Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Primary image in Infobox.

Just to verify in order of preference:

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

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

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

Present tense, past tense

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

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

Category:Lists of members of United States student societies

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

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

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

Short Histories of Sororities.

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

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)

Syntax and standards

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

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

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

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)

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)
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)
Yedaman554, Primefac the URLs being changed were in the infobox. I believe that https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Order&diff=prev&oldid=1202530738 is typical from what Jax MN and I saw. Before: {{official website|http://www.kappaalphaorder.org}} After: {{URL|http://www.kappaalphaorder.org|kappaalphaorder.org}}.
Indeed. Jax MN (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
Asked at Template talk:Official website.Naraht (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I have seen "official" used in GLO and some other infoboxes but tend to use the {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} format myself. The infobox instructions for this field should be added. Maybe that will be the outcome of @Naraht's query to Template talk. Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
  1. So the issue is that the infobox would point to something.org and the external link would point to www.something.org or is it that there are actually two links, which would make putting it in the infobox at all problematic?
  2. A little more complex, but I'm fine with it.Can you please give examples?
  3. I'm good with semicolon, but I'd like to see whether including <br> helps with vertical height.
  4. maybe 19xx{{?}}
  5. The question becomes whether the fact that what used to be Upsilon chapter of Mu Mu Mu is now Delta chapter of Alpha Beta Gamma belongs in the table, or in an efn. If it is in the table, they adding Alpha Beta Gamma in english is too much, if it is in the EFN, that should be fine.Naraht (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    @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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
dts isn't useful only if every one of the dates is in one of the specific formats that the sorttable can handle. As soon as we have a 197? or a spring 1983, it decides the field is for strings and sorts all of the Aprils together. I still *strongly* support its use.
listas detector. This isn't perfect, but does show all list-class articles in the wikiproject that don't have the string listas: [1]. There are a few here that sort of surprise me that they are in the wikiproject, but that's a different story.Naraht (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Baptist Collegiate Network

Baptist Collegiate Network pulled into our report because it uses a fraternity infobox. I added our WP to the talkpage but am not clear if this really falls under our umbrella. Can someone take a look and provide a second opinion before we add it to our watchlist? Rublamb (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it does. I'd feel much more comfortable with infobox organization and move the number of colleges it is on to prose.Naraht (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for backing my opinion. I will take care of this. Rublamb (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Gridiron Secret Society -> Gridiron (secret society)

We already have three examples of secret society being a dab term at Category:Secret_societies_at_Yale. this one isn't at Yale, but the example... So OK to move? Naraht (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the move. Makes sense. Note there is a Gridiron DAB page. Jax MN (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Done.Naraht (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominated Delta Pi Delta

I nominated Delta Pi Delta for deletion.Naraht (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. We will find other similar articles as we go though the cleanup project. Rublamb (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Fraternities and sororities in Germany

The category Fraternities and sororities in Germany seems to automatically change to the category Student societies in Germany which is not a category we would typically follow as it could include many non-fraternal groups. Can someone figure out why this is happening? I know it is tied to Studentenverbindungen--but what if a German fraternity or sorority is not a Studentenverbindungen? Rublamb (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fraternities and sororities in Germany is a redirect category. Put an article in it and a bot will move it to Category:Student societies in Germany. That has been true since it was created. Honestly, we shouldn't even use that category. Everything we put in there should end up in a Studentenverbindungen or perhaps more accurately Category:Studentenverbindungen in Germany category. Roll up the Studentenverbindungen by country categories into Category:Fraternities and sororities by country. Naraht (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Computer Science Undergraduate Association

This has the fraternity infobox. Before I change it to organizations, can someone else talk a look? Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Go to organization. I'm not sure *any* other organization has membership criteria *that* loose. As best as I can tell, it is create and account and 3 meetings later you can vote. that makes modern Zeta Beta Tau seem tight.Naraht (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I did that and one other. Rublamb (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Given our prior discussions - Removing centered.

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

Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, in Template:FratChapter2 which does to different list of columns, *everything* is centered. Note this is only used in *one* article List of Phi Sigma Kappa chapters. Nuke all of the code to do centering there as well?Naraht (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That's the article I have been avoiding! If it is the only one with that template, I am almost tempted to move it to a visual editor table, so that the template can be deleted. But, then, one of us would have to deal with that crazy article and all of its photos. Maybe getting rid of centering it an easier solution. Rublamb (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Ahem. It appears, someone, should work on that article. It was an early effort on my part, and since then we have come to solid agreement on syntax. If someone has a better solution for the photos, I'd love to see it. A scrolling ribbon? Jax MN (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The photos have stumped me for two years. Following what we have done for other articles, I think there could be a section on Chapter houses in the main fraternity article. These photos can be in a gallery there under that section. Does that makes sense? Rublamb (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I'd hoped, earlier, that this would spark other groups to add galleries of house photos. As long as we keep them somewhere, I'm supportive of that change. A scrolling gallery would make the most sense. Jax MN (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The other options is photos within the table but I have never been a fan of the those tiny images. Rublamb (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I felt the same way, after seeing examples. I tested several styles. Jax MN (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the photos to Phi Sigma Kappa#Chapter houses. Before I tackle the table, do we want to keep the photo links or is the gallery in the main article enough? If we do keep the photo links here, should they be in their own column? Rublamb (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for moving things forward on this one. The thumbnail layout bothered me, as it simply had too much white space. I just revised that section to use the gallery-hover template, where the captions pop up with a cursor movement. I'd like feedback on this, too. Also, there may be another type of gallery template I don't have at the moment, like a big wheel of photos that one may scroll through, left to right. Would that be better? Jax MN (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a preference. I like the "passive" presentation of the photo captions in the traditional gallery template but do understand your issue with that much white space in an article that is already really long. With art, I would prefer the white space to let each image stand on its own, but that is not as important with chapter house photographs. Of course, the best solution is to have a short description of the historically important chapter houses and align the photos with the text, as done with St. Anthony Hall. I will eventually work on that after I finish upgrading the chapter house stub articles, which may or may not be linked to the main GLO article. I think I am 2/3s completed on that project. Rublamb (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
What about the links to the photos that are in the chapter list reference section? Rublamb (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Phi Sigma Kappa is converted, so there should not be any remaining articles using Template:FratChapter2. This would be a good time to remove that template option since we have agreed not to use it. Rublamb (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Added to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 25. Notifying authors of template.Naraht (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Notable member lists

