Talk:Fraternities and sororities

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcoffey1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

How many fraternities?

 * How many fraternities and sororities are known of? From the Alpha Alpha Alpha to the Omega Omega Omega inclusive there are 24x24x24 = 13824 possibilities of name.
 * What about fraternity-type and sorority-type organizations that are not named after Greek letters? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A very broad topic. A few comments...
 * A number of fraternities and sororities aren't three letters, with situations ranging from Sigma Chi, Delta Gamma, alpha Kappa Delta Phi, Beta Epsilon Gamma Gamma Alpha Rho Sigma, FarmHouse and others.
 * A number of combinations have been used by different organizations, for example, there are two different nationwide organizations with the name Delta Phi Epsilon, one a Sorority, the other a Professional Foreign Service Fraternity.
 * There are probably 10 times (and that's a guess) the number of locals that there have been nationals, with many with the same name. I know of 9 different local fraternities (and one national Cosmetology Fraternity/Sorority) over the years with the same name as my National Service Fraternity.
 * Are you only including those created/based in the United States? The Philippines has an almost completely separate group of Greek Letter Organizations that are probably even more difficult to track down that those created/based in the USA.Naraht (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Why Greek Letters?
Why do these organisations have names based on greek letters? What do they mean? Do they mean anything? How are they chosen? There's not one mention anywhere in the whole article explaining what it's all about. Even if there's no reason for it at all that should be mentioned. Seems like a massive omission. I note the question has been asked before but no answer is forthcoming. It's probably the one thing anyone not living in the US (ie almost everyone) will be curious about. 212.159.76.165 (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all of them do, there are exceptions like Acacia, FarmHouse and Ceres off the top of my head.
 * Some are two letters, most are three letters and there are few with more (aKDPhi & BEGGARS)
 * Some groups like Phi Beta Kappa and a number of Honor Societies plus Delta Upsilon indicate why they chose those letters, Most Social and Professional Greek Letter Organizations do not. From the examples elsewhere, the letters are generally guessed as being the first letters of a greek phrase or the first letters of specific principles. Some may even be the first letters of an English phrase "greekified" (For example, Beta Upsilon Chi *may have* chosen them for "Brothers Under Christ")
 * I would love to have what I've written be referenced rather than personal experiences, but I haven't seen it. If you do find a good reference, I'd love to see it added.Naraht (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight, re: racism, etc
For discussion. I engaged with User:Broadmore on his Talk page about what I see as a number of generalizations and over-emphasized points regarding racism, sexism, and other -isms that he and others have presently highlighted in this article. "Sex sells," in the old newspaper adage. But inclusion of a large CONTROVERSIES! section here makes it seem as if Greek Life is the source of society's pains. With millions of Greeks having graduated after earning valuable benefit from chapters that have a myriad of styles, themes, and motivations, I think the reverse is true: Greeks have made for a more inclusive, empathetic and aspirational society. I'm posting the dialog here (tidied up), and look for broader input before making changes:

"Broadmoor, I've seen your work before, and appreciate much of what you do. In this situation, you've made a flurry of edits to the Fraternities and sororities article, which is way at the top of the foodchain for multiple derivative and more specific articles below it. But in your recent work you are deep into the weeds: You are asserting, and expanding a section that talks about recent chapters in the news where biased or non-balanced publications take them to task for an anecdotal incident inferring an organizational bias. I note several problems with this:

