Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 25: Line 25:

:* [[The NoZe Brotherhood]] – Done. [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 20:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:* [[The NoZe Brotherhood]] – Done. [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 20:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:* [[Quill and Scroll]], also needed on [[Honor society]] list

:* [[Quill and Scroll]], also needed on [[Honor society]] list

:* [[Sigma Iota Chi]] – Done. [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 18:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

:* [[List of student corporations in Latvia]] – in process [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 23:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:* [[List of student corporations in Latvia]] – in process [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 23:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:* [[Lettonia (corporation)]], green looks wrong — ”’Comment”’, see the actual website. The infobox crest which had been uploaded to Wikipedia via Commons is rendered somewhat lighter than the one on their website. I used that latter example, when selecting the swatches. [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 20:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:* [[Lettonia (corporation)]], green looks wrong — ”’Comment”’, see the actual website. The infobox crest which had been uploaded to Wikipedia via Commons is rendered somewhat lighter than the one on their website. I used that latter example, when selecting the swatches. [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 20:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:*:I was looking at the flag as well. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 20:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:*:I was looking at the flag as well. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 20:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:*::I understand the concern, but would leave it as it is, for this reason: there are far more color choices rendered in ink, versus thread or cloth. And oddly, many of this vast array of ink colors have copyrighted or defined names. Colors offered by flag manufacturers (and stole or cord manufacturers) tend to use just generic names. Artists who make the official crests, then, have more options available from which to choose. While flag makers offer a finite supply of solid color cloth options. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. I surmise that the original (now-redlinked) editor who uploaded that image, either used sub-quality scanning tools, or for some reason changed the hue and saturation for more contrast on a white background. But the ‘official’ crest, on the website, should rule. (Again, I wrote a more lengthy response for posterity.) [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 21:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:*::I understand the concern, but would leave it as it is, for this reason: there are far more color choices rendered in ink, versus thread or cloth. And oddly, many of this vast array of ink colors have copyrighted or defined names. Colors offered by flag manufacturers (and stole or cord manufacturers) tend to use just generic names. Artists who make the official crests, then, have more options available from which to choose flag makers a finite supply of solid color cloth options. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. I surmise that the original (now-redlinked) editor who uploaded that image, either used sub-quality scanning tools, or for some reason changed the hue and saturation for more contrast on a white background. the ‘official’ crest, on the website, should rule. (Again, I wrote a more lengthy response for posterity.) [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 21:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:4. ”’Notability or No Source Tags”’

:4. ”’Notability or No Source Tags”’

:* [[Kappa Delta Kappa]] (only sources are from the college; nothing found in newspapers.com)

:* [[Kappa Delta Kappa]] (only sources are from the college; nothing found in newspapers.com)

Scope of the Project, Notability Rules (clarification), and Syntax for the Watchlist are linked here: Watchlist Talk Page. A discussion on the types of chapter status is here: F&S Project talk page, Archive #7.

The main list of infobox issues can be found at Category:Fraternity articles with infobox fraternity issues and the Weekly Cleanup List

  1. missing image size – Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing image size (91)
  2. missing |colors= – Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing colors (227)
  3. needs color boxes (Helpful link, has colors, flags, and addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German, and Polish fraternities)
4. Notability or No Source Tags

  • Kappa Delta Kappa (only sources are from the college; nothing found in newspapers.com)
Delete: is already included in List of social sororities and women’s fraternities
Comment: Here’s a source from El Mundo 1957 when it was founded: https://gpa.eastview.com/crl/elmundo/?a=d&d=mndo19571224-01.1.8&srpos=1&e=——195-en-25–1–img-txIN-%22Zeta+Phi+Beta%22—-1957—–

Rublamb (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense for these to be wrapped with the template:end_date_and_age, just as founded is wrapped in start_date_and_age?Naraht (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of merging the two into one. Another option is to look at the style of defunct colleges, which creates an entry like this: 1891–1921. That could still include the length of operations, such as: 1891–1921 (30 years). Rublamb (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what infobox University does, but I can’t find any with the number of years active.Naraht (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox univeristy does not include the number of years. That would be our introduction, if you can figure out the code. Rublamb (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this? I still like merging the two fields to create a date range. Rublamb (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found some direction on whether or not the English version of mottos should or should not be in italics in the infobox or elsewhere. MOS:ITALQUOTE says “Do not put quotations in italics. Quotation marks (or block quoting) alone are sufficient and the correct ways to denote quotations.” This part of MOS also says to using the language template automatically italicize phrases based on the language. MOS says, “Please use these templates rather than just manually italicizing non-English material.” Rublamb (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the motto in Sigma Xi to {{lang|grc|Σπουδῶν Ξυνῶνες}}<br>({{transliteration|grc|Spoudon Xynones}})<br>”Companions in Zealous Research”. Can we use that as our example for discussions. I’m not saying that is perfect, but rather something to start with. Note the line breaks are only to fit in the infobox.Naraht (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding an exampled that uses the transliteration template. I added that to the text of the symbols section as well. Previously, we decided to use the returns/breaks to separate the Greek and translated versions of the motto in the infobox, so that is the correct format. Rublamb (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s say there are three Mu Mu Mu Fraternity houses that are NHRP, have articles and thus belong in Category:Mu Mu Mu houses.

For these very rare circumstances, I’d include the HQ building if it is on the NRHP (assuming you mean NRHP, and not NHRP…). This would therefore cast a wide net, identifying all the historic buildings associated with that national, which I think is the natural search query that would lead researchers here. In the same way, I’d include the relatively few NRHP-listed buildings for literary societies (are there 20?), and which have articles (a subset of those ~20). It strikes me that if a researcher wants to find student organization built-or-owned registered historic buildings, they’d want to find these, too. Jax MN (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the real question is “does a chapter house have to include bedrooms?” Certainly, the building that houses the national chapter/grand chapter/headquarters could be considered a chapter house without bedrooms. But I do get your point.
The easiest solution is to change the general category from “Fraternity and Sorority Houses” to “Fraternity and Sorority Buildings”. I say this because you have just hit the tip of the iceberg in terms of outliers or potential outliers. A lot of the Greek letter organizations, senior societies, literary societies, and secret societies at the Ivy League schools, especially Yale, do not include bedrooms in their chapter house/lodge/hall/tomb. For example, St. Anthony Hall at Yale sold its dormitory building to the university, but kept its separate chapter building. Saint Anthony Hall (Hartford, Connecticut) has never included housing, and the former St. Anthony Club in NYC was not connected to a chapter but did serve a temporary and residential hotel. At the same time, Delta Psi, Alpha Chapter building (Columbia) and St. Anthony Hall House (Pennsylvania), do include housing. A generic “St. Anthony Hall buildings” would cover everything, while “St. Anthony Hall houses” may or may not work depending on your definition. Rublamb (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we will also find that these outliers are most common among historically significant, very old lodge halls. If there was an article about Delta Tau Delta’s first building, I believe it was non-residential. The first Chi Psi building was a log cabin built by the founders in the woods, aiming to avoid detection… Jax MN (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Houses to Buildings