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

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

OK. I think that Naraht offered a search param to find articles without infoboxes. Presently, I work on the infobox and crest omissions when I see an article pop up that has recently been edited. (I track everything on our watchlist.) Did Naraht offer a similar query strong for missing crests? I will continue to work on those as they come up, and with a list, would be willing to aggressively knock them down. BTW, I have both the 19th and 20th edition of Baird's. The graphics which I can scan in the 19th are typically much higher quality than the 20th ed.
Also, I like our practice of pinning tracking lists to the top of the Talk page. Redlinked school names, chapter list, notables, and maybe infoboxes and missing crests/swatches, all would be useful to list our priorities. Jax MN (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
If Naraht could generate a list of articles missing infox boxes, we probably could also get those articles missing short descriptions. If we could get those that lack an infobox image, we still wouldn't know it the image was of its crest, logo, or badge. But it would be a start. Good idea. Rublamb (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
"Without infobox fraternity" isn't hard, what is more difficult is determining the universe of those that you would want to see. Do we have a category (we have have it grab all subcategories as well).Naraht (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Given your earlier work on articles with the infobox fraternities, I think we would be fine looking at all of them. Rublamb (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is being asked for. A) Articles about fraternities/sororities/honoraries without an infobox fraternity (or redirect) or B) Articles that have infobox fraternity and lack a value for a specific parameter.Naraht (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
IMO, let's start with no infobox at all. Then, no short description. We can mess with missing content once we get caught up on the basics. Rublamb (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
With some help from the Autowikibrowser team who used Petscan (https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28124502), I have verified that all 38 pages whose titles consist entirely of two or more Greek Letters and do not have the infobox either have no connection with Greek Letter Organizations (like Xi Xi) or are GLO Dab pages (like Delta Phi Epsilon or more complex). Next step is working for those that do have the infobox, which are missing various fields we fiew as essentials, I'll create a new subsection.Naraht (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Missings from the infobox

Note we could set up the infobox to automatically put articles using the infobox without a specific field into a maintenance cat, I think.Naraht (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Let me know what other searches to do?Naraht (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of a maintenance cat here would be terrific. As to sizing there is a separate parameter that adjusts the ultimate size of the crest. It's only with the member badge, reflected in the member badge parameter where it is helpful to add a size within the link tag. (I normally reduce these in size, where relegated below a standard crest, to a small size thumbnail that doesn't need a compression parameter.) Jax MN (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, which ones? Category:Infobox holiday with missing field can be our model.Naraht (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to track these:
  1. "| coat of arms", where "| image_size" is null or missing. (The size parameter is manually adjusted, depending on actual image size.) - tracked here
  2. "| crest", where "| image_size" is null or missing. - tracked here
  3. "| founded" where the tag structure "{{Start date and age|yyyy|mm|dd}}" is NOT used - tracked at petscan
  4. instances where "| affiliation" is missing - tracked here
  5. instances where "| type" is missing - tracked here
  6. instances where "| scope" is missing - tracked here
  7. instances where "| member badge" is missing - tracked here
  8. instances where "| chapters" is missing - tracked here
  9. instances where "| members" is missing - tracked here
  10. instances where "| ZIP code" is missing, IF the other address fields are present
  11. instances where "| colors" is missing one or more color boxes in this format: "{{color box|#FF0000}}", with any HEX code. I prefer not to use borders or inset words in these swatches, so please also flag variants of that tag, like this: {{color box|#930e06|Red|white}}. Finally, I'd like it to flag instances where a "<span>" tag is used in a colors parameter field.
Regarding the use of text captions within color swatches. Lambda Pi Chi offers an example. I prefer to float the name of the color as a hyperlink adjacent to the swatch, and not muddy up the swatch with words or borders. Thoughts?
On that last item, the SPAN tags signify an MS-Word artifact, and smaller color swatch. The square swatch I use is somewhat larger, and when I place them I confirm the colors against either branding guides, or as direct samples from crest images themselves. Often I find that SPAN controlled swatches are incorrectly rendered, with the smaller size less helpful, visually.
Thanks again for fussing with this. Does the maintenance cat allow tracking of multiple parameter problems on the same bulleted item, maybe coded? Or is it a 1:1 basis? Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Let me take a crack at type and founded. I know "founded" will have a few for the GLOs that don't know. I think I brought up a few earlier in the talk. I may also need to null edit all of them before they show up. :(Naraht (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, did type and 23 pages instantly showed up at Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing type. We probably want it like the name match, limited to mainspace, but let me know. Please take a look at them and figure what we need to fix.Naraht (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Jax MN took care of the European ones, see below. Of course that means that getting all of Studentenverbindung to use infobox:fraternity is probably a project now.Naraht (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I've numbered your list so that it's easier to reference. #1-2 and #4-9 are tracked in Category:Fraternity articles with infobox fraternity issues. I honestly don't think #10 should be tracked. The check code for the others is a bit more complex so it might take me a bit longer to get set up. I've added a petscan link for #3. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking back over the list, some of these just don't feel useful at all, and some aren't really problems. Lots and lots of groups have no affiliations, (even if we include some of the groupings in Europe). And chapters, we should figure out format especially for the inactive/merges. As for founded, I'm not sure that founded is the only field that could have start date and age, but even if we expect that, the other questions is whether year or month/year alone represent issues for that field or not.Naraht (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the color boxes - I did a quick run through all pages transcluding the infobox and ended up changing 20 pages. Coding up a check to make sure it's in a specific format is probably more complicated than it's worth, and a quick check every few months to clean up the handful of pages that might use something other than we want is probably best. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
12) Has website. tracked here,Naraht (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

WINE Psi Phi

Fun facts: Wine Psi Phi chapters were named for kinds of wine and its president was the Supreme Grand Grape. And yet, this was not started as a GLO parody.

