Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

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. needs color boxes (Helpful link, has colors, flags, and addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German, and Polish fraternities)

• Alpha Nu Omega
• Alpha Phi Epsilon and the related honor society listing
• Beta Pi Theta and the related honor society listing
• Theta Chi Delta and related honor society listing
• Burschenschaft Hannovera
• Kartellverband
• List of student corporations in Latvia - in process Jax MN (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

2. 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

• K.D.St.V. Teutonia (only source is its website)
• Zeta Phi Beta (fraternity) ( multi-location PR, the 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-----

Rublamb (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Bump to keep from archiving. Rublamb (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I was bored last night and reached out in Facebook talk to the official account. I did get some response, they know things are messed up and are trying to straighten them out (the designation of the original Gamma as Omega Gamma Omega is a start). I'm not sure one way or another if they know *how* messed up. Part of the issue for them, I think, is the the founder, Professor Opp, ran the organization almost single handedly for years, and I think a number of the deliberate duplications are his, so unscrambling this is in some regard saying what the founded did is wrong.Naraht (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Lacking dates, I opted to treat these double-named chapters as as "reestablished" since we already have agreed to that terminology. This way, both former and current names for the chapter were listed, with the "see..." note in the chapter name field. However, if the organization randomly changed a chapter's name without the chapter going inactive, we don't have a system in place for that issue. And, of course, we still lack dates for order the list properly. Rublamb (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jax MN: if we do end up having a bunch of chapters that were renamed while active, any thoughts on how to handle the status for the old name? Rublamb (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rublamb, since this is quite uncommon, I think we need both a direct (clear) new status type, and a unique term, thus differentiated from those already existing. Maybe your "Renamed" fits the bill. The dialog on the associated Talk page ought to explain why, perhaps mentioning the organization's period of disorganization. Jax MN (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

We never settled on a solution. I know this appears to be a one-off, but I know that I have come across this issue with other fraternities. @Naraht and @Jax MN, the options I see are:

1) leave both entries in the list with dates for that specific name, using the new status of "renamed". There would be "see" notes in the chapter names field.

2) leave only the current name in the list, with an efn indicating the chapter's former name.

3) leave both entries in the list with dates for that specific name, using the "re-established" status. This is th eoption Naraht went for. Note that we have only used "re-established" when the chapter goes inactive and later is re-chartered.

I actually like option 2, but am not sure if this will result in confusing Greek letter skips the chapter list. I believe this is what I have done with other groups with twice-named chapters. Rublamb (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

A while back, an editor who was new to WP:FRAT suggested that we create instructions for articles. I am finally circling back to that project. If this makes sense, I am going to base it on WP:UNIGUIDE since that is a realted WikiProject and already has thoughtfully linked to variety of MOS pages. The biggest decision will be where to place the chapter list within the article; that is, finally deciding on the best order of sections. Rublamb (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

As for name, WP:FRATGUIDE as a redirect to Wikipedia:Fraternity, Sorority and Honor Society article advice.

As for order - quick proposal just to get something on the table. Working from Alpha Sigma Phi

• Lede
• History
• Symbols
• Awards - Not sure this is major enough to make the list
• Chapters (either a list or a direct to a list)
• Alumni
• Local chapter or member misconduct
• See Also
• References
• External List
• Templates, etc.

Naraht (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Other sections that are commonly included:

• Chapter house (rare)
• Membership (info about joining, not a member's list)
• Activities (this includes awards)
• Philanthropy (can be included in activities; can include foundations)
• Governance (organizational structure, officers, annual meetings, headquarters)
• In popular culture (rare)

I think this is everything. Rublamb (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, for this discussion, I think dropping everything specifically listed in WP:ORDER at the end (and Lede is specific to a newspaper, it should be Lead.) For the fraternity related things, my personal feeling is

• Lead
• History
• Symbols
• Governance
• Philanthropy
• Chapter House
• Activities/Awards
• Chapters
• Alumni
• Local or member misconduct.
• In popular culture

But I agree all of the italicized are less commonNaraht (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I prefer to have philanthropy and governance after activities. Philanthropy is essentially a subsection of activities and governance is similar and really not very important. The chapter house/tomb section fits nicely after symbols because it is part of the org's traditions (in those rare examples where it is worth including). Also, I am adding in membership and placing it fairly high up because, for the honor societies where this section is standard, it is also a key aspect of the group. However, I am not stuck on this suggested order.

