Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities#Lists and notability

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 [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Fraternities_and_Sororities.html Weekly Cleanup List]

1. missing image size - {{clc|Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing image size}}
2. missing {{para|colors}} - {{clc|Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing colors}}
3. needs color boxes ([https://www.cfe.ee/akorgid Helpful link], has colors, flags, and addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German, and Polish fraternities)

:* Presidium Convent - in process Jax MN (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:* List of student corporations in Latvia - in process Jax MN (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:4. Notability or No Source Tags

:* Adelphian Society (local Social 40 years, merged into national)

:* California Scholarship Federation (regional honor society with no secondary sources)

:* Chi Heorot (local with no secondary sources)

:* Fraternities of Plast (zero references; these are Boy Scout-related fraternities)

:* Gakusei Kai (local living society; no sources)

:* History of the North American fraternity and sorority system, no sources, is this needed?

:: Merge with List of Greek umbrella organizations

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

:* Katholischer Studentenverein Arminia (zero sources)

:* K.D.St.V. Teutonia (only source is its website)

:* Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband (no sources; references exist in German Wikipedia)

:* Landsmannschaft Schottland (no sources; check article in German Wikipedia)

:* List of Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma national conventions (just fraternity and sorority sources)

:* Myth and Sword (no sig coverage for group with this name and only Yale sources for predecessor; no source for connection between the two groups)

:: Merge into Collegiate secret societies in North America#Yale University

:* National Technical Honor Society (its website was the only source; added one secondary and believe others exist)

:* Pi Nu Epsilon (small music honor fraternity; no secondary sources)

:* Quill and Scroll (no sources but some are available)

:* Sigma Alpha Lambda (honorary, with zero secondary references)

:: Delete?: Some sources added and the chapter list expanded. However, all of the sources I found are clearly from press releases. There is almost zero presence of this group on its host colleges' websites; one university lists this as a non-recognized organization. A Reddit discussion notes that the group has used a copy of UNC's letterhead without any affiliation. Even with expansions, it does not really meet notability. Suggest including it in the Honor society article but going for an AfD unless one good source shows up.

:* Society of Saint Thomas Aquinas (needs sources)

:* Zeta Phi Beta (fraternity) ( multi-location PR, only source is its dead website)

:: 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----- Active editors on the cleanup project:

Rublamb (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

We need to get a handle on naming conventions for student associations and corporations articles. We seem to have a mix of full foreign-language names, the Korp! nickname, the nickname without Korp!, and English translations. When working in this area yesterday, I found little consistency with Latvian and Estonian group names--the English Wikipedia article's names typically do not match the German Wikipedia name, sometimes using the formal name when that is not in use in German Wikipedia or the group's website. Also, the English translations may or may not be correct. This can eventually be fixed with redirects, but I am struggling to figure out the best common name format so we can be consistent across all articles. Refer to List of student corporations in Latvia and List of fraternities and sororities in Estonia for examples of the article name variations. (Note that I have linked to German Wikipedia if I could not find an article in the English version). Rublamb (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

:As these are (or ought to be) treated more comprehensively in their native language Wikis, I think we should include a link to the original language article and use a consistent naming structure, probably the 'full' name, not nickname. As long as these are treated consistently within the English language Wikipedia, I would be amenable to whatever of the options you list that you determine works best. Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

::In most cases, using the full name is like naming an article "The Grand International Sisterhood of Moo Moo Moo, Incorporated", rather than "Moo Moo Moo" or "GIS Moo Moo Moo". (The later being what many of these corporations use on their websites, with "GIS" being common identifier for groups of that type). Since we already follow Wikipedia's naming guidelines and use the common name with US GLOs, I am pretty sure the article's title should be a shortened. It would be helpful to have a member of one of these groups or someone who speaks the language help us naviage what are and are not essential parts of the full name. For example, using "Korp!" may be akin to saying "Chi Psi Fratenity", with Korp translating as the unnecessary word "fraternity". Rublamb (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Here's an exmaple I just found from a Swiss organization. Its full name is Katholische Deutsche Studentenverbindung Teutonia Freiburg i. Uechtland That roughly translates as "Catholic German Student Association Teutonia Freiburg i. Uechtland". All groups of this ilk (Catholic German Student Associations) use the abbreviation KDStV before the rest of their name, which is usually the city where the group is located. So, this organization's common name and the name used on its website is KDStV Teutonia. The name is not the city in this case because there is another group with the Freiburg name. Its English Wikipedia article is named K.D.St.V. Teutonia, with periods in the KDStV abbreviation. That appears to be non-standard.

