Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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.

Cleanup project (updated)

[edit]

The main list of infobox issues can be found at Category:Fraternity articles with infobox fraternity issues.

  1. missing image size - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing image size (88)
  2. missing |member badge= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing member badge (767)
  3. missing |chapters= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing chapters (38)
  4. missing |members= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing members (836)
  5. missing |website= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing website (149)
  6. missing crest or coat of arms - tracked at petscan
  7. Missing country
  8. Primary sources - tracked at petscan
  9. Has bibliography but lacks inline citations - tracked at petscan
  10. Needs color boxes (Helpful link, has colors, flags, and addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German, and Polish fraternities)

Rublamb (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add CleanupWorklistBot to our WP reporting? It produces a weekly report of all project articles tagged with various maintenance templates. Rublamb (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a helpful tool. Jax MN (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Naraht (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Diskussion:Studentenverbindung

[edit]

I've reached out to the Discussion group over on dewiki at de:Portal_Diskussion:Studentenverbindung#Request_knowledge_from_english_language_wiki_on_Studentenverbindung and got some really great answers to things. And as I said before, I'm thinking of creating an Template:Infobox_Studentenverbindung equivalent to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Infobox_Studentenverbindung if I can understand all the fields.Naraht (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After working on several Studentenverbindung articles recently, I found that what looked like an infobox for many was actually a code-generated table. All are now changed to "Infobox fraternity". I don't think we need a new infobox, but suggest adding "Zirkel" as a field option to Infobox fraternity. (Color for Couleur is a reasonable translation). Everything else works as is. We just need to create some instructions or at least answer these questions"
  1. Are we going to use color boxes or ribbon approximations?
  2. How do we determine the correct terms for emphasis; i.e. linking to the German word article for dueling, non-dueling, no couleurs, Catholic, and Christian? Or do we use the English translation?
  3. Do we use "Infobox fraternity" for individual fraternities and their umbrella groups? If so, what is the correct type for the umbrella group? The groups that used to have "Infobox organization" were called "trade association" under type. Umbrella group seems pretty informal.
Also, most articles use the foreign language version of the fraternity's name, rather than the English translation. Do we want a translation at the top in parenthesis or should we have a field/free field for the English translation? I struggle with which is correct here. Just consider, why are we using the German word Studentenverbindung instead of its translation? Is there a precedent in other parts of Wikipedia for continuing to use the foreign word instead of its translation? Rublamb (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup needed

[edit]

One of our main articles, Fraternities and sororities, has had a factual accuracy tag since March 2023. I just added a few sources, which is part of the issue. Since others have worked on this article in the past, you may have a better idea of what content is questionable. Rublamb (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a discussion on the articles Talkpage about moving this to Collegiate fraternities and sororities. Rublamb (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We just discovered History of North American fraternities and sororities which was off the radar because it lacked WikiProject tags. The two articles relate in many ways. I could see a merger of the two and/or splitting the history and cultural content into two articles. It would be a big project since these are both long articles. Rublamb (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness builder

[edit]

Editors with ties to some of the GLOs -- some of the bigger social fraternities and APO are examples -- brand their User pages with small banner tags noting membership. It might be a helpful long-term objective for the Project team to create these, one for each society in their colors, that they might be picked up by editors (typically, new editors) to drive Project participation. We could pin them to each Talk page, with instructions for use. Jax MN (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Collegiate sororities and fraternities Rublamb (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the userbox template list on our Watch List so that it is easier to see which groups already have a userbox template. (I still need to check our list against the one linked above). However, some existing userbox templates are basically unreadable because of a lack of contrasting colors.
If we are going to add these to all articles relating to the GLO, my suggestion is the horizontal template that nests under the WikiProjects, rather than the verticle box that floats to the right of the page. I don't recommend putting the userbox code in a TalkPage comment as that could be auto-archived. Does anyone need to see examples of the two formats before commenting? I am willing to work on inserting the templates if there is agreement on style. Does anyone volunteer for template cleanup duty? Rublamb (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming articles for Latvian, Estonia, Russian, and German groups

[edit]

We need to get a handle on naming conventions for student associations and corporations articles. We seem to have a mix of full foreign-language names, the Korp! nickname, the nickname without Korp!, and English translations. When working in this area yesterday, I found little consistency with Latvian and Estonian group names--the English Wikipedia article's names typically do not match the German Wikipedia name, sometimes using the formal name when that is not in use in German Wikipedia or the group's website. Also, the English translations may or may not be correct. This can eventually be fixed with redirects, but I am struggling to figure out the best common name format so we can be consistent across all articles. Refer to List of student corporations in Latvia and List of fraternities and sororities in Estonia for examples of the article name variations. (Note that I have linked to German Wikipedia if I could not find an article in the English version). Rublamb (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As these are (or ought to be) treated more comprehensively in their native language Wikis, I think we should include a link to the original language article and use a consistent naming structure, probably the 'full' name, not nickname. As long as these are treated consistently within the English language Wikipedia, I would be amenable to whatever of the options you list that you determine works best. Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, using the full name is like naming an article "The Grand International Sisterhood of Moo Moo Moo, Incorporated", rather than "Moo Moo Moo" or "GIS Moo Moo Moo". (The later being what many of these corporations use on their websites, with "GIS" being common identifier for groups of that type). Since we already follow Wikipedia's naming guidelines and use the common name with US GLOs, I am pretty sure the article's title should be a shortened. It would be helpful to have a member of one of these groups or someone who speaks the language help us naviage what are and are not essential parts of the full name. For example, using "Korp!" may be akin to saying "Chi Psi Fratenity", with Korp translating as the unnecessary word "fraternity". Rublamb (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an exmaple I just found from a Swiss organization. Its full name is Katholische Deutsche Studentenverbindung Teutonia Freiburg i. Uechtland That roughly translates as "Catholic German Student Association Teutonia Freiburg i. Uechtland". All groups of this ilk (Catholic German Student Associations) use the abbreviation KDStV before the rest of their name, which is usually the city where the group is located. So, this organization's common name and the name used on its website is KDStV Teutonia. The name is not the city in this case because there is another group with the Freiburg name. Its English Wikipedia article is named K.D.St.V. Teutonia, with periods in the KDStV abbreviation. That appears to be non-standard.
With this example in mind, would you 1) use the full German name, 2) the translated name, 3) the German name with the prefix. I think we can assume that 4) number 3 with periods is clearly wrong.
In addition, would the related article by called Katholische Deutsche Studentenverbindung or Catholic German Student Associations? Rublamb (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Society Museum

