Template talk:Infobox Fraternity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A couple of comments:

  • {{{crest}}} should be {{{coatofarms}}}. Crest is popular, but incorrect usage, and coat of arms is well-understood.
  • Wikipedia is not a phonebook; I think providing the location of the headquarters without a street address is more than sufficient.

As this infobox is only used in a handful of articles at the moment, it shouldn't be too difficult to propagate the changes. - choster 21:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Potential Changes.

Some Fraternities do actually refer to it as their crest. But I think Coat of Arms is more standard. Let's wait a while on this one...

For the Infoboxes on Fraternities, I think our guide should be Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, which I believe does include Phone numbers. And on the "what wikipedia is not" page, the wikipedia is not a phonebook does *not* mean that wikipedia should not include phone numbers, it refers to the fact that people listed should at least be somewhat famous.

Naraht 01:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Whoops, you are right on the WIN page-- but I can revise my statement to point out that Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries... If the headquarters building or building plot is notable enough to merit a section or an article, it is one thing. Most of the time, it is not. That is the principle behind the practice for corporations and various other organizations.-choster 15:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Date and Age

Could someone (ccson?) point me to a fraternity which is using this, I can't seem to get this to work on the Alpha Phi Omega page.Naraht 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fraternity template using the birth date and age template? That template is meant for people. Rasamassen 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and baking soda was made for baking, but people use it for lots of other things. Think outside the box.--Ccson 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Members

Is "lifetime" members refering to "members since the fraternity's inception" or "lifetime members" who have paid for a lifetime membership? —ScouterSig 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's referring to those who have a paid for a lifetime membership, and I think its unnecessary in wikipedia.--Ccson 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to second that. It seems that things should be separated to active (undergraduate?) members and total (active+graduated) members. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Change

I propose that "Legal Status" be added before "Type." There are many Historically Black Fraternities and Sororities (first example that came to mind but there are others) that may be legally classified as "social" under Title IX, but have historical civil rights, human rights and community service mandates. Much like arguments about HBCU's, the current infobox and the related discussion does not account for this fact. I can give examples if you wish.-Robotam 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

* disagree - Most, if not all, GLO's do more than their legal classification, but that doesn't change their primary classification and membership in various councils (NPC, NPHC, IFC, etc.). This is a pointless addition, and only serves to clutter up the box with information that can easily be gleaned from the article. Justinm1978
Do I understand correctly that your argument is that most GLO's do more than their legal classification, but that it is pointless to show what that defined "more" is? Looking at your various arguments, it seem your position all along has been founded on LEGAL classification, which the current infobox does not cover with just "type." Also, looking at the current setup, with philanthropy & charter city included, I find the "clutter" rationale less than persuasive as well.-Robotam 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't having "philanthropy" and a focus, which becomes "service" for many redundant? This template change isn't anywhere close to universally applicable and is highly disruptive across the board. It seems that the objection of calling APA a "social" fraternity is coming from two members of APA, and this template modification is just trying to skirt around being called a social. If your objection is to being called "social" then change type to general. If your objection is to not being called "service", then petition your national fraternity to change and become co-ed.
I'm undoing this change until a better discussion can take place here, because there is too much POV on both sides. Justinm1978 14:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Assuming good faith, I still believe you know every category does not have to be used, and having both does not take away from the uniformity of the box. Those are some interesting and personal accusations you have levied against me, but that's OK.-Robotam 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No personal accusations or bad faith. Assuming good faith, you know that there should be more discussion on something like this, especially when someone has clearly voiced an objection to this and discussions on the talk page that sparked this change do not, IMO, add support to your change. I'm reverting again, and requesting protection. Justinm1978 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because me sniping at your change isn't really constructive, how about this instead:

Drop "type" altogether for now. Do not put up Title IX Status, focus or anything else. Let's come back here and discuss this a bit more rationally, or at least come up with something that is more collaborative than rushing to the extremes on both sides. I'm not opposed to putting some type of categorization and focus in the box, but the combination of Title IX Status and focus just doesn't fit very well without additional research on the part of the reader, which isn't helpful. Justinm1978 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. I don't think any of this should ever become personal. People are usually closer than their asserted positions allow. For the record, I believe that "Type" should be changed to something clearly showing "Title IX" or "Legal Status," and "philanthropy" should be changed to something like "focus."-Robotam 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
All Title IX did was use a well established category out of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. That category was "social". Baird's splits all of the groups it covers as well as those similar in type such as Farmhouse into four categories: Social (also known as general), Professional, Honorary and Recognition. Service is a subset of Recognition. Those are quite appropriate to use as type, with the Service Fraternities and sororities possibly using "Recognition (Service)" rather than Service if we are truly following Baird's.
Philanthropy is a completely different thing. For example, a large number of the NPC sororities for example have a specific National Philanthropy such as March of Dimes that projects to raise money are done a couple of times a year as part of what the National sorority expects. This does not make them service sororities.Naraht 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Justinm1978, i think you're being disingenious in your accusation "It seems that the objection of calling APA a "social" fraternity is coming from two members of APA." You omitted the fact, It seems that the two main editors calling for APA to not be listed as a "service" fraternity is coming from two members of APO. Plus, I am surprised that you objected/reverted Robotam's effort to link type to title ix, since that's the basis for why you and the other APO member asserted APA is not a service org. If there's still more discussion, why have you changed the APA type to social? Please explain again why APA is not listed as a service fraternity in its article. Perhaps we should Naraht's contribution and let "type" refer to the Baird's classification since it's a reputable and verifiable source, and has been around for almost as long as fraternities. --Ccson 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That is your interpretation, however, the poll taken on the talk page for APA disagrees with you in that only two of the 5 people participating were in APO, and of those 5, 4 agreed that it is to be classified as social. I made the change because the discussion was left for two weeks with the only objector being yourself. Two weeks is more than enough time, considering most AfD's are only given a week. If you really think the discussion needs more time then please continue to contribute to the discussion there and we can bring it back to a close in another couple of weeks, but I doubt consensus will change on the matter. Title IX is the basis for my objection, yes, but unless you've been involved in these discussions, listing "title IX classification" along with "type/focus" makes no sense to the average reader, which is whom the article is directed toward.
I'm ok with Baird's Classification being the accepted "type", as that's probably the most reputable, neutral/independent source out there on the matter, and really brings to a close any argument related to self-published material. Justinm1978 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the discussions that have occurred, not the one comment on Agree or Disagree by the other non-APO members. I thought the consensus was based on your interpretaion of Title IX and that APA was not coed. Are you saying that you changed APA based on a vote of personal opinions, not because of Title IX? I don't care what you call the field, but if you expect APA to remain classifired as social, then you need to add this comment to the infobox that you entered on the NPHC talk page The type listed must be in-line with the legal definition of the organization as defined by Title IX, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. If the consensus was reached beacase of Title IX, there's no reason not to change the this template so that the disucssion will not occur again. If you're not satisfied that the consensus is based on a reputable and verifable source enough to simply add a comment to the current field, then change APA back and wait until a definite decision has been made, otherewise the consensus was based on original research. One last time, if you have a consensus on how to source the "type" field, pls place that consensus as a comment so others will know.--Ccson 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you are asking/commenting/inferring here, so if I'm not addressing the right thing, let me know and I'll take another stab at it.... I changed the article based on the consensus that was reached with all the facts presented, including the Title IX concerns and the content of the article. I never said it was based on personal opinion at any point, I would think that is pretty clear by the comments made by the contributors to that discussion. I don't see how using the words of the article along with the information regarding Title IX is "original research", but apparently that's subjective to the individual. News to me, but whatever. I expect APA (and all other greek-lettered organizations for that matter) to be classified as what reports itself to Baird's to be since the Title IX argument isn't enough for you, and Baird's is about as clear as you can get. It appears that a few of us are starting to be in agreement that Baird's is a reputable source on the matter, and I suspect that Robotam will probably be in agreement as well. I'm confused why you are taking such issue with me agreeing with you on Baird's being the source for "type" being that is a pretty cut-and-dry classification and leaves a lot less room for interpretation and misunderstanding about why Title IX (which most people see as a sports thing) is being applied to the greek system. I think it's an opportunity for education about it, because up until a few years ago, I had no idea that Title IX impacted greeks, and that is probably something that needs to be addressed in better detail in other articles as not to replicate data. Justinm1978 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RESET, I'm saying that you're not simply changing the APA article, you're changing APA's use of a wikipedia template that's being used in many articles. I thought your consensus was on how "type" was defined in the template and that the editors were agreeing to your proposed definition. You can all agree that that APA is a social frat, but if you're not ready to change the template being used, then you can't in good faith simply target APA use of type in the template if you haven't defined type in the template.

Let move's this discussion to the fraternity infobox talk page, and it shouldn't be about APA, it should be on "How to define "TYPE".--Ccson 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if I understand correctly, you're saying that I'm wrong in changing APA's use of this template to be in-line with everyone else's use of the template? The consensus was on how APA is classified in it's "type" entry in the template based on the contents of the article and Title IX. Now, if we change what that "type" means across the board to be Baird's, then of course that will have to cascade down to the rest of the articles. However, it appears that most GLO articles are already directly matching Baird's classification anyway, so this is more of a formality and codifying what is already in practice on dozens of articles.
APA is being "targeted" in the sense that when changes were made, it was the only article where the change was seriously contested, hence this month-long series of back and forth comments. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I've been making the change across the board and citing my reason, so APA is hardly being singled out. But I digress....if you want it to be Baird's, I'm letting you know that I'm OK with that because that's an independent, recognized, and third-party source that we can all agree on, and sets the standard across the board for all US-based GLO articles. Justinm1978 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maxim vs motto