:::With this example in mind, would you 1) use the full German name, 2) the translated name, 3) the German name with the prefix. I think we can assume that 4) number 3 with periods is clearly wrong.

:::In addition, would the related article by called Katholische Deutsche Studentenverbindung or Catholic German Student Associations? Rublamb (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Since this has come up yesterday in articles where the title does not match the infobox, can we revisit? Is our preference the foreign language article name with an English translation in the article and/or infobox (as a free field) OR English language article name with the foreign language name in the lede? I have been looking at foreign universities to see what is the most common practice. I am finding many English translations but also many still in Spanish, for example. I don't care which way we go but would like them all to be the same, instead of the current mix. Rublamb (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Honestly, I'd like to copy the Situation at Free University of Berlin. English name as Article, English name as name in infobox and add a "native_name" to Infobox Fraternity. *But*, would we need sources indicating a specific name in English, or for that manner any abbreviation to CGSA?Naraht (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree that this makes the most sense for the English version of Wikipedia. Good question regarding how we determine the translation. If the group has an English language version of their website (some do), that would be easy. However, most are just in German or Estonian, meaning we would be counting on Google translate or the like. It would leave us guessing as to Corp Berlin or Berlin Corp, for example. The good news is that once we figure out the umbrella group's correct English name, all of its members could be treated the same way. @Jax MN, maybe our new German corp contact could help? Rublamb (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

In looking at Association for Women in Communications, there is a wording that makes me believe the original collegiate professional fraternity (Theta Sigma Phi, later called Women in Communications]] is not exactly the same as the current Association of for Women in Communications. The text says, "In 1996 WICI was dissolved, and the organization was renamed the Association for Women in Communications." Clearly, the current group is not collegiate and does not appear to have chapters. Although, I cannot tell if this change happened with the switch to WICI or to AWC. I am trying to figure out if it makes sense to split the Theta Sigma Phi article from one or both of the later groups. Rublamb (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:There is another issue. I found a list of its current community-based chapters. However, we also have a list of the Theta Sigma Phi chapters this is long enough for its own article. If we don't split this article into Theta Sigma Phi and AWC, how what do I call the chapter list article? Rublamb (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the fact that the Delta Sigma Epsilon (sorority) article has quite a bit from the 17th edition of Baird's is it possible for us to create templates for each of the editions of Bairds that would simply take a page number(s)? Naraht (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:See examples under :Category:Specific-source templates.Naraht (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe. I have my own versions (based on the Wikipedia article on Baird's) that I copy, paste, and update as needed, so I understand the potential value. The advantage of a template vs. what I do is that the text would be assigned to the correct fields, rather than all being lumped in "other". One issue might be linking to the source of the publication—Hathi Trust, Google, print copy—especially since the citation templates seem to require a link to a webpage that simply does not exist for several of the editions we frequently use. Also, we will need to test to make sure these templates work with VE. Rublamb (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::I figures the templates would start out with the examples in the Baird's Articles. It is just fine to have the individual templates generate things that would different from each other. 17th wouldn't have a link, 1st would have the link to wikisource and 12th would link to google. For example, (to abuse the entry in Phi Alpha (fraternity)).

::{{Bairds20|IX-900-901}}

::would generate

::{{cite book

| editor1-first=Jack L.

| editor1-last=Anson

| editor2-first=Robert F.

| editor2-last=Marchenasi

| title=Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities

| edition=20th

| year=1991

| orig-year=1879

| publisher=Baird's Manual Foundation, Inc.

