Talk:Omega Phi Alpha
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Omega Phi Alpha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Convention
[edit]Is the table of Convention information encyclopedic or unnecessary? Rublamb (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong impulse either way. I'd allow a summary table of convention dates and themes, as I can conjecture several valid lines of research for checking on this information without a deep dive into fraternity records.
- It might be a good idea for us to determine a template page, where both the standard and obscure style determinations are used, with these then heavily noted with editing notes. The page would make use of our our latest formatting, syntax and stylistic determinations. Then, the Project page can point to it as a teaching tool. Your work has sparked some review of these style decisions, such as "Prime" vs. "First", to indicate early, reissued chapters, and numerous other improvements. I know I have used both of these in previous editing work, and, prompted by this, would pursue consistency when I go back to these pages from time to time. Jax MN (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I was just looking at the status options today on the WP page--I try to be consistent but forget some of the rarer options. This particular article has several lists, which is not preferred in MOS. I think the list of service projects could be changed to text and makes sense to keep it as its links to other articles in Wikipedia. However, the list of conference locations (down to which hotel they used) and themes seems to be beyond general encyclopedic information. I know some editors would just remove this info but it does look like a lot of work was put into it. But maybe this info would be best on the group's website? Rublamb (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)