• Lead
• History (existing founders sections should be moved here)
• Symbols/Traditions
• Chapter House
• Membership
• Activities/Awards
• Philanthropy
• Governance
• Chapters
• Alumni
• Local or member misconduct.
• In popular culture

I have noticed that in some of the older articles, the chapter list is often higher up, after symbols. This seems to be the case when the list is shorter. This may have occurred because the article started as lead, history, chapters--with other content coming later. Although, there is some logic behind including it closer to the history section which refers to chapters. Also, numerous articles have mission, creed, etc. sections--my preference is to discourage this and incorporate that into either the history or symbols section. Rublamb (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree with this discussion and where you have taken it. I prefer to place the chapter list or link higher, like you say, just after history and symbols. The chapter list is probably the number one reason that readers search out these societies and peruse these articles. So when considering the order of sections, like this example, I look to frontload the most common search topics. (Also, I didn't know that about the distinction on the word "lede" as compared to "lead". Thanks!) Jax MN (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I have not forgotten this. Just have been stuck on other things. Rublamb (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Could others please chime in at Talk:List_of_Alpha_Phi_Omega_members#Inclusion_Criteria. Thanx.Naraht (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned there, I will work on creating articles for some of the redlinks. The list itself annoys me as it is in that template format that does not work with VE. Rublamb (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Which template does? And how often do we use it. This article should have the same structure as the social Greeks (other than any divisions we choose to make).Naraht (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Its not the visible structure, but the choice to use {Mem/fstart}{Mem/f} rather than basic table code. I think I mentioned previously that tables made with chapter templates, rather than basic table code, don't work well with VE. For example, the insert citation feature does not work, nor can you view or edit existing citations from VE edit mode. Also, you cannot make edits directly into the cells, but instead have to scroll through a list of all data in a tiny pop-up box. There are not very many members lists that use {Mem/fstart}{Mem/f}. Unfortunately the few that do are very long and citation heavy, meaning converting them to the other format is a time-consuming process (Using VE, you can copy and paste everything except efn and citations into a new table for conversion). Unless the chapter list or member's list is citation heavy, conversion has been my usual practice, making editing more accessible to all editors. This has worked well with chapter lists and seems to have reduced errors from inexperienced editors. Fortunately, I don't need to mess with this table to create the articles for the redlinked names--I can leave any other updates to you! Rublamb (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I still plan on working on articles for the redlinks. But don't want to drop the idea that we should also get rid of the the template that creates membership list, similar to our project with {fratchatper} Rublamb (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Moving this here for easier access. Here's the list we are working from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3AFratChapterStart&namespace=0&limit=50. We started with 29 lists and are down to 19. Rublamb (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

All of these tables will be brought up to standard, they will need dts re-inserted (appears that it was grabbed from the displayed text. And I *think* the sticky as well.Naraht (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

As an automated action? Rublamb (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

For what we are doing with getting rid of the template, I'm fine with you continuing the way that you are now. I've got a search for these. (the ones that need the dts restored)

I'll take care of them, the dts, I'll either do by hand or drop into the editor that I did the others in. I'm going in for training to be a voting judge will take care of them within a few days. the sticky, I'll either find or remake my autowikibrowser find replace.Naraht (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

We are down to less than 20 articles. No big deal to add sticky manually. The remaining lists have lots of sources and notes, so will be a pain to cut and paste, but having to restore the date would e equally awful. I wonder about updating the code itself, replacing the startfrat with |- or whatever. At least that would be mindless. Or we could just ignore them. That has worked so far.... Rublamb (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Restoring the dts is not awful and the sticky is pretty easy. I've got that down to a science. Do what you can. I'm not sure we can transform the three templates into simply table "pieces" but that *might* make some things easier.Naraht (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I've caught up on dts, and I think on sticky. Not bad, did it during a meeting at work.Naraht (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

From some help on another user on WP:AWB. I have the list of cite templates where this book is used. I have split them into the 2005 and 2012 editions. (User:Naraht/Legacy) From what has been said about the book, exactly one of the 38 cites used for this book (either edition) are actually done correctly, and that is the one for History of slavery in Virginia, in that while Brown, Parks and Philipps are listed as editors, another person is listed as Author, presumably for section that the page that the information is gotten from (Anne S. Butler). Given that there are two other cites that use the exact same link to google books, presumably *they* can be changed to be correct as well. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Please take a look at the usersubpage and let me know what should be generated for each (and how smart it needs to be made).Naraht (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

According to this, Phi Beta Chi at Dayton came from Beta Delta chapter of Phi Beta. The chapter name is reasonable for an expansion post 1970, but I can't findy anything else. Ideas? https://phibetachifraternity.weebly.com/pbx-history.html Naraht (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Gjs238, I'd like to start out by saying that I've agreed with almost all of your category changes, but I'd like to write (and discuss!) the rules so that more of us can help with this. (Mu Pi Rho is fictional and picked because the letters have short names in English)