| location=Indianapolis, IN

| isbn=978-0963715906

| page=IX-900-901}}

Naraht (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Your naming suggestion is easy be able to remember! I am pretty sure I was the last one to update the pub list in the Baird's article but I will quickly review to make sure they are "correct". Playing with Phi Alpha and {{tlx|Bairds20|IX-900-901}}, it looks like this is one of those templates that does not work if added through VE (an issue for me). However, if it is findable through Template Search, it should work. At least, that seems to be the case. There are some templates such as "in use" that I still add through source editing. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::The article's list should be fine. The only problem is the 2nd edition which is not found in any library in the US, other than a copy in the archives at Illinois which does not have cataloging. Thus, we don't know the publisher for that edition. But that is not an issue as there is no need to make an template for it. Rublamb (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll live without that, we either don't have a {{tlx|Bairds02}} or we just specify what we can. I don't expect we have that one all that often as a reference.Naraht (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{U|Rublamb}}, how did you learn that the 2nd edition of Bairds is unavailable in the US? Was this using a JSTOR search or something like that? I recall that my own university library had the majority of these editions. (I donated a copy of the 20th edition when it came out, back in 1991.) Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What is known as the 3rd edition actually says "2nd edition revised" and is readily available. It is possible that this has cause a cataloging error that has persisted for more than a century. Regardless, the actual 2nd edition is not cataloged as a stand-alone volume by any of the libraries that participate in WorldCat (most of the academic and public libraries in the US and many international libraries). It has also not been digitized through the Internet Archive, Google Books, or Hathi Trust. This does not exclude copies from existing. It is possible that one of the libraries that has Baird's cataloged as a serial has a copy (you cannot see the specific serials holdings through the public form of World Cat). Also, U of I does not have it cataloged as a book but as an archival item and, therefore, it does not show up in World Cat. In general, if we cannot confirm the publisher of the 2nd edition via an online search, it is very unlikely that anyone would ever use it as a source for Wikipedia. And, I would hate to create a template that lacks publisher and place of publication. Rublamb (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

From looking at some of the historical information for the Jewish Fraternities in the American Jewish Year Book, I wonder whether for some of the pre-WWII GLOs whether they *ever* had a National Office, contact address appears to only be for the National President and for the National Secretary, with nothing that we'd consider a headquarters. In fact, I'm not sure why any part of addresses (nation should be in scope) are really needed in an infobox for a Defunct or Merged organization.Naraht (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:I go back and forth on this. You already know why I think country has value, and I do believe all organizations should this data. The street address seems odd to me unless it was associated with a specific building on note because it is, in many cases, not accurate any longer ands therefor somewhat confusing. I have seen cases where someone has included the address but noted a date such as (as of 1941). That seems unhelpful as well. I don't have as much of an issue with city and state--it is informative but generic enough that it is not completely dated.

:We do need to decide before I proceed on list number 2 in the cleanup project above. I had planned on adding city and state if findable. With a one chapter local, that especially makes sense. If the headquarters data is Baird's, etc., I would add that detail to the text the source and, then, include the last known city and state in the infobox. With a small group that never had a real headquarters or an unfindable headquarters, a country is all the data they would have. Does that make sense? Rublamb (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Number 2, I thought was missing chapters. I agree that country should be there somewhere, but without a headquarters, it seems much more appropriate to have as part of scope. I'm not sure of a good example of a non-local where the headquarters would stay in a city/state without an identifiable address. For a local housed fraternity, I figure the address. To boil it down to where it feels really out of place, Seven Society (College of William & Mary). That's less of a Headquarters than just a general statement of where it exists.Naraht (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::With your Seven Society example, I agree that this is a (useful) statement of where it exists which may or may not be its corporate location. Most of these groups are incorporated and have an official address used on their articles of incorporation and for tax returns; these can be found via GuideStar if one can determine their corporate name—but this does not mean that the group has a physical headquarters. And, of course, this de facto headquarters might change with each election of officers.

:::One aspect to consider is that the Infobox Fraternity fields are for Address, City, Atate, Zip/Postal code, Country--but display as Headquarters. In fact, it might be location, mailing address OR headquarters, with the latter only applying for the biggest GLOs that are active. Infobox Organization has the option for either Headquarters OR Location (location city, location country, additional location city, additional location country--no field for location state which is weird). I wonder if that approach would better suit our needs as well.