Overall, your changes in this section of the article tend to paint with too-broad a brush, and (frankly) you smear these groups. You are normally measured in your edits, so I wish to call this out to you, and ask you to correct the article." (from yesterday) There have been a couple of further comments, and Broadmoor hasn't changed his/her position, but it seems a wider audience should discuss this. Jax MN (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To include such claims, unchallenged, at the summary level of ALL FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES implies that these problems are systemic and widespread. This is patently untrue, as all fraternities have lengthy resumes of internal legislation, discipline, and wrangling that seeks to dismantle all aspects of bias and the various "-isms" that plague society today.
 * The fraternities and sororities practice their freedom to associate, choosing members from an already-privileged group who have already been accepted into their universities. Students then may choose from a flurry of groups, at some universities numbering in the thousands where they can offer their volunteer time and make friends.  These relationships are forged as a two-way street. Fraternities and sororities come in a multitude of styles that embrace every lifestyle and segment. Yet your changes ignore this reality.
 * Some of the multicultural fraternities and sororities are quite old; one of your edits, removing the sentence that they started in the 1920s allows readers to assume that they are only a recent development.
 * Many fraternities began as Jewish-themed, or non-sectarian; The fact that many of these have merged or fallen off is really a triumph of a more inclusive culture among Greek societies - pluralistic inclusion, as I explain here - and shows the exemplary progression of these societies to throw off a significant form of bias. Scholars agree.
 * Fraternities are among the most studied and watched groups on campus. They consequently are schooled regularly in matters of avoiding bias, and empathizing toward others.  You do not mention this.
 * One of the most recent areas of bias concern among some in society is that over transgender people. Even though internal legislation takes time to evolve, several national fraternities and sororities have already adopted policies that they will not deny membership to transgender people.  Yet you do not mention this.
 * The articles you have cited are polemic, and antagonistic toward Greeks; You've not included any alternative views, nor put in standard disclaimer language. You therefore assert that these claims of bias are true. They may be, instead (and ARE, in my opinion) simple outliers.  Thus proper weight is a concern. Do a handful of alarming anecdotes outweigh the experiences of simply millions of boring graduates of every race, creed, color or sexual orientation?
 * The historical record shows that fraternities have been on the forefront of pushing for societal change in the area of race, a battle long ago won by the reformers; with some exceptions, many tend to be accommodating toward gay students, and those of the other segments of bias that you mention. To expand on the race issue which stretches further back in time: after the military integration of WWII, the next place it occurred in a rapidly changing time was within the nation's colleges and universities. Many, many chapters made stands in support of pledging blacks, who had formerly not been a significant proportion of the student body of these schools.  Many fraternities and sororities (first chapters, then entire nationals) rejected bias clauses in the 1950s; some quite earlier. Indeed, the record for the Greeks generally in this regard is laudable.  --Some chapters and some individuals are exceptions to this rule. But are outliers, not common.
 * Students are often reactionary, but student behavior is cyclical and predictable. Just because there is a petition drive to 'ban the Greeks' somewhere doesn't mean any more than a hothead organizer is using this to cause a wedge. Campus protesters scream about so many things but new items of outrage shift the focus from last week's issue to this week's. As the Greeks aren't really "the problem" I do not think they will remain in the cross-hairs.
 * As I told some of the young men on one of the campuses where I am a mentor, "None of you would deny someone who is gay to become a member. Nor would you do so on the basis of race.  You are well-past that nonsense. You are pragmatic: you look at two things: "what is a prospective member's character", and "will they pay their bills." --It's that simple for the vast majority of Greek chapters.


 * Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Further, your first-hand observations are not directly relevant to this project, as we do not publish original research. Instead, articles should summarize reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources. If those sources positively or negatively reflect on these organizations, so be it. Your open admiration for fraternities and sororities is within your rights to express on these talk pages, but again, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Stick to what reliable sources say, and summarize those source from a neutral point of view. Further, Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. This talk page is absolutely not the place to complain about what "campus protesters scream about", and comments like this are not productive for improving this article. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I Second what Grayfell is saying. Obviously a well informed and insightful editor. Frats and Greeks are no better than hate filled elitist operations. Flashing gang signs these wannabe " ganstas" are clueless upperclass and upper middle class dweebs! There is even a Kappa Kappa Kappa sorortiy in Indiana and a KKK frat at Dartmouth. Talk about Insensitive! I speak from some Experience with these collegiate cabals.

I am currently facing censorship on this page, perhaps Grayfell or someone else can help me get the objective truth about these sinister elitist organization subtly perpetuating ideas like "Only White Lives matter". Laughable what Jaxon said about being in the "forefront of reform" when the Clear history is that in the past Jews and Blacks had to form their Own fraternities and sororities because of ugly Discrimination and Exclusion from these groups!