• This applies to all pages of type List of Mu Pi Rho chapters and (similarly though not shown in these examples List of Mu Pi Rho members)
• These pages belong in the following categories if they exist:
  • Category:Mu Pi Rho
  • If Mu Pi Rho merged into Phi Phi Rho , then Category:Phi Phi Rho
  • Category:Lists of chapters of Scottish Fraternity Association members by society (or former members depending on whether Mu Pi Rho is still a member of the SFA)

For the first two, Mu Pi Rho and Lists of Mu Pi Rho chapters will be in the same category, but I don't think any other category that ]]List of Mu Pi Rho chapters]] would share with the main article.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist#Lists (not the "by campus") are the ones that this applies to.Naraht (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Naraht (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

An editor keeps adding to the list of groups in High school fraternities and sororities, which sends me on a search for the needed sources. Looking for a source for one group seems to lead to another addition to the list. And that lead me to this: do we want to treat DeMolay International as a fraternity? I know it was the basis for two collegiate fraternities. What about International Order of the Rainbow for Girls? I figure they are pretty similar to Aleph Zadik Aleph and B'nai B'rith Girls which are already included in the article's list. Rublamb (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Several GLOs do not use the term "colony" to refer to chapters under development. In some cases, they use a term unique to the organization; in others, the term is used by several organizations. For chapter lists, we have treated such variations in several ways, including.

1. Adding a statement in the lead that the GLO refers to colonies as "xyz"and, then, using the status "colony"
2. Adding a statement in the lead that the GLO refers to colonies as "xyz"and, then, using the status "xyz"
3. Giving the colony the status of "active" and with a name of Moo Moo XYZ Chapter or the like
4. Totally ignoring the GLOs system and using the status "colony"

I just came across a Delta Sigma Pi policy statement that might inform how we treat colony variations in the future. Here is a relevant section of their decision to change terminology:

Many of our industry peers have also removed "colony" from their terminology over the last few years. The idea of "colonization" has long, historic ties back to the 15th and 16th century as it relates to the European military conquests and the subjugation of people. It was marked by extraction of raw materials, repressive rule and the creation of hierarchies based on external characteristics which eventually would go on to divide populations instead of uniting them towards a common goal. The term "colony" and "colonization" carry a problematic history with indigenous populations and people of color. As a part of our diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, Delta Sigma Pi will now refer to new assemblies as "startup groups", which reflects the development as an up-and-coming business venture.

With this in mind, I think we should formalize how we treat colony naming variations to be sensitive to the possible goals of these organizations. Does anyone have a preference or suggestion? Number 3 above does not work well for inactive chapters that have been reestablished as a colony, so it may be out of the running even though it is a good solution for new colonies. Rublamb (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just use what each GLO uses, as long as the term (if non-standard) is explained in prose. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

In the infobox, should we used the free field for their name vs. the standard colony field? Rublamb (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

In the 18th edition, the following organizations have short (half - 2/3 of a column) entries and between 4-7 chapters.

• Atlas Club
• Delta Omega
• Iota Tau Sigma
• Lambda Omicron Gamma
• Phi Sigma Gamma
• Psi Sigma Alpha
• Sigma Sigma Phi
• Theta Psi

Only two of them had a charter between 1945 and 1964, so I doubt they expanded much beyond that. Make articles?Naraht (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think so. Baird's standard was three or more would deserve an article. Jax MN (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You can always add them to the articles for creation list. They could also be added to the Professional fraternities and sororities article. There are enough that osteopathy could be its own section. Rublamb (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Just discovered a new umbrella association: English Honor Societies. It consists of

• English Language Arts Honor Society (middle schools)
• National English Honor Society for High Schools
• Sigma Kappa Delta
• Sigma Tau Delta

Should we add this as an option for the affiliation field in the infobox? Rublamb (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

that is less an umbrella, which we use to refer to an organization of equal organizations at the same level and more what I would call a family, multiple organizations under the same legal header serving different segments of the population. The examples here are Zeta Phi Beta, alpha psi omega & delta psi omega and the math or english honor societies. Wierdly communist party youth wings might also be a model of the masons... A different concept, so not sure. Naraht (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I was equating it to the Honor Society Caucus, which consists of four organizations that split from ACHS. However, I agree with your assessment of this group as a family, functionally. There is an art society that similarly has college and secondary school divisions, as well as several other topical honor societies. In these instances, I believe we have included the parent org in the infobox affiliation field, but have not created an autofill. (Unless you can confirm, I will have to do some checking to make sure we are being consistent)

Does it make sense to define the divide between a family organization and an umbrella association as:

• Umbrella: member institutions operate independently (legal and tax status, charter, budget) and have a vote in the operation of the umbrella. Can leave the umbrella at any time and/or can be removed for failure to meet common guidelines.
• Family: member institutions may or may not operate independently and do not have say in the operation of the parent organization. Cannot leave the family without permission from the parent organization, as they do not have true autonomy.