I decided to use past tense for the article. As far as I can tell, all collegiate chapters went inactive by the mid-1980s, probably earlier. (It had two hazing deaths in the 1970s that probably were a factor.) Around 2010, alumni began an effort to reform as a community-based fraternity, including hosting national conventions and electing a grand council. Activity seemed to be limited to one graduate chapter in NC which also hosted the national office. However, no one realized that their trademark and copyright had expired in 2014. Some other alumni in Chicago scooped up the trademark and have what appears to be a local service group that uses the former national's name. Unable to reconcile, the revived national had no choice but to change its name. If we say WINE Psi Phi is active, we almost have to pick sides and/or change the name of the article. That does not make sense to me, especially given that the only sources for the revivals and name change are chapter websites. Are we good with past tense for this article? @Naraht added a redirect for the new name. And I have contacted both groups to see if we can get more information on the collegiate closures. Rublamb (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Any one else notice that the greek at the bottom of the new Coat of Arms is Iota Delta Gamma Alpha Phi? and with the new name treatin that as a "Fai", that means it spells out IDGAF, as in "I Don't Give A F---".Naraht (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
IDGAF goes back to the early 1970s; I found it in yearbooks too. They say its meaning is only known to the initiated and is not what you think. I found that in the Greek chat forum, so it is not included in the article. My guess is that it predates our usage of IDGAF and, like their WINE anacronym, is now unfortunate for a group that wants to be taken seriously. By the way, the replacement fraternity name uses Old Egyptian/Coptic letters instead of Greek because Egypt was the cradle of civilization, not ancient Greece (their words paraphrased. Silly me. I thought the "cradle" was Mesopotamia... Rublamb (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Confraternities in Nigeria

I am correct that we don't want Nigerian confraternities under our scope? A group showed up in our data report for lack of scope, but I will gladly change its infobox to organization. Rublamb (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the article?Naraht (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
National Association of Seadogs. It has a really nice website. Rublamb (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not sure we really have a choice. Collegiately based, at least in the original concept and limited membership. It belongs here, IMO.Naraht (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I am creating a new type: Confraternity
I did some research and have created List of confraternities in Nigeria with over 50 documented organizations. Note that some of these have chapters in other countries, including Canada. I added that article and Confraternities in Nigeria to the watchlist. I did not add Confraternity as that is clearly a church related thing. I will now go though the groups I linked and see where they fall (university of community-based) and add to the watchlist if appropriate. Except for two active groups with university connections, I do not plan on adding redlinked groups to the watchlist; there is not enough information to expect an article in English Wikipedia and most are community-based. However, I could go all in and add a new section to the watchlist, if so directed. Rublamb (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Might you go a little longer on this, perhaps in the lede of the article? Specifically, add a definition for use within the fraternal category noting where it differs from church-related use. I've seen it elsewhere, in some of the Latin fraternities, but had thought it referred to co-educational groups. Shows how much I was paying attention. Jax MN (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Proofreading the main article and reviewing new sources was draining for several reasons, and I am not keen to linger there. I honestly don't know why they started being called confraternities as the first group was like a fraternity, with no religious connection. Later, there was voodoo was linked to some and, the government seems to call them "cults" instead of gangs. It could be that the fraternal initiation rites are considered "religious" in Nigeria. Maybe the BBC article I found answers the confraternity question. I will look. Rublamb (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Affiliation = Independent?

I know we have a lot of groups that have no affiliation at all. I noticed that at least one has been changed to Independent. Is that preferred to simply leaving it blank?Naraht (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have wondered the same thing. I guess it keeps us from looking it up multiple times. Is there any other value? Note that if we do want this info filled in as affiliated or independent, then Affiliation should be part of the Infobox fraternity template. Rublamb (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you may be referring to one I just did. Chi Delta Mu. As it had a category listing at the bottom of the page, indicating a missing Affiliation field, I added this. I didn't see an affiliation on their website, but it indeed they have one, this will prompt a correction. If there is a strong preference for omitting this, I would defer. Jax MN (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
It is included in many articles. The completionist in me likes to include it. However, do we only include this if the org specifically states that it is independent (meaning there is a source rather than a lack of info)? This is the same issue I have when trying to prove a chapter is inactive--how do you cite the absence of something? Rublamb (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
It's beneficial, I think, to place each of the societies into one of the major buckets (member, former member and now independent, independent). The multiple nuances here are why we adjusted the infobox template to allow for two affiliation fields... Jax MN (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Then I think it should be a set field, rather than added through the free field. That way, all editors would know to include it. (maybe this is only an issue in visual editor?) Rublamb (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your point about 'set fields': Note that perhaps 2 years ago we added two optional affiliation fields, "affiliation" and "affiliation2". The initials of many of the major trade associations for fraternities will pull up their full name and links.
| affiliation = <!-- Link to any of: ACHS, CIPFI, FFC, NALFO, NAPA, NMGC, NPHC, NPC, NIC, PFA or UCCFS (just use initials) Other modifiers: "(former)" or "Independent"-->
| affiliation2 = <!-- (If needed) links any of ACHS, CIPFI, FFC, NALFO, NAPA, NMGC, NPHC, NPC, NIC, PFA or UCCFS (just use initials) If appropriate, use modifier: "(former)"-->
Jax MN (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Historically, affiliation has not been an option in Visual Editor (which provides a list of possible fields). As a result, the only way to add affiliation to the Infobox fraternity was by using the Free field, meaning it did not automatically go to the desired order in the Infobox and also had a note indicating it was not a recognized parameter. Now, affiliation is showing up at the very bottom of the list of items to add. This is new. There is just one field for affiliation, not two. But this is a step in the right direction. Is there a way to change its order in the list to be with its related components?
This is the list of options in Visual Editor for Infobox fraternity. Is anything else missing?
  • name
  • letters
  • coat of arms
  • crest
  • image_size
  • alt
  • caption
  • founded
  • birthplace
  • type
  • emphasis
  • scope
  • mission
  • vision
  • object
  • motto
  • virtues
  • pillars
  • slogan
  • maxim
  • tagline
  • member badge
  • pledge name
  • pledge pin
  • colony badge
  • colony pledge pin
  • colors
  • symbol
  • flag
  • flower
  • tree
  • jewel
  • mascot
  • patron greek divinity
  • patron roman divinity
  • patron saint
  • publication
  • philanthropy
  • charterdate
  • chartercity
  • chapters
  • colonies
  • members
  • lifetime
  • nickname
  • free_label
  • free
  • free_label1
  • free1
  • free2
  • free_label2
  • location
  • address
  • city
  • state
  • province
  • ZIP code
  • postal code
  • country
  • coordinates
  • homepage
  • footnotes
  • affiliation
I would love to trim this list. Why do we have both Founded/Birthplace and Charter Date/Charter City (which do not show up in the same place in the infobox if selected)? Also, didn't we decide to remove Mission a while back (since these are usually too long for the infobox? Do we really need Vision (which goes along with a mission statement) and Object (another term for mission)? I don't know if these are used in any article. And, aren't Slogan, Maxim, and Tagline the same thing, meaning we could have just one? Rublamb (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, charterdate and chartercity are used in *one* infobox, Kappa Alpha Psi, which also uses Founded/Birthdate, I *very* much support removing that pair.
Vision looks to be about half a dozen (limiting my search to those using template:infobox fraternity (rather than a redirect) and fraternity), I'm OK with removing those (or moving to free_label)
Object, I haven' found *any*.
Patron X, I've found 4 in total for all three types of patrons, but there is at least one that I seem to remember that isn't there. Easiest way to test these is to remove them from the list of good parameters and see how many get kicked out (I can look at that in the category of what uses the infobox with bad parameters:(Naraht (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I have removed charter date/charter city from Kappa Alpha Psi, so that is ready to remove. Note that it also uses Object with the response "Cane". I will do some research to see what that means; if important I will move it to a free label. Rublamb (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed the Object field in Kappa Alpha Psi. I am not showing any using the Vision field with petscan; of course, no Object field either. If you can let me know which articles have a Vision, I will fix them too.
Are you proposing to just have one field for patron god or saint? Rublamb (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. Yes, one field for patron (explained with an editing note) will suffice for those three current fields. I support the deletion of Charter city and Charter date. I also don't see a need for Coordinates. Last, because these were formerly more notable, I'd keep the separate, optional field for pledge pin, but don't really see a need to keep the two fields, Colony badge and Colony pledge pin. These may be best relegated to deep historical analysis outside of these summary articles. I don't know that even pin collectors bother with these. Jax MN (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the colony badges simply because the odds are against us ever finding images for both. I could see coordinates being used for those single-chapter secret society types, but am fine without it. Rublamb (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Rublamb how are you counting the uses of each parameter using petscan? I'm still hesitant on the patron combination until I see the numbers. Feels like at some point someone working on the Kappa Alpha Psi web page expanded the list of parameters. And *yes* canes are very important to Kappa Alpha Psi brothers.Naraht (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Object was added by a User:2 since banned as a sockpuppet in 2010.
I know "kanes" are important→—I just relocated that content to the Symbols which was being used to describe the badge. (I also did a refresh on article and added some needed sources). I was hoping that petscan would work since I used it successfully to find articles without short descriptions, following your example with the infobox date field. I am guessing it does not work unless the content is in question is in {{}}, so nevermind in that is the case. But when it works, you get can get a list of anything with the Infobox fraternity that has or desont have content in a given field, which is the exactly what we need here (a canned report to check content in given fields). Anyay, if you can can figue out how to capture the needed data, I am willing to go through ahd review/move the content. Rublamb (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with non-matching name