[edit]

www.honormuseum.org might be useful. With https://honorsocietymuseum.org/all/ being a list of those groups with a specific page about them. Right now we have *one* article that uses information from there: Rho Kappa.Naraht (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, someone replaced some of the dead links to ACHS member pages with links to this website. However, I don't know if it is connected to ACHS. Rublamb (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I *really* don't think it is, diving into it leads to https://www.honorsociety.org/ , which I get really bad vibes from. "Honor society for all" which looking at the site means less than nothing. I was always looking into an honor society because it gave a good dental plan.Naraht (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same read on honorsociety.org. It seems like a for-profit website, possibly getting paid for click-throughs to honor society websites. It would be helpful if the "museum" were a reliable source because many of the societies formed in the late 20th and 21st centuries need more sources since they were never in Bairds. Is this a reliable source? Where do we think their content is coming from? Rublamb (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found this disclaimer: "HonorSociety.org Inc., Honor Society Foundation Inc., and its president Michael Moradian were sued in federal court by PTK on April 20, 2022 for False Designation of Origin, Trade Dress Infringement, and Unfair Competition. Honor Society and Michael Moradian countersued and are presently defendants/counter-plaintiffs in this litigation. Litigation is still ongoing and all claims made regarding this case are just allegations against the parties". Rublamb (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list: notability or no ref tags

[edit]
Delete: I added two sources but can't find significant coverage. Content has sources now, but mostly from its website. It is now included in both the African American and LGBTQ list articles, with a source. Rublamb (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even sig coverage by the university
Delete: can't find secondary sources Rublamb (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Greek umbrella organizations
Delete: no off-campus sources, founded in 2007 so no history to look for
Move: the law firm does not meet notability for an organization. However, there are enough sources for an article on the Anti-Hazing Hotline. So, one option is to move the article and subject, with a redirect for the law firm which manages the hotline. Or, we can go with a new article on the hotline. The newsletter, the original focus of the article, is not significant.
Delete: I found some articles in the campus newspaper but no significant coverage elsewhere. It is now included in List of social sororities and women's fraternities Rublamb (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete?: I added some sources and expanded/updated the chapter list. However, all of the sources I found are clearly from press releases. There is almost zero presence of this group on its host colleges' websites; I even found one that lists this as a non-recognized organization. A Reddit discussion notes that the group has used a copy of UNC's letterhead without any affiliation. Now that I have expanded the chapter list, I hate to say this--but it does not really meet notability. I suggest including it in the Honor society article but going for an AfD unless one good source shows up. Rublamb (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into College of William & Mary secret societies; I've searched the state library, the VA newspaper database, and the usual places and can't find off-campus sources. The logo and some info seem to be pulled from its Facebook page. Rublamb (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://gpa.eastview.com/crl/elmundo/?a=d&d=mndo19571224-01.1.8&srpos=1&e=------195-en-25--1--img-txIN-%22Zeta+Phi+Beta%22----1957----- this article from 1957 from El Mundo mentions it was founded

Redirects

[edit]

I have not found all of the redirects that lack a WP tag, but I have found many redirects that should be deleted. These are spelling or capitalization mistakes, unhelpful article title phrasing, etc. I know this is not a priority project but I am sharing here so that we will not forget the need. Rublamb (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of potential redirects for Discussion

[edit]

So far *just* those containing Alpha, from either a title search with / alpha/ or looking at the section starting with Alpha in Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations (and the one to *possibly* keep due to being a short name)

Fair use images

[edit]

There has been some push back on photos of badges that were added as fair use images. I don't know how far this will go but I have added WP Fraternities and Sororities to the talkpage of all crests, coat of arms, flags, badges, and pledge badge images that I have found to ensure that we will know of proposed deletions. Moving forward, please create the talkpage with WP for fair use images so that we will be alerted of proposed deletions. Rublamb (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm not sure it is policy or not, but I work under the following rule. For a specialty GLO, especially one that is in a graduate school like Law or Medicine, I link to the specific graduate school if there is a page, so for a GLO for law schools, if University of Guam School of Law exists, then that is the link rather than University of Guam and I don't even pipe link to make it show as University of Guam. Feelings? Naraht (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the other question is if the GLO died in 1950 and the University of Guam School of Law was renamed as John Filbert school of Law in 2002 whether to pipe trick it to say University of Guam School of Law or not.Naraht (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree. However, if I am creating a table for a preexisting list that is already set up with the main college's name, I don't always update the institution name because you never know for sure without going back to the original source. I just worked on a list for a group that was a weird hybrid of medical schools and regular colleges; the GLO's own list included many regular college names because it served both medical and pre-medical students at one time. I looked at the date of formation of some of the professional schools and found that some were established after the charter date of the chapter. There was no source to confirm that the chapter moved locations or ever existed during the era of the professional school. In that instance, it seemed best to go with the source and list the main college name. In other words, follow the source when possible.
School name changes can really be an issue, especially with defunct chapters and groups. Many of the older professional school names do not have redirects. If the chapter list is long and many redirects are needed, I don't always take the time to create the redirects. Previously, we have discussed using the school name at the time of closure of the chapter or at the time of its formation, but not updating to the modern/current institutional name. This means we would not update the Guam name and, technically, should add a redirect. I freely admit to be lazy about redirects for college divisions; I tend to focus on main institutional name changes. Rublamb (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I prefer that the school name is linked to the subordinate graduate school article, if there is one. Readers can always click to read about the main school, from there. Once a subordinate school page is written it is unlikely to be rolled back, and merged. Jax MN (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the link should be made through a redirect so that our articles can have the historically correct name. In this instance, many of the chapters predated (and went defunct) decades before the current graduate schools were named or established. In some cases, half a century or more. Furthermore, just because the fraternity says it had a chapter at General State University does not mean that we can infer that the chapter was actually located at General State Medical College which was established in another city decades later. Some of these early professional fraternities were not just for graduate students but were open to anyone interested in the field, including undergraduates. I have come across two of these medical GLOs in the past two weeks; one which still has undergraduate and graduate chapters (and not always chapters for both levels at the same university). If the organization says the chapter was at General State University, I think it is a major jump to change that name and link to General State Medical College without a source or further investigation. Rublamb (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the chapter list, the current school name should be preferred. Where a chapter was first established when that school had an earlier name (Duke, Samford, Trine...), where it isn't obvious, I've often added the other school name in parentheses. Now, for FOUNDING schools, this implies a more likely interest in the historical context, not just "Is this fraternity at my school?" type of inquiries. Therefore, in the lede, historical summary and infobox, both names could be denoted. I guess I'd judge each case separately, based on how obvious the shift was. Jax MN (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is possibly a difference between a current/active organization and a defunct organization. For the latter, my caution is that the current professional college may not be at the same location and may have no connection to a former chapter. For example, Duke and Wake Forest both moved their entire campus. SUNY formed a medical college in a different city. If a chapter was short-lived, a newly named or newly established graduate school and its location may be incorrect. Thus, it would be inaccurate to link to a modern medical school.
Here's a random example that I came across the other day. An early women's honor society had a chapter at Newcomb College. Recently, Newcomb merged with Tulane. Would we skip a link to the article H. Sophie Newcomb Memorial College and replace the chapter list with Tulane? If the chapter is active, I would use Tulane with an efn about Newcomb. If the chapter went dormant while Newcomb was still operating, I would use Newcomb and would either follow your example of (now Tulane) or include that info in an efn. Obviously, it would be historically inaccurate to say that an all-male college had a women's society. Rublamb (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: Should have said, I am pretty sure I know the article you are thinking about. I was lazy and did not fix the data when moving it to a table. No offense will be taken if you make corrections or add pipe links. Around the same time, I had worked on another article where chapters were at both medical and regular colleges (for pre-med students)——so I was hyper-aware of the need to use caution and not make assumptions. Rublamb (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now, I can't remember which one I was talking about :(, I'm pretty sure it was Med schools or Dental schools given I used law schools in the example...Naraht (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a medical frat. I can't remember either but will track it down. LOL. Rublamb (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was List of Alpha Omega Alpha chapters. Cheers. Rublamb (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I have started a new page Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Library for GLO references, now linked through a tab on the WP mainpage. If you have some favorities, please add to the list. Rublamb (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive essay