Rublamb (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah, that feels right. How about the following. The oldest (which is mostly going to be the 4-yr UG, though a few law/pre-law and med/pre-med groups will have the grad) should have the family info, and the others should link to there or to a family info section in there. Any link added to an infobox should be to main org section with text <main org> family. Yes, I'm pulling from the masonic and Philippines GLO setups, so this could be overkill. Putting this out as the start of a discussion... Naraht (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. I don't think its overkill--linking is one of Wikipedia's strongpoints. I would add a stub for the parent org in this case, but doubt there is a secondary source. At one point, I was working creating articles for umbrella's, but got sidetracked. Rublamb (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

May also be appropriate with equal tied groups, though not sure where to link. Zeta Phi Beta/Phi Beta Sigma and Tau Gamma Phi/Tau Gamma Sigma.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Without looking, are those fraternity/sorority pairs? The German fraternities often have a partner sorority and/or a partner chapter from another fraternity. I don't think that rises to infobox level, but will think about it. Rublamb (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup. ZPhiB is a sorority, PhiBS is a fraternity and for the others.... Triskelion Grand Fraternity and Triskelion Grand Sorority. Its about 50/50 in the Philippines as to whether a group's derivation of their greek letters is public. (You'd be amaze how many Medical Fraternities have a Mu).Naraht (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Haven't we offered "parent" as an occasional, custom infobox parameter? Something to indicate the hierarchy? I also recall seeing a 4-yr group as the 'affiliation' for a 2-yr version of itself, where there is a legal basis for this. While I see no purpose in advertising a casual umbrella organization which is simply an annual meeting for executive directors, where there is substance (coordination and shared governance) then it would be worthwhile to announce the umbrella organization here. Jax MN (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Not an allowed field in the infobox and not in any of the free parameters or their labels as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

We (you) may have edited these out during the most recent set of infobox parameter updates. I think this may have been when we added the Affiliation params. Prior to this, there were some, as I described, with plain text affiliation (~parent) names, or similar fields using one of the free fields. Jax MN (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, let's look forward. I think the list would get chunky here, I'm going to start a subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Families.Naraht (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

According to https://bspinternational.org/member_home.php Beta Sigma Phi is closing their international office on June 29, 2026, and more or less letting the chapters continue to be active, but without a central organization. This includes shutting down their website. I've heard comments to this effects in a couple of places, but this is a good ref. The last occurrence on this page on archive.org is from June 4, 2026 and it has most of the information, but they've added a couple of answers to questions being asked. Not sure whether the chapter listing page is something that archive.org can capture or if it is generated on the fly, so lost. An *insane* number of chapters (now 4679, was apparently 6021 from the front page of the list back in the archive.org of that chapter in 2020.) and it appears not all of the pages in that 2020 archive are available.

Unfortunately, this personally is *very* close if not over the line of is it really worth preserving the chapter list on Wikipedia. I have no idea how to download all of the 94 pages times 50 entries per page. And if we got it, is it worth making a chapter page? Note, chapter entries are chapter number, chapter name, city, state, and chapter stars count.

Chapter number is a two letter code and then an up to 5 digit number with the code corresponding to chapter type, I guess XP is Preceptor given PREC is prior to the chapter names and PL is Laureate, OL is Online, MA is Master, EX is Exemplar, RJ is Ritual of Jewels.

I would like to understand the different types of chapter though (What does it mean to be a preceptor chapter?).

Ideas???Naraht (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I am guessing a preceptor chapter is a professional chapter vs. a regular chapter. But that is just a guess based on the definition of the word. It would be reasonable to pursue a chapter list. It can be copy and pasted into Excel, so this will be a quick project. Although it will have to go to Word and back again to get rid of the all caps. I have done this process before. The only issue is that this is just a list of active chapters.... Rublamb (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Since this group appears to be non-collegiate, I'm not sure what a professional chapter would do that a regular chapter wouldn't.Naraht (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have come across other non-collegiate groups that had regular and professional chapters, the latter being for working women. Based on its history section, it was a semi-educational organization for women who didn't go to college. They would have mostly been housewives back in the day. So, having different chapters in the same city for professional women would have made sense. Or the chapter system could be based on a Masonic-type of structure. Just guessing--we can go back and reread the old newspaper articles that I found for clues. Rublamb (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the same feeling, in some ways an organization that fit prior to 1990 (to pick a random date) far better than today. Of course this is now an excellent example for the following question, Inactive or not?Naraht (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It is a good example to roll around. Maybe this: Would it be reasonable that a former collegiate member could ask that office for services, or for member records? Or could their employer use the office to confirm membership or participation? While these show meager signs of life, I think it is probably good enough to declare it as active. There will be a future juncture, where the office either closes up, or the society somehow rallies into a revitalization period. So, there still is potential to revive after this almost-dormant phase. Jax MN (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh its active. It just doesn't have a central office anymore.