Judging by their history and their weird secret rituals, Greek clubs have more similiarities to the KKK (Kappa?) and the Hitler Youth than any benign charitable organization! For shame anyone who voluntarily joins or stays in such hateful groups after they have been enlightened. Too much You Ignorance in ths world especially in Greek college culture. You've all been notified! User:2601:1c0:4280:1ff0:a80e:72d6:a4cc:c325
 * A. The Kappa Kappa Kappa predated the Ku Klux Klan, and they unsuccessfully sued the Klan for trademark infringement. The Fraternity by that name was founded in 1842, and the Klan wasn't founded until 1865 when the American Civil War ended.
 * B. Why would Black fraternities and sororities, like IΦΘ and AKA, exist if the concept of a Greek fraternal organization were somehow intrinsically racist against Blacks? They do exist, because it isn't.
 * Γ. While it is true that many Greek organizations used to exclude non-Whites in the past, so did society at large. Segregation was very real and very wrong, but it was not limited to Greek Life by any means.
 * Δ. I myself am an Alumni Brother of AΦΩ Coed Service Fraternity. Yes, I have Brothers of all ethnicities, and other Greek organizations (even those not specifically concerned with various ethnic minorities) are more diverse than you seem to think.
 * E. Along with all the other chapters on campus, we raised money for Wounded Warriors via a chili cooking contest. It was hosted by KΣ, with other fraternities (including mine, AΦΩ) competing. Good luck convincing the Klan or the American Nazi Party to do anything of the sort, especially after reminding them that many wounded soldiers are non-White.
 * Z. You are not "facing censorship." You are refusing to sign and date stamp your posts in accordance with procedure. If that resulted in some of your other rants being deleted, so be it.
 * H. There are ways to reform the Greek Movement and have it still exist. Removing the residential aspect would probably be good, as it would prevent chapters from hiding alcohol in the name of the chapter. (Individuals? Sure, but that already happens too, anyway.) Chapter houses are a holdover from a time when not just any college student could rent an off-campus apartment (as doing so was illegal without parental consent). With majority as well as voting age lowered to 18 in 1971, that particular rationale admittedly no longer applies. Residential, that is.
 * Θ. You have no source for "actual Greeks" finding all the Greek symbolism offensive. In fact, I've met several ethnic Greeks, with relatives who are still Citizens of Greece, who also joined Societies. Guess what? They're actually proud that a modern movement still exists with the inspiration of fraternal societies in Ancient Greece, including the one founded by Socrates.
 * I. You are not "seconding" what Grayfell said. Grayfell at least tries to pursue WP:NPOV. Nothing you say is neutral.
 * K. Why are you too cowardly to sign your posts properly, anyway?
 * Λ. My proper signature: The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC).

Regarding criticism and Greek culture.

I would personally consider adding a paragraph on the criticism section about the use of words such as "Greek Life" and "National Panhellenic Conference" as well as (to a lesser degree) Greek symbolism in general, as such things are often seen as offensive to actual Greeks and Greek culture.

Hatnote
Can I have some assistance please:

Rush week redirects to Fraternities and sororities. Rush Week (capitalised) is a film. These titles are correct in accordance with WP:DIFFCAPS. It would be normal practice for there to be a hatnote from "Foo bar" to "Foo Bar" and vice-versa. I added a hatnote to Fraternities and sororities here. reverted my edit here with summary "Garbage promotion of a slasher film". I reverted that here with summary "Content of the article is a matter for that article: as long as it exists "Rush week" is ambiguous. The only alternative to the hatnote is to swap Rush week with Rush week (disambiguation) so that Rush week doesn't redirect here". Jax MN reverted again with summary "Sorry. "Rush week" is a persistent and widespread usage in the Greek Letter world. The film is a 35-year old minor slasher movie without enough notability to require a hatnote here. Better to move that film article to "Rush Week (film)" for clarity."

