circa with the sortable argument play together in a table, but I'll experiment when I have time.Naraht (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
Successor is the term used in the Infobox Organization, so it provides consistency too. Rublamb (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search sort[edit]

I've been tracking a number of edits being made by a bot, where Talk pages are adjusted with a standard shell. In a couple of situations, the "listas" parameter has been removed from our Project line, which I assume will result in our losing that page when searching for that subject. For example, see this talk page edit for the list of Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapters. I've seen the bot make several hundred changes, mostly useful, but a scattered five or ten of them have removed the LISTAS param. Any need to have the bot code adjusted, to avoid this? Jax MN (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also note that the bot has been removing the "Importance" parameter, which is normally used on articles for our Project. Jax MN (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the biggest issue with this bot was that it has been cluttering my watchlist. Mostly I see the class removed and listed above the WP, with importance remaining with the WP where it was previously listed. However, since some articles have a prior version of a shell, importance was sometimes listed in the shell and not in the WP section. Add in the mix that some WP do not use importance, most notably WP Higher Education (this is probably a glitch rather than something on purpose but I have noticed that WP Higher Ed no longer saves correctly if importance is included). I am not sure which version/combination is causing the issue, but do think the bot should be discontinued until the problem is fixed. Rublamb (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just wrote to Qwerfjkl's talk page, asking for an adjustment: that the "listas" names aren't lost, and that all effected articles have the class "list" as a line within the shell. Jax MN (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They clutter my inbox too, but apparently I have to review each one in order to maintain these for future edit alerts.
Qwerfjkl asked for specific examples of errors. I went back to my trashed alerts, and reviewed a couple dozen. I didn't find an example where an article was stripped of a LISTAS param, but only that these were moved to the general shell. I did, however, note that the list at Talk:List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological) didn't start with a LISTAS param, so the bot didn't add one. This appears to be a redirect from an old name. Anyway, I then added it, as the article name started with "List of ..." and I assume wouldn't come up in searches correctly. I also added a class=list param. Naraht (as a careful watcher of this particular group) may want to eventually delete this redirect as redundant, as both will now come up during searches. We should continue to watch for these alerts of banner shell creation, if only to add missing class=list and listas=(name) params. Jax MN (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing Listas[edit]

  • chapter lists missing listas - [1]
  • member lists missing listas - [2]

Naraht (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB work[edit]

I went in and added listas, but some of them are dups to the banner shell. I don't think that hurt though. Now I need to fix the listas with "List of" in front that I created with my use of the magic word in the substitution.Naraht (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

Phi Delta Kappa[edit]

Was working on the chapter list for the education group and realized that there is some strangeness. There is the coed Phi Delta Kappa (originally all male) as well as the National Sorority of Phi Delta Kappa (sorority). Both are education groups. Any ideas? Rublamb (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rublamb, completely separate organizations apparently. (the webpage for the women's group) shows no relation to the 1906 group. The 1906 group was apparently also all white for quite some time and the NSPDK, from the founders picture and the honoraries, is probably historically African American.Naraht (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had wondered if it was one of those cases where there were both fraternity and sorority that were related somehow. Or, since the fraternity appears to be learning toward being an org and not a frat, if there had been a split of some sort. With your findings, I will make a basic article for the sorority (since I already made a chapter list). Now, the remaining problem appears to be that the fraternity once used Greek letter names for its chapters but changed to place names at some point, maybe as part of the rebranding to an association. I did not do a lot of digging for inactive chapters (such as looking at Baird's), but found references to traditional naming structures in the article's text. Are we good with the list as is, or do we want to keep it on the "to do" list as lacking historic chapters? Rublamb (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, building on your research and page creation I put together a hatnote for all three of this name. I just wrote to the sorority's national offices for answers to several specific questions, and have asked for a list of chapters, schools and dates. I will update y'all when I hear back. I was able to upload a crest and created assumed color swatches for the sorority. I looked into the school name and am confident that the relink in the infobox is correct, but have asked for a confirmation from the sorority regardless. To the colors, the 'red' is quite clearly a scarlet, and the gold is a medium gold, not metallic nor the "Crayola" type of light gold, but and not as dark as Goldenrod. --So I assumed Poppy Gold from among the available options. There was no further detail about this on their website, but these should be good as a placeholder until they send confirmation... Surprisingly, there was no listing for either of the surviving educational fraternities in Baird's, only the dormant general fraternity. Thus we still have questions. Jax MN (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technical points: I have a list of several thousand colors in hex codes that I refer to, but that list is not exhaustive of all the options. Some fraternities are quite specific on branding and colors, with either hex or Pantone colors specified in a branding guide, others aren't specific, if they designate colors at all. I sometimes sample directly off of a good copy of their crest, possibly finding an official name for that color from a backsearch if a particular hex code has a color name associated with it.
I saw that I was incorrect in the link I provided for the school name. Several states have an article that lists all current and former schools; it may be an option to clarify what exact school was the birthplace of the sorority. Jax MN (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for helping. I slapped this together quickly this morning while packing for trip. Amazing that there were three groups with the same name at the same time, with the two eduation groups being pretty significant. Just shows how seldom the racial line was crossed back in the day. Rublamb (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now back from my travel and looked at this again. After reading the sorority's history on several chapter websites, I do not think its founding was associated with a specific college. Instead, it looks like this was originally a city-based group. This means that the founding date could be correct but that the sorority later associated with the college after it opened several years later. Don't know how to manage that in the text, except to remove references to the college (as we don't know which is correct and when the affiliation happened). Also, I have added some chapter charter dates, as found on chapter websites. Rublamb (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been going through the links for Phi Delta Kappa across Wikipedia, finding a number that were referencing the sorority, not the fraternity. Lacking a source or context, is easy to tell if it is an African American women in the 1950s; not as easy if her career went into the modern era. I made a couple of guesses based on fame and the lack of inclusion in the sorority's list of honory members. I believe I have all of the people checked. I have not sorted through the links for awards/honors, scholarships, and publications. Most are going to be the men's group but not always. If you are bored and looking for something to do... Rublamb (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]