Question: since my internet connection isn't fast enough today to save my updates to this massive file, I will be pulling it back to Excel and bring over at another time. Do we want to have each membership type in a different table or merged as is? It might function better with several smaller tables. Rublamb (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Some readers won't know to look for a table further down the page. Therefore I prefer if these types are combined into one table. Thanks! Jax MN (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There will be the directory at the top of the page, so it will be obvious. Its really an issue of functionality. The list is too long to edit and save when it is one table. Rublamb (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The other issue is that it is *very* long to be part of the Wikipedia page for BSP, but I'm betting will be *very* difficult to find a non primary source for.Naraht (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow. Closing, with all those chapters. Even if only a fraction will survive, say just one in ten, that would still make them the largest GLO, or close to the largest, in the country. The remaining chapters will quickly veer into their own practices, and their identity as "Beta Sigma Phi" will dissipate; I foresee that a few may even become a liability to the others. They claim their marked downturn is due to COVID. Leadership that cannot fight this battle of renewal should retire, instead. To the main point, after looking at this further I'd agree with you to split this. Dunno if the issue you face is because of Visual Editor, but regardless, I see your point. Maybe add a line at the beginning of each type of chapter to define what it means versus the others.

As an aside, we see this dynamic in Masonic lodges. While there are plenty of 50-man, 100-man or 200-man chapters across North America, all operating splendidly, a focus on "member loss" since a group's glory days can derail a leadership group, and lead to a lodge's demise. One example is a 440-man lodge in a stable part of the twin cities, which encountered troubled waters during my time in statewide leadership. They had lost a building due to eminent domain in about 2000. Their membership had dropped from a high of 800 after the Korean War, and that trajectory would have continued until stabilizing at maybe 250 or 300 given current recruitment trends. However, their devoted secretary fell ill and died suddenly in about 2007; the officers threw up their hands and started a whisper campaign that they simply could not go on, which broke the spirit of the general membership. They had no debt, had a very nice rented hall with solid investments and positive cash flow, but they simply gave up. To me and to others looking at the situation it was clearly a case of poor or uninspired leadership. Poof! Gone. I was grand master of the fraternity at the time, and didn't mind scolding the decision when a more promotional and encouraging approach fell on deaf ears. Some members transferred to another lodge, some let their dues lapse, and were struck from the rolls. And fifteen other lodges within a 20-minute drive, all with under 150 members continued their operations just fine. What a waste. I offered to help them rebrand themselves with a name that conveyed regional attention rather than the simple name of their suburb. I even offered to find them a set of replacement officers as sort of a body-transfusion, to help them see their way clear of the crisis -- all to no avail. 440 brothers (!) voted to shut it down, and fully half of these gave up their membership. All this clearly indicated a botched culture. Jax MN (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll eventually add some newspapers. Still primary, but independent.

It is weird to me that the "president" can unilaterally decide to close the national headquarters. I guess their funding system did not channel money upwards. Rublamb (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Found the answer. It is more like the Masons, with degrees and chapters relating to the degree level of its members. Rublamb (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there any other general info we want to collect from the old website for the body of this article? Rublamb (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I just discovered a major oversight. The articles on general fraternities (Fraternity and List of general fraternities) do not cover the equivalent sororities. I noticed that the redirect for "fraternities" goes to the general Fraternity article, while the comparable redirect for "sororities" goes to College fraternities and sororities. For now, I am changing the "sororities" redirect to List of social sororities and women's fraternities. But it seems like we need to add a sorority section to the general Fraternity article, or should create a stand-alone article for sororities. Any thoughts? Rublamb (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. One of us likely linked the word Fraternity, thinking in the generic sense. It is reasonable to include several See Also options for these meta-words. Jax MN (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