Would someone else please explain the use of hatnotes to resolve ambiguity, the correct titling of the film article, and that level of notability is not a factor in determining whether or not a hatnote is required to resolve ambiguity. Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the addition of film is appropriate. In general if XXXyyyXXX is unique then the article should be at XXXyyyXXX rather than XXXyyyXXX (dab term). Also, the phrase "Rush week" doesn't even occur in this article, leading to the question as to why it is a redirect from that term.Naraht (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed hatnote is completely in order: titles which differ only by capitals are usually hatnoted to each other in both directions. It is notable, as mentioned above, that "Rush week" isn't mentioned in this target article, so there is nothing to explain why this is redirected there: perhaps there should be an entry for "Rush week" in that section or in the Glossary section of the article. Pam  D  15:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * is a primary redirect. There may be a case for changing that status but, unless and until we do, a hatnote is needed per Naming conventions (capitalization) and standard practice. Certes (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate our hashing this out here. The point I raised in reverting this insertion is that the film, Rush Week is relatively minor and even inconsequential in comparison to the current and widespread usage of the term "Rush week" among Greek Letter organizations. Thus WEIGHT should be considered. While the genre of slasher films has its adherents, and while I do not question the film's notability for Wikipedia purposes, I think insertion here would be UNDUE promotion of an ultimately inconsequential film when compared to current usage.  Nor does the film provide helpful context for understanding the topic as an expansion of its usage in the article.  My strong opinion is that the film's article should be renamed as "Rush Week (film)" and to leave it at that.  The usage of the basic term within Greek Letter Organizations is so widespread that I don't see a need to clarify with a DAB page, or any steps beyond the rename/move. Jax MN (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We try to ensure that anyone typing "rush week" has a route to all notable topics called "rush week" or similar, even if there is a clear primary topic at (or redirected from) the base name. Writing about the film in the article's prose would certainly be UNDUE, but we're not doing that.  There is a case for moving the film article back to Rush Week (film), a title it held five years ago, and redirecting Rush Week to the generic term or to the dab if kept.  However, we still need the hatnote as the reader's only route from the destination of "rush week" to the film. Certes (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * . Unfortunately, the statement "So well known" is one that would need to be shown in *this* article. The one piece that is still missing is *any* reference to the term in this article (preferably, of course, with references).Naraht (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that point. It is a blind spot in the article. There are certainly other sources where authors have elaborated on the origin and nature of fraternity recruitment and rush week.  In the next paragraph I will summarize this from Baird's 20th, which if we have some consensus one of us might add (my authorship, based on the source).
 * Prior to 1900, the expansion of housing and competition among fraternities led to more aggressive recruitment among the social fraternities, which had hitherto followed the methodical process of tapping and individualized invitations that are still present among honorary and professional fraternities. In an introductory article about the nature and history of Fraternal life, Baird's indicates that the term "Rushing" and later, "Rush week" hearken to the effort to rush to meet incoming trains filled with new classmates and delegations of freshmen students, where bids were offered and lapel pins then "spiked" the new fellow to mark him as a new member of the fraternity which he opted to join. Baird's further indicates that the tradition was adopted from English boarding schools, which the aggressive fraternities found to be "handy to imitate". Variations of Rush week continued to evolve, some offering immediate recruitment and some deferred until the second half of Freshmen year, or even into the second year. Formal recruitment on all, or virtually all campuses continues as a defined Rush week, while many campuses and most chapters offer ongoing "informal rush" to welcome potential members, hundreds of thousands of new members every year.
 * I don't know if we ought to use "Rush week", "rush week" or "Rush Week" in the article, as a term of art; perhaps "Rush week" is best, here. Off the top of my head, To my point on WEIGHT and UNDUE elevation of the film in a hatnote, I suspect that for every two thousand inquiries about the subject stemming from a web search or reading the main Fraternities and sororities article, 1,999 would be regarding Greek Letter Organization interest, and one might be regarding the film. Jax MN (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if that were the case (1999-to-1), per Certes, we need to leave some route for that one-in-two-thousand searcher to find what they were looking for. Without a hatnote, that searcher would have to be clever enough to try adding (film) to their search, or something else that would cause search results to be shown instead of the redirect target. That the film is notable enough for an article is all that's needed to justify the hatnote; proportionality of notability is not a factor, except as justification for designating a primary topic and using a hatnote instead of taking everyone to a dab page. WP:WEIGHT does not address navigation aids. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;beyond&#8201;•&#8201;mutual 15:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, navigation aids may not be impacted by WP:WEIGHT, however, their insertion does impact Wikilink bloat, and you haven't addressed the underlying promotional nature of this proposed hatnote. There are dozens of other common words or terms-of-art used in this article which may also be linked to an obscure book, or film, or unrelated TV show. If a 1950s TV show, Dobie Gillis, for example, had an episode called Rush Week, because that fictional character happened to have been a member of a fraternity in his back story, ought that episode deserve a hat note? My point is that these insertions become detractive or even harmful to our poor, grasping researcher when they are extended to every possible variant in use of a term. (There is an essay about excessive WLs here somewhere, but I didn't have the link handy.) This film simply isn't that important.  