Just curious, who took a crack at reducing this one. I remember there were almost 30 in there before including a lot I wasn't sure should be changed.Naraht (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I worked on that. At least one article was moved to a new name. Rublamb (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
RublambDuring what time period, I'd like to look through them, and not sure where to look in your contributions.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Found at about 07:00 on the 14th will look when I have a chance.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Did you have time to look at this? Are there any to talk about? The ones I left have issues: one is a mass up of the term and a group that needs to be split into two articles. Rublamb (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Rublamb I didn't, I'll try tuesday or wednesday.Naraht (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

German umbrella org

Just found a stub about a German fraternal umbrella association: Wingolf. I added it to the watchlist and added the WP to its talkpage. Rublamb (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Alpha Tau Sigma

One chapter, active from 1912 to 1964. Does Baird's plus mentions in the Museum of Osteopathic Medicine enough to show notability?Naraht (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

A local requires a longer tenure and other points to meet our notability rules (as discussed). In this case, I support it. Jax MN (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Barely, but should be enough. Rublamb (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

quality of GLO homepage

For the Homepage for the GLO in an infobox, is it better to leave a page that points to a single chapter or to empty (comment out) the value to show that it should be replaced?Naraht (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Looking specifically at Phi Alpha Epsilon.Naraht (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I would say blank. If it were a stand-alone website for the chapter, rather than a university website, I might feel differently given the small number of chapters. Rublamb (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
thanx.Naraht (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Leland's Annual: The Fraternity-sorority Directory

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

Local chapter misconduct sections.

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

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

Thanks for the Infobox project

Thanks for all the work going into the infobox project. I have aleady started working on the needed updates. This is a perfect break from working on a long chapter list or article creation. I have not yet added the links to the WP main page; I want to review other WP pages to find layout for this. If anyone finds a layout they like on another WikiProject page, let me know.

Clearly, this project is uncovering other issues, but that is also really good. We now know we need to define what we want in the infoboxes and how to apply those terms--and document those decisions. And, as a reminder, I also want to add a link to Category:Fraternity and sorority stubs to the enhanced work list we create for the WP main page. Some of these are on articles that are no longer stubs. I am going to run through the list right now and complete a quick cleanup.

Besides infoboxes, there are a few other items to attempt. No rush on this. I just wanted to document my thoughts while I was thinking about it.

  • Articles without short descriptions. - tracked here
  • Redirects - these look like articles in our watch list, but could be articles in some cases.
  • Articles that are orphans (not linked to other articles). I doubt we have any of these, but I want to check, just in case. I may be able to find these using tools in WP: Orphanage. I will check.
  • This is the big one: articles with issue notices. These are usually posted above the infobox, but are sometimes in or above the reference section, at the top of a section, or within the text section of the article. There are a lot of these notices, and many variations are possible because of bot-added dates. The ones most commonly used for articles under our domain are {notability}, {Unreferenced}, {Refimprove}, {nofootnotes}, {original research}, {POV}, {One source}, {More footnotes needed}, {Primary sources}}, {more citations needed}, {More footnotes needed}, {cleanup}, {Multiple issues}, {COI editnotice}, and {copy edit}. These should be within the text only: {Unreferenced section} and {Citation needed}.