[edit]

The essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Notability is noted as dormant because the discussion about it ended before it was approve. Do we want to revisit it? Rublamb (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on that article's talk page. Thanks, Rublamb, for the extensive organizational work you have done on the project's pages. Jax MN (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the NFRAT article focuses on Greek Letter Organizations (or closely related like FarmHouse) based at colleges. The recent expansion of the WikiProject to include groups in Eastern Europe, in Africa or were never college related (Loyal Order of the Moose, etc.) means that we almost need to start from Scratch (and based on that, it may make sense to move groups like Loyal Order of the Moose to a different Wikiproject.Naraht (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, the essay does not set limitations on the type of fraternal organization or a requirement to have a Greek letter name or a collegiate connection. The article is inclusive of "fraternities, sororities, and other Greek letter organizations" and "college Secret societies and student clubs". General and community-based fraternal organizations are covered by the terms "fraternity" and "sorority". The recent WP expansions that are not specifically mentioned (and should be) are honor and literary societies. Defining notability and the scope of the WP are two different topics that should be covered in two different essays/pages. Rublamb (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht brings up a reasonable point where other editors may inquire as to scope.
To summarize for readers, here are the cut-off points which logically could make sense for us.
1. Every notable group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, FarmHouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies, AND those in the Masonic family. This includes community-based fraternities, and non-collegiate military fraternities. We could aim to identify these globally.
2. North American only: Every notable group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, Farmhouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies, AND those in the Masonic family. This includes community-based fraternities, and non-collegiate military fraternities. BUT limited to North America.
3. N.A. and collegiate only: Every notable collegiate or once-collegiate group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, Farmhouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies. DISCLUDING those in the Masonic family. DISCLUDING community-based fraternities, and DISCLUDING non-collegiate military fraternities. Limited to North America.
There is a dormant project for Collegiate secret societies in North America, and a vigorous List of Masonic Grand Lodges (start there, many sublinks. We've only scratched the surface of these). But to my knowledge, there ISN'T a project for literary societies. We've picked up the collegiate ones, but there are examples of non-collegiate literary societies that have existed in the US since 1849 which we've not picked up. Nor is there a project or list of ancillary organizations to the Masonic fraternity: We (Freemasons) call them either Appendant Bodies or Subordinate Bodies. There are many, many hundreds: These include the Shrine, the Scottish Rite (which in some countries is a de facto grand lodge), and stretching further, non-Masonic groups like the Odd Fellows or Woodmen of the World. There is no home for military fraternities, besides us. Nor for community-based groups like those in Indiana (Tri Kappa) or the various new LGBTQ groups, mostly non-collegiate. We started with the Puerto Rican and Philippine collegiate fraternities, added fencing fraternities in Europe, then the gang-like Nigerian confraternities. We are looking for consensus on where our project draws the line of inclusion.
Which path do we take? We could blaze a trail to be trackers of ALL fraternal activity globally, tracking every group in option #1 above. This appears to be our current heading. In this, we'd aim to create the definitive list. Not voting yet, but I personally like the clarity this provides, so that groups choosing a name don't tread on others with the same name. Or, Naraht may be right, that a split is necessary; maybe the Masonic project needs a push to create a list of their subordinate / auxiliary groups. There may be some 5,000 individual Degrees, jurisdictions or groupings of degrees that have current or recent activity and which are part of the Masonic world. Counting just grand lodges alone, (first three degrees, some geographical bounds) these number maybe 2,000 themselves. That would offload some of our work.
FWIW, merely on grounds of clarity I would rather not lose track of Greek letter groups outside of North America. I'm more comfortable offloading the Masonic entities, because they have an active project group. I could be convinced to limit our scope to collegiate only. Jax MN (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to keep these as two conversations and projects--scope and notability. The Notability essay should be fairly easy as we are just supplementing the well defined Wikipedia guidelines. I am going to restart scope as a different thread. Rublamb (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to circle back to this. @Jax MN, could you merge your more recent list into the essay? I like the idea of this content being in an essay, rather than a Talkpage discussion. We will be able to link the essay through a tab, making it more visible. And I still think we can update the essay without bringing in the wider conversation on what is included under WP:FRAT or, at least, with an agreement to ignore that issue for now. If we are not going to update the essay, it should be AfD, but my preference is to update it. Rublamb (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will. My regular duties interfere, but I'll get to this. Good idea to make it a tab. Jax MN (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP Scope

[edit]