[edit]

Changing the Houses to Buildings has some significant side effects both good and bad,

I’m not sure that these outliers mentioned above represent a significant grouping that we wish to have. I’d also like to restrict this to only collegiate groups, otherwise ended up with every Moose Lodge matching the NHRP will end up there as well. I’d prefer that “bedrooms” be the determining factor and that Shadowwood and Delta Tau Delta Founders House be only in cat representing their GLO (and I don’t know where Eumenean Hall, Davidson College belongs) Naraht (talk)

The outliers I mentioned are an example of a collegiate fraternity (St. Anthony Hall = Fraternity of Delta Psi). You don’t need to worry about general fraternal lodges ending up in this category. They already have their categories such as Elk buildings and Clubhouses on the National Register of Historic Places. (see for a complete list). Rublamb (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beecher Hall is also a literary society building. So maybe we need to add Category:College literary society buildings. Rublamb (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: I know you are on other projects now, but I don’t want this to slip through the tracks. Rublamb (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s funny, I was thinking about which of the groups in a later version of Baird’s had articles, but then I noticed that it would be fairly easy to copy over the title page from wikisource ([1])(with some tweeks) to show how much of the *First* edition has pages: Note, I have limited this to *only* those entries on the title page which correspond to *one* organization, so dropping “Sophomore Societies” for example. I also added QQQ – to both the link and the entry if the wikipedia page for that name is for a completely different group.

Naraht (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how I feel about this, but it isn’t it allowable to copy information that is in the public domain straight into Wikipedia? Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. We can basically copy the entire Alpha Digamma section straight into Wikipedia. Honestly, Notability is the more significant issue and whether or not we should, we treat any with more than 5 chapters more or less as Notable. ASC had nine, but with the good documentation on the merger into Beta Theta Pi, I don’t think that is an issue.Naraht (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have “fixed” many of these imported articles which is why I have mixed feelings about doing this. At least Baird’s has fairly straight forward text vs. a 19th century biographical entry. In this case, I would not bother with any that have just one chapter. Although in Baird’s, they probably aren’t going to meet notability (unless it is a sorority that shows up in the sorority handbook as well). Groups with least three chapter are okay with me, but your suggestion of five is even better. Rublamb (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digamma – it’s easy to paraphrase. No need to just cut and paste. As to “three” or “five”, I suggest we continue with Baird’s practice of allowing 3-chapter groups to be listed. (As long as they meet the other points of notability: ten years, yada). Only the earliest versions of Baird’s even attempted to note single chapter locals. Seeing the explosion of growth, he soon abandoned the Quixotic effort to list them all. There were probably single days where more than a dozen scattered locals were formed across the country. Jax MN (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start working on some of these. As Jax says, they are pretty easy to paraphrase. Rublamb (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* that what is at the Alpha Kappa Phi entry in the 1879 Bairds matches with https://sc.centre.edu/sc/digital/akp.html with minutes at https://sc.centre.edu/sc/digital/pdf/20401_02.pdf due to not only the dates, but also the use of lowercase Alpha Alpha Pi, which given the fact that early meetings ended with ( adjourned in Love, Purity and Fidelity) and the later ended with (adjourned in α.α.π.)Naraht (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had it pulled up in Baird’s and the Almanac yesterday, but stopped working for the day. Rublamb (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Alpha Psi Omega:::Delta Psi Omega (Delta Psi Omega is a redirect)
  2. Sigma Delta Pi::::Sigma Delta Mu (found Sigma Delta Mu today)
  3. Sigma Tau Delta::::Sigma Kappa Delta (Sigma Kappa Delta has a full page)

and I think a couple more.

Proper handling. I think
1) If the two year doesn’t deserve its own page, have a section in four year, even if all references are to internal links for related orgs
2) If it does deserve its own page, Affiliation in the two year org’s infobox is to the four year org.
3) Categories: If the four year org has a page then the two year is in that cat even if as a redirect.
4) Is it worthwhile to have a separate category as a sub category of Category:Two-year college honor societies? Naraht (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many junior college honor societies with their own article. Certainly, there are not many of these groups that are still active. However, if we add in the existing tech college honor society, there should be enough for a category. If these groups are in Baird’s, it would be easy enough to split into two articles. However, I know I merged some articles and did not split others because there were not secondary sources for the two-year group. Question: if an article includes the info on both the two-year and four-year groups, would we use both categories? Rublamb (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, any honor that has chapters at schools awarding associates, but really not at schools that award bachelors at the time of chartering belong in Category:Two-year college honor societies. In the case of Delta Psi Omega, we have Delta Psi Omega a redirect and the redirect is in the cat. I think the cat as of right now is a good size, the question is whether to treat those 2 year groups as having “Affiliation” with the 4 year groups (and vice versa?)Naraht (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. In looking at Delta Psi Omega example, if it were to have its own article (which it does not because of a lack of sources), I would include Alpha Psi Omega in the affiliation field of the infobox, because the two groups have the same board and officers. So, it would be correct to include Delta Psi Omega in the affiliation field of Alpha Psi Omega, along with Independent. I know keeping Independent seems weird, but we would include both ACHS and the secondary group without question, so I think Independent should remain.
However, if the Association of Cattlemen sponsors two groups, Honor Society for Cows at four-year colleges and Moo Moo Moo at two-year colleges, I would not include the groups in Affiliation because the connection and correct affiliation would be to the parent organization, the Association of Cattlemen. I believe this is the more normal organizational structure that we will run into, based on working with these honor society articles. Rublamb (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you crosslink these with a line in a See Also section. Jax MN (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For chapter lists of merged groups, I was looking at List of Tau Kappa Alpha chapters and List of Delta Sigma Rho chapters. One has the merger date as an “Inactive Date” for all of the chapters, the other doesn’t. I’m pretty sure I’ve other articles *both* ways, and would like opinions on standardization. For the *Normal* mergers, (i.e. not Sigma Mu Sigma or where the merger is rejected by some), I’m fine with basically having the chapter list look like it did on the day before the merger, with the single date up at the top in the lead.Naraht (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely rare for all chartered chapters to be active and participate in a merger. Therefore, I prefer showing the outcome of all chapters, rather than “this was the way the fraternity looked on June 29, 1959”. Of course, neither of these two examples currently follow the “new” format we use for mergers, which is to include the Greek letters of the new organization in the status column, an efn detailing the merger and the new chapter name (when known), and the merger date as the closure date in the Charter date column. That being said, I think we need to be flexible in the cases where the chapter list is very long and almost every chapter merged (such as the examples you found). For example, would it really be useful to show the same merger date 50 times? The other thing to consider here is that we may want to treat the two types of mergers differently: one being a fraternity that is absorbed by another fraternity and the other being two fraternities merging to create new fraternity. In the latter case, Frat A and Frat B create Frat C; however, the merger was technically with Frat B which is not what we would want to put in the status field. Not sure I am helping here…. However, I suspect that if I came randomly came across the two examples you mention, I would update them to the “new format”. Rublamb (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know A + B -> New C is much less common than A -> Existing Q. I just *really* find the 200 time repeated January 23, 2086 for inactive date annoying. If all chapters went, I think I’d be OK with only having it once, but can’t really qualify for a new standard.Naraht (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sometimes common sense has to apply. Rublamb (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(example) Alpha Alpha completely merges into Beta Gamma in 1950. Notable person Harry Johnson joined Alpha Alpha in 1930. If Harry dies in 1945, should he be listed as a notable Beta Gamma? If Harry dies in 1960 (or is still alive) should he be listed?Naraht (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, my opinion is different. I say list them with their original group if there is an article; include them with the successor only if there is not an article for the original group. Just because the two fraternities merge and alumni are welcomed, does not equal an active or noteworthy connection. Harry Johnson is the perfect example as he had no involvement in Beta Gamma. Also, most sources for Harry Johnson, such as his obituary and yearbook, are going to say he belonged to Alpha Alpha. Unless Beta Gamma publishes a directory that includes Harry Johnson, there probably will not be a source to show his connection to Beta Gamma.
Of course, if Harry Johnson is really famous, Beta Gamma will put his name everywhere. However, I find it puffery for Beta Gamma to claim Harry Johnson if he belonged to a Kappa chapter that went inactive before the merger or he died before the merger. It is even more pretentious for Beta Gamma, which let’s say was founded in 1947, to claim members of Alpha Alpha from the 19th century. I have come across older local fraternities that merge with a younger national that jumps on that legacy for credibility. Of course, with my system, those local frat’s members could be included in the national’s membership list. That really is the only way to capture the otherwise non-notable local frat’s history and legacy.
Let’s say Alpha Alpha and Beta Gamma merge to form Alpha Alpha Beta Gamma. I still say list the members with their original GLO, unless there are no articles on Alpha Alpha and Beta Gamma. There is no need to duplicate names on two lists. Consider that our member’s table only includes the “original initiation chapter” for people who join several chapters. That is, if Harry belongs to the Kappa chapter of Alpha Alpha which becomes the Alpha Kappa chapter of Beta Gamma, his initiation chapter is still Kappa of Alpha Alpha. That is why he really belongs in the Alpha Alpha article.
The weird exception to all of this is except when it makes sense. Let’s say Harry’s brother John is still living at the time of the merger and goes on to become a president of either Beta Gamma or Alpha Alpha Beta Gamma. Then, it would make sense to include John in both lists. Rublamb (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following scenarios should apply:

  • Subsequent friendly merger – YES, Harry should be listed in the new group (too).
  • Subsequent decline of Alpha Alpha and then an absorption of any type – YES, Harry should be listed in the new group (too).
  • After restart of his chapter under a new local or national name – YES, Harry should be listed in the new group (too).
  • After restart of his chapter under the same national name but different chapter name – YES, Harry should be listed in the new group (too). Rationale: his notability remains linked to both the national and the school, with some continuing relationship – even if tenuous – between the new and the original chapter.
  • Restart of the same fraternity (Alpha Alpha) under a new chapter name without schism – YES, Harry should be listed in the new group (too).
  • If notability is due to infamy (jail, significant crime) – YES, Harry should still be listed in as a fraternity notable even if embarrassing.
I can think of one scenario where the answer is NO:

  • In the case of a schism between Harry’s chapter and its former national fraternity, leading to renaming as a new local or the chapter joining a new national – NO, Harry should be listed only as a notable in his former group unless he specifically adheres to the new fraternal identity. Rationale: his group of actives did not effect such a schism in earlier years. It was executed by a later group of collegians and more likely than not implies alumni opposition.

Jax MN (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this all boils down to “Has Harry done anything with Beta Gamma” (or Alpha Alpha Beta Gamma). If so, include in Beta Gamma, if not. However, in the event of a split, I’m torn. If Zeta chapter of Alpha Alpha leaves the national and becomes Zeta Alpha, If Zeta Alpha is notable, I’m ok with Harry being listed as a Zeta Alpha Alpha notable Alumnus. Frankly, the agreement of Alpha Delta Phi Society splitting off covers that.Naraht (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does. I just don’t see the need to list people two places, unless it falls under the actively involved situation. Rublamb (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The updated parameter report is up. I went through and found one we missed moving from the free field. We have a few logos in the free field, that become significant numbers if we add in all of the logos that are currently hanging out in the crest fields. Do we want to create a logo option for the main image? Although I am not sure what happens if you have crest and a logo. Or a coat of arms and a crest for that matter. Rublamb (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms and Crest are the same thing. If you use both, it will use only one, CoA, I think. If Logo is set up as a separate field, it will display separately.Naraht (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only a handful with both logo and COA, the free field makes sense for those. However, we could add a third option for the main image, something to use for logos and badges. Once all infoboxes were updated, this change would help us identify the articles that lack a crest or coat of arms. I have already added everything lacking from the fraternal heraldry book, so finding the missing images would not be a quick or easy project. But at least the parameter report would keep it on our radar. Rublamb (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case we aim to scan images from a hard copy of Baird’s, I’ve found that in many (all?) cases, images from the 19th edition are much cleaner than those reproduced in the 20th edition. Given the timeframe, I suspect the problem had to do with rudimentary duplication methods, i.e.: the Manual was prepared for publication manually. Jax MN (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can only use fair use on images from the 19th or 20th if the image does not exist in the 1930 or later editions. That will be fine for some groups, but not for all. That was why I added that last batch of missing badges from the older editions. I have not gone through the 1930 edition to see if anything was added or to see if it has cleaner images than the older editions. Do the 19th and 20th editions include COA or just the badges. Rublamb (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure the image at the end of the article is a pledge pin during the editions from the 1930s. As a note, at least one of those editions of Baird’s has a pin at the end of the Alpha Phi Omega article which is probably supposed to be the pledge pin and it is a shield divided vertically and no Alpha Phi Omega brothers that I know have seen such a thing in real life (including many heavily involved in its history).Naraht (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I’ve always thought that that placement in older editions of Baird’s was their plan. While the APO example raises questions, I’ve not seen a single other example where the trailing image in a society’s profile is NOT the pledge pin. Jax MN (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and that is part of why it is so interesting. It may be correct, and there is are references in the fraternity magazine to a pledge button used before the current one (which started in the 1940s), but no photos.13:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the sorority book has a couple of pages of badges and pledge pins. These are photos, rather than drawings. Rublamb (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of placement within the table if there is already a COA, yes. In terms of general usage, I don’t think so. Zirkels are typically part of the COA, are used on dress uniforms, and are also part of the member’s signature. Groups that use zirkels do not have badges, so it became a individual’s identifier. I guess the bigger question is the use of logos in the COA field if there is no COA or no available COA. I would use the logo at the top of the infobox 100%. We also have the issue of groups that have replaced there COA with a logo as their primary brand. Rublamb (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That gets tricky. So Logo goes in once place in the list if there is a COA and a completely different place if it doesn’t?Naraht (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would ignore the 3 or 4 logos that are in the free field (because there is also a COA). We can explain in the notes that the new Logo field is only to be used if there is not a crest or COA. Rublamb (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wanted to work on the Sigma Phi Alpha article and accidentally went to the Sigma Pi Alpha article, I asked over on Wikipedia:Request a query for all articles where removing an ‘h’ from an article name gave another existing article. If I get an answer, I’ll leave a note here. My honest guess is that at least half of all of the articles like that are in the Phi to Pi family. (In addition to the middle example above, I quickly came up with Phi/Pi in front (Phi Delta Kappa) and in back (Alpha Delta Phi))Naraht (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll admit to catching myself using a Phi or Pi source on an chapter list article of the opposite name. I remember going through the source list to see if there were prior issues. Rublamb (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Psi vs. Pi as well.Naraht (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at List of Pi Lambda Phi chapters and while having the “purple/gold” setup is cute (and the correct colors, I think), I don’t think it belongs there. Firstly, it hides the fact that the columns are sortable (by clicking) and secondly, I think it is out of our standard. How do people feel about that?Naraht (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep – this is a relic from the years before our standardization push, from circa 2005 – 2007. –You know that, but I’m writing this down for posterity. There are maybe a dozen of these early-adopter designed chapter lists, with unique color combinations or stylistic additions. Indeed, their stylistic flourishes may have prompted members of other groups to engage in the significant build-out of fraternity and sorority pages. Greek Society members are accustomed to “borrowing ideas” and competing. I personally haven’t bothered to adjust these scattered pages stylistically, and have only added useful (newly standardized) columns, with newly-discovered data and references. In the hierarchy of things, cleaning up their non-standard stylings seemed less important than the creation of new articles, the defense of notable organization articles against AfD prods, and our big project of cleaning up missing fields. Frankly, I thought I’d leave this issue until such time as a future group of editors wanted to force consistency in this matter, too. Jax MN (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m indifferent to the concept. But if it hides the sorting arrows, it is a problem that should be corrected. Rublamb (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll remove it for that. The one early adoption thing that has sort of fallen by the way side is having the greek letters in a template that would actually allow sorting by greek letter, so for example, when sorted, Gamma Omega is followed by Delta Alpha.Naraht (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do like that idea, but what a pain to implement. I guess putting the list in Greek letter order is the next best solution. Rublamb (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template already exists, but I agree, a pain to implement. I don’t remember any specific example article (probably could look for the exact string “Alpha|Gamma” in articles).Naraht (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the search for the exact string. It gets three mainspace hits where we are using the Chapter template: Sigma Lambda Alpha (honor society), List of Kappa Kappa Psi chapters and List of Tau Beta Sigma chapters.Naraht (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After adding all of the dts and tweeking what needed them, my search for what was left ended up as