Further, our poor researcher may simply go to the search line, type in the words "Rush week" and up would pop a link to "Rush Week (film)" for his or her "Ah-Ha" moment.  Jax MN (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need a hatnote for every term used in the article, just for each term which redirects here but has alternative meanings. As for the hypothetical episode, we might want some route from here to there if that episode was described in the TV show article in enough detail to merit a  R to section or R to list item.  We could either extend the hatnote to mention both the film and the episode, or divert the hatnote to the dab and list the episode there. Certes (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jax MN WEIGHT and UNDUE don't come into discussions of navigation. If a reader types in the film name without using capitals, they must be offered a route to find the film. The standard way to do this is to have a hatnote at the target of the Rush week redirect, offering the film as an alternative destination. The only alternative to having a hatnote at the redirect target would be to create a dab page at Rush week, with links to the section of this article and to the film. Pam  D  15:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Pam, Shhhnotsoloud, and others. If Rush week leads to something other than a disambiguation page, then the target must have a hatnote to Rush Week either directly or via a dab page. It is completely irrelevant what the subject of Rush Week is, how notable it is or isn't relative to Rush week or how it relates to any other content policies such as DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation, where kindly pointed out the D2D guideline: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles.  As mentioned in the original posting, policy WP:DIFFCAPS is also relevant here: it indicates that when "Foo bar" and "Foo Bar" lead to different topics, they require hatnotes between them.  Certes (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As this article continues not to have the redirect explained at all, it might astonish a reader who isn't aware of it (WP:ASTONISH), and it even makes moving the disambiguation page into the base title problematic, as it doesn't meet the criteria explained at WP:DABMENTION. --Joy (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joy Yes, perhaps we need a dab page at Rush week, with the 2 entries, as the term is so unimportant for fraternities etc that it isn't mentioned in the article. Pam  D  19:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have Rush week (disambiguation) but it's an orphan, making it useless unless someone searches explicitly for a dab. Certes (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should probably move it to Rush week. Pam  D  21:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the term is not mentioned at all in this article then it seems to fail WP:DABMENTION and we should just retarget Rush week to Rush Week directly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some may have missed the language I suggested a few days ago in this discussion, which addressed the lack of mention of the term "Rush week" in body text, and adding context. I have added that section, as a necessary part of resolution.  Joy, Certes and Thryduulf are correct that without this mention, this discussion may not make sense.  Why wasn't it added before?  I can only surmise that the use of the term, in a GLO context is so ubiquitous and obvious to partisans that this was an oversight through all these years of a highly-trafficked page. I cannot think of a single American campus where Greeks are present, which does not use the term "Rush week" or its derivatives widely. Jax MN (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So now a hatnote at the section, to help readers who want the film, is all we need to add. No dab page needed. I'll add it now. Pam  D  07:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote, rush to close
OK, to level set, er, rushed to close this discussion. Rather than the hatnote, if forced to choose, I would settle for a DAB page to avoid clutter. It would be far better to adjust the name of the film to Rush Week (film) so that when searching, this comes up as an option. Have I won anyone over? Jax MN (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed the fact that the term wasn't in the main article. It was a dumb oversite by earlier editors; thanks for pointing it out Pam.  I saw your snark, but it was well-deserved. The article now mentions Rush week.
 * Several have cited Wikipedia rules that, where there are two meanings, "users must be offered a route to find the film". --Gosh that is a strong statement.  I've always been suspicious of superlatives.  When two articles have relatively equal weight, sure.  Hatnotes are appropriate.  But this film is so abysmally insignificant in comparison to standard usage by perhaps 500,000 persons joining fraternities and sororities each year, plus their friends and families, that it is simply a logical argument to ask, when does "must" not apply?  There are billions of non-standard usages of common terms. The "must" rule would hold that each of these deserves a hatnote.  Do you really want that?
 * To compare, I'd estimate this film is streamed maybe 30 times a week, if that. (trying to be fair)
 * , you are an experienced Wikipedian. From Leeds, I take it.  I'll do my best to construct a UK-centric example of why my argument makes sense. As you know, Mr. Bean is a much-loved, well-known character from British television. Say, for example, that a pub in the Shetland Islands offered a menu item of a stepped-up bowl of breakfast beans, crafting a savory mix of beans, bacon, scallions and spices, and serving it in a bread bowl, advertising it as the "MR. Bean Bowl - not just your ordinary beans".  Locals might chuckle, and it may become locally popular, served five, ten, maybe twenty times a day.  Now, if the proprietor (setting aside the offense of self-promotion on Wikipedia) offered an article about this savory treat, and if (for some reason) it was accepted, maybe because there are aficionados of bean dishes who maintain a Wikipedia Project for that subject, I ask you, does that bean dish deserve equal treatment with a hat note on the Mr. Bean article?  Or would the natural order, and nature's God be better served by requiring that the bean dish article name be sufficiently distinct so no one would be confused?  Say, Mr. Bean (pub food)? And further, "must" that bean dish article be granted a hatnote for its few potential readers, at the top of the venerable Mr. Bean (TV show) article which is viewed 6,000 times on a good day?
 * Surely these two disparate topics wouldn't be a source of confusion, and the pub wouldn't legitimately be diminished if the hatnote didn't exist. We don't allow promotion here, after all.
 * With deepest respect, I ask, is someone making money here on streaming that dumb movie, a movie which no one cares about? Is there hidden promotion there, say from owning streaming rights?


