Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

WikiProject HomeTalk PageMembersWatchlistArticle GradingCleanup WorklistParameter ReportPetscan Report

Articles for CreationInfobox IssuesChapter List ProjectMember List ProjectsRedlinked InstitutionsReferences

Navigation tools

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.

Cleanup Project - May 2026

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
• 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)

Created Bairds20

I created template Bairds20. Template:Bairds20 I used a version of the reference (with cite book) that I've seen quite a but (> 30 pages) , got the appropriate ISBN number hyphenation, linked Jack Anson and then used the structure of Template:Encyclopedia of North American Railroads which gives the following available parameters: page, pages, nopp (for suppressing the p or pp for things like front cover) and ref to generate anchors (haven't quite figured out an example on how to use that). I've got an example with no parameters, page, pages and nopp at User:Naraht/Z. Let me know what you think, tweeks are welcome, and I figure we work backwards in time. (some like the 2nd, we may really have to give thought on how the ref should look like.

• Should we link to the google books page for those that don't allow full viewing (anything after the 1930)
• I'll create redirects based on years so this one can be used as either Bairds20 or Bairds1991. Done Some editions will probably get multiple year redirects. I think I've seen the 19th as either 1976 or 1977 and the 12th as either 1929 or 1930.Naraht (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

(an example using pp looks like

Anson, Jack L.; Marchenasi, Robert F., eds. (1991) [1879]. Baird's Manual of American Fraternities (20th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Baird's Manual Foundation, Inc. pp. 26–67. ISBN 978-0-9637159-0-6.

Naraht (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to track it down, but I recall a guideline not to link to something like Google unless it is a readable version. I would remove the 1879 date. That is for when the book is the same, just different pressings. Since this is a different addition, it was not originally published in 1879. However with the 12th, for example, it could be the 1930 pub date with the 1929 original pub date. Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I asked over Help talk:Citation Style 1 which is the talk page for cite book. Neither the OED, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) or Encyclopedia Britanica use orig-year. I'm pulling it. As for the 1929/1930, I'm going to look at my copy to see which year is used in which place.Naraht (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Naraht, did you look at Template:Reference page when creating the Bairds20 template? Prior to your work on this, I'd been using that template {{rp|p=xx}} immediately following the main Baird's 20th reference I'd used. However, these were separate templates. Did your work on the new Bairds20 template knowingly include this code, thus making a planned consolidation and improvement? Or did your work spring from an unrelated process? If the latter, I don't want you to have missed anything from "rp". It has been helpful, though I only use it sporadically, like on the List of Minnesota fraternities. Jax MN (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar with rp. In a few places (like List of Minnesota Fraternities), it definitely was useful. More or less if there were more than one ref that went to the 20th, I used the template bare and used rp afterwards. Didn't run into my nightmare scenario where there were 6 references to I-6 and 7 to V-135 where going to one of the more complicated methods of reference would have been useful.Naraht (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The page number of Baird's 20th do create nightmarish rp entries. The format of the page number are also troublesome. Several formats exist. For example

1) pp. V-12–V-15

2) pp. V-12–15

3) pp. V12–V15

4) pp. V.12–V.15

What do you decide to go with? Rublamb (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

This was going to be section one of the after action report...

All of the page numbers used with Bairds20 are those that where there before (added the template, deleted everything except the page numbers in the format they were and became either part of the template or part of rp with either page= or pages= based on whether there were multiple.

And I think you missed about 3 or 4 more other versions. *sigh*

I did ask on Help talk:Citation Style 1 and the suggestion was to use the "at" parameter rather than page or pages, so for this it would be "at=Part V, pp. 12–15". I'm not *really a fan of that since at is for

at: For sources where a page number is inappropriate or insufficient. Overridden by |page= or |pages=. Use only one of |page=, |pages=, or |at=.
Examples: page (p.) or pages (pp.); section (sec.), column (col.), paragraph (para.); track; hours, minutes and seconds; act, scene, canto, book, part, folio, stanza, back cover, liner notes, indicia, colophon, dust jacket, verse.

.

Once we decided on something I can use AWB to put them into our preferred format (yes, some fancy regex, but not too bad.)