This continues the discussion started above. I have copied some relevant comments here. Rublamb (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The recent expansion of the WikiProject to include groups in Eastern Europe, in Africa or were never college related (Loyal Order of the Moose, etc.) means that we almost need to start from Scratch (and based on that, it may make sense to move groups like Loyal Order of the Moose to a different Wikiproject.Naraht (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Naraht brings up a reasonable point where other editors may inquire as to scope. To summarize for readers, here are the cut-off points which logically could make sense for us.
1. Every notable group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, FarmHouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies, AND those in the Masonic family. This includes community-based fraternities, and non-collegiate military fraternities. We could aim to identify these globally.
2. North American only: Every notable group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, Farmhouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies, AND those in the Masonic family. This includes community-based fraternities, and non-collegiate military fraternities. BUT limited to North America.
3. N.A. and collegiate only: Every notable collegiate or once-collegiate group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, Farmhouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies. DISCLUDING those in the Masonic family. DISCLUDING community-based fraternities, and DISCLUDING non-collegiate military fraternities. Limited to North America.
There is a dormant project for Collegiate secret societies in North America, and a vigorous List of Masonic Grand Lodges (start there, many sublinks. We've only scratched the surface of these). But to my knowledge, there ISN'T a project for literary societies. We've picked up the collegiate ones, but there are examples of non-collegiate literary societies that have existed in the US since 1849 which we've not picked up. Nor is there a project or list of ancillary organizations to the Masonic fraternity: We (Freemasons) call them either Appendant Bodies or Subordinate Bodies. There are many, many hundreds: These include the Shrine, the Scottish Rite (which in some countries is a de facto grand lodge), and stretching further, non-Masonic groups like the Odd Fellows or Woodmen of the World. There is no home for military fraternities, besides us. Nor for community-based groups like those in Indiana (Tri Kappa) or the various new LGBTQ groups, mostly non-collegiate. We started with the Puerto Rican and Philippine collegiate fraternities, added fencing fraternities in Europe, then the gang-like Nigerian confraternities. We are looking for consensus on where our project draws the line of inclusion.
Which path do we take? We could blaze a trail to be trackers of ALL fraternal activity globally, tracking every group in option #1 above. This appears to be our current heading. In this, we'd aim to create the definitive list. Not voting yet, but I personally like the clarity this provides, so that groups choosing a name don't tread on others with the same name. Or, Naraht may be right, that a split is necessary; maybe the Masonic project needs a push to create a list of their subordinate / auxiliary groups. There may be some 5,000 individual Degrees, jurisdictions or groupings of degrees that have current or recent activity and which are part of the Masonic world. Counting just grand lodges alone, (first three degrees, some geographical bounds) these number maybe 2,000 themselves. That would offload some of our work.
FWIW, merely on grounds of clarity I would rather not lose track of Greek letter groups outside of North America. I'm more comfortable offloading the Masonic entities, because they have an active project group. I could be convinced to limit our scope to collegiate only. Jax MN (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is complicated. If we cut to just collegiate groups but keep the same WP name, we would be showing a bias suggesting that only college fraternities are "true fraternities" and that community-based groups are somehow inferior. Same with limiting the geographic area to America or North America; I cannot think of a greater way to show a pro-American point of view in an encyclopedia that is supposed to serve all English speakers. That being said, after working on many different types of student organizations currently under the WP, some are a better fit than others to the concept of a fraternity and could be dropped. In the past, I have questioned the inclusion of community-based American GLOs, European academic corporations, and Nigerian confraternities but have been willing to work on these articles following WikiProject discussions to include them. Some general thoughts:
  • Masonic: I don't favor adopting Masonic groups/articles in full because of the other WP, but don't have an issue with some overlap of a few key articles about the main groups if we are going to retain community-based fraternal organizations. Or we can boldly go and exclude because this info is covered elsewhere.
  • General fraternities: Many, many general fraternities from the late 19th and early 20th centuries are not Masonic. Most are defunct and do not have Wikipedia articles but do have secondary sources if someone wants to create an article. These belong if the WP is generically fraternal, but I could also see cutting off non-collegiate groups and sending them over to WP Organizations. Note: unless the WP and its main overview articles change to indicate collegiate-only, we will continue to have other editors link these groups to the WP and its lists.
  • Literary societies: There are some literary societies that became fraternities. However, the early literary societies and the still active groups are not fraternal in the traditional sense. I would be in favor of cutting all that don't have a direct connection to a fraternity or sorority, even if they have a Greek letter name. They would then fall under WP Organization, just like any other random student group. If we keep them, there are potentially a ton of articles to write.
  • Academic associations/Student corporations: With their ethnocentric, political, and militaristic (or Catholic) slant, these groups are an uncomfortable fit with traditional fraternities. Almost all of them went dormant at their original college and functioned as expat political arms, reforming after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is the first category I would cut from our list, even though it means changing many infoboxes.
  • Nigerian confraternities: Most are based at colleges, have chapters, and all the trimmings of traditional GLOs. However, their slide into crime sets these apart from traditional GLOs. However, some are beginning to disassociate the college division from the community/crime organization, making it harder to discount these groups. But, since these have a distinct culture and name, we could easily say these don't fit. As the group expert on this topic, I am good either way.
  • Other countries: if it is a collegiate GLO/fraternity/sorority, it should be included, regardless of country. However, this does not mean that every variation of foreign student organizations falls under the WP. Just those that are actual GLOs.
  • Greek letter names: Just because a group has a Greek letter name, does not mean it fits under the WP umbrella. Just saying...
I am realizing we should probably discuss each category separately so that the archived record will be easier to follow. On the other hand, we could simply identify the articles that we potentially want to drop and discuss those. Rublamb (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all of that, I don't have an issue with continuing to include all fraternities and similar student groups except the full Mason article collection (which is covered by another WP). Compared to most WikiProjects, our article list is very small. Also, we may attract new editors to our group as we expand the number of articles or potential articles. Thus, I see the benefits of continued expansion and narrowing the focus. Rublamb (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed

[edit]

There are two discussions at the bottom of User talk:Rublamb about recent work I have made on several articles about a group of related Latino fraternities. Although my main edits were to fix non-standard chapter lists, I also did a copy edit and added needed sources to these articles. Can someone take and look and decide if these discussion should be moved to the WP talkpage or perhaps added to the talkpage of the specific fraternity? I don't want these coversations which include a suggestion for a new WP subgroup and a volunteer to help with Spanish translations, to be lost. Rublamb (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a sorority?