Rublamb (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly using Infobox Fraternity (for most) allows a lot of searches to be done for the infobox and for the text of the article issue notice, so sticking in
"This article needs additional citations for" insource:/nfobox Fraternity/
into an infobox will get *most* of the articles in the project with {more citations needed} Naraht (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Naraht: I used petscan to find articles missing short descriptions and can see how it will work for the various notices. I feel sure there is a way to use it to find articles in our WP that don't have an infobox, but have not yet figured out the right place to put the search criteria. Rublamb (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Chapter List merger, micro vs. macro.

For the Theta Upsilon Omega chapter list, there are eleven chapters marked Merged (ΣΦΕ) , and while that is true, seven of the chapters moved from Theta Upsilon Omega to Sigma Phi Epsilon and became new chapters of Sigma Phi Epsilon, and four of them merged with the Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters on campus. (https://archive.org/details/ourjourneyofbrot0000eske/page/48/mode/2up?q=%22theta+upsilon+omega%22) There is a third possibility, (that I think I saw on either AEPi or ZBT) where a merger led to one of the chapters from the group merging in restored an inactive chapter of the merged into group. Is this worth noting in the Status for the group merging in?Naraht (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I usually explain this as an EFN, with the table sometimes reflecting the eventual successor for that chapter. It seems this information is both interesting and germane, but also the explanation is too long for an infoxbox field. Jax MN (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the EFN suggestion. At some point, I would like the EFN to say what chapter it became of the successor, not just the successor's name. That would make it much easier for someone to track this type of complex history. Rublamb (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Homepages for merged groups.

For Zeta Beta Tau, they have a page for each group that merged into ZBT for example, https://zbt.org/about-zbt/our-antecedent-groups/kappa-nu/ Should this be Kappa Nu's homepage in their infobox? (there are a *few* other places I've seen similar) Naraht (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of a later researcher, it would be helpful to offer separate pages for dormant, but merged groups. --Just as we offer them for fully dormant groups. Dunno if much else is needed, as the first incidence of Kappa Nu would reasonably include a Wikilink. ZBT's predecessor groups are really the best example here. Beta Kappa going into Theta Chi is another. Jax MN (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I would not include this webpage or the successor group's website as the Infobox website. I assume this webpage would be a source for the article, so it would already be included. In addition, there would be a link to the successor's Wikpedia article that would have the website link. Sometimes, I have seen the successor group's website listed in External Links. But on a practical note, one thing I like about inactive org articles is that we don't have to worry about updating their infoboxes. Adding that webpage link just give us something else to monitor. Rublamb (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Four year groups *sponsoring* two year groups

In addition to the Alpha Psi Omega /Delta Psi Omega relationship, it looks like Alpha Phi Gamma sponsored a Journalism honorary at two year colleges called Beta Phi Gamma. Naraht (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If memory serves, Psi Chi sponsors Psi Beta, for two-year schools. The English honorary may do likewise. Jax MN (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, went through a few and found that we do have a category at Category:Two-year college honor societies, In the short term, I think I'll added enough about Beta Phi Gamma in a section and then create a redirect with possibilities and add it to the cat. Not all of the groups in the cat have a relationship with a four year group, but I think that's the place to start. (And yes, the two year english honorary Sigma Kappa Delta does have a relationship with Sigma Tau Delta.Naraht (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Some of the honor societies have college/high school divisions. Some even have middle school (junior) divisions. Most I came across are a subdivision of a professional associations, rather than stand-alone organizations. Some are already included in the Honor society list. However, I suspect the only source is going to be the professional organization's website. Rublamb (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Merged definition

To me, having a status of merged has a fairly high bar. (Assuming not one of the few merger of equals to new name) It is a corporate merger, to the point where if Alpha Beta Beta merged into Delta Epsilon Zeta, Delta Epsilon Zeta controls the trademarks of Alpha Beta Beta. Merged into various seems wierd to me, Either it is defunct, and one particular group just picked up a majority of the chapters or it is a merger and a few chapters were released as part of the merger. Often a telling clue is whether alumni of Alpha Beta Beta (especially from inactive chapters can become members of Delta Epsilon Zeta based on the merger agreemen.Naraht (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

When discussing the Status of the entire GLO in the infobox: If the various chapters "scatter" or join a number of organizations, I agree that this would be more correctly be described as defunct. To me, a merger means the entire GLO joined another and changed its name to that of another group or to a new name for both. I don't think we need to define this at the high standard of trademark status; there is also a cultural merger and/or the merger/transfer of assets and debts. Note that some of these mergers took place before trademarks for such things existed or were common. If the source says there was a merger or that one group joined another, that is good enough for me.
When discussing Status in a chapter table: When an individual chapter left a GLO, I used to use "Inactive" with an efn. Lately, we have been using "Merged (MMM)" for both individual chapters and organizational mergers. However, since there is almost always a gap between leaving one group and joining another, I suspect this use of merger is not totally accurate. Techninically, the individual chapter usually became a local that later merges because of poaching rules. I would prefer to use "Withdrew" over "Merged (MMM)" but that is currently defined as leaving the fraternity at the time of a national merger. I like "Withdrew" better than "Inactive" because it is more accurate and implies that the former chapter continued, rather than closing or being suspended. Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Displaying status?

Did we decided that status was going to be a displayed field?Naraht (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

IDK but it seems yes. At least, I hope so because I have been actively adding this to Infoboxes. Rublamb (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Too Many Dates...

I give you Albion chapter of Delta Sigma Rho (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzDwOOLLApYC&pg=RA3-PA40&lpg=RA3-PA40&dq=%22gavel+of+delta+sigma+rho%22+isc&source=bl&ots=dhAWVqOFiq&sig=ACfU3U37qZgbVqWC_gUWzy4rLQ85BJXNDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5gZHw-syGAxVRL1kFHRFRCsIQ6AF6BAgZEAM#v=onepage&q=Complete%20Records%20of%20Albion%20College%20Chapter&f=false)

Dates listed include

  • date charter applied for
  • date charter granted
  • date chapter installed
  • date ritual and secret matter acknowledge received
  • date charter for chapter was ordered
  • date charter was ordered engrossed
  • date charter delivered to and acknowledge received by chapter...