What is the difference between the fields Maxim and Motto? I think they're the same. Can some provide an example of a frat/soror that has both a maxim and a motto?--Ccson 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Theta Chi has both Maxim and Motto. I added the Maxim to the infobox for just this reason. Linguisticly, the words maxim and motto are probably pretty close to synonymous. I guess this was Theta Chi's way of getting another bite at the apple. Two mottos for the price of one, as long as you call one a maxim. Either way, the fraternity holds them both in equal footing, so to remove maxim would cause a problem. Andyparkerson 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
OK--Ccson 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results of Mediation

The solution that was proposed and not challenged was the following

The Infobox shall contain both a Type Field and a Emphasis Field.

Type Field Definition: For groups represented in the most recent version of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (as of this writing 1993), the Type represents the section of the Manual where the group is listed, with the following clarifications. 1) Groups in the Social Fraternities section and Social Sorority section shall both be listed as Social. 2) Subsections of sections in Baird's such as the Service and Osteopathy subsections of Recognition groups may be used. For groups not listed, the guidelines contained in Baird's (as of the 1993 version on page I-9) and existance of similar groups shall be used to determine Type.

Emphasis Field Definition: This field, for Professional Fraternity and Honor Societies shall represent the specific field of study, if it exists, which the group limits its members to. For other types of groups, this field shall be optional and open in meaning.

Unless someone else does it first, I'll add Emphasis with definitions in the nowiki explanation section in a day or so.Naraht 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vision and Mission

I think these two parts are not appropriate for the infobox. Visions and mission statements are usually very wordy, and more often than not are lengthy bulleted lists. This would expand the size of the infobox to a size that, I believe, distracts from the article and defeats the purpose of having a tidy infobox in the first place. What say y'all? —ScouterSig 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with dropping that for the above-stated reasons. Justinm1978 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to change chapter count

I'd like to find a way to change the chapter count field, as the numbers given in a lot of templates can be misleading. I say misleading, considering how many inactive chapters of all the various orgs out there, and that undergrad, graduate, alumni and community chapters are lumped together. This leads to articles that say "we have 700, 800, 900+ chapters", which isn't entirely true considering how many of those may no longer be active, are alumni associations, or are not open to college students. What I'd like to do is break the chapters down like this instead:

  • Collegiate- chapters that are chartered to college campuses (possibly including graduate chapters, since I don't know how many orgs separate undergrads and grads into two separate chapters, with a parenthesis afterward that shows out of how many charters (See Alpha Phi Omega for example).
  • Alumni - chapters that are for alumni, including alumni associations
  • Other - for chapters that meet neither of the above

Thoughts on this? Justinm1978 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Some organizations don't make their statistics (as far as chapters) available to the public. miranda 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a great idea. In my book, more info is better than less info. However, it may be hard for editors to find such detailed information in many cases. So, I would suggest having some way to take the easy way out and present only a single number, appropriately labeled. I agree that the numbers cited in the various articles are often misleading, and many orgs try to quote the number of charter's they've ever granted simply because it's the largest number. I don't think that it's a bad number to quote, but the difference between total charters granted and number of active collegiate chapters should be clear -- especially on infoboxes where people are likely to glance to find comparative statistics.
In short, go for it. I think it's the right idea. — gogobera (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and changed it to be activechapters of chapters chartered, and just eliminate my suggestion for breaking it down (even though I still think that would be the best thing to do) Probably not the best wording, so if someone wants to change it to something different, that's cool too. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
One problem with simply changing it is that current uses of the template only specify a "chapters" variable. Meaning that whatever people have assigned to the variable to make it work, will now screw it up (see Delta Sigma Pi). For example, if a fraternity were to assign "chapters = 271 chartered, 206 active" with your change it would now display "{{{activechapters}}} active of 271 chartered, 206 active chartered" instead of just "271 chartered, 206 active chartered." I have reverted back. Come up with a better solution. Andrew (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Or, as a radical though, I just fixed the Delta Sigma Pi page to fit the template. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As a followup, is there a way to make this part of the template optional so groups that messes up don't see it? Justinm1978 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Good follow up question! Actually, if you look at the list of pages that already use the template (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Fraternity), you can see the large number of pages that you are screwing up by changing it. Four out of the first five that I looked at would be screwed up. If you want to test stuff, use the sandbox. Unless you are willing to change all of the pages that use the template, do not change it back again. As the "being bold" policy states, you should also be careful (and extra careful when editing Non-article namespaces. I encourage you to contribute as much as possible, but when given advice, please do not ignore it. Andrew (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation

Just a small note since I don't think many people watch it but I've gone ahead and updated the documentation (something similar to {{Infobox University}}) for the infobox. Please feel free to make revisions or changes as needed. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)