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[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[reply]

Improvements for dates in chartering tables...going inactive[edit]

Let us say there is a chapter in a table that is listed as "1950-1975; 2000-". Finding the date with reference for the date in 1950 that it chartered would definitely count as an improvement. Finding the date with reference for the date that it rechartered in 2000 is sort of an improvement. In general, how much improvement is finding the date that the chapter was declared inactive in 1975? (Presumably either the date of a board meeting or the date of a National Convention) Naraht (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect there is little to no chance of an official report (even from the GLO) of a chapter going inactive; such things are just a part of Fraternity life. There is a small chance (though I have never seen it from my own) of a National Convention or similar publishing a "who went inactive this year" notice along with their other official documentation, but that would probably be as close to verification for inactivity as I can think of. The only other official notice I can think of would be the rechartering, which might say "...who went inactive in YYYY". Primefac (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My fraternity includes the minutes of board meetings which includes chapters being declared inactive (null & void) See as a sample. So Zeta Tau chapter at Central Methodist University (for ex) could be noted as having the date of inactivity of April 29, 2021.Naraht (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hrm, fair enough. I did just re-read your initial question, and I don't really think there's much point in having a specific date for inactivity (or even re-active), especially since inactivity is usually based on failure to pay dues and/or meet some other requirement, which may not strictly have a specific date attached. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Newspapers include closure dates for misconduct. These dates makes sense to track (with an efn) when it is recent and the group can reactivate after a certain amount of time. I have accidentally found dates in chapter histories or fraternity publications and add them when found. Otherwise, I will use the year from Baird or the Almanac. I think inactive and recharter years are an important part of a chapter’s history, especially when there is a big time gap. But, in general, I don’t see a reason for the specific date. Rublamb (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

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[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[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[reply]

Northrop College[edit]

I think we dealt with that before, Northrop College is actually Northrop University, right?Naraht (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears so. I don't believe the school was ever formally named as a college. The name appears to stem from the Northrop family of aerospace pioneers. Our list of missing schools had an error in the name, as "Northrup", but I corrected that to "Northrop". Jax MN (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we can update/change List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters, right? (And I mispelled my initial entry twice. :( )Naraht (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seven occurences of Northrup in the Northrop University article. (Head bang) Naraht (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - Good catch; I just fixed them. I ran into a similar problem when editing the unrelated Cyrus Northrop article. Jax MN (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I am the guilty party on the misspellings in the Northrop University article. Sigh... On a positive note, I did extensive research into its history at the time. I did not find that it was ever officially called Northrop (or Northrup) College. Rublamb (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Haven't seen him around in a while. Page is *completely* unreferenced. :(Naraht (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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|}} to use the {{URL|}} 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[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. 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[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[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[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[reply]
Yedaman554, Primefac the URLs being changed were in the infobox. I believe that is typical from what Jax MN and I saw. Before: {{official website|}} After: {{URL||}}.
Indeed. Jax MN (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Asked at Template talk:Official website.Naraht (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen "official" used in GLO and some other infoboxes but tend to use the {{URL||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[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[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[reply]
  1. So the issue is that the infobox would point to and the external link would point to 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[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[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[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[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[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[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: [3]. 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[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[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[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[reply]
Yes, I agree with that. I will be happy to do this one. Rublamb (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