 * @Jax MN Quite straightforwardly, if the menu dish was notable and had an article at Mr. Bean (pub food) then, yes, I would expect to see a hatnote pointing to it at the top of the article Mr. Bean. That is how Wikipedia's system of navigation works. Pam  D  22:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are billions of non-standard usages of common terms, but there are not billions of Wikipedia articles, nor even billions of subtopics mentioned in sufficient detail to merit a hatnote. A very rough count is 766,890. For is used on approximately 189,000 pages, About on 154,000 and Other uses on 66,000, with many uses of those templates leading to multiple other articles via a dab.  Those numbers seem consistent, suggesting that the guidance to provide a route to alternative meanings is generally being followed. Certes (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since are dealing with two topics that have identical names except for the capitalization of one word, I think it is important to note that "Rush week" is the more common use of this term. In theory, it would be best to return "Rush Week" back to "Rush Week (film)" for clarity. Regardless, Rush week (disambiguation) exists and clearly solves the issue if used correctly. Individuals who are looking for info on the movie do not need to be directed to this article. Rublamb (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rublamb Whatever we do needs to help the reader who wants the film but doesn't capitalise its "W". Wherever "Rush week" leads them, they must be offered a route to the film, either directly or via a dab page. A dab page with just two entries, one of which is the primary topic, would be deleted. Pam  D  07:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @PamD: A DAB page for this topic has been around since 2018. Rublamb (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rublamb Yes, and it is now a legitimate dab page since you added the senator, so I have reformatted it to reflect the fact that there's a primary topic, changed the hatnote, and we can all get on with our other editing. Pam  D  08:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we really want Russ Weeks on the dab? He's at best a See Also as a vaguely plausible double typo. Certes (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Certes If adding a mildly unnecessary entry to that dab page legitimises its existence and allows this whole mess to stop wasting people's time, I'm happy with it. (If we remove him from the dab page, it has no reason to exist and the navigation can be handled by hatnotes ... except that someone will object, again, to the hatnote pointing to the film from the target of the redirect for the film title with alternative capitals, and yet more editor time gets wasted to ensure readers get the navigation they need.) Pam  D  13:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At the risk of introducing WP:OTHERSTUFF, we do have hatnotes for non-primary foods, both directly such as Cholera → Cholera (food) and via dabs such as Napoleon → Napoleon (disambiguation) → Napoleon (pastry). Certes (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have now made me hungry. Rublamb (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)