We've got five entries, the article, notable members, convention, chapters, and graduate chapters. The See also seem to be getting stacked and this is presumably the answer. I'm neutral on whether Fortitude (King) should be in or not.Naraht (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that it meets our threshhold for a template. Rublamb (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Only overlaps the project with maybe half a dozen entries, but still might be appropriate to turn into a template. Naraht (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I also have links to the now defunct website that used to list Black Organizations. Not sure how or if this connects with the sidebox for African American History in the United States. Rublamb (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In general in Wikipedia articles (though I can't find the correct guidance page), the name of the article is bolded generally in the first sentence, however it appears that the tendency is go specifically against this in the fraternity chapter lists. That for List of Mu Mu chapters, the article might start with "Mu Mu is a fraternity for cows. The chapters of Mu Mu are at 3 year colleges in cities under 10,000 people". and the phrase "List of Mu Mu chapters" might not even occur in the article and if it did, it should *not* be bolded. Can we find any guidance there? Naraht (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we had a discussion about this years back, where consensus was driven by editors we don't see otherwise. A decade ago? I disagreed with that then, and still do. I strongly prefer bolding the first instance of the name when expressed in body text. A header is just a header. If this is a link, I'd bold it then, too. I also came to realize that first mention of groups that merge into a successor fraternity should be noted in bold, this being a courtesy for those creating redirects. Administrators look for the mention of these names in the target articles, so I learned to bold them in aid to this process. Jax MN (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I took a random guess that WP:BOLDLEAD existed (it does!) and states When the article title appears verbatim in the first sentence, it should be in bold. In articles where the article title does not appear verbatim in the first sentence, boldface is not used. In other words, unless the list article says "This is a list of Mu Mu chapters" in the opening line, it doesn't need to be in bold. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the same discussion as Jax, but I vaguely recall a discussion where people were basically saying "writing an awkward sentence just to get in the article title is not a good idea", which I somewhat agree with (though in that case I think it was referring to countries participating in any given Olympic games... those article titles can be a doozy). Primefac (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanx. That matches up with the general tendency that I've seen in the articles. I agree that trying to have France at the 1928 Winter Olympics have that phrase in the header of that article may need a crowbar and worse is Baseball at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Team squads. If I remember, I'll suggest a *slight* tweek to WP:BOLDLEAD, that instead of article name being capitalized, it should be article base name. Just because the social sorority Delta Phi Epsilon is at Delta Phi Epsilon (social) should not change the Bolding of Delta Phi Epsilon at the beginning of the article. I'll try to keep to that concept of those that merge in as bold, similarly, previous names of groups should be in bold, I think. (The problem in *finding* examples is that in general if a group Y is multi-campus and notable to be mentioned in the group X article that it merged into it, then there is probably enough information that creating the group Y article is at least on our to do list :) )Naraht (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't remember when a non-WP editor called this to our attention, but it was within edits made to articles. I believe there was also a section of MOS that discusses excessive bolding within leads of list articles; but given what @Primefac has already cited, I am not going to search for it. With many of the older list articles, the entire lead was: This is a list of Moo Moo Moo chapters. Meaning that the majority of the lead was bolded, which did seem excessive. As we transitioned to the preferred format of providing a more detailed lead, we rarely mention the "list of chapters" or "list of notable members" concept into several sentences into the the lead. Thus, we have gradually dropped the bolding from the lead. However, we do link (but do not bold) the first time the GLO's name is mentioned, which calls attention to it with the blue color. Rublamb (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The Theta Chi article got updated with an incident from 2010 that got Theta Chi kicked off campus for at least 10 years and it is referenced to a school newspaper article. The Alumni Organization still owns the house and the reference talks about them wanting to come back. But I can't find any significant coverage as to *what* got them kicked off campus. Some bulletin boards are referring to physical injuries in pledging after the group was already on probation for similar things, but it seems like this is something without National coverage that was Chronic rather than Acute. Do we keep this?Naraht (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The rule I have been following is, editors should understand that after ten years this is an entirely new organization (having turned over three generations). I do not blame the present undergrads for the sins of their grandfathers, nor do I infer that this was a systemic problem (~across Theta Chi, or Valpo's Greek System). Since the incident is undefined, did not become a national news story, there is no ongoing legislation that came of it nor a reported and adjudicated crime, I would wipe it from the "Misconduct" section. Further, had it carried more significant coverage, it may have been eligible for a reference citation from the List of Theta Chi chapters, but even there, it remains thinly sourced and long in the rear view mirror. This rationale is supportable, if we are consistent. Delete it. Jax MN (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would use that source for the inactive dates in the chapter list, possibly with an efn noting why the temporarily chapter closed. However, this does not meet our standard for inclusion in the misconduct section. Rublamb (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Requires account and "Checking them out"

• Baird's 15th is available at https://archive.org/details/bwb_Y0-DYP-765
• Baird's 17th is available at https://archive.org/details/bwb_W9-CQT-740
• Baird's 19th is available at https://archive.org/details/bairdsmanualofam0000unse_u8o7 (This I could get to without even logging in/Borrow), my guess is that this got converted because the person who uploaded it had the publication date of 1912, which if correct would not require checking out.
• Baird's 20th is available at https://archive.org/details/bwb_Y0-DYP-765

From what I can tell, having links in references to locations that require free logins and similar to access the data is acceptable.