:::FYI, 2 above is regarding the country project, specifically Infobox Frat that have a country but lack a city. For GLOs that are active but do not have an address on their website or that lack a national website, I have been pulling the addresses from GuideStar. Mostly down to defunct groups now so will pause until we sort through this. Rublamb (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Perhaps we should have a parameter indicating what this geographic information covers with only some of the having location_info=Headquarters.Naraht (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

What are various member's feelings on whether Baird's Manual should be treated as an Encyclopedia in terms of doing a cite? Should we build around {{tlx|cite encyclopedia}} for the examples? Naraht (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:What would be the significant benefit? Am I correct in assuming that the encyclopedia template just provides more parameters? Jax MN (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, and seems more accurate as well. Most of our references are to a specific "article" within Baird's about the GLO with only a few of the ones for Umbrellas not really fitting into that. Seems more accurate to say the article on Sigma Alpha Epsilon on page 432-433 than simply page 432-433.Naraht (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The availability of more information (parameters) would generally be a good thing. I do not know where, technically, this book series belongs. It is a reference of several editions? It is not a dictionary nor an encyclopedia, but is encyclopedic in attempted scope. --If not design nor syntax. So, what to do? Yours may be the best solution. Alternatively, I create unique versions of that standard reference citation whenever I use it, and have done so starting about a year when I first wrote it. (I think I wrote the original 19th and 20th edition citations we commonly use.) Anyway, when referencing the Archive as a citation I now add something like "Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities (Baird's Manual Online Archive), showing Alpha Phi chapters", then I list the specific page numbers, AND THEN, I complete the citation by providing a link to the MAIN archive home page. Jax MN (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not honestly sure *what* to do with the online archive. Given the relative ease of updating it sometimes it seems like a primary reference, but we use it as if it were an unchangeable 21st edition.

::::I have found some other entries in the Encyclopedic templates that are single volume.Naraht (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Encyclopedias can be a single volume; it is more about the content than length. Frankly, I have never tried to classify Baird's in this manner because I have always considered it to be a serial (but a publication can be both a serial and an encyclopedia). Technically, it is an limited topic encyclopedia. However, since the Baird's "articles" almost always matches the name of the Wikipedia article, I am not sure it is worth the extra effort use the encyclopedia citation. Either way would work for me.

:::::The Almanac is a different critter; I have never viewed it as a fixed edition. We might want to treat it as a website so that we could easily add both publication and access dates. The citation format I have been using for the Almanac includes the most recent publication date; this makes it much easier to tell if there have been updates since the last time the chapter list was edited. We could have a template for each list within the Almanac: men's organizations, women's organizations, coed organizations, inactive men's organizations, inactive women's organizations, institutions, closed institutions. Then, simply update the publication and access date. Rublamb (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

User:Alpha Sig Communications just made a change to List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters, provisional chapters, and interest groups. On the one hand it is *obvious* COI, on the other, the information isn't at any level of controversy. Ideas on how to reach out *and* what to tell them? Naraht (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:As long as they are just updating status--and there appears to be sources-- I wouldn't worry about it. Now, if they start adding to the main article, we may have to watch more carefully. Rublamb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::FWIW, I've had direct interactions with their staff and their historian. Both exchanges were quick, helpful and the Alpha Sig historian was able to immediately point out the resources I needed. Very competent group. Jax MN (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:There has been a long discussion in the COI forum about whether or not being an alumnus of a university constitutes a COI. Based on that discussion paid staff clearly have a COI but are not restricted from posting. Also, declaring a COI is not mandatory but recommended as show of good faith. It only becomes an issue based on the type of content being posted. So, we can either welcome this new Alpha Sig editor to the fold and direct them to the instructions on how to declare COI (I have done this before with no success), add a COI notice to the article's talkpage ourselves, or ignore it until a problem occurs. I favor the latter as the editor's name will make it easy to track their activity. FYI: one interesting conclusion from this discussion was that alumni might have a bias, but nothing that rises to the level of what Wikipedia defines as a COI. Meaning there is no issue with a GLO's alumni editing articles. Instead, we should devaluate neutrality and bias within the added text, per MOS. Rublamb (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate template indicating information like the motto or colors which only occur in the infobox? As I understand it all information in infoboxes with the exception of images must also exist in the prose of the article?Naraht (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:A "Symbols and traditions" section is a common catch-all for these items. Occasionally, mottos are noted in the History section of these articles. There is no template to track incidence of one or the other, or missing body text notation. Jax MN (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:As I understand it, the infobox is a summary of the article's content, meaning that all of those details should be in the article with sources. I don't know of a editing template, other than to use {cleanup|reason=}. Using that would be helpful because it would show up in our weekly cleanup report. Rublamb (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::The more I think about this, the cleanup template should be fine. We just need to figure out how to express the needed update. What about "add infobox content to prose" or "add infobox content to prose with source", as appropriate? @Naraht, if you add that, I will see it in the weekly reports and can add the symbols sections. Rublamb (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I will do that when I see them. Focused on List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters atm.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

We are probably nearing a completion point with the original cleanup project (or as close as we can get to completion). The articles lacking sources or with notability tags have been pulled out as a separate list. At some point, we can let the cleanup list replace the notability/lacking source list, but I figure we can finish working on those we have already identified.

