Talk:List of Kappa Sigma chapters/Archive 1

Cleanup
This thing really needs a cleanup. Kudos to whoever re-organized it, but it's not immediately evident that it's sorted by state...

Id be cool if we could get an old BD (the good one, you know what Im talking about) that has founding dates and such.

Page name
Should the name of this page be changed? See category list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_chapters_or_members_of_United_States_student_societies

Nearly all other pages follow the format:
 * List of ???? chapters

Dbiel (Talk) 13:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Inactive Chapter list
Does anyone want to put together a list of currently inactive Undergraduate chapters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.232.126 (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have recently cleaned up and updated the Active Chapters and Colonies sections of the page, both of which were a terrible mess and extremely out of date. I wanted to add a list of inactive chapters, and am willing to do so, but I do not know how to amend the headings/directory box on the page to include a Reference to Inactive Chapters. I would locate the list after the Colonies and before the Alumni Chapters sections. So if anyone know how to add Inactive Chapters to the headings/directory box on the page, I will then create the list. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stufield (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added an Inactive Chapters list this week. I'll try to keep it current, which is difficult because the Fraternity never announces chapter or colony closures. It has a real head-in-the-sand attitude about closures: don't announce them, hope nobody will notice them; members only need to hear the positive news, never anything negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.34.188 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Update
Hey guys, I was the original author of the page and am currently working to update it. I'm adding founding dates but not including inactive chapters. Everything included will be based on old BD notes (I have several old versions) and will come from the Kappa Sigma website. I expect this update to be complete within one week at the most, and hope to actually have it done by tomorrow evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.longstreth (talk • contribs) 08:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Colonies
The St. John's Staten Island Campus is not recognized as of yet. "Not recognized" by whom? The colony is clearly recognized by the Fraternity, as the colony is included in the lists of chapters and colonies on the Fraternity website.

Not recognized by the SJU Staten Island administration? I think it does recognize the colony, as it invited the Fraternity to colonize there. But even if it is not recognized, so what? Several other Kappa Sig colonies and at least four active chapters (Alaska/Anchorage, Bentley, Coastal Carolina, and Johnson & Wales Charlotte campus) are not formally recognized by the administrations of those schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.34.188 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul?
I'm curious what people's thoughts are on a complete overhaul of this page. It is clear that managing such a huge list is difficult, especially with the frequent changing of status of the individual chapters. I'm thinking a historical listing of Kappa Sigma chapters might be more appropriate. That is, two main tables, one for the US and one for Canada (and any other international chapters). The columns would simply be something like "First Founded", "Chapter", and "School" (perhaps also "City"). In the case that a chapter lost it's charter, there would be no distinction. In the case that a chapter later regained a lost charter, again, there would be no distinction, the "First Founding" date would not change. It might be a good idea, however, to add a note or otherwise distinguish colonies that have never been a chapter, but for colonies that are recolonizing a formerly founded chapter, it would seem like the "First Founded" entry would suffice.

The reason I suggest this is to make maintenance of this page more manageable. It eliminates the need to stay completely up-to-date with these things and also allows us to pay better attention to any changes.

Moreover, I'm sure a current listing of chapters and colonies is available somewhere on the Fraternity's website -- in which case it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to duplicate content.

Thoughts? jheiv talk  contribs 11:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Alpha Phi Omega chapters to see an example of a large chapter list.Naraht (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For ease of management, as well ease of reading, we have all chapters and colonies in one list at List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. Some of the ideas used were borrowed from  List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters.  NYCRuss   ☎  13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys are awesome -- thanks for all this stuff -- now hopefully I'll be able to add it before the page has to become protected or something ☺ . Do you find the maintenance a big undertaking?  jheiv  talk  contribs 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on the notes column of the list because I'm going to nominate it for featured list status. That is very time consuming.  Aside from that, it is low maintenance once in place.  if a chapter goes inactive, or an inactive charters, I don't have to move it from one table to another.  I just have to add a year to the chartered column, change the info in the status column, and copy and paste instructions next to |-, and possibly add info the notes column.  NYCRuss   ☎  13:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of bringing Alpha Phi Omega chapters up to date, we had 6 charterings in late April and May that I need to get specific dates of charterings on. Also, that of course affects the Petitioning Group (colony) and Interest Group lists. Though now that the school year is over, I don't think there will be many changes for the next 3 months. Yes, the one for Alpha Phi Omega is a behemoth, thank goodness for computer generated spreadsheets at creation time. :)
 * Russ, is there a template or draft page you are working on so others can help you?--Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Phi Psi list, no there isn't. The formatting is done, but the additional content that I'll be adding to the Phi Psi list will be coming mostly from fraternity sources, so it would be difficult for anyone not in possession of these to assist, but the offer is appreciated.  I am using the notes portion to contain brief chapter histories, particularly events that relate to fraternity as a whole.  Once I complete my first pass at populating the fields, I'll reach out to fraternity brothers to provide more information, and emphasize the importance of reliable and verifiable sources.  I believe that this is important for stability.  That will be my second pass through the notes section.  Then I'll put it up for a peer review, than nominate it to be a featured list.  I'd like this to be done by the end of July.  NYCRuss   ☎  17:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the contents of the poster who is proposing a complete overhaul of the page. It is not at all difficult to manage the present lists of active and inactive chapters and colonies ... a minute or two of data entry every time someone learns of the establishment of a new colony, the chartering or rechartering of a colony, the closure of a colony or chapter. The lists are fine as they are, are easy to maintain, and often are more accurate than the lists posted on the Fraternity website, as the Fraternity is notoriously slow about updating those lists. For instance, the present Wiki lists correctly show Delta-Nu at UCLA as a chapter, whereas it is still shown on the Fraternity website as a colony. The colony was rechartered last weekend, but the Fraternity has not yet made that change to its website lists. The Wiki lists give people with current info the opportunity to share that info with anyone interested enough to be checking the lists, perhaps well in advance of when that info finally gets posted on the lists on the Fraternity website. Why would anyone want a list that "eliminates the need to stay completely up-to-date with these things"? The whole purpose of such lists is to keep them as "completely up-to-date" as possible, thanks to the contributions of anyone who has current info to add. It also seems contradictory to state that a certain list, any list, on one hand "eliminates the need to stay completely up-to-date with these things" but on the other hand "also allows us to pay better attention to any changes". How can one "pay better attention to any changes" if the list is, or the lists are, not kept "completely up-to-date"?

