Talk:Alpha Rho Chi

Links in chapter names

It's an interesting addition here, to note with Wikilinks the namesake architect for whom a chapter is named. For clarity, I wonder if it would be better, in the chapter table, to reference these within EFNs (these gathered into a notes section below) rather than links on the chapter name themselves. This would remove the red links, but then, visually, the italicized (dormant) chapters would be more apparent which is an important benefit to the table.

I can go either way on this. Clarity should be the driver. I note that when the red links are visible, of course, this may help prod editors to create articles about these historic architects.

The fact that many of these are noted with WLs in the historical section body text while also linked in the chapter table is duplicative; from a stylistic perspective where only one is used, I may prefer their use in the body text -- I'd test how this looks before making a firm determination. The WP:MOS explains that, when in close proximity, only one WL to a separate article is needed. Jax MN (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning the other way. I'd rather see the links in only one area rather having *most* of them linked in the historical section, and the few that aren't in the table. And Italization should be obvious even if in redlinks. Is there *anything* we can link them to? (We could of course actually write the articles, but what's the fun in that. *snark*)Naraht (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this either way. Mulling it over, you may be right. Elsewhere, body text references citing chapter names are sporadic, or they only identify notable examples from a list of many chapters. So if we follow that example, I agree that it would be better to remove the links in the body text but include them (as they are an historic fact about the Alpha Rho Chi units), in the table. I prefer that these WLs be in EFNs, and not linked from the name of the chapter, but don't have a strong preference on that, either. Jax MN (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

We do have a source for who the Architects are, but I'm not honestly sure that that is enough to make them notable, what they built is notable, but does that make them notable? In once case, we'd be linking to a WikiData entry. :( Naraht (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Late to the conversation--I am not a fan of the links to the architect's name in the list of chapter names, but left them as found when merging data for the active/inactive project. My objection is mostly visual as the links mess with the visual of bold vs. italic which we use to distinguish active vs. inactive chapters. Having said that, I do think the info would be of interest to potential readers which is why I left the links. It does feel more like note content (efn), but the way it is now is probably more user-friendly. I did not get deep into the text but don't think we want to list each chapter and who it was named for there either. Not really helping, am I? Rublamb (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)