The related cleanup project for the infobox in still in progress. I have not been able to remove the deleted field "kaleidoscope" from the VE version without breaking the code; it was added differently (incorrectly?) from the other fields that I successfully removed. There are also new fields (merged date, etc.) that need to be added to the VE version. We stil need to decide if we are going to make changes to location/headquarters and dates (see infobox discussions).

I am not going to say the chapter list project is completed but most of those without a list have many, many chapters. One says it has 5,000 chapters. Most of those with format problems are huge lists that are in the old template; the size of the lists makes me question the value of spending time turning hundreds of notes into efn or merging tables for each state for example. If I could do the latter in VE it would go quickly but that is not an option with the old table format. If it was feasible to use Excel to merged and sort into date order, I have done that already; those remaining have many citations which would get lost in Excel. I will go through the list again and share those that are problematic to see if there is another solution.

The weekly cleanup list is getting down to citations needed, notability, questionable sources, promotional tone, and other similar problems that take time to solve but are major flaws in articles. These take longer to fix but it seems like important work.

We should be aggressive about adding {cleanup|reason=} or other tags such as {Third-party} when all of the sources are too close to the subject or Baird's is not used, especially since the weekly report makes it easy to find and address these or any other tagged problems. I mention these two--lack of a symbols section and no Baird's for older organizations--because these are two issues I keep finding and are really easy to fix. I mentioned previously that I have found many older articles on important GLOs have a heavy reliance on self-published sources and do not use Baird's at all.

At one point, I had improved almost all of the stubs under WP:FRAT; that will need to be done again now that we have expanded the list. We still have the Redlinked Institution list and Articles for Creation; those two could keep us busy for the rest of our Wikipedia lives. A thoughtful review of Article for Creation could prioritize subjects and identify those that are best represented with a redirect to an existing article. Speaking of redirects, we have identified a need to add redirects for the earlier names of organizations.

In addition, we previously discussed the need to write the WP article guidelines we have gradually developed so that others can join in the fun. There is also the essay article that needs updating.

Have I forgotten anything? Rublamb (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Good summary, at first reading. I do agree that the WP article guideline, written in a tight fashion with clear examples will be most useful for posterity. Jax MN (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::We can use the examples found through :Category:WikiProject style advice (legal and cultural) Rublamb (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

From an edit on Phi Beta Pi which I have not reverted. If a person is on List of hazing deaths in the United States as having died by hazing by Mu Mu Mu, do they count as a notable member even if there is no page for them. Assume the entry on the List of hazing deaths in the United States is referenced.Naraht (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Some people in GLO notable lists are linked to redirects to related article, such as a band article for band members or a company article for its CEO. I usually let those slide, provided that there is a source about their relationship to the group, mostly because the person probably could meet notability on their own. With hazing deaths, it is less likely that the individual would meet notability. I would include them in the misconduct section instead. Rublamb (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Such an individual would almost certainly fall under WP:BLP1E and thus should not be included in a list of notable individuals. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::So we'd need to be at the John Hinckley level of override of WP:BLP1E. I'm not sure whether lawsuit so large Mu Mu Mu lost their National HQ would reach that level of override (or the University (or even state University System) that the hazing took place at removed all Social Greeks. Naraht (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::But, again, since we have a place to include the individual in the article, they are not being excluded. Rublamb (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Where we have groups with chapter lists, there is an inconsistency in the way that notes are done. If Fraternity AAA merges into Fraternity BBB which in turn merges into Fraternity GGG and a school's chapter stays through all of them, in some cases we have the chapter in the AAA chapter list as Merged (BBB) and in some cases we have Merged (GGG). Specifically Phi Alpha (fraternity) does it the first way (Into Phi Sigma Delta) which later became part of ZBT, but Sigma Delta Rho shows the chapters that went into Alpha Kappa Pi and later into Alpha Sigma Phi as simply going to Alpha Sigma Phi. I would *very* much prefer the first one way of doing things.Naraht (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:This has evolved over time, especially since many different editors have worked on the articles. In cases where all three groups have an article and a chapter list, I would support adding notes to the chapter list that use the name of the group at the time of the merger, rather than going back to the beginning. Although there is infinite room in Wikipedia, I try to keep the length of notes rather short. I have come across a couple of articles where the notes are longer than the article itself; clearly we are doing something wrong in that case. The text of the main fraternity article can and should go into more detail about the history; the advantage is that you can discuss the mergers once, rather than having to repeat the merger content in every note for every absorbed chapter. In this way, the list article as a summary that supports the main article, rather than the other way around.