A historical list would be very informative IF it differentiated between active and dormant chapters, something that the historical list on the Fraternity website does not do (not surprising, since the Fraternity website is a shambles compared to those of most other fraternities). The customary way of distinguishing between active chapters and inactive chapters in a historical list is to set out the dormant chapters in italics. The historical list would have to be either accompanied by a separate list of colonies, or just set out the colonies at the end of the historical list with a blank space or two between them and the most recently chartered active chapter. But such a list would only be as accurate as the most recent changes made to it; it would require exactly the same constant updating as the present lists do if it were to be accurate. And there would be little point in having it if it were not kept as "completely up-to-date" as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.34.188 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Fraternity's website is a mess -- but none of these chapters are sourced and that makes verification of them difficult -- I'm not sure Wikipedia's "whole purpose" to to keep them as completely up-to-date, but rather, be as up-to-date as possible while still being completely reliably sourced. And I understand that the list lags behind real-time, and it may be true that Delta-Nu has become a chapter, but unless the change is accompanied with a WP:RS that shows this, I'm not sure it should be changed.  jheiv  talk  contribs 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I have no idea what a "WP:RS" is, and I also do not know what the test or standard is for something being "completely reliably sourced". I would not trust anything on the Fraternity website as being completely reliable, as the website is a near total disaster ... it has not been updated/overhauled in some time, and lags far behind the websites of most other fraternities. But the rechartering of Delta-Nu is on the facebook pages of members of the refounding fathers and some of their friends. So I, for one, am confident that it has indeed occurred.65.38.34.188 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A WP:RS is a reliable source and that is a link to the sourcing policy of Wikipedia. I hope you'll read it and help add references to the list.  Its something I plan on getting to once other stuff is cleaned up.  jheiv  talk  contribs 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fraternity Website now shows Delta-Nu at UCLA as an active chapter, no longer a colony. I assume that is a reliable-enough source.65.38.34.188 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Colony counts in section heads
I keep removing the counts of colonies in sections heads. I'm not sure why they keep getting added. I don't think this is the way any section heads are handled in any other articles. It seems out of place, especially when they show up in the TOC. jheiv talk  contribs 21:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the counts of colonies? It is informative, and if somebody wants to go to the trouble of putting them there, why should you take it upon yourself to remove them? What difference does it make whether or not section heads are "handled" that way in other articles? Is conformity more important than information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.34.188 (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * They could go underneath the section heads, sure, but being in the section head not only isn't conforming but it's ugly, out of place, and will break links to sections when the numbers change. jheiv  talk  contribs 06:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated, I think providing information is more important than "conforming". I did not think the numbers were "ugly", but that sort of thing ... beauty/ugliness ... is, as the saying goes, in the eye of the beholder. Nor did I ever experience any broken links to sections when the numbers were changed. But if the more appropriate place for the numbers, if they are to be provided, is underneath the section heads, then they could go there and still provide the latest information as to the number of colonies as that number changes.65.38.34.188 (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

New Format - February 2012
User NGKapSig contibutions has reformatted the chapter list to include all historical chapters of Kappa Sigma. I like the new format, but want to insert a talk section to see if there are comments or suggestions to improve the table. My one comment is that the table should be sortable.--Enos733 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What columns would you like to be sortable?Naraht (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think most of the table should be sortable, but especially by University name and status.--Enos733 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

House photos
I've added a number of photos of chapter houses. I hope everyone is comfortable with this. QuinnHK 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not the author of the photos as your license states. They therefore are a copyright violation.  These pictures need to be removed see WP:C. Airpear 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've gotten permission to use three of the photos from the chapters who own them and have added that information to the photos. What license is appropriate? QuinnHK 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm using as I think a website can be seen as similar to a press kit.  It is a promotional photo, after all. QuinnHK 05:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)