My *personal* preference would be "V 12-15" but it really isn't that strong. My only real preference is that if we go with V-12–V-15 that the middle one be a dash longer than the other two. (a short or long dash if the outer two are hyphens, a long dash if the outer two are short dashes).

Also, in some cases, the existing page= or pages= parameters that were left along as the bairds20 template replaced cite book are of incorrect plurality (pages=V-24 or page=VI-26-29 or something similar). I've got some ideas on how to find those using regex. (if page, it should have a maximum of one hyphen, etc.)Naraht (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The other option is to treat the Part as a chapter instead and split this into a chapter and pages within the chapter.Naraht (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting idea (part as a chapter). However, how would that work with the template? I am starting to like the V2-3 format as it takes the least amount of space for rp. It is how newspaper pages are done. Rublamb (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Implementation more or less complete. There are now 292 uses of the template in mainspace, I've left about a dozen alone that either use sfn or actually use chapter, so pages is left alone, for now until we work out our discussions.

how to use chapter, Vincennes University uses "|chapter=III NIC Member Fraternities|pages=133–134".

I'm going to start some of my checks, making sure I've got the ones without pages noted, and that page vs. pages is done correctly.Naraht (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Page numbers are the only thing left to discuss in this section.Naraht (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Additional source templates.

I'd like to keep a list, perhaps here but made so it won't archive of the additional source templates. (Please correct any entries I have described vaguely, I am on my phone.) Also please add...

• remainder of baird's though some like 2nd may not even be currently used.
  • what do we do with the links to individual pages in the pre-1935 in google

Created Baird18 and Baird19 with their year redirects to justify a category, Category:Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities templates. I've put the templates and the redirects in that category, but it appears that with the categories generated from their docs that changes/additions of templates to articles move slowly. Not quite sure how to force with a purge.Naraht (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Bairds14 created and substituted in all *three* places it is needed.Naraht (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Bairds13-Bairds20 now complete. (That's all of them still under copyright, decision needed on how to link before I do the ones that are not in copyright any more).Naraht (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating Bairds01 through Bairds12 the same as Bairds13 in structure. Do *NOT* change what is in mainspace for them yet, I'll need to work with an experienced template editor to allow for the proper links to hathitrust/wikisource/archive.org/gbooks. (In *that* order of preference). Additional redirects will be made from I'll make Bairds# a redirect to Bairds0#, so Bairds9 can be used in addition to Bairds09.Naraht (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Worked back through Bairds06, will do Bairds01-Bairds05 tomorrowNaraht (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Ida Shaw Martin's sorority book
  • {{cite book|author=Ida Shaw Martin|title=The Sorority Handbook|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e1MLAQAAIAAJ|year=1909|publisher=Roxburgh Press|pages=67–68}}
• the Butterfields's book on College Fraternity Heraldry
  • Butterfield, Emily Helen. College Fraternity Heraldry. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company, 1931. pp. 11-12. via Hathi Trust.
• Banta magazines?
• Nuwer's book, Wrongs of Passage. (Oddly "Broken Pledges" is only used as a ref *once*)
• " Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century" by Parks.
• Sanua, Marianne Rachel (1994). 'Going Greek': A social history of Jewish college fraternities in the United States

Naraht (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• Ida Shaw Martin, like Baird's, has various editions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Library for a list of all editions found online. Here is what I use for the 11th edition: Shaw, Ida Martin (1931). The Sorority Handbook (11th edition). Boston: Ida Shaw Martin Publisher. pp. 49-50. via Hathi Trust.
• I would not try to do Banta's since volume, edition, and article name has to be added to each citation, unless there is a way to make that work with the fixed template.
• Butterfield looks fine.
• Parks, Gregory S., ed. (2008). Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century: Our Fight Has Just Begun. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0813124919 . However, each chapter should be citated independently with that author. As in: Bradley, Stefan. "The First and Finest: The Founders of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity" in Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century: Our Fight Has Just Begun. Gregory S. Parks, editor. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2008. ISBN 978-0813124919.
• Sanau: the one you list is her PhD dissertation. For the book, see below. For the dissertation: Sanau, Marianne Rachel (1994). "Going Greek": A Social History of Jewish College Fraternities in the United States, 1895-1945. [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. ResearchGate/where you got it from.
• Here's ones I use frequently

Torbenson, Craig L. and Parks, Gregory S., eds. (2009). Brothers and Sisters: Diversity in College Fraternities and Sororities. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. ISBN 978-1611474022. (technically, this had named chapters with different authors too).