:I am currently working on a list where once merger added 28 chapters. Each added chapter has a predecessor group, its first fraternity, and its second fraternity. That is a lot of details for each chapter's note, especially since most of that information is already included in the article about the merging group. Only the most dedicated reader is going to dig through the noise of all of those long notes. However, that was how it was created back in the day.

:If there are not articles about all three fraternities, the situation is different. However, I would rather spend time on creating a new article for the predecessor than writing really long notes. Rublamb (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::I see that. Part of the consideration is I wonder what the largest north american collegiate group is that merged that remains without an article? Honest guess would be something Osteopathic...Naraht (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Both Phi Beta Kappa (The American Scholar (magazine)) and Sigma Xi (The American Scientist) actually have magazines. Do they belong in our project? (Are there any others?) BTW, right now, they have no categories in common...Naraht (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:It is surprising that we haven't thought about this before: fraternity or society publications with articles. I think there may be a couple of others from honor societies or professional fraternities, but it will take time to find them. We might be able to put together a template for fraternal publications. It would also include serials like Baird's. Rublamb (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Others include:

::* Sociological Inquiry

::* Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Cases (needs an article)

::* Geographical Bulletin

::* Eye on Psi Chi

::Rublamb (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Since all of these are honor society publications, what do you think about a new category for honor society publications? Rublamb (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Naraht: Do you want to create a category for honor society publications? Would it fit the rules? Rublamb (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Asked over on the Magazines Wikiproject.Naraht (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Alpha Kappa Delta - Sociological Inquiry {{done}}
• Gamma Theta Upsilon - Geographical Bulletin {{done}}
• Phi Beta Kappa - The American Scholar (magazine) {{done}}
• Eta Sigma Delta - Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Cases
• Pi Sigma Epsilon - Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management {{done}}
• Psi Chi - Eye on Psi Chi {{done}}
• Sigma Xi - American Scientist {{done}}

Probably should be moved to EL or deleted (link to Magazine is EL)

• Eta Kappa Nu {{done}}
• Phi Kappa Phi {{done}}
• Sigma Lambda Beta {{done}}
• Sigma Nu {{done}}

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)

:I changed the motto in Sigma Xi to {{lang|grc|Σπουδῶν Ξυνῶνες}}
({{transliteration|grc|Spoudon Xynones}})
"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)

::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)

List of Omega Psi Phi chapters is finally in decent shape. I split the college and graduate chapters, added missing chapters and dates, and ordered by charter date. It still needs date templates, if anyone wants to play.

My question is about numbers. In some sources, there is a number associated with the chapter. I have discovered that these numbers are included in the national's directory, provided one is willing to look up each chapter. The number sequence is inclusive of both graduate and college chapters, so it may or may not shine light on the somewhat random nature of the chapter names. Is it worth my time to work on this? Or should we mark this one as finished (pending date templates) and move on to the next project? Rublamb (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is this the number in the ID column at https://members.oppf.org/OPPMembers/ChapterSearch/ChapterSearch.aspx ?

