Talk:Cultural interest fraternities and sororities/Archive 1

Moved fraternity
Moved Omega Delta Phi to multi cultural section. While founded by Latinos at Texas Tech the fraternity has evolved and supported a pro multi-cultual base. Most chapters in the last five years now consider themselves multi-cultural while some chapters are predominatly African American as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.241.127 (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Copyedit list
I'm going to go through and clean this list up. Redlinks will be removed as there are no articles going there, and additionally orgs that point only to a webpage instead of an article will be dropped as well, per WP:DIRECTORY. Ideally, there would be a sentence after each one stating something unique about the org, but that may be dropped as well in lieu of that information being available in the article. Only so many groups can be the "first" at something, and it's entering into the realm of WP:PEACOCK and WP:TRIVIA. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Additions
I have added several orgs without links, so that all members of the corresponding Greek council are accounted for. I also took out two internet links for the Muslim Sororities and added a Muslim fraternity. Finally, I took out several South Asian orgs duplicated in the Asian section.--Coquidragon (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Table format
What do you think about coverting the lists into tables to unify contents?


 * I could get behind that, although is it important to have the council on there? I don't entirely see the relevance, but I'm not really opposed to it either. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I put it since many orgs had comments like "first South Asian org in NIC" and so forth. I thought that a comments column would be too much. I do like to know which orgs are in councils and which are not, but it is true that it is not necessary. Let me know. --Coquidragon (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody else did the conversions, but with the wrong format. I have fix half.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason of converting it into tables was to give some uniformity to the information provided for each organization. The cultural info did not provide much. Using "Asian section" as an example, all of the orgs said "asian interest." Well, they are in the "Asian section". Why repeat? The only "cultural" info taken out was the "Filipino", but that is still Asian. As to the national, what is national? What´s the point of having the "national" label if all orgs are national? Orgs with two chapters call themseves nationals. Finally, each org has a page with all the information. I mean, if you want to go back to what you did, I have no problem. It is just a lot of repetition, and the info was not very uniform nor useful. With time, I was planning to fill all the columns little by little by going into their pages. The date format was to be able to sort by date, in case anybody wanted to do it. I do think that the table, the way they were, did not look good. My opinion.--Coquidragon (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I now see where you are going and will help with your proposed format. I do think council information is important and could be added as a column, with the nickname column being deleted. Perhaps more historical info could be included in the intro paragraphs.  Newsun (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed groups?
Is it appropriate to includes closed groups (for example those that merged with groups in this list) and what is done with groups which did fit this criteria historically and no longer do?Naraht (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fraternities and sororities which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Dropped African-American
I dropped this section because the NPHC and it's chapters are long-established groups with hundreds of chapters each. This article seems to be about the more recent growth of GLO's tailored to very specific minority groups who, up until recently, had "numbers in the traditional Greek system are historically small and dispersed". Since NPHC is long-established as part of the "old guard" of the greek system, they do not belong on this list. Now, newer african-american organizations not afiliated with the NPHC probably do belong on this list, since they would be relatively new. Justinm1978 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)