• Additionally, since I'm working on it "Brothers and sisters : diversity in college fraternities and sororities" is similarly available through checkout.

While adding the URLs may make sense, since checkout is required, I'm not sure it makes sense to do hdl calculations to link to individual pages. Naraht (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Additional recent books available at archive.org for checkout that we've talked about.

• The divine nine: the history of African American fraternities and sororities (Ross) - https://archive.org/details/divineninehistor0000ross_y3o5
• Going Greek Jewish College Fraternities in the United States 1895-1945 (Sanua) - https://archive.org/details/goinggreekjewish0000sanu
• Brothers and sisters : diversity in college fraternities and sororities (Torbenson) - https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780838641941

Naraht (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking that these are all valuable enough that they should be linked as templates off our Project page. Good work... Jax MN (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll update the references page Rublamb (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've moved from the new version of Template:Bairds20 from sandbox to live that has the link to the archive.org page. It does include a parameter for the url-page, which is the "XYZ" in https://archive.org/details/bwb_Y0-DYP-765/page/XYZ/mode/2up. The first one that I've done is Syracuse University where I linked to the Syracuse University section in the by school part of Bairds.Naraht (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a new group of GLO member categories that has been nominated for discussion (see WP landing page for list). There is a difference with this batch in that it includes an honor society, Skull and Bones, and African American fraterities and sororities which are known to have graduate and community-based chapters. Rublamb (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The honest question is how to explain the gradient between Kappa Sigma (example) and Phi Beta Kappa. The question is do *any* represent a defining characteristic. :(Naraht (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if it is okay to share my opionion here, but I have explained my thoughts in the most recent CfD. Rublamb (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a crack at additional referencing before it goes for AFD?Naraht (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I will take a look Rublamb (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing to support the existing history, other than Dartmouth and fraternity sources (which I will add). There was a huge scandal in the late 1990s regarding a "ghetto party" that even showed up again in the Boston newspaper more than 10 years later. Also, members were arrested for violating state alcohol laws the year that they split from the former national. Nothing to confirm that was the cause of the split, but makes more sense than what is in the current article. Rublamb (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Rublamb—I appreciate your thanks yesterday about this article. There's a possibility for the article that I would appreciate your feedback on. Currently the article uses many German terms repeatedly, which challenges an English-language reader. For clarity, I can replace these terms with English-language equivalents where such exist with no ambiguity. After introducing each term, I would include the original German term in parentheses for reference. Below is a candidate list of German-English pairs. Would you support this idea? —Pac Veten

• Studentenverbindung / Verbindung → "German student fraternity" / "fraternity"
• Fuchs → "pledge"
• Bursche(n) → "full member" or "brother"
• Alte Herren / Altherren / Philister → "alumnus/alumni"
• Hohe Damen → "senior female members" or "alumnae"
• Chargen / Chargierte → "officers"
• Fuchsmajor → "pledge master"
• Verbindungshaus → "fraternity house"
• Fuchsenzeit → "pledge period" or "pledging"

Pac Veten (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Moving the above from my talkpage for WP discussion. Rublamb (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pac Veten: The articles about specific German fraternities have a mix of German and English translations as titles. WP:FRAT has opted to use the term Studentenverbindung to identify this type of organization with Infobox Frat. Not to go too deep into that, but there are significant differences from the North American collegiate fraternity model. So Studentenverbindung is our go-to term, but it should be translated using the lang or langx template in the article's lead. I think we should consider whether to begin translating that term as you suggest above throughout all related articles and their infoboxes, based on MOS.

Because this is a general introductory article to this type of German fraternity, I think including both the German and English translations is important for the other terms you have identified. That could be done through the langx template by identifying the German term and its translation on first use. For the second and other occurrences of the terms, I would use the English translations, as this is English Wikipedia.

Thanks for your suggestions and for tackling the cleanup of this article. I have worked on many of these that were translated from German Wikipedia, and it is some of the most challenging work I have found within Wikipedia. Rublamb (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Chi Gamma Epsilon and the following thought occurred. We generally would generally count a local that has lasted for a century as notable. But OTOH, a chapter that was in a national organization for 95 years and broke away in 2019 would be unlikely to be at the same level... Naraht (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I see it is "Open a Can of Worms Day". Alrighty then, once more into the breech, once more! Some items to consider, and an opinion.