:: Oh, yes. I had not realized that you could get the entire list to pull up. When I sort that by date, the numbers appear to to randomly assigned. Maybe they have some meaning internally, based on the number of a former district, then the charter order. But I see no value overall. Rublamb (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{U|Rublamb}}Restoring the section. The ID numbers appear to be the *original* order of chartering, while the dates appear to be most recent rechartering. Ignore the district and simply look at the chapter name *and* the chartering date in our list already. ID 1001 is Alpha in 1911, ID 1002 is Beta chartered in 1913 (not in 2014, that's a rechartering,) and so on. The ID numbers are the truth, the rest is distraction.Naraht (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, I will add them if you take care of the date templates... Rublamb (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I will do so, may be a bit.Naraht (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am almost finished with the numbers; unfortunately, the last 100+ do not pull up with the list, so I am having to look up each chapter. However, there may be an issue with a former editor who started to change the numbers from those found in the national database and also removed an early defunct chapter, described in Baird's. They have reached out via my talkpage. I am willing to look at other sources but may a third party to mediate. Rublamb (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Our standard is to note at least the year if not the exact date of chartering when we add a new chapter to a chapter list. What is our consensus for secondary reinstatements? Here are some examples. Any alternative viewpoints?

1. When a group is new to a campus, we add it as a colony or provisional chapter, with the best date available for the start of their activity. Usually the group carries only the school name.
2. This date is replaced with a formal installation date when it is chartered.
3. We note at least the year of closure, and sometimes the actual date of closure, if known.
4. We note the year that a colony is re-established.
5. We REPLACE the colony year with at least the year, and if available, the full date of a restoration of a chapter.

I noted the List of Beta Theta Pi chapters, where the West Virginia chapter had been noted as a new colony with a (re)establishment date of 2024. In a recent change on June 23, 2025, Rublamb deleted that 2024 date, which I assume was done because the reestablished group has not yet earned its charter. It is, of course, noted as a colony, but italicized. As this colony represents 'active' activity, shouldn't its name be set in bold text? I also prefer showing the year of recolonization, even if we plan to replace that with the year or date of rechartering. Your thoughts? Jax MN (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Jax MN, I thought you were the one who told me that we should not include the date that a colony was established because that was not an actual charter date. This goes back to when we started merging colony and chapter tables; you are correct that the colony's establishment date was used in the old colony tables. I have been adding an efn that says "the chapter was reestablished as a colony in February 2025" or "This colony was established in February 2025". I would advocate to continue this practice, adding the date when chartered, because I keep finding lists with the wrong date. Apparently, the dates are not getting corrected by the editors who update the status. Also, while it is easy to catch and remove colonies that never charter, it adds an extra step for former chapters that are reestablished as a colony but never are rechartered. We are already expecting non-WP editor to chapter bolding/italics and status.

:And, yes, the colony's name should be bolded Rublamb (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{U|Rublamb}} - I remember the conversation, and that is how I described it then. As long as there is an EFN or REF adjacent, which notes when the colony was formed, we're OK, except for those undergrads who look up a school which may be colonizing, but because the date hasn't yet been captured in the dates of activity column, they may opt not to explore the group further or read the fine print. Thus I realized this rule was a compromise. This post was a bit of an exercise in clarifying our policies. Without that EFN or REF, and with no date or year in the column for dates of activity, some organizations may show a long-dead colony which wasn't properly struck from the list - the present rule helps us avoid this. I saw that you had deleted the year (2024) for re-colonization of Beta's WVU chapter, and it prompted my discussion. Jax MN (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I deleted the colony's date from the chartered column and moved it to an efn. I find it confusing to have a colony's founding date in the chartered column, especially since we have worked so hard to cleanup up colony and installed dates vs. chartered dates for some groups. I would like agreement that a colony's founding date does not belong in the chartered column. It is technically incorrect and confusing. Also, the efn will never become dated and need to be reversed; whereas chapters with a failed effort to recolonize will require the removal of the date and those are are recolonized will require the date to the changed. Rublamb (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::After considering the options, I think placing this information in an EFN is best, reserving the dates of activity to mean "while chartered". It's not perfect, but better than other options. Nor do I favor adding a separate column to note the date a colony was started. Leave that for the EFN. Jax MN (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why the section got archived, but put the six magazines into :Category:Honor society magazines. Subcat of :Category:Honor societies and :Category:Professional and trade magazines. If we run into a Social GLO whose magazine is notable, we'll deal with it then.Naraht (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks. GLO Magazines is still included above. Rublamb (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, mistake it was the EL for Magazines that got archived. Which seemed to get somewhat of a meh from WP:EL. Not sure what "Policy" we would have.Naraht (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I removed the EL for magazines from the infoboxes and added an citation within the text, if needed. That seems to be the best practice. Rublamb (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::So If Alpha Alpha Beta merged into Gamma Gamma and Gamma Gamma kept copies of AAB's magazine, the section of the AAB wikipedia page that has the information on the fact that AAB's magazine was the Sheep Dip would have as a ref [https://gsquared.org/publications/SheepDip.html Sheep Dip Magazine]? Naraht (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, I don't add an intext link like that, but a regular citation/footnote. I would have to go back and look at the guidelines for inline links, but I believe it is okay to link to a specific issue or book, but not to provide a link to a generic website about the journal. Does that make sense? Rublamb (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I have been suffering over List of The Links chapters for what seems like forever. The Links does not have a single chapter list online for its more than 300 chapters. Instead, I have been pulling this list together from the websites for its four areas, which have lists organized state and in alphabetical order by the chapters' names. Only one of these lists included the charter dates and none have included locations. To get that info, I have having to go to the website for each chapter, newspapers article, or incorporation listings. I have now added three of the four areas.