Section heading for notables...[edit]

I presume since we've standardized on the articles being "List of Mu Mu Mu members" that the section header in the Mu Mu Mu article should be "Notable members" as opposed to "Notable Brothers/Sisters/Alumni".Naraht (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Notable members makes the most sense as it covers all types of groups. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, notable members - Enos733 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will change as I have the chance. Help would be welcome. :)Naraht (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I have been working on it when I find them! Rublamb (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Fraternities, see (and then that can be switched to sororities).Naraht (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When doing this, check to make sure that if there is a page that is the main article, change it to the redirected name. So from {{main|list of Mu Mu Mu brothers}} to {{main|list of Mu Mu Mu members}}. Generally the redirect would be OK, but since the article name is shown, it should be changed from the redirected name.Naraht (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty sure I fixed the redirects when I updated the article names. At least, I am going to assume that I did that for now. Since the list generated from your query above pulled in way too many college alumni lists and my attempts at searching for "notable brothers" and "notable sisters" did not identify all name variations, I decided to work through the articles listed in our watch group. I am also checking the chapter list and general organization of the article at the same time, so this had now become a bigger project. But that I why I am randomly fixing articles or identifying more substandard chapter lists. Rublamb (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Founding date -> chartering date of "Alpha"[edit]

Just remember, unless the fraternity/sorority's history indicates that "Alpha" didn't actually become "Alpha" until the group became a national, use the national fraternity founding date as the date for Alpha. An example, that I just changed was Kappa Sigma Kappa, so that the 1867 founding of the founding Gamma chapter, should be the national founding of September 28, 1867.Naraht (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

Is a geographical split/ordering *ever* right?[edit]

From what I can tell from our articles, the first preference in ordering is a fixed chapter name sequence: Alpha to Omega, Alpha Alpha -> Alpha Omega etc. That may be something unique to the group, but if they are generally in a situation where the letters of the next chapter will be known, go with that. Second choice is pure chronological. But I wonder if in the situation when chapters are named "Alabama Alpha", should we *ever* have "Alabama Beta" after that if 15 chapters chartered between the two? (Thinking specifically of List of Alpha Epsilon Delta chapters)Naraht (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each sortable column offers valuable options. In longer lists, where we add a separate state column besides the city, this will offer the reader the option to quickly find only the Alabama chapters, to your point. I strongly prefer leaving the chartered/range column in order of formation. Even if some chapter charterings go slightly out of strict alphabetical order. Jax MN (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer alphabetical order, if that's the intention. If we find out that Xi and Omicron chapters that are both 1931 were chartered on May 31, 1931 and May 30, 1931 respectively, I think they should be left in that order.Naraht (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So this one is a work in progress and may prove to be an exception to our usual preferences for now. I started from scratch with just a list of chapters names and institutions; my original source was ordered by state and then alphabtical by chapter name. I updated the list to state/Greek letter order. As I started working on the list, I found some dates but not enough to create a list that would make sense to place in date order. Then I found a list in their magazine with better dates and, also, discovered that each chapter has a number. All of these details have now been added to the list. But there are still gaps that make an accurate charter order list impossible. In the meantime, the list can be viewed by (known) charter order by sorting by the number column. Unless someone can find older versions of their magazine, this one is a challenge. Rublamb (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nu Kappa Epsilon[edit]

Could someone else please take a look at Nu Kappa Epsilon. I'm the only one of us to have edited it, but that's only for changes that get commonly made to a lot of articles. 4 chapter fraternity, no references other than primary. I've found but nothing else similar. Which way would you go on an AFD?Naraht (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did a deep edit, restoring and adding sources and removing most of the fluffy and unsourced content. I doubt it would make it through an AfD but maybe it has enought to keep one from starting. Rublamb (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if want to propose this for AfD, I support you. Rublamb (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article in draftspace[edit]

