The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. Likewise for List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological). Sandstein 09:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical)[edit]

List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the information in this list is also contained on the main list. Since the list can be sorted, there is no need to keep a separate article. Dolotta (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists- related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological) back into List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters - easiest way would be to subst the chronological list into the main list, maintaining the two sublists as redirects for history/attribution. Since tables are now sortable, there's no need to maintain two separate lists. ansh666 07:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dolotta, you seem to have made a mistake in viewing the pages. If you look at List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters, the entire Chronological list is from transcluding List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) to that page. Similarly the geographical list is transcluded to the page as well. I did this because the entire page was having difficulty being edited due to technical issues of length, but the split wasn't. And combining the Chronological and Geographical information into a single table led to the information being too wide for one table in all of the browsers I was using. (And yes, I'm using *I* here, the entire setup of these pages was done by myself.)Naraht (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there are any current technical issues regarding length -- there are around 1200 pages in article space that are larger than the current size of the three articles combined (see Special:LongPages). That being said, considering how long this article has been around I would be just fine with Ansh666's route of substitute and redirect, if you will. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The question to me is 'what does that solve?' And given the split into the two discussions and neither of them is a clean delete, should this be closed as no concensus and the discussion be moved to List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters?Naraht (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (geographical) and (chronological) as WP:CFORK and Reorganize List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters tables so the first section looks like List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters which organizes by state, and Alpha Phi Omega can organize by Regions. "Move national roll number to one of the columns afterwards. Retain the second chronological table where it is arranged by founding date, but shorten it to year (use DTS to retain month and day information while displaying year). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC) updated 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AngusWOOF So you would like them merged back to the same page, but the Geographic one should be split into 11 different tables. And the chronological table (which is larger), the only change would be to reduce the displayed information, but in a manner that would increase the amount of raw code? Note the split was done in the first place to avoid a WP:PAGESIZE issue.Naraht (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend retaining the single table and simplifying it. WP:FRAT has ((FratChapter)) or ((FratChapter2)) templates that can be used. While the template itself may be clunky, they do show which columns are commonly presented, and those seem only to care that the group is currently active or not, and not their entire active/inactive history, although that could be added to the Notes column. The geographic one is only useful if there are plans to show the 11 regions on a map or if the chapters are logically divided by state. Sorting by founding year or national roll number is also already accommodated by the main list. I noticed that that the roll number presented and the founding date doesn't always line up but can be sorted nevertheless. You'll notice on their website, they just list a single table and not worry about geographical, leaving that to be a sortable key. Alumni chapters and other types of chapters are presented separately. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered both when constructing the table and rejected them since they didn't contain all of the appropriate information that I had. And given that ((FratChapter2)) only has a single usage, it doesn't seem like a standard. (And if they would be counted as a standard, that should be looked at in WP:FRAT, not here, I believe). The chapters are not logically divided by state, either in the current Regional/Sectional structure which was for the most part put into place in 1967, and the new one which will be put into place in 2018. For example, SUNY-Buffalo and CUNY aren't in the same region in either setup. I *believe* the last time they were in the same part of the organizational structure was in the 1950s. Yes, the founding date and the roll number don't always line up, but with two exceptions which I can go further into, they are close. Both are currently sortable, I believe. And given that the national Alpha Phi Omega website has changed the software and output of the list of active chapters twice since the wikipedia article was created, I'm not sure that is useful. (Also, without additional work, accessing the inactive chapters there is painful.) I don't know if you noticed, but the website list of active chapters is nowhere listed as a reference. (The national magazine, the torch and trefoil, OTOH, is.) As for whether a map of regions or sections should be shown, I'm open to it.Naraht (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, none of your suggestions seem to deal with the original proposal for deletion which I still believe to be a misread of the duplication between the pages caused by one of them being transcluded into the other.Naraht (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rename/move the geographical and chronological to the template mainspace as they aren't really articles in themselves. They are more like those family trees or character tables. Having them as actual separate articles just screams of content fork. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not consider that, but would quite willingly do so if it would straighten things out.Naraht (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I understand why you were talking about transclusions, that would simplify things. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)

So what now?Naraht (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating vote to Move to Template:List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) The original AFD was because of the content fork which is now restructured to not be a problem. Dolotta is that okay? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: that doesn't really solve anything, just converts them into redundant templates instead of duplicate articles. ansh666 18:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ansh666. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be up to Naraht to make the two tables different enough to keep separate. If the entries have the same columns, then yes, that's redundant and should be removed. Regardless, the original article names aren't needed. I don't think we need the region and section numbers. But what might be more interesting is getting together a pinpoint map of the chapters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC) updated 22:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The common columns are number, chapter and school. Those seem to me to be the key indexes for a chapter. The primary question is with those indexes and without the region and section, is there any reason for the Geographic at all? I'm not sure what data would be needed for a pinpoint map of all 300 active chapters, much less the 700 chapters in total.Naraht (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's a need for a separate geographic if the main list does its job. If anyone's interested in constructing the map, they would need the GPS coordinates and a United States map; they can look at List_of_Kalyeserye_episodes#Map_of_episodes for sample entries and use Module:Location map/data/United States of America, looking up the GPS for all the colleges. That's a lot of work though, and if we're the only ones putting it together, could be original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge and use table sorting so readers can arrange the data as they need.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems like the best option.^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Use table sorting/collapsing to keep the appearance neat. Blue Riband► 17:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.