[edit]

Yesharah Society is a social organizatino for former LDS female missionaries. It has some connections to colleges, but was mostly community-based. I believe it has the WP:F&S tag because of its affiliation with The Friars Club, which later became the LDS Church fraternity Delta Phi Kappa. However, I am not seeing enough evidence to prove that Yesharah was a sorority. It is called a "social organization" in LDS records, while Friars Club/Delta Phi Kappa is called a "fraternity". But I wanted other opinions before removing it from our list. Rublamb (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it treated that way by the Banyan (BYU's yearbook). Would checking the yearbooks of the other Utah Universities with chapters make sense? (And the fact they were called chapters still makes me wonder.Naraht (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, I checked a couple of yearbooks looking for an image. I found it under organizations, rather than being in the GLO section. I don't know if other campuses had a chapter but it might be worth looking. Rublamb (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether there was a fraternity section in that yearbook that included Delta Phi Kappa. Do we have an example of that?Naraht (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can look. I think Yesharah had closed its collegiate chapters before Friars Club became a fraternity, so that may or may not work. Rublamb (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concilio Interfraternitario de Puerto Rico

[edit]

I went ahead and created Concilio Interfraternitario de Puerto Rico citing 3 articles from El Mundo, there are a lot more but those mostly mention donations or tournaments. Could not find any other citations, there is a Page in Facebook, with post and a logo, but I am not sure if we can cite it. El Johnson (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It is fantastic to have the help of someone who can translate El Mundo. There are some allowable ways to use Facebook as a source, but I try to avoid it as it can be red flag for deletionists. However, we can use the logo from Facebook under Fair Use. I will go ahead and upload it to the article. Rublamb (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a copy of newspaper article in their Facebook, here. Maybe that also has useful details. Rublamb (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Beta Chi

[edit]

Looks like only Alpha Beta Chi lacks an article of the CIPR. Originally deleted as a copyvio, but found a good chunk of it in a Puerto Rico Senate Resolution. Is this a good place to start? https://senado.pr.gov/document_vault/session_diary/1649/document/082301.pdf Naraht (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected and only an administrator can create the article El Johnson (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eljohnson15 the admin in question hasn't been active in over a decade, so reached out to an admin that I've had some contact with before who is active.Naraht (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who suggested posting to WP:AN, which I did.Naraht (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:AN, the block has been listed. Rublamb (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
itym, lifted...Naraht (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omicron Sigma

[edit]

It appears that the sorority uses an Omicron with a bar above it, and while the article has a latin O with a bar in it, I don't see an Omicron with a bar example anywhere in Greek diacritics, so I'm not sure what we should have in the {{lang|grc|xxx}} to make it entirely greek.Naraht (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may simply be someone's attempt to ensure it is pronounced with the long "O" sound, in English. Jax MN (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has officially become Puerto Rico day. When I look at their graphic, it looks like a lower case Omicron to me. We could skip the language template in the infobox so that a mix of Greek and Latin letters can be used OR just not worry about it and use the plain Omicron. If you like, there could be a redirect with the mixed letters. Somewhat related, I just found that the article title for Ricardo Alegría, the founder of the PR fraternity Alpha Beta Chi, auto updates to Alegria as the article title--this is not a redirect. So I guess somewhere there is a MOS guideline indicating that is is okay to ignore foreign letter preferences. Rublamb (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, though in Greek, Omicron would be used for short and Omega for long. (and "Oh"micron sounds horrible to me). This leaves it as even a wierder mix than Chi Hereot.Naraht (talk)
I think i has been more like Puerto Rico week in the project lol. I don't edit as much as I used to in this last decade, but I have sort of being looking after those articles for the last couple of years, at least deleting vandalism and such. If it is not too much trouble, could the project take a look at the errors in the citations in the Phi Sigma Alpha article? El Johnson (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lang template

[edit]

I used a search on insource:/\{\{[Ll]ang\|grc\|[Α-Ωα-ω]*[A-Z]/ -insource:/\{\{lang\|grc\|ΧH\}\}/ fraternity (and with fraternity replaced with sorority and honor society) to look for bad uses of the grc lang template and fix them. In some cases, it was a change from grc to grc-latn, which is used for transliteration. Naraht (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it is okay to have a mix of Greek and Latin letters as long as we indicate grc-latn in the language template? I am going to add the list of language codes to our reference page, although it does not seem to include grc-latn. I still need to address the letter names of the European groups--if their name is in Estonia, for example, shouldn't those letters also be in Estonian? File that under other things I have chosen to ignore when working on articles and our update project. Rublamb (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
grc-latn should be used for transliterations, so in

Φιλοσοφία Βίου Κυβερνήτη or in Latin letters Philosophia Biou Kybernētēs, which loosely translated to English means "Love of learning is the guide of life"

, the "Φιλοσοφία Βίου Κυβερνήτη" should get grc and the "Philosophia Biou Kybernētēs" should get grc-latn.Naraht (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category needed

[edit]

I think we need a category or two for honor society founders and presidents. I know we can create a category for each organization that can also be used for members but I have run into a couple of society's with just one person who needs a link. Rublamb (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

subcatted to what cat?Naraht (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it could go under Category:Honor Societies. However, if we follow the examples of Category:College fraternity founders and Category:College sorority founders, it would not be a subcat. Rublamb (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:College honor society founders has existed for a while and has 5 entries.Naraht (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I should have looked harder. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to our watchlist and also added WP:Frat to its talkpage. Rublamb (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While being a founder may be a valid category for a person, I'm not sure being a president would be. (I'm *still* not convinced that the Category that includes people for being *members* of Delta Sigma Theta would survive a CFD.Naraht (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just following the existing convention on this. As you know, some GLOs are really thorough with their Wikipedia presence. However, since we have recently decided that lists of presidents are non-encyclopedic, it would make sense to revisit tracking these individuals through a category. I feel like a deletionist here, but it would be good to clean up some of this content that gives an undue presence to certain GLOs. This and the lists of conventions stand out in my mind.
In terms of identifying membership through categories, it might depend on the organization. For example, membership in Order of the Coif might be worthy of noting, while membership in Moo Moo Moo High School social fraternity might not be. However, most of these members categories are "hidden" by just being the name of the organization (Cat:Moo Moo Moo), rather than Cat:Moo Moo Moo members. I have no experience with CfD but, as a librarian, believe that categories exist to provide better access to information. If people would possibly be interested in looking for a list people by GLOs membership, then that category serves a purpose. Thus, I would defend keeping a category that creates a list of members. Certainly, if a list of members is worthy of a standalone article, it would be defendable as a category. Rublamb (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Student Association