Sanau, Marianne Rachel (2003). Going Greek: Jewish College Fraternities in the United States, 1895-1945. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0814328576

Rublamb (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanx a lot.

• I'd forgotten that Ida Shaw Martin has multiple editions, we'll have to see if any single one is heavily used.
• I was thinking of leaving Banta's to the end of the list, but leaving it off doesn't stress me.
• Butterfield is going to be one of the easier ones.
• Parks - Didn't know that each chapter was done by a specific author, that may make the number of usages small enough that a template doesn't make sense.
• Sanau, we may want to see whether we can standardize the reference to either her dissertation or her book. When we get to that one, I'll see if I can generate numbers based on the titles which are slightly different
• Torbenson, didn't realize we had used it so much. (46 hits in mainspace).Naraht (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I got a cheap used copy of Torbenson and have been using it to add secondary sources to articles. I also have an ebook of the following and have used it for GLO and founder articles:

• Ross Jr., Lawrence C. (2019). The Divine Nine: The History of African American Fraternities and Sororities. New York: Dafina Books. ISBN 978-1496728883

You probably will find many entries for the above as well. Rublamb (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sanua's two compared...

"Going Greek: Jewish College Fraternities" (the book) has 20 hits in mainspace, her dissertation including the phrase "A Social History of Jewish College Fraternities" appears to have no hits in mainspace.Naraht (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Sanua's book link

Tau Delta Phi seems to have the most complete ref for Sanua's 2003 book, but the link to the entry at digital.library.wayne.edu (https://digital.library.wayne.edu/item/wayne:WayneStateUniversityPress4424 ) doesn't seem to work. And when I "walked over" to the wayne library site, it appears to need an EZProxy login. Given the issues there, I don't think the Link is useful... (I did find the contents at https://wayne.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/wayne-open/id/22361 , but given the change...)?

However, that does bring up another issue, the book has two different entries. 2003 and a reissue(?) in 2018. Fortunately only one of our uses of the book appears to be from 2018, and that is at Martin Agronsky which is being used to show that he was in Sigma Alpha Mu. But for now, I'll create Template:Cite Sanua2003. Naraht (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Created. Did not include the link to Wayne, 13 digit ISBN and both editors have wikipedia pages. template is sitting in Category:Fraternity and sorority reference templates along with the Baird's template category.

Additionally, the first page I went to put the template on has *three* references from Sanua, the book, the dissertation and an article with a similar name in Journal of American Ethnic History. I doubt the dissertation or the article will show up enough for this to make sense, other than the early editions for Bairds, I'm thinking at least a dozen pages need to exist before making a template makes sense.Naraht (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

College Fraternity Heraldry

Template:Cite Butterfield1931 is created. Feel free to propose better names for this and Sanua's book templates.Naraht (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The Sorority Handbook

Shaw Martins book has at least 11 editions prior to and including 1931: 1905, 1907, 1909, 1911, 1914, 1918, 1921, 1923, 1925, 1928 and 1931. Will have to see which ones we are actually using and which can link elsewhere. I thought it was one or two the way that butterfield is. Ideas for what to name the templates we do create here?Naraht (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Only the ones on list on the reference page are online. Rublamb (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not using which is online to determine which editions to use, but rather home many occurances of a specific edition are currently used as references in articles, and I don't think any of them meet my (current) 12 article threshhold. I'll see which one does the most.Naraht (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Fight

Rublamb: for

• Parks, Gregory S., ed. (2008). Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century: Our Fight Has Just Begun. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0813124919 . However, each chapter should be citated independently with that author. As in: Bradley, Stefan. "The First and Finest: The Founders of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity" in Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century: Our Fight Has Just Begun. Gregory S. Parks, editor. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2008. ISBN 978-0813124919.