insource:/sortable/ insource:/[^a-zA-Z0-9 ] *\| *(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) [0-9]/ “Charter Date”

which ended up with only two remaining hits.

The first obviously isn’t part of our scope and the second, I think needs to be completely redone to drop the dates from the source that showed the last report from the chapters as a date of inactivity.

I’ll run that search periodically to see what dates have been added that need to have dts added.Naraht (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While splitting Kappa Sigma Tau from the defunct sorority article, I discovered that it merged with Alpha Xi Delta, rather than just one chapter merger. This would have been in 1932. Wonder if there is anything in Alpha Xi Delta publications? Rublamb (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that second merged chapter pop up, and looked at the Archive for those chapters now part of AZD. It didn’t note an absorption of the Illinois chapter, merely that the AZD chapter on that campus was formed in 1905, with continuous operation into 1995. –Often, the Archive notes groups that merge into another active chapter. The Archive may have missed that one. The Lake Forest chapter is more straightforward; it simply became a new chapter of AZD. No idea what happened to the Illinois group, which formed about the same time as the AZD chapter on that campus. A casualty of the Great Depression? Jax MN (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a note to the archive with a link to the source. Actually, two sources now. I think the Alpha chapter was already defunct; I am not finding any newspaper articles about it which is odd for the era. Yearbooks may help. Rublamb (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added a source that explains what happened to all four chapters. At the time of merger, Alpha disbanded and Gamma withdrew to join another national sorority. Now, which sorority is the question? Rublamb (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gamma the chapter at Mississippi? I took a look at the yearbooks around that time at https://egrove.olemiss.edu/yearbooks/40/ and the school went from 5 to 4 sororities when Kappa Sigma Tau disappeared after the 1933 yearbook. So I don’t think it joined a different sorority. May be worth trying to figure out if it merged with one of the existing four.Naraht (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly where we are on this. That, if anything, it merged with an existing sorority. I have looked up all members from 1933 yearbook in the 1934 yearbook. The few that returned to college the next year were not in a sorority. So either the merger did not take place or not all members participated. Rublamb (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, I did the Phi Alpha Delta chapter list. User:Naraht/PAD1 I’m not sure what is incomplete about it, but either it can be moved to mainspace, have additional work done or both. Let me know what you think.Naraht (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very solid to me. The few redlinks will likely prompt additional article creation. Would it be helpful to note which chapters came from Phi Delta Delta, either as a new chapter, or merger of chapters? Jax MN (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Real life is really getting in the way (My last day in this job is Friday and I’m currently looking). I’m going to move it to mainspace and take a look at the PDD->PAD as I can. (I think lots of merges and few new chapters, but at least three brought back from inactive).Naraht (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, got distracted from job searching. Notes of PDD relationship for *many* chapters in notes. Hit the mother lode as a source, https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.pad.org/resource/collection/AB9A630E-975F-433F-BDFF-BCFABC2A4450/A10-PADLawChapters_2024-8-1.pdf . Will work on adding *all* of the information in there, when we get finished, it may end up as a WP:FL!!!!Naraht (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same source I found back in May; it was already cited. LOL FL! Unfortunately, it is not a secondary source, so it won’t work for that. Rublamb (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was ready, given the sources we had. What was lacking were the undergraduate chapters and the professional/alumni chapters. I think we just forgot to publish. Either that, or were waiting to get the rest of the chapters addeded. Rublamb (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Group A merges into Group B in 1975. Group A has a chapter KK at a school Z chartered in 1930 where Group B has never had a chapter and becomes YY chapter of group B. Is the chartering date of chapter YY

  1. when the chapter merged into group B (1975)
  2. the original chartering date of chapter KK (1930)
  3. Whatever Group B says it is. 🙂