[edit]

I accidentally came across several studentenverbindung that are not on our watchlist and lacked WP:FRAT. (Now corrected) This led to the discovery of the umbrella group German Student Association, which oversees 38 studentenverbindung. This is a good example of my earlier question about naming conventions for these European associations: do we translate the organization's name (as in this instance), use the full foreign language name, or use the group's abbreviated name? With the German groups, we usually go with a shortened version of the German name, making this article title an outlier. According to the article, German Student Association is actually Verband der Vereine Deutscher Studenten (VVDSt) and is also known as the Kyffhäuserverband. Any thoughts about changing the article's name? I know the current name is incorrect as the actual translation of its name is closer to Association of German Student Associations. Also, should we go ahead and add VVDSt to the affiliation options? Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a part of me that wishes the European organizations were a separate wikiproject. :) The best answer is of course whatever the English language sources say. I also appreciate that that there may not be any. Ask on the Wikiproject Germany (which probably has people at least moderately knowledgable in German???)Naraht (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on withdrawing these from WP:FRAT for reasons stated above, mostly that their focus on politics and cultural promotion makes them a difficult fit. And, yes, there are never any English language sources. Since I don't know German, I am limited to Google translate and my husband's member of college classes. Rublamb (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of founders to dotted list, number ?

[edit]

I'm looking for X, Y in a proposed policy. "If the organization has more than X founders, then they should be included as a dotted list instead of in prose. Multiple approximately columns should be used if the number is greater than Y founders"

  • Joseph A
  • Michael B
  • Robert C
  • John D

... My first feelings on X and Y are 5 and 10. Based on the changes to Kappa Kappa Psi, I'm planning on changing Alpha Phi Omega and I was looking for guidance longer term.

Also, do we have any groups with greater than 20 people mentioned as founders?

I'm also making the assumption that if a group was founded by the merger of the some number of local(-ish) organization (example, Gamma Sigma Sigma) that the schools/organizations should either be a dotted list or a table.Naraht (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another item for our much-needed style guide. In a discussion a while back, I recall that five was the number landed on. Meaning a list of five or less should be included in the text, while a list of five or more should be a bulleted list. Again, based on my memory, MOS defers to style guides in this area. The APA style guide (and my high school English teacher) says that lists need to include three or more items. The number five was a compromise as bulleted lists call attention to what are, in many instances, otherwise non-notable individuals. I know we have opinions at both extremes, that these lists are and are not worthy of inclusion. Rublamb (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've said five or less for prose, five or more for bullets. Which way should five go? (and Alpha Phi Omega has 14 founders, so I'm wondering what the record is. :) )Naraht (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think three is suitable for prose, and four or more should be bulleted. Jax MN (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, still "controversial". IMO, a list of four names can look odd if the article is short, as four is not enough for columns and creates a lot of white space if placed in a list. I like being able to go either way with five as that allows us to leave things as created and not be as draconian, but if I had to decide, my vote would be a bulleted list with five items. As to the highest number of founders: there is one with 20+; I think it is an honor society that listed founding members, rather than actual founders. Rublamb (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to the number needed for a table, it depends on whether they fall under two or three columns, based on the length of names or other content. I tend to go with what looks right given the entire section and article. Even then, most people are using phones to access Wikipedia, so we can't really control what the viewer will see. That is why I prefer the self-adjusting column templates, rather than tables. I think ten is a higher number than is normally used. @Jax MN probably has a better sense of this than I do as I previously hated tables but was convinced to use them by discussion. Maybe we could identify several variations to look at? Rublamb (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some existing variations, selected at random:
Rublamb (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm always going to be a stick in the mud about this, but I find lists of non-notable founders to be pointless (and somewhat antithetical to the MOS guidelines on lists). I just took a peek at Iota Phi Theta and I'm not horribly offended by the 12 founders listed in prose, particularly since only one of them is bluelinked. If the founders are all (or almost-all) notable, then a list is fine (4+ or 5+ I don't really care) but if they're redlinked keep 'em in prose, regardless of how many there are. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac notes a preference for plain text versus a redlink if a founder doesn't have an article. I agree, although I like the bulleted lists because they break up walls of text. I'd further note that it is unlikely that a redlinked founder will gain an article many years after their collegiate exploits, solely on that basis rather than because of a later, professional accomplishment or some notoriety. In years to come, when the Inclusionists win the long war against Deletionists, then maybe we'll revisit this and Wikipedia will expand to allow articles about each of these founders, given whatever information we have. Jax MN (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Reviewing MOS:LIST is really a good suggestion. MOS prefers text over lists: "Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose." MOS:USEPROSE provides an example that is comparable to our founder lists, indicating that "articles can be improved by converting unnecessary lists into encyclopedic prose". "Unnecessary" is probably the main takeaway as layout is not going to be enough to justify a bulleted list. This takes us back to @Naraht's original question: is there a set number of names that becomes so unwieldy in text that a bulleted list is needed for clarity? Based on MOS, it seems like my idea of five may be too low--that number was probably programmed into me by a teacher back in the day, amplified by being in the fundraising profession that loves donor recognition lists. However, as I said some time ago before I was convinced to use embedded lists for founders, bulleted lists may call undue attention to individuals who are otherwise not notable. Since I regularly convert lists of symbols to prose, it only makes sense to go back to converting lists of founders to text, as a general WP:FRAT guideline. Rublamb (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at MOS:LONGSEQ, that has preference for nine entries being a bulletted two column list. I'm wondering why we would have a list of founders in prose longer than that.Naraht (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LONGSEQ says: "Some material may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing using the summary style method." Thus, this determination is based on the content itself, rather than the number of items. This circles back to @Primefac's point: does a collection of names meet the standard for an embedded list?
You found the answer in MOS:LONGSEQ: only if is too complex to understand as text. One could argue that a list of names is rarely complex, whereas overly long sentences with many commas are often confusing and too complex to easily understand. When I was a graphic designer, I looked at how many rows a sentence or paragraph covered, as there were guidelines backed by studies on how people perceive chunks of data. This is at the heart of @Jax MN's preference for embedded lists. I address this in Wikipedia by dividing text into many short paragraphs, following the rule of at least three sentences for a paragraph. However, a sentence with 12, 15, or even 20 names is as long as a paragraph visually and, by most people's standards, is too long and overly complex.
If we must set a guideline for WP:FRAT, I don't have a problem applying the example in MOS:LONGSEQ literally, and moving nine or more names to a list. My preference may be for a lower number but it does not look like that is supported by MOS. Although MOS:LONGSEQ provides an example with columns, it does not specify columns based on the number of items, so that can still be up to the individual editor. Rublamb (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other stylistic point. Where an infobox is long, but the first sections in a main article are thin, this occasionally results in a gap before the start of a later section, with its own subheader. Readers might see that large gap, and not realize an article continues "below the fold" -- to use a newspaper term. Thus, when we include the bulleted list of founders its presence tends to lengthen the article somewhat, and again, helps draw the eye through the page. While that rule is in the MOS, the MOS is nevertheless a guideline, and practical implementation can be modified in specific situations if there is a rationale. Jax MN (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, MOS specifically mentions not using lists in short articles because these articles need more text to be long enough for publication (my translation is enough text to not be a stub). Lately, I have noticed how many articles have a complete infobox but no symbols section or mention of these details in the article. Making sure we add the infobox content to the body of the article will solve the issue you mention while also adding value. For those who don't know, MOS says that the infobox is supposed to a summary of the article, not a place to introduce new information. Rublamb (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal: European student associations