Note, DSR is sort of like Alpha Phi Omega Philippines, the key dates kept track of are the date the charter is approved by the national board, *not* the date that the first rituals occur on campus. Naraht (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone put those details into a book, eh? Wow. So useless, so uninteresting. Were they facing a lack of more helpful content, when discussing that chapter? Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Theta Delta Kappa

I've been working my way through the groups marked as needing websites, and ran into Theta Delta Kappa. I know that we've contributed to it, but looking at it, I simply don't see how it meets notability. Other than the school website and the fraternity website (gone, but irrelevent) and the one mention of the vandalism incident, that's it for references. I know we do have articles for organizations that exist at one school (secret societies at various old eastern schools like Virginia), but this doesn't even come close. It was founded in 1992. Let me know if you are OK with me putting it up for deletion. I've struck out on trying to find references. Naraht (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll put this up for deletion when the Delta Pi Delta is done.Naraht (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
With a 30-year history, I don't have a problem keeping this one. I'm sure there are some references, in media or the campus website. Jax MN (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Good Luck. Simply being one of X number of local fraternities 30 years old in a school that doesn't allow nationals doesn't cut if for me. See https://www.leeuniversity.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012-2013-Academic-Catalog.pdf as an example of how all local.Naraht (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit and looked for sources. Other than two non-scandles that made the local newspaper, there is not secondary coverage. Unfortunately, those articles do not describe the group and its histoy. The college's website which essentially lists the name of the group and does not give more info. Much of the article lacks sources. I removed one source that did not back up its content. There is enough for it to go in the article that lists GLO but not enough for a stand alone article. I say go ahead with the AfD. Rublamb (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Done.Naraht (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Omega Delta Sigma

can someone take a look at the recent changes here, I'm tempted to completely revert, clearly a COI, but I'm not sure.Naraht (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that the edits to the infobox are not to WP or Wikipedia standards: the new name of the infobox does not match the name of the article, the links to city and state were removed, scope was changed from National to United States, United States of American was use which, etc. The exception is maybe the website address. In terms of changes to the text: some are to sections that lacked source before, so that is not such a big deal to me. Although, it does need to be addressed overall. I cannot figure out the changes chapter table. Did they add chapters and also remove chapters? Honestly, I don't know if it is easier to revert and restore the good content OR to keep the edit and correct the problems. If the website is the only "good" addition, I would support reverting as it introduces MOS issues. Rublamb (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I have restore the correct format to the infobox. Rublamb (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles without citations

Articles without references is another item for our cleanup project. I just fixed Chi Alpha Omega, but wonder if more are out there. Rublamb (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

DVS Senior Honor Society has three references, but none are properly inline.Naraht (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I am currently working on a list of 37 that I generated in PetScan. It includes those that just did not get a {Reflist} template and have sources, but also includes DVS Senior Honor Society and those that lack any sources. The latter will be a list that we will discuss for AfD. Rublamb (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Corps Rhenania Tübingen is also zero. I'm adding reflist template as well.Naraht (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are the remaining ones with no sources. We need to either find sources or nominate for AfD. Rublamb (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

References exist, though in German at the German page. I've put in an expanded German template (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The only sources I can find are chapter websites. The majority of its content is not sourced. Do we AfD or just add a primary sources notice?
References exist, though boring and I *really* hope we don't do chapter lists for the HS Honor societies.Naraht (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It has 14,611 chapters... Rublamb (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor has now added sources. Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Phi Sigma Iota has boring references, mostly just school pages and announcements. Probably enough though.Naraht (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Another editor added those after I added the unsourced notice. I added Baird's and other sources; and also fixed its plagiarism issues. Rublamb (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Only source is for a notable member. This is a local high school group. AfD is probably the best option. Rublamb (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Christian fraternities

The article Christian fraternities appears to be about collegiate fraternities, but does not state this. Also, its list of organizations includes many without Wikipedia articles or sources. Do we want to make a big purge of the non-notable groups? Also, do we really need two articles: Christian fraternities and Christian sororities? We have not divided other subsections of Greek life into two articles, based on gender. Rublamb (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't state it clearly, but that was the feeling that I got from the first sentence. Agree on nuking the text on the ones with no info. Alpha Nu Omega (F&S) probably should have a well researched article. I have actually heard of it. As for the merge, let's see what's left after cleanup, as of right now, the size seems to support the split.Naraht (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Handling suffixes.

Moved to Template talk:Infobox fraternity

Primefac (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Level or Environment Parameter???

Moved to Template:Infobox fraternity

Primefac (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Short Histories of Sororities.

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

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)

Syntax

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

@User:Jax MN, @User:Naraht, and @Primefac: Either everyone missed this or no one want to dig into this mess. Rublamb (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Just haven't had time. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Had another thought. General Fraternities might be Community or Community-based instead Rublamb (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm good with non-collegiate. There may be some overlap, groups like Alpha Phi Alpha still view on the collegate campus as a model. I think the closest to true confusion collegiate vs. community is probably Commons Clubs. Note, the Philippines is a *completely* different discussion here.Naraht (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I've wrestled with this too. Some time ago I settled on use of "Social" and "Academic", using them interchangeably, to describe the traditional undergraduate fraternities and sororities that do not self-select into a tighter segment, such as (Mono) Cultural or Multicultural types. For me, these terms supplant (replace) use of the modifier "General", which had (with "Social") been common in various Baird's editions, a word (General) which has evolved to take a broader role in describing groups like the Masons, Odd Fellows, and many others. Conversely, the Cultural fraternities can indeed claim the modifiers "Academic", "Social" or "Non-collegiate", depending on their identities, but they may also be more carefully and tightly defined by other adjectives: "Multicultural" is the most prevalent; "Latino" is even tighter.
I think we all have a clear idea of when to use "Professional", "Service" and "Honor", though some Social groups slip in the term Service into their bios and their infoboxes because their operational model is on the fence. Baird's editors would have had them pick one or the other. Some years ago, "Recognition" societies, as a class, were apparently adopted into the broader grouping of Honor societies; here on Wikipedia we don't appear to distinguish between them. There are a variety of levels of operational vigor among the honor and former recognition societies, today.
Finally, getting back to the term "Academic", it is a somewhat newer adjective in the present context, I think as a response to the growth of non-collegiate GLOs that describe either community service or military focus. On page I-9 of the 20th ed. of Baird's Manual, an essay by Kent Christopher Owen dated 1991 describes much of this as I have stated, and further notes that "General fraternities are commonly called "social" fraternities, but while the initial use of the term social referred to social development, the term has been mistakenly thought to refer to social functions by members and non-members alike. Actually, the intent was to suggest that a student needed to be "socialized," that is, directed with a proper consideration of one's future responsibilities in society." Owen went on to state (in 1991) that "Fraternity leaders prefer the term general fraternity when referring to organizations that offer membership to students from all academic backgrounds", and are often single-sex. Importantly, in the three decades since this was written, I think that use of the term "General" has evolved and that "Academic" serves its former purpose for GLOs, which may sometimes be replaced by "Social" at the writers option to avoid repetitive prose. Jax MN (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes I write these long paragraphs. Sorry 'bout that. I don't mean to be tedious. Jax MN (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jax MN: If traditional "social" fraternities are to be called "general", what is the correct name for the non-collegiate article? We are not limited to Baird's here, but can also go with what will make sense to the average person. To me, it is confusing to call the Masons and Alpha Phi Omega the same kind of group; that is, general. The two might have common things (ritual, service and friendship), but the huge difference is community vs. collegiate. Also, I don't think general and academic are the same thing. Aren't there a few groups that are not honor societies or professional societies but are based on an academic field? Rublamb (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You may have missed something because of my too-lengthy response. I said I think we ought to use Social or Academic, interchangeably, rather than General. General may reasonably be used for the non-collegiate groups, as so many of these have arisen over the past few decades. Jax MN (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
OK. So this means we need to update the watch page, right? Rublamb (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Type for European Groups