This weekend, I have been fixing some of the articles that were in draftspace. Phi Alpha Pi is now published. It consisted of just a few phrases and is now a local, but seemed worthwhile given its long history. Also, I found enough secondary sources to please just about any editor. I just finished Draft:Auburn University Greek life which was moved from the mainspace in October 2023 because it lacked sources. I have added sources for everything except a couple of complete dates that I grabbed from other articles that lacked sources. Although there are now sources, there is not a single independent source that meets the standard significant coverage other than the Almanac. I think the solution is to treat this article as a list as the standards are slightly different; I have added that WP and class accordingly. Can someone take a look and see if you agree that this is ready to publish? I know it still needs dts and could use a photo or two. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My issue with this is unrelated to either DTS or photos, but the question of range. I think that we all can agree that an active chapter of Tri-Delta, Alpha Tau Omega or Alpha Kappa Alpha belongs in such a list, the question is how far should it go, both in actives vs. inactive chapters, Active vs. Defunct and Social -> Professional -> Recognition -> Honor. Or to put it another way, does a chapter of a national sorority that was active under that name for two years a hundred years ago belong there and Phi Beta Kappa not belong.Naraht (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few groups showed up in the Almanac' that did not fit the existing ordering by council. I added professional and multicultural sections and a few more groups but did not dig deep as I didn't want to spend more time looking (and this was not essential for publication). I probably am not as hung up on whether or not a group fits into traditional councils as some might be. The challenge in setting limits for this type of article is the groups that cross the line between social and honorary or professional. As we have discussed elsewhere, the presence of a chapter house is a good clue that a group belongs on this type of list, but that does not work for a campus like Auburn where sororities do not have chapter houses. Other articles of this ilk do include active, inactive, and some professional groups—so we are not covering new territory here. My only caution is: don't ask too many questions or we will be back in the unresolved discussion on the format used for this type of article. This had tables already, so I just went with the flow. Rublamb (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On another note, if I'm reading the various articles correctly, the chapter of Phi Alpha Chi is now on its fifth sorority.Naraht (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the deal with that? And why did I then move on to the original Kappa Alpha (Kuklos Adelphon) ‎ which is equally puzzling? I suspect you left the latter to torture me. Rublamb (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Outside duties intrude, thus I haven't traced all of these issues. However, Naraht brought up Phi Alpha Chi, alluding I think to the Berkeley chapter, now apparently a unit of Delta Zeta. I prefer to include the entire lineage of these chapters as they evolve, both to provide the existing chapters clarity on their roots and the sometimes fascinating story of the resilience of a particular chapter, and to offer to family researchers clarity on where grandma or grandpa was a member. We can note the predecessor groups within the frame of an EFN and link to articles about dormant groups, noting where these may have jumped "class" from an original professional group to a social organization. The fact of building ownership, often continuing through a withdrawal or merger make these stories even more interesting. Naraht, which item were you referring to, regarding a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa that jumped loyalties a century ago? Jax MN (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rublamb, I see the issue you raise. Where I have made these campus lists, I struggled with this same issue, and for Minnesota, MIT, Cornell, Trine and Wooster resolved to list separately and immediately below the active chapters two lists: Chapters whose names changed, noting their descendants, and Dormant groups, which were essentially the end-of-the-line for that particular chapter. In some cases, a group that changed names once or twice is listed under both names as having changed names, and a parenthetical remark suggests the group to which it withdrew, bold if still active. But the EFNs also note in more detail the successors, showing continuity. I think it is a cleaner presentation this way, helpful for tracing linkage, and is the reason I have been reluctant to place the "Names changed" and "Dormant" groups into a table format, but only for campus listings. (Not for individual national organization lists.) Jax MN (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as everyone thinks the basic content and sources are okay, I will restore this article to the main space. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of Name Changed vs Dormant/Merger (can one do the former without doing the latter when looking at an individual chapter?). My short answer on what groups to include or what format to use is this: there are so few of these articles and each campus is unique enough that we should probably let the situation dictate what we do. For example, we might say no local groups, but then there is Yale and UVa. We might say no literary societies, but at UNC these were the start of it all. We might say no honor societies, but could one cover William and Mary without discussing Phi Beta Kappa? Then, there are the campuses with fantastic or historic chapter houses, but others that have none worth mentioning. Does the rule of "it depends" make sense here? Rublamb (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]