[edit]

I am proposing that we remove the European student associations from WP:FRAT. Although these are student associations and are often affiliated with universities, there is a main difference—these groups were primarily established as quasi-political organizations to promote specific cultural or religious identities. Some of these associations became militias during various revolutions and WWI (resulting in many members being sent to Siberia when under Soviet rule). In some countries, these organizations became ex-pat political organizations during Soviet occupation. Thus, these groups are inherently different from the social, service, honor, and professional groups that are typically classed as fraternal organizations.

I am not proposing that we remove true fraternities and GLOs that exist in European countries. I am specifically addressing the "student associations" and "student corporations" and their umbrella groups, whether color-bearing or not, dueling or not, and Catholic or not, that are located primarily in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Estonia, and Poland.

In terms of impact on our project, most of these fall under the category of local organizations (one chapter) with questionable notability due to a lack of secondary sources. (I have worked on many of these articles and am comfortable saying this). We will have to update the watchlist, update infobox types, and remove WP:Frat from various articles for organizations and umbrella groups. We may also need to update our project lists, including Articles for Creation and sub-par chapter lists. Rublamb (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a new sub-section for WP:ORG for student organizations. Since there are already categories related to student groups, this would be fairly easy to create and would allow those who are interested to continue to work on these and other articles. Of course, that would need to be proposed to WP:ORG. Rublamb (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would want to keep the major associations as links in "See also" sections, where appropriate. On the watchlist, and other spaces. Our English Wiki is the most widely used, so regarding the European fraternities we typically paraphrase their content after translation. I personally think there is enough cross-over interest to keep these on our watchlist and on our radar, because participants and researchers sometimes will wonder "Did fraternities ever get established in XXXXXX country?". Pretty normal question. Jax MN (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The groups in question are not fraternities and refer to themselves as associations and organizations, in contrast to other groups in the same country that are called fraternities or Studentenverbindung. There are many student associations and organizations in the US that we don't include under WP:FRAT because they are not GLOs or fraternities. We know the line when we see it, but maybe don't see it here because these associations often have crests, colors, and houses. Some of the student associations in question remind me of a campus Ku Klux Klan chapter or the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee--student organizations with a very strong political and cultural agenda. At their core, they are not fraternities because they were created to serve a nationalist agenda when their country/city-state was under occupation and often served as a propaganda arm by both active members and alumni living abroad. I have read enough of their histories to see the difference between these student associations and cultural interest GLOs; however, this content is mostly lacking from the articles because we don't have a secondary source. However, it is worth noting that most of the creators of these articles did not add WP:FRAT or its related categories; this seems to be the effort of well-meaning project members. Maybe it would be helpful to come to an agreement as to the defining characteristics of a GLO/fraternity and, then, apply it to these groups. Rublamb (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to mention that the article Studentenverbindung is German-centric and does a poor job of defining the differences between the various types of organizations that it lumps under Studentenverbindung. As a result, the WP has tended to treat anything similar to these groups as fraternities, whether or not that is correct. Even if we retain these articles in the WP, there needs to be some review. For example, is an academic gymnastics club really a fraternity? According to the Studentenverbindung article, it is. Also, if Studentenverbindung is the German word for "fraternity" and a group does not call itself a Studentenverbindung, how do we know it is a fraternity, and what criteria were used to add these to our list? Even if we do nothing else, I think we need to get a handle on the various types and agree on which to include. Rublamb (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status of WP:ORGZ

[edit]

Just found out that WikiProject Organizations is "believed to be inactive". Inactivity may explain why so many of these organization articles from German Wikipedia are migrating over with no one cleaning them up and why no one has any concerns about our recent conversion of Infobox organization to Infobox fraternity. This doesn't mean we should change our scope but it is interesting given how many articles are under this WP (52,000+). Rublamb (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that the narrower topic of "fraternity" will tend toward more consistent and dogged interest than the broader category of "organizations". This may be why that project has gone inactive. Jax MN (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say. I made a post and will see who responds. Their project directory has more active participants than we do. Rublamb (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WikiProject Freemasonry is listed as "semi-active". I wonder if both of these are a reflection of the decline of membership in service, civic, and cultural organizations that has been occurring for several decades. Rublamb (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Omega Delta

[edit]