So if no page, then Gregory Parks should be editor with no author, but if the chapter is known then the author of that chapter should be treated as the author normally? (Like the cite book example - {{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |date=January 1, 2001 |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors |publisher=Book Publishers |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family |isbn=}}

So for that, chapter, first and last may have to be arguments in addition to the standard.Naraht (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Adding chapter and author would be like added the page, right? Rublamb (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I just purchased the ebook edition of this since it was only $12.99. I have other projects to work on first, but will eventually use it to add sources and/or content to various articles. I am assuming I will be using chapter names and authors. Rublamb (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Added to the arguments that would be used, so the template would be called (for those where the author is known) with (not sure of page) {{Cite BGLO21|last=Bradley|first=Stephan|chapter="The First and Finest: The Founders of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity|page=45}}

Betas of Achievement

In trying to track down every remaining occurance of Baird (mostly looking for Raimond, a relatively rare name). I found that there are at least a dozen hits for the Betas of Achievement from 1914 by Baird. I'm thinking this would be generated as {{cite BoA|page=188}}. and would be output Baird, Wm. Raimond (1914). Betas of achievement; being brief biographical records of members of the Beta theta pi who have achieved distinction in various fields of endeavor. New York: The Beta Publishing Co. p. 188 – via Hathi Trust.

The page "Beta Books" (https://www.archive.beta.org/about/beta-books/) on the Beta Theta Pi website has links to about a dozen Beta Theta Pi oriented books with links to public issuu.com. The 1914 Betas of Achievement by Baird is available in hathitrust with four different scans, (one from Library of Congress, one from Harvard, one from Cornell, and one from University of California)). Additionally there are links on the Beta books page to a copy on issuu, kindle, and itunes books (BTW, if I ever have to link a reference to an itunes book, I'm taking time away from Wikipedia). There is also a Betas of Achievement II which is a sequel in 2015. (Both books are considered "official" by Beta Theta Pi and as such I'd consider Primary sources, with all of the advantages and disadvantages).

I think I'm going to use the Cornell scan (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo1.ark:/13960/t9f487v95) since they managed to scan with the background look most white, but the *worst* of the four (LOC) is pretty clear. I'm not sure there are enough for the 2015 book as a template, but will mention in the doc.Naraht (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done with the 1914 Betas of Achivement, doesn't look like enough (3 or 4) of the Betas of Achievement ii.Naraht (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Alpha Sigma Phi with Alpha Kappa Pi founding dates

A user changed the founding date for one of the chapters of Alpha Sigma Phi (Alpha Tau chapter) to the chartering date that Alpha Kappa Pi had before the merger (merger in 1946, chartered as one of the chapters of Alpha Kappa Pi in 1946. I went back to the Alpha Kappa Pi article and found that I was the one who added the *dates* (in addition to years) but hadn't put a reference. I think I was pulling it from the PDFs in Alpha Sigma Phi's "Our story" which appears to be available online split by the first letter of the greek name, so, the PDF in question is https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/f462eca5-24f6-4531-81f7-6819824ee6a1/Chapter%20Histories%20-%20Alpha.pdf . The chartering dates of the Alpha Sigma are in the header and for Alpha Tau that is June 24, 1926, the chartering date with Alpha Kappa Pi, not in 1946 at the merger. So the user's change *does* reflect the way that Alpha Sigma Phi does things (at least in this document). Right now the Alpha Sigma Phi chapter table has the 1926 date in the efn, but if Alpha Sigma Phi considers the chapter to have chartered in 1926. (Yes, I brought this up a month or so ago, but this is about as clean as example as I've seen). (I'll go back and add sources the next time I have a chance)Naraht (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Though https://www.alphasigmaphiarchives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/1934_Mar.pdf is probably a good source for a number of others.Naraht (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