The missing Type cat showed us that the European Groups have been left deliberately empty. Do we use Studentenverbindung for these?Naraht (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You might check on what they do for other language Wikis. Here on the English Wiki we could simply create a new type for European or Asian-based. Jax MN (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Looked at a couple that are German, they are described as Studentenverbindung, but even the ones from farther east, which end up at pages that translate as student corporation, end up at Studentenverbindung as the German equivalent which we have an article for in English, so unless there are objections, I'm going to put that on the groups from that tradition.Naraht (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Done.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The German article gives the impression that „Studentenverbindungen/ Studentenkorporationen/ Student associations“ are a special form of a student society at German universities. In fact, this is a possible – but narrow – understanding of the term. The Staatslexikon and the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit do not provide a clear definition of the term. Although both initially see the term as a synonym for versatile student societies, which would therefore also include forms of student associations in other countries (such as student nations in Sweden or fraternitis in North America), they then narrow it down to the German phenomenon and cite the customs and traditions common to german student associations today (separation of members into Füchse, Burschen und Philister; Kneipen; Wichs) as common characteristics. It would perhaps be useful to set out the narrower and broader definition of the term „student association“ in the article. Instead of „Studentverbindung“, the article should perhaps be renamed „German Student association“, as the English version of the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit does. The term fraternity is a rather unfortunate choice. --Teutschmann (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Teutschmann
This may be a moot point, as the English Wikipedia need only have the basic structure. The German Wikipedia may be the best place to include more detail on how these are categorized. However Teutschmann, if you have a more accurate, generic terms for ALL of these German student groups, better than Studentenverbindung, then let us know. In our Watchlist we aim to list the student groups that are most like US fraternities. We argue about where to draw the line. Jax MN (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The German term „Studentenverbindung“ or „Studentenkorporation“ corresponds to the term „[German] Student association“ (German not in the sence of the State Germany). What a (German) student association is and what it is not, is clearly defined. Only student associations have the institution of the Kneipe. I would also like to point out that the authors of the article on student fraternities are wrong in almost every statement in the article. And I'm not joking, it's downright bizarre to read through. If I started correcting here, I'd be immediately banned for alleged vandalism.  Hardly any statement in the article is correct. Teutschmann (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Teutschmann: If you are referring to Studentenverbindung, much of that article is unsourced. An update with sources would be appreciated, not challenged, especially from someone who has a better understanding of these groups. Rublamb (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Information field - defunct

As an additional field that won't necessarily display, I'd like to add a defunct parameter to the infobox. We could at *minimum* use this to make sure that some group that merged in more than 100 years ago doesn't complain about not having a website. (Defunct will include merged)Naraht (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It should display. I'm actually surprised we don't have a parameter for the closing/defunct/whatever-you-want-to-call-it date. If that does get added in, though, we can easily use it to trigger other things (though it is possible that defunct orgs, even those from 100 years ago, could theoretically have a website). Primefac (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
There are several fields in the Infobox Organization that we could copy, including Predecessor, Merged, Successor, Dissolved, and Status. Also, we should add an Affiliation field, rather than having to add it as a free field. Another area to review is the Chapters field. We could expand this to provide the option of Active Chapters, Dormant Chapters, Alumni Chapters, and Graduate Chapters. These could stand alone or populate the Chapters field, the way Lifetime goes into the Members field. That would let us added chapter options without having to immediately address the many variations of data currently in the Chapter field. Rublamb (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Primefac I missed the proposal to display. I'm neutral to positive on that idea.Naraht (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal -> Status

Status parameter.

  1. 3 values. D for Defunct. M for Merged. A for Active. Also accepting the full word.
  2. If Status = Merged and Merged_with field has a value, display. (Could be Multiple).
  3. Website/Homepage displays regardless, but only "complains" if Status = "A".
  4. Remove Former from text in affiliation (other?), add programatically if D or M.