Finally got that where it could be added to by others. Please take a look/add. Naraht (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the mainspace. Also added some details from my copy of Baird's. It looks like there are still some active chapters, based on social media. I am not sure if they are connected or operate as local groups. Rublamb (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: are there more chapters or closure dates in Baird's 20th? I am pretty sure there once was a chapter at the University of Arizona and could only find a few closure dates. Rublamb (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Omega Delta is not listed in either Baird's 19th or 20th editions. Nor did it show up under Univ of AZ in Baird's 20th, which otherwise listed active and dormant professional societies. Jax MN (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: You mean my edition was better than yours for once! Too bad we don't have access to the 16th and 18th editions because now I am really curious. Another oddity, one of the surviving chapters claims to be a "social fraternity" while the other says it is a "professional fraternity". I begin to think the national closed well before the 19th edition so that Baird's editors felt it could be dropped. Some of the chapters shown as active in the 1963 edition had closed or merged in the 1940s and 1950s, and there was a lot of consolidation due to school mergers. So far, 1972 is the last year I have found the national in an educational directory and it was being run by one of the surviving chapters. Since I dislike going through yearbooks, I will leave that to @Naraht (and maybe there is a better crest then the one I grabbed from a composite photo). But I think most of the chapters closed by the end of the 1960s. Rublamb (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any information saying that the UofA pre-optometry group is part of the organization? Naraht (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw this out there: I recall seeing many early editions of Baird's, through the 16th, 17th (?) and 18th editions in my university's library stacks -- these were the initial inspiration for me, as an undergrad, to buy my own copy of the 19th. This, in turn, put me on the mailing list for when the 20th was published. Yep, this was ages ago, back in about 1983. If you have a short list of items to check in those mid-Century editions, I could make a pilgrimage to that library to review them. Jax MN (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the group's name (Omega Delta Pre-Optometry Club) and its listing in a AOA publication strongly suggests a former affiliation. My suspicion is that the national went defunct but there are three surviving locals, one being the UA club. Since Baird's 20th was published thirty years after the edition I used with this article, we may learn more from it. Note that I found info on the Berkely chapter, showing that it reverted to a local club in the 1940s. Rublamb (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sharing a name, I'm very hesitant to link. One of the editions of Baird's even had a chapter in the chapter list chronologically from 20 years prior to our founding. As I found (but then lost at one point, I'm really annoyed) Omega Delta as a name is because the Doctorate in Optometry is abbreviated O.D. The idea that would happen more than once is quite reasonable. Where is the listing in the AOA? Naraht (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong; it is from an ASCO directory. But the OD explanation makes sense regarding the name. I was thinking it might be the missing Lambda chapter. I agree that we need to find the link or remove it from the article.

Rublamb (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Infobox Fraternity for umbrella groups?

[edit]

It seems like using Infobox Fraternity for umbrella groups is a bit shoehorny. The NPC (to pick one) seems to be closer to needing Infobox Organization than Infobox Fraternity. It certainly doesn't have a pin for example. Naraht (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up earlier, but we never made a decision. The main advantage of using Infobox Fraternity is that the articles pull into petscan reports. As part of our cleanup project, I found several umbrella groups that we had missed for our watchlist and also discovered that most umbrella articles lacked an infobox. I made the decision to go with Infobox Fraternity bacause it put these in our petscan reports and would also let us include quirky fraternal data like emphasis and colors that are not components of Infobox Organization. The European umbrellas' data that is almost identical to that of US GLOs and would be difficult to fit into Infobox Org. That being said, I am fine either way. Rublamb (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current Draft List:

[edit]

Now that Omega Delta has been moved to Mainspace, the current list in Draftspace is (defined as any page with two spelled out greek letters in a row)

  • Draft:Omega Pi Lambda (local Latina sorority founded in 2023) rejected once.
  • Draft:Rho Epsilon Iota (Real Estate professional, 6 chapters, founded in 2024) rejected twice
  • Draft:Lambda Pi Fraternity local social fraternity at Chico State U, founded in 1944, dissolved in 2007 (I can't imagine being a local fraternity at Chico was easy after Matthew Carrington's Death). Looks like a decently organized and large article. Notability is of course the question, but if we feel that it meets that, I'd move it immediatley.
  • Draft:Mu Delta Alpha, where it looks like Rublamb made a larger article in mainspace well after this was edited.

Naraht (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: I really appreciate that you find drafts that lack WP:Frat and, therefore, do not show up in our article alerts or lists of articles. I have added WP:FRAT to all, so they will be easier for us to track.
  • Omega Pi Lambda started with zero sources. I added sources and did a copy edit. However, I did not find any secondary sources for notability. It was not resubmitted but the original reviewer responded to my updates, indicating that it still needed sources other that the university and sorority's websites. It is at a dead end for now unless some can find a great newspaper or magazine article.
  • Rho Epsilon: I spend a fair amount of time looking for secondary sources and found nothing. It is too new for now.
  • Lambda Pi: Still needs work and may have plagiarism issues. Mainly, there are big chunks of text that are unsourced. It has a creative commons license mentioned on its talkpage but it is not clear that the writer has authority over the website in question. That is, I assume they are referencing Rho Epsilon's website; if the org no longer exsists, it cannot waive copyright and general regulations apply.
  • Mu Delta Alpha: I missed this draft which was creatad about a month prior to my project to cover redlinked members of the main US umbrellas. Looks like it did not have the WP:FRAT tag. Do we need to merge it, request its deletion, or just wait until it rotates out of draft space?
Rublamb (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lambda Pi: Plagarism issues/big chunks = ugly = Most of the history of the houses appears to be a word for word copy of https://lambda-pi.org/about/history-of-houses/ not sure whether/home that needs to be scrubbed and while the organization no longer exists, but the Alumni Association does and would likely hold all copyrights as well as the website.
  • Mu Delta Alpha: I'd just let it rotate out of draftspace after 6 months of no editing. No harm.Naraht (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honor society founders

[edit]

I have gone through our list of honor societies and have added "Category:College honor society founders" where needed (and also identified a number of individuals worthy of articles). When I got to the end of the list, I realized that we do have a few founders of secondary/high school honor societies. There are also a few middle school honor societies and community-based honor societies, with the latter mostly relating to scouting, which may yield a more notable founders. As far as I can tell, there are not categories for these founders. Since there is already Category:High school honor societies, Category:High school honor societies founders would work. I will take a look and see if we need categories for the middle school and community-based societies founders. Rublamb (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did you have in mind for the scouting honor societies? I presume most would be in Category:Associations related to the Boy Scouts of America. And let me know where you want the cat.Naraht (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check revealed that the founders Order of the Arrow and Tribe of Mic-O-Say already have articles; there are two or three Firecrafter founders for potential articles. Order of the Arrow has its own category, Category:Order of the Arrow under Category:Associations related to the Boy Scouts of America. Since the Order of the Arrow founder is identified with the organizational category, and we would probably not want to create Category:Order of the Arrow founders for one person, a possible solution is to create Category:Tribe of Mic-O-Say to use with its founder and any other related articles. That way, we don't have to figure out a founders category for the two, possibly four or five total individuals. If we go with a new category, it would be long but could be Cat:Founders of associations related to the Boy Scouts of America. This would be under Category:Associations related to the Boy Scouts of America. But you are much better at figuring out categories than I am. Rublamb (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities&oldid=1265280289"