1. Dartmouth's and other Ivy League fraternities were some of the earliest of the early adopters to generate articles on Wikipedia. Driven, I infer, by a combination of technical savvy on web matters, an assumption that this topic would be important to the masses, and a furious insistence on self-branding, the members of these chapters created their pages. With this, they helped establish a template for the eventual creation of all our national pages, and the structure of this Project itself. This local's article was first created in May of 2006.
2. There is a rationale, then, for inclusion of Dartmouth's many local chapters as a matter of fairness. If we are listing just the nationals, a long-tenured local could reasonably argue that they ought to be included, too. Where would we otherwise draw the line?
3. We have hammered out rules about the inclusion of locals generally, but the many Ivy League locals have articles that have essentially been grandfathered in, pre-dating these rules but also inspiring these rules.
4. Over the years, Deletionists have pegged these articles for removal, with Talk page arguments or full scale AfD campaigns. But the supporters of these articles - while maybe not card-carrying Inclusionists - have nevertheless fought hard to keep them, generating enough Keep votes to win all the AfD debates I've seen in the fifteen years I have been active as an editor.
5. To your point about the withdrawal from a venerable chapter of a national transitioning in relatively recent years into a local, I can tell you that I had these exact chapters in mind when drafting rules for notability concerning nationals and locals. (The property-owning clause comes to mind, as one of several possible indicators.)

Personally, then, I've pretty much left these be, aside from format cleanup and trimming puffery or bloat. We've had so many other pressing things to work on. I also think that the trend will continue, to gradually expand our coverage of various local chapters that exist today, or those which may be dormant now, but in fact did exist for a significant amount of time.

Glad to be discussing this, even though St. Crispin's Day isn't until late October.

I write this for clarification to other editors who may be newer at this, or who may come after the present group of experienced Project participants. Jax MN (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The standard should always be does the subject meet WP:N. As a broader community, fairness is not a consideration - in general, the only question is whether there is sufficient independent sources to write an article for a global audience. - Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't need to set guidelines as it all comes down to sources--reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject of the article. I also look at the ratio of content that is sourced to primary vs. secondary sources. Im a case like this, I might find sources about member misconduct that falls under reliable and significant coverage, but it might not supply what is needed for notability or to cover the general history of the group. Past history as a chapter of another GLO doesn't help with notability because the current name is not mentioned. Some single-chapter groups meet notability (Skull and Bones), while most do not. I also agree that most new organiztions are going to have a hard time meeting notability, even GLOs with many chapters. In addition, Dartmouth has so many articles because of an ongoing class assignment to create content for Wikipedia, but this does not mean a group meets notability. Rublamb (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I *think* we've got enough to do an article. https://museum.phideltatheta.org/historical-moments/page/7/ is a good place to start. Started in December of 1912. A *couple* of reasonable estimates that it was published until the 1970s.Naraht (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I added to the list of articles for development some time ago, but had not yet looked for sources. Rublamb (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Right now it is a redirect, worst comes in terms of the article, we restore the redirect. As best as I can tell, the most similar article out there would be Inside Higher Ed which isn't *that* close at all. Putting sources at Talk:Banta's Greek Exchange. (doing a insource search for "Category:Magazines" and "fraternit" didn't give anything close at all.Naraht (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It has just been called to my attention that added code is needed with tables for machine readers. Specifically, {{sronly} is needed for the header above the table and "scopes" are needed for column headers. An example combined with sticky heaaders is List of Arizona State University alumni in academia. More details can be found at MOS:DTAB. There is other info there that related to bullets lists, columns, etc.

@Naraht, with tables, I am wondering if there is a way to mechanically make these updates? Rublamb (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

A bit buzy at the moment, but I'm wondering if we have to do anything with the rows. our tables *rarely* actually have Row headers. If it is columns only, we might be able to do a chunk of it in AWB. (We aren't getting a full bot).Naraht (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know of any instances where we have row headers. Also, since we just have one article left that uses the frat chapter template, we are essentially updating the code at the top of each table. The handfull of tables created using the member templates would need to be dealt with differently, either getting rid of that template (like we did with chapters) or adding scopes to the template. I think I can find an example of the latter if need be. Rublamb (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like all of the changes are at the header level. Shouldn't be too bad.Naraht (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ssimplest scenario. Group was a founder of the professional interfraternity conference and remained a member through the merger of the PIC into the PFA and is still a member of the PFA. In the infobox, affiliation = PFA , but I am not sure whether PIC should be former_affiliation... Naraht (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)