Long story short, I started creating a list that was organized alphabetically by non-Greek chapter names, but now have charter dates for most chapters. By WP standards, we would add dts templates and order by charter date. Normally, I would sort into date order using Excel. However, because there are citations for each chapter, Excel is not a good option. Does anyone have an automated sorting system that will retain the citations, while sorting and adding dts templates? I expect to take a few more days to add the last area's chapters but am already getting anxious about ordering this list. Rublamb (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:The chapter list is now complete. Any suggestions? Rublamb (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, I didn't want to edit our recently archived discussion about the St. John's problem, and have a minor, technical request. Are any of the editors familiar with WP:TRANCLUSION ? I wanted to link the discussion on the specific school Talk page Talk:St._Johns'_College_(Arkansas)#St._John's_College_(Arkansas) onto the more generic DAB page, Saint John's College.

Note, this will force any continuing discussion onto the specific school talk page, and avoid editing our Archive 18 or the transcluded section of the DAB page. Anyway, that setup made the most sense to me. But I don't have the transclusion coding quite right. Jax MN (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:No idea. Whenever I moved a TalkPage discussion (such as in a merger or in this instance), I assume that the target page is now the main discussion. You could post a "discussion of interest redirect notice" on the DAB page. Rublamb (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::I'm fine with copying the original discussion to the school specific talk page (with a note) and just adding a link on the DAB talk page.Naraht (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::That's just it. I don't know exactly how to do that, without dragging over all the Project class and ratings templates. Better to just transclude the specific discussion subhead. Do you know how to code this? Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on creating the redirect pages for the NPC sororities that still have the notable members list on the sorority page rather than being split out. Fortunately all of them are standardized as having ==Notable Members==. But I notice that some groups like Alpha Phi Omega and Phi Beta Kappa combine the information on membership requirements and the notable members into one header of Membership. Should those be separated so Notable Members and/or the link to Notable members is always its own section? Naraht (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:For the sake of consistency, I think you are right. Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. I have been correcting this when I come across it. Rublamb (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::Split Alpha Phi Omega and Phi Beta Kappa.Naraht (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::As a related thought, ==Chapters== should also be its own section, rather than a sub-section of the organization section. I have seen this less frequently, but it does exist. Rublamb (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

was completely rewritten, several things need to be fixed now including the use of colors for active inactive and undoing the fields that are autolinked by the template. I'll take a deeper look Monday if I don't have time between now and then, but would appreciate other eyes. Pretty new user, most of the issues are not understanding the standard. Naraht (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:I have been laughing at, and am slightly annoyed by, the editor who does nothing but add {{Use mdy dates}} to articles. And yet, here we go. I fixed the infobox; the address was jacked too. Then, I realized that the editor introduced UK English and European/Scientific date formats throughout, including the chapter list. Big sigh. Rublamb (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::There was actually a Project whose goal was to introduce those date templates to every page. See Wikipedia:Date formattings. This person may have been influenced by that group. Jax MN (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Those are fixed now, and I added the official statements to the article. My thought had always been to use the date style of the country of the person or org, but I guess that is not obvious to everyone. Also, I did post of the editor's talkpage to explain what was going on. They made a ton of edits; some were great, such as improving the crest. I have not yet been able to figure out why or what they did to the citations (see Bairds for example). Maybe it had the new template and they removed it? With some citations, they removed journal, book, cv, etc. which is not an improvement. Rublamb (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)