WIthout going back to look, isn't this the one where Baird's and the fraternity do not agree. Rublamb (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I think they do agree at least on AKPi. I'm looking at the 18th edition (page 255) and even though Alpha Kappa Pi (with quite a few chapters) merged into Alpha Sigma Phi in 1946, there are *zero* charters listed as having chartered in 1946. Alpha Sigma Phi's Alpha Tau chapter at Stevens is listed as 1926 (which is when Stevens as Gamma chapter chartered into Alpha Kappa Pi, Similarly, Alpha Sigma Phi's Alpha Upsilon at Brooklyn Poly is listed as 1926 (which is when Stevens as Delta chapter chartered into Alpha Kappa Pi. Gamma Rho through Gamma Phi, the five chapters which came in from Alpha Gamma Upsilon are specially listed with a footnote saying "Year given is when chapter of Alpha Gamma Upsilon was originally installed." OTOH, the five chapters absorbed from Phi Pi Phi (Baldwin-Wallace, Westminster, Illinois Tech and Purdue (Alpha Lambda through Alpha Tau) are all listed as 1939. I don't know why the Phi Pi Phi didn't have the same thing happen. So at least for the AKPi and AGU chapters using the date of the merger is in appropriate, so at this point, I think using the "Our Story" entries for what ASPhi is doing is probably best.

(Chronologically in Baird's the Alpha chapters go Alpha Rho, Alpha Alpha, Alpha Beta, Alpha Gamma, Alpha Delta, Alpha Epsilon, Alpha Zeta, Alpha Sigma, Alpha Tau, Alpha Upsilon, Alpha Phi, Alpha Eta, Alpha Chi, Alpha Psi, Alpha Theta, (Some Betas), Alpha Iota, (Beta Zeta), Alpha Kappa, another large group of Betas, (1939) Alpha Lambda, Alpha Mu, Alpha Nu, Alpha Xi, Alpha Pi, (end of Betas, start of Gammas) and (1945) Alpha Omicron. Doesn't look like they use chapters ending on Omega at all.

So chapters that originally chartered as Alpha Sigma Phi went through Alpha Kappa in 1931, then merge with Phi Pi Phi in 1939, give those chapters Alpha Lambda through Alpha Pi (minus Alpha Omicron (not sure why)) with dates of 1939 , then Alpha Omicron at Missouri Valley and then all of the merges in 1946 from Alpha Kappa Pi that were assigned the letters Alpha Rho @ Newark through Gamma Gamma at Connecticut with their Alpha Kappa Pi chartering dates and then continue on with Gamma Delta in 1949. Only thing that doesn't make sense is why the Phi Pi Phi chapters don't keep their chartering dates in this.Naraht (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

(as a note, the more general discussion on the topic was *just* archived, as I write this.)Naraht (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

And Rublamb and I discussed *some* of this about 6 months ago at Talk:List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters, but i think that was before everything above was put together and I'll add the "our story" pdfs that I can find to that talk page as a reference.Naraht (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Since I will be working on Phi Alpha Theta for the next week or so, I am fine with you taking the lead on this. The only non-org sources I would have used would have been Baird's 17th or 20th or the Almanac. I am guessing we can explain the situation in the lead, as it sounds like the added chapters had a different naming sequence. Rublamb (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I've got the 18th closest to my desk at this minute, at this minute, but if you think the 17th or 20th are superior in that regard let me know. Note, Alpha Sigma Phi has an official video on the mergers (about a minute and largely intended for an internal audience, but possibly referencable. https://www.youtube.com/@alphasigs/search?query=mergers) They didn't have a difference naming sequence. The Naming sequence was in the order that they became Alpha Sigma Phi chapters, it just looks out of sequence since they use the AKPi and AGU chartering dates. Naraht (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think they are better. Just know that they are the only possible sources I could have used when I worked on the list. I honestly don't remember why I made the choices I made. Rublamb (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Alpha Psi Omega

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)

Instructions page

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)

Next ref template...

next ref template from our library will probably be

• Preuss, Arthur. A Dictionary of Secret and Other Societies (1924)

pointing to https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015010794314 , looks like 68 hits on Wikipedia. unfortunately, it has a glitch in the middle with some repeated pages, so I'll need to do the url-page as a separate value rather than calculating it. But hopefully work on the Sigma Gamma Rho alumni first.Naraht (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:List of Alpha Phi