I’m leaning toward 3 just because the groups we’ve got seem so inconsistent. (and yes, this relates to Phi Alpha Delta that I’ll keep going on in the morning.Naraht (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it should be 2, the chartering date of the actual chapter of Group B. Hopefully Group A has an article with its own list of dates. I know there are some cases where Group B does not follow this pattern, and uses Group A’s dates. When it is just the odd chapter or two, I follow 2 and add an efn to include Group A’s date. Otherwise, using 1 or 3 can really mess with our system or ordering a list by charter date. Rublamb (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been so long since we created that draft, that I had finally stopped cursing myself for finding that crazy list. I am pretty sure I would have gone with 2, if that helps. Rublamb (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait – in a merger, the implication is that both groups were ushered in to the combined organization more-or-less as equals. Of course, only one of the national names would be adopted (with the notable exception of Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha), but whether out of diplomacy or legal wrangling, both groups contribute to the resulting larger organization, and have certain rights. This has been a common occurrence. In all cases I can think of, even where a huge national absorbs a small, 4-chapter group, the resulting merged chapters keeps the older date of formation, where two chapters are merged. Phi Sig, for example, named its merged chapters either with the name of the older of the two groups, or, with the name of the active chapter, where one had gone dormant. Where both had gone dormant, this matter was left up to local alumni. Most picked one or the other name. We also see one other situation, where an entirely new name is granted on a campus where the earlier group(s) had all gone dormant, and in our List Status field, we designate this as a “Reestablished” chapter — that is, a Reestablished campus. Jax MN (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not all mergers are treated the same, administratively, which would lean into number 3 but many still not be the right answer in most cases. Although are those rare cases of the merger of equals, most are in reality a larger group absorbing a smaller group. I understand that a merging chapter sometimes retains its history and its original charter date within the organization. However, we have a zillion entries where we use the date of charter with the new fraternity, with the chapter’s history being in the note. This is how we deal with local groups merging into nationals, for example. Just because the two fraternities agree that the merging chapters can use their original founding date, does not make that its charter date into the new fraternity or the date of the assignment of a new chapter name. And, since we try to order lists by charter date, it is unhelpful and confusing to place the merging chapters at the top of the list; I know of at least one case where the merging chapter of fraternity A was older than the Alpha of fraternity B, with B being the retained name.
I have always looked at Baird’s for guidance, which has been pretty consistent at using the merger date, not the original dates. Baird’s also orders the list by a chapter’s entry into fraternity B, not it charter date with fraternity A. In this specific case, there is another article that lists the chapters of fraternity A, with the founding dates, etc. We don’t need to repeat that history in exacting detail in the list for fraternity B, as we are linking between the articles. Rublamb (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about locals, as these are almost always absorbed without much fanfare. There are very occasional situations where they ‘earn’ a special name, out of sequence, to call out their origin under that name.
Here are a couple of examples to mull over.
Phi Sigma Kappa created its Phi Tetarton chapter at the University of the Pacific in 1960, when it absorbed a 102-year old local first called Rhizomia, and later called called Rho Lambda Phi (local). That local was established in 1858, fully fifteen years prior to establishment of Phi Sigma Kappa’s Alpha chapter itself. Yet the University of the Pacific chapter didn’t earn special naming, nor did it reflect the older year of establishment. I assume this is because PSK was, at the time, more rigid about not deviating from the standard naming structure until the latter and larger PSE merger in 1985. My point: local creation date doesn’t typically get carried over in a merger, when it’s just one chapter of a local being absorbed. In that situation, the fraternity followed Naraht’s naming option 1.
But in the case of the Theta Chi and Beta Kappa merger, a larger merger, those groups still followed Naraht’s option 1, where the absorbed Beta Kappa chapters took on the 1942 merger date as their date of creation. The chapter designations were mostly new, and in keeping with the standard Theta Chi naming system, with one exception: ΘΧ allowed the old Alpha chapter at Hamline to keep the chapter name, Beta Kappa chapter. Serendipitously, that insertion into the Theta Chi list order appears to have occurred at or near the time when “Beta Kappa” came around as the next available chapter name of the Beta series. (I do not know if any other list manipulation was done for that specific situation.)
I’ve noticed that it was only where mergers occurred among the earliest fraternities that they added chapters without adhering to specific naming rules. Those early chapter lists look messy (See at Beta Theta Pi). Standardization followed the establishment of the NIC and NPC.
The sororities, notably those that participated in early, larger mergers like Phi Mu, have scattered names that do not appear to follow a rule or system. Were their chapters able to choose names, some denoting their original locals? It seems so.
But later, even in complex situations like Delta Zeta‘s several mergers, these nationals attempted consistent naming even as DZ was the product of (I think) six national mergers. Likewise, when BSO merged into Zeta Tau Alpha, new names were assigned.
So it appears that these organizations haven’t always followed a hard-and-fast rule about dates OR names, but rather, determine this as a matter of the merger negotiation. Names are re-assigned and origination dates show the date of the merger, at least for those which occurred during the past century, but prior to that, it’s a mixture. Occasionally locals are granted a specific name, or keep their own, original name, and sometimes the merged group is indicated by an off-series additional letter for all new chapters created from the prior fraternity (i.e.: they are given a series all to themselves). So the answer to the original question here is probably Naraht’s option 3. Some nationals appear more committed to naming rules than others. And Option 1 has dominated the past century. Jax MN (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good coverage of this topic. Sometimes, there is a mix of these systems within one organization, depending on the year and the internal policies at the time. There are also chapters that use their old date, but the national’s chapter list uses the merger date. (Maybe indicating a difference between a chapter’s history and a national chapter list?). Fortunately, we often have the option of seeing how Baird’s and the Almanac document mergers and chapters dates. Whenever possible, I suggest following their lead, which will remove much of the guesswork from option 3. As secondary sources, these would be preferred by Wikipedia anyway. Generally, we find these older/original chapter dates in fraternity history books or internal documents, rather than on their website’s current public listing of chapters. Rublamb (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these points also. For any readers who wonder, where the original chapter’s date of formation or year is known, we then include this and its former name as an EFN in the reference area. But unless the new (receiving) national allows the older date, the standard for them and thus for us here is to reflect the merger date. Note that occasionally, chapters will go local at the point of a merger, but will merge later, with a later date on their new charter. These decisions also seem to depend on the relative health of the smaller, merging group. Jax MN (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Alpha Delta (male group) merged with Phi Delta Delta (female group) keeping the name Phi Alpha Delta after title IX. (Pretty much a merger of equals, though) PAD names its groups after people (mostly famous lawyers) and PDD went with “standard naming” (Alpha -> Omega, Alpha Alpha, Alpha Beta, etc.) except for one merger of law schools. In at least two cases that I’ve reached so far, a school had a chapter of PDD that went inactive before the merger, and then after the merger, a PAD chapter was founded. In this case, the PDD chartering date is used by PAD and both the chartering group of PAD and the chartering group of the PDD are viewed as chapter charterers. (And some other wierd things with moving chapters that make this look normal). However, this is *well* explained in the reference, if I could find the person who put this together, I’d invite him to this Wikiproject in a *heartbeat*. Naraht (talk), 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you checked to see if Phi Alpha Delta in included any post-merger editions of Baird’s? (I don’t own one, so I did not have that info to include in the list). It is great to have clarification from the national or a chapter, but since we cannot use that original research/personal communication as a source, it should not be the deciding factor. A secondary source would be better. In the most generous of circumstances, these should be treated as chapters that went inactive and were rechartered (we have rejected similar founding date claims by other groups that appear to use the older date for legitimacy and marketing). However, I really feel like this is a case of confusing the chapter’s history with its charter date into Phi Alpha Delta (the date called for by the column). Even the source is called “Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, International: Phi Delta Delta Law Chapter Charter Information”. Since there is another article for information about Phi Delta Delta, it is not like we are excluding this history from Wikipedia. In fact, we would be following the format of the source, using this info to detail the Phi Delta Delta chapters. Rublamb (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both groups are in the 19th edition. The surviving fraternity’s history notes the merger, so this was written post-merger. Also, the dormant fraternities section lists ADD. In both sections, there is a decent chapter list. I didn’t check the 20th edition. Jax MN (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Baird’s was used for List of Phi Delta Delta chapters. Rublamb (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to work on comparing Baird’s 19th or 20th to List of Phi Alpha Delta chapters. However, that only makes sense if we are agreeing to follow Baird’s date style for this group. Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made some alterations but thought I’d come here rather than continuing. For a group with a normal website, let’s say Mu Mu Mu fraternity has its main webpage at https://mumumu.org, what do we want as the standard? (And is website preferred to homepage or vice versa)

  1. ) [https://mumumu.org Mu Mu Mu Fraternity]
  2. ) {{official|https://mumumu.org|Mu Mu Mu Fraternity}}
  3. ) {{official|https://mumumu.org|mumumu.org}}
  4. ) {{official|https://mumumu.org}}
  5. ) Something else?

Naraht (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the archive there is a similar discussion. @Primefac noted that “official” was not supposed to be used in the infobox per MOS, but was specifically for the external link section. Ends up that is correct. At that time, I did a major overhaul of the infobox website format. Most are 5, in the format xxx, simply because when I was newbie I was corrected for using a bare url in the infobox. Also, that in the format specified for many other infoboxes. However Primefac noted that the url template was not essential for the infobox. I am pretty sure we now only used 1 if the website address is convoluted or extremely long, such as an honor society that only has a subpage of another national organization. Rublamb (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like on Infobox Software?

website

The web site URL of the software package, if one wants to override the Wikidata official URL value. This URL must be readable in print. Therefore, you should use {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} template like this: “www.example.com“. Avoid using printer-hostile forms like “Example website“. In addition, the special value “hide” suppresses this field, even in presence of a Wikidata link. This is useful for articles with several infoboxes, to avoid repeating one Wikidata link. If left blank, the Wikidata official website value will display by default.

Yes! I think that should be the basis of our instructions for the infobox frat. I keep wanting to figure out how to make an abbreviated version of the instructions visible to users. I have found that very helpful with other infoboxes. Rublamb (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://alphasigmatau.historyit.com/public-sites/timeline/digital-museum?whichTimeline=0&anchor=64330 seems to be a primary source for all dates of chartering. (Not just years)Naraht (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but now a bit of a mystery. The existing list included chapters that were not in the timeline. Along with the timeline is a different chapter list, which seems to list the non-timeline chapters as colonies. Looks like they named, but never chartered, some colonies. So far have found one missing colony that we thought was unassigned. So good find @Naraht! Rublamb (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have used “never chartered” at least once before, I used that as the status. I added an efn that explained the colony was never chartered, along with the dates from the almanac. Do we want to add “never chartered” to the list of status options on the WP landing page, or just acknowledge that this is a exception to the norm? Rublamb (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it is non-standard, I think it would be helpful to add this as one of the status options. I’ve seen it come up mostly with multicultural fraternities, seeking an image that they have more chapters than they really do. Mainstream nationals don’t provide a name or charter / activity date until actual installation. When adding associate chapters, these are temporary to our lists, and subject to deletion if they go dormant. Jax MN (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had totally forgotten about the multicultural groups. Sometimes those colonies/associate chapters operate for ten years or more, with numerous members and alumni. Do you have time to add this to the status list? Rublamb (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jax MN (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is being added to the landing page? And I think I have seen a few of the larger NIC/NPC groups with letters assigned before chartering.Naraht (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The templates section of the WP landing page includes a list of option to use for status. That is were “Never chartered” was added. Rublamb (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I hadn’t been to that page….Naraht (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, there are five pages in Draftspace that use Infobox Fraternity

Naraht (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also:
Rublamb (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: Draft:B’nai B’rith Girls is ready to publish. Rublamb (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb Submitted it to AFC as being from Rublamb. Unfortunately, B’nai B’rith Girls is a redirect that was created after a AFD. *But* it was a non-administrative closure and *that* closure was done by a user who was a sockpuppet of a banned user. So someone other than the closer for the AFD is going to have to merge the history, I think. However, the request was made, so *someone* with the tools to do so will make it work. For now, let’s just let things progress.Naraht (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: B’nai B’rith Girls has been deleted, so the draft can now be published. Rublamb (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have split off the chapter list. Note that is previously existed and was deleted during an AfD. However, I see that the person who closed the AfD discussion is now banned from Wikipedia. I am adding a ton of independent sources, so that I won’t be accused of repeating the prior version. Rublamb (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (couldn’t do it from my phone)

Just like Alpha Sigma Tau

For example: Alpha Omicron Pi. (has dates) https://aoii.historyit.com/public-sites/timeline/digitalmuseum?anchor=1011
Doing a google search, the following groups under WP:FRAT have timelines on historyit.com. (Let me know if you can’t find)

Naraht (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Also adding dts templates at the same time. Rublamb (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other at historyit.com

[edit]

Naraht (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding that some chapter lists have some full dates already, but lack a source for that information (the only sources being Baird’s, the Almanac, or a website list with no dates). I was going to skip chapters with full dates and just fill in those lacking full dates when I realized that some of the existing dates were different from those listed in the timelines. Since the existing dates are unsourced, I decided to use the dates from the timelines for all chapters. Meaning all dates will be from the timeline. However, the timelines might or might not list the charter dates. For example, Zeta Psi and Sigma Kappa timelines indicate the “date founded” for each chapter. Alpha Sigma Tau’s timeline provides the date of “chapter installation”. I know we have had discussions before about contrasting dates stemming from charter vs. installation, as this is not always the same. However, in this case, I am being consistent in the source of the dates and should, therefore, avoid the issue found previously. Also, I feel more comfortable using the timeline’s information than leaving unsourced dates in the table. But before I do more of these, are there any concerns or objections about assuming that the timeline is the correct charter date, lacking any other source? Rublamb (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Charter Dates are probably the closest thing I’ve seen on wikipedia where a primary source is better than a secondary source 99.9% of the time, with a few of the fraternity founding dates for the Philippines Fraternities. (one of the largest 20 collegiate fraternities in the Philippines claims a pre WWII founding with Zero non-primary source)Naraht (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few rules that I’m using to determine new GLO related categories.
1) Minimum number of articles to create a category is 3.
2) All of the European “Umbrella” organizations should have categories and their members should be in them.
3) If ZZZ merges into AA then ZZZ can got into Category:AA.
4) Chapter lists and member lists also can go into categories for the group. .

What I *haven’t* figured out is whether the requirement is that if AA is in Category “Student organizations founded in 1899” whether Category:AA belongs as well (mostly copying the cat list from AA to Category:AA. Let me know if I should list the new cats here.Naraht (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if YYM merges into ZZZ and then ZZZ merged into AA, then YYM goes into Category:AA as well.Naraht (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, I agree with your rationale, and system. In case there is a need for consensus, I offer my opinion in support, though it doesn’t change anything in the decision. (I read all these topics, and if I don’t respond, that is why. I am generally on board with the details you advance, as we’ve long ago developed a good working consensus. You and I, and easily a half dozen other Project participants here; all experts in various aspects of research and editing.) Thanks for becoming one of our category experts. Jax MN (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I dispute in what you say here is “half dozen”. 🙁 As far as I can tell, the only active members of the group (as in having either made consistent edits that focus on GLOs as opposed to global changes to such as disambiguating New York or so tiny that they represent work on one GLO) are you, me, Rublamb and Primefac.Naraht (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add DovahDuck and El Johnson who have been helping with the PR/Florida groups that primarily have Spanish language sources. Rublamb (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too trust your opinion on whether or not a category is needed. If you add anything that is specific or unique to GLOs, share it here and I will add it to our watchlist. Otherwise, categories such as the newly added journalism organizations don’t fit into our wheelhouse. If I spot a need, I will let you know, following the rule of three. Rublamb (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A decent size chunk of the template is links to sections of the Fraternity and Sorority article. Is that useful? I’d prefer a link to the Fraternity article with some sort of included list of those that are actual articles.Naraht (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many redirects to the Dartmouth articles. Some were originally articles, now deleted. Is it normal to have redirects within the template? Rublamb (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gone through the groups that have the infobox and looked for those that *don’t* have a category of “Student Organizations established in 1234” (for some year). I added a few (and in some cases had to add the category). I *think* I am complete. Could people please look to see if there are student groups at the search. I don’t believe that the umbrella organizations should be in those categories, and we have no founding year for Sage and Chalice, so it doesn’t have a Student Org established in cat.Naraht (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is fraternity and sorority a sub-division of student org? Rublamb (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t consider it so, not as we’ve expanded. The groups in Europe with zirkels and such, I do treat as such but Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks and Professional Fraternity Association, I do not. So Alpha Tau Omega would go into Category:Student organizations established in 1879 but BPOE would go into Category:Organizations established in 1832 (random probably incorrect dates) Category:Student organizations established in 1970 is a subcat of Category:Organizations established in 1970 and if it has both, I’m removing one Naraht (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the most reasonable solution, here. Delete one of the two disestablishment dates. Jax MN (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Largely parallelizing Template:Sports organizations (dis)established in YYYY category header, I have created Template:Student organizations (dis)established in YYYY category header which can be accessed by {{StuOrgEstCat}} and {{StuOrgDisestCat}}. This will now be the only contents needed on categories like Category:Student organizations disestablished in 1974 or Category:Student organizations established in 1953

The results are a little different from what we currently get (for example, there are decade portals if one exists for that decade). See the difference between Category:Student organizations established in 1988 (changed) and Category:Student organizations established in 1989 (unchanged).

So I’ve got the following tasks:

  1. ) Change all of the established and disestablished categories to simply having a single *smart* template in it. Done
  2. ) For all merged and defunct organizations, add the appropriate disestablishement category to it. To see all that are left to do, see link  Done, shifted over to just doing the ones with merge_date and defunct_date.
  3. ) For all of those categories actually create that category.  Done with help.
  4. ) I’ve also got some higher level categories that need to be created to make the entire structure the same (or at least as close as I can get.)Naraht (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)  Done[reply]
I went ahead and changes all of the established to the new category format, if you want to compare, look at the previous version of the category page.Naraht (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I *think* I’m complete. I went off those with merge_date and defunct_date because if we don’t feel comfortable with putting any date in the infobox, it probably doesn’t belong in a cat. In a few cases with Circa, especially where it was in a circa 1XY0, I used the previous decade as the disestablishment cat. Please kick the tires and meander around the disestablishment and establishment categories, the ones like Category:Student organizations disestablished in 1974 and Category:Student organizations established in the 1920s are now entirely a template that calculates its own cats from the date and whether it is established or disestablished. I’ve got another thing to do after this that is a small tweek that isn’t student org specific.Naraht (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Beta Phi Theta, the National organization dissolved in 1948, but one chapter continued under that name until 1969. defunct_date in the infobox is 1969. Short desc says American collegiate fraternity (1917–1948) . I’m wondering what year to add for the disestablishment date.Naraht (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an interesting point of procedure here; there is no fanfare when these organizations reach an end, certainly not like their celebratory beginnings. Dissolutions come in a range of examples. If we find a year/date where dissolution was decided, perhaps by the last national convention, I suppose that date should be used. It represents the most significant status change for the bulk of chapters and their alumni. Consequently I tend to view lingering chapters as “withdrawn locals”. It is very likely that they then operate under a different legal structure, no longer “reporting” to a national office, but rather, minding their own affairs. Delta Phi Delta, the art honorary is an example, with their Purdue chapter continuing as a local. But even though we had a Baird’s history to draw from, it took some research to even find that chapter, operating quietly. The medical fraternity, Phi Beta Pi has a single, very solid, local chapter which apparently has noted an interest in expansion with the same name; Yet I can find no activity toward that goal. Its active members, as medical students, have other obligations to worry about. In a very few situations a restoration has occurred — Sigma Mu Sigma is an example. We have used body text to explain the three acts in their story. There, it seemed reasonable to extend their date of demise as coming at the end of the last chapter of the third iteration in 2020. This was because they actually did restore a chapter structure for a time, both in the 1940s and again in 1984. Their more convoluted story is best described in the history section’s body text, as we’ve so done. You know all these examples, but I offer them for discussion purposes and for posterity. Since you asked 😉 Jax MN (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jax MNYou were supposed to give me a definitive answer we could argue over. 🙂 And yes, both Phi Beta Pi and Delta Phi Delta are going to be ones that we will argue over if/when they eventually go defunct. Naraht (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we know when the organization decided to dissolve the national, that would be the date. (Typically found in Baird’s). If there is a lingering chapter, I would agree with Jax that the remaining chapter withdrew and became a local. So in this case, 1948. We probably should update the infobox. If we find one of these where we don’t have the history of the closure, we can discuss more. Rublamb (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the flip of this (and I can’t find the example that I once saw. 🙁 ) is Beta Alpha is founded at Ohio State University in 1874, expands once to University of Pittsburgh in 1927, that expansion fails in 1930 and the original group continues on until 1985. Should that one be 1930 or 1985? I’m quite willing to figure out a way to phrase the information in the infobox here and I guess *both* disestablishement categories can be added.Naraht (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha chapters are tricky. As magnified by this case, essentially, they own their organizational history, which is virtually, entirely about them, rather than the Beta chapter. That Pitt outpost, only surviving three years would be an outlier to the clear success of the Alpha chapter. I agree that this happens, and that it is an example to the contrary of my point. Relatively rare, though. Here, I’d probably say they were finally disestablished in 1985, but I think too that the body text must be very clear on this. Jax MN (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Rublamb (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Sigma Pi gave National Honorary Membership to Rosalind Franklin after her death, should that be included? (https://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/Women_Scientists-Jiddi_c.pdf) We *are* including with explanation Alpha Phi Alpha giving Frederick Douglass post-mortem honorary membership. (In the Omega chapter, which is reserved for the deceased).Naraht (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Inclusion as a deceased person as member in a traditional fraternity is akin to puffery, especially since the deceased cannot turn down the “relationship” or the use of their name for marketing purposes. Frederick Douglass is a great example. With random additions like this, I would not include in Wikipedia.
Honor societies can be different. Sometimes the honorary membership is an award or medal, rather than just academic achievement certificate. Some professional honor societies have a tradition of selecting one person from the profession each year. I have seen this with women’s groups where there was no such honor for many women scientists or mathematicians, for example, when they were in college. With a group that awards a honorary award/membership each year, a list of those individuals would be okay, if separated from regular members. Especially if this award is tied into the group’s mission. Rublamb (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Frederick Douglass, it does get additional explanation in the header of List of Alpha Phi Alpha members. For List of Iota Sigma Pi members, the reference for the list (https://www.iotasigmapi.org/past-award-winners) does say posthumous, but our list doesn’t.Naraht (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I did not add the posthumous note when creating the Iota Sigma Pi list. This is a case where the National Honorary Membership is an annual award, recognizing achievement in the field. I’m not against an efn, but don’t think it really matters in this instance as the text explains this is an award (which one of the main functions of the society). With FD, I can live with their explanation in the lede, although it still feels like using affiliation to gain credibility. “Hey, Frederick Douglas was/is a member of our fraternity!”. Rublamb (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the addition to the pages of the Heraldic descriptions of the Coat of Arms of the Fraternities and Sororities from Emily M. Butterfield’s “College Fraternity Heraldry” (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b23931) be useful? For example, for Alpha Chi Omega “Gules, on a fess vert three mullets argent: in middle chief an open book or, in middle base a sheaf of wheat of the third corded of the same. Crest. A lyric bird, proper.”? Naraht (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I added every image from Butterfield’s book that we needed, I don’t think we should copy over her text. I endorse having a description of the COA, but don’t believe in content that has to come with a dictionary for the average person to understand. Instead, we should use the book as a source, translating her expert jargon into encyclopedic text. For example, instead of “Crest: A lyric bird, proper”, I might say, “above the shield is the crest which is a lyrebird“. As you can probably tell, I have not bothered to add/translate Butterfield, mostly because I get frustrated by her jargon. Rublamb (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire point of the book is to use “Heraldic terminology. Is it any less proper than Armorial of the speakers of the British House of Commons and related? Also, I think that means that *if* the File:Alpha Chi Omega coat of arms.png was able to be put on wikicommons it would belong in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:3_mullets_on_a_fess . (three stars on a cross band, I think) Naraht (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Butterfield was an expert in heraldry and designed the coat of arms for many GLOs. Yes, there is a heraldry WikiProject. However, WP:FRAT tends to use general terms. For example, I rarely see a fraternity’s flag described by its field, canton or fly. GLO badges often recreate the COA, but Baird’s tended to use general terms to describe them, rather than heraldic terms. The WP also doesn’t use the scientific name for the mascot and flower. However, we might link the common use name to the scientific name. So, using formal heraldic terms with links is a great option. But I still rewriting, rather than copying straight from Butterfield, as the format of her text is choppy, often lacking complete sentences. Rublamb (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I’m not even sure which way I’m arguing at this point). Once concern is that while theoretically the Infobox should repeat things in the article, the thing that is likely to be the *least* repeated is the Coat of Arms which, if it exists, is the key image in the Infobox. So where would any Heraldic description go? I see about five choices, none of which I like.

  • Add a field to the infobox, doesn’t feel like that information belongs.
  • Use the Alt field for it. Alt, I think should be for readers for the blind for which this would probably not be the most appropriate way to describe it.
  • Put the heraldic description in the Symbols and Traditions while leaving the Coat of Arms up in the infobox, would require scrolling multiple pages for some of the GLOs to look at the relationship
  • Have the Coat of Arms in multiple places. Seems like a lot of space to take up just to add something not of essential value.
  • (I’ve forgotten #5) Naraht (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d simply add this option: Insert the Butterfield reference within the Symbolism section. For encyclopedic style, I agree that any of the “heraldric language” ought to be rendered in standard English. Butterfield’s language is correct, using (I suppose) Middle English phrasing and Norman-French words for these very technical descriptions. Regarding inclusion or not, I have previously either paraphrased and updated the language where old-style wording is found, and often have rendered foreign words, typically Norman French, in italics as is typical when quoted. BUT, I got stuck with the Norman French word for Gold, which is or. It was so easily misinterpreted as the English word, that I’ve simply avoided this time-consuming transliteration process.
In summary, I could go either way, but am swayed by your arguments NOT to include heraldic language in the body text (or infobox). A citation is just fine. Jax MN (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a really good page on Sigma Iota Chi on the Greenville Woman’s College (now part of Furman University) yearbook page. I’ve created Draft:Sigma Iota Chi. Note, at this point, it is only from that one source, not Baird’s. Also, the scrambled chapter order appears to be somewhat consistent between that source and Baird’s, though Baird’s has a few more which presumably went inactive. And they may have had more unlettered chapters before that. (*Really* rough at the beginning. Baird’s does have some info on where founded. Need to head home soon. I fully expect you all to have it ready for mainspace by this time tomorrow. 🙂

After that, given that we’ll have pages for all three of the original founders of the National Junior Panhellenic Conference, it will probably be appropriate to draft *that*, Eta Upsilon Gamma’s *one* collection of sorority magazines online has a lot on the founding and I know at least one other Junior Sorority joined them. 🙂 Naraht (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went home, I looked at the Baird’s Manuals from the 1915 – 1935 range that I own. I now truly wonder if more chapter letters were re-assigned than those that weren’t. *yikes*. Start back from the earliest I guess, and assume that the references are telling the truth…

Moved to mainspace. Still work to be done getting all version of Bairds checked against what we currently have. But we’ve got PFA members with smaller articles at this point.Naraht (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top