I figure that even with all of the organizations we have, filling in that would take us together a few days. Naraht (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer the full words spelled out, rather than D, M or A. It's more clear, for casual researchers. This will be a helpful addition to the infoboxes. Jax MN (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Fine on the full words requirement. Setting up a maint category if the value is anything else is fine.Naraht (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Coding-wise it's not that much more onerous to have extra values (since we'd likely be using a #switch statement anyway) but I'm happy to work with whatever gets decided. I do suppose if there are other triggers then simpler would be better. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Primefac I think we are go on this. I figure create the parameter, add it to the infoboxes, use it to limit the no website category and then see what else we can use it for. The Defunct and Merged should correspond with the entries in Category:Defunct fraternities and sororities and their subcategories, but I'm not sure that is something worth putting into stone.Naraht (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, given that some GLOs sort of fall apart and have chapters brought in, I'm going with the following distinction between merged and defunct based on the Delta Sigma Epsilon merger into Delta Zeta. If all (or most) alumni members of organization A are offered membership into organization B then it is a Merger, otherwise it isn't. (I'm not saying all because if Organization B has a chapter at the same school as Organization A, often those chapters are released without the undergraduate members of Organization A being offered membership). Alumni members of the chapter of Organization A at that school can get tricky).Naraht (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Primefac Also, I'm pretty sure we should use status rather than Status as a parameter. Consistency on lower case.Naraht (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
What do you think about adding one more standard word for the status field? "Withdrew" to be followed by a specific year in parantheses. This is for now-local chapters at a few schools which were once affiliated with a national fraternity. Does the current rule set for this param allow for additional words? Jax MN (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Since Infobox refers to the organization (not chapters), it doesn't make sense to "withdrew" in the Infobox status field--a GLO cannot withdraw from itself. This term only makes sense for a chapter list. Rublamb (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Examples of this would be the Dartmouth locals that have Wikipedia articles, but which were once part of national fraternities, like Chi Gamma Epsilon. Jax MN (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
If the article is about a "new" local GLO, why wouldn't its status be Active? It did not withdraw from itself. A better solution would be to include a predecessor field. Rublamb (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
In the case of Chi Gamma Epsilon, they previously had listed their founding as a Kappa Sig chapter, 120 years ago as their founding date. However, as they are/were schismatic, I switched that to note their new founding date as a local, and following Rublamb's suggestion I'd noted the Kappa Sig origin using free fields. I suppose this is best. Jax MN (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Scope

I'd like to define what should be used in each of the following situations.

  1. One chapter active - Many nationwide inactive
  2. Half a dozen chapters but spread from coast to coast
  3. 200 chapters - all in the USA
  4. 200 chapters - 197 in the USA, 3 in Canada
  5. 80 chapters - all in the Philippines.

Naraht (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

My responses assume our options are local, regional, and national.
  • 1. That one's complicated and gets into the legal status of the national organization. Has the last active chapter disaffiliated (either before or after the national group ceased operations) and is now operating as a local OR is the last chapter still considered part of the formerly national org (the national never ceased operations)? I have dealt with both situations in the past two weeks. In one instance, there is only one collegiate chapter left, but the alumni and governing board of the national still meet. This could be either Local or National (former), although the latter seems a better response. In the other, the national closed for good, but two rogue chapters continued to function in isolation, not even aware that the other existed. We could treat this as an inactive group, with a status of National. I think this is why fields that indicate active/dormant status and action/dormant chapter numbers is important. That way, scope can address the bigger picture, not the last breath of a group.
  • 2. National (US)
  • 3. National (US)
  • 4. International
  • 5. National (PH). I have decided this is the best way to describe this situation as this is English Wikipedia not Wikipedia US. Note that I have started including which country the group is national in within the field. However, this is an unneeded duplicate if the country field is also included.
  • 6. Adding another one to discuss. Active GLO has chapters cross the US but used to have 5 chapters in five other countries. All international chapters are now defunct. I tend to go with National here.
Rublamb (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
International is of course an option. :) I *think* the only National possibilities that I've seen are US, PH, & CA. Of course the question is whether the Puerto Rican Fraternties are Regional or National.
For Regional in the USA, In the 20th and 21st century, I tend to use Regional if the covering convex polygon is less than 1/3 of the country. Prior to the 20th century, I tend to use whether it had chapters in both the Northern and Southern States. So a fraternity with chapters in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and North Carolina would be Regional if it was 21st century and National if it was 1856.
For Regional in the Philippines. There are three major Island groups of the Philippines, Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao. Regional if multiple chapters and in only one Island Group, National if it has chapters in more than one of the three. (and yes, I've seen that definition used in other context in the Philippines, such as Basketball leagues)
Agree on #6 Naraht (talk)
Heck. We clearly need to define these terms and provide guidelines as User:Pancake621 suggested. Looks like we could also use the help of non-US editors.
My use of regional has been much tighter, based on what I found when I first joined the WP. My interpretation has been a group with several chapters in one state (usually California) or two or three chapters in two or three adjacent states. Maybe the former is better described as local which I have previously used to mean a single-location GLO? (I do have a hard time describing a two-chapter GLO with one chapter in LA and another in Sacramento as "local" given that this is the geographic equivalent of one chapter in Georgia and another in Pennsylvania. Fortunately, there are not many of those.) I am fine with Regional being used as you suggest as it relates the "normal" use of that word, as in North, South, Northeastern, Western, Southwest, Midwest, etc. of the United States. However, I will have some correcting to do as my ratings and those of others may not conform.
I treat Puerto Rico as a state (meaning local) but could be convinced to do otherwise by those more familiar with its 78 municipalities. I am against calling a GLO "international" because PR is in the mix for a US-based GLO. That is just wrong.
National could also apply to European groups. There are list articles for organizations in Germany and France, so those to countries are in the mix. When I come across them, I have attempted to correct articles that indicate groups limited to one country (Germany, France, PH, etc.) are international when they are, in fact, national, regional, or local.
Your knowledge of the Philippines from working on APO is significant and valuable here. In the rare case that I come across PH GLO articles, I have limited my selections to local (one chapter) or national (more than one chapter), but regional should be an option. Same with other countries. Thus, we need a few international editors, or at least, editors who are willing to do some research. Rublamb (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
For groups that fall under our Wikiproject, 99% of the organizations fall into a few categories.
  1. Founded in the USA/Canada and falls easily into one of the Baird's cats
  2. Founded in the Philippines
  3. Founded in Germany/Eastern Europe (areas that would have been considered Central Europe pre-WWII) based on that german model ( Studentenverbindung) Note this does *not* apply to the French group..
  4. Founded in Puerto Rico. I *think* some of these have spread to Florida.Naraht (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That sounds right. Rublamb (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Wow, you all have been busy. FWIW, I like to consider how a fraternity refers to itself, regarding whether it is "regional" or "national". Chi Tau was certainly regional, as most chapters were in North Carolina. A California-centric multicultural group, which spawns a chapter in Vegas would also be regional. If they suddenly open in SUNY-Buffalo, they'd probably refer to themselves as national. Nothing much else to add on this specific topic, and I concur with the general plan. Jax MN (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
About 10 minutes after reading this, I was working on the list of articles with stub notices and came across a group from the Netherlands and and group from Chile (but affiliated with Germany). Doesn't change what you wrote but was strangely funny. Rublamb (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Another option for US and Canada groups: North America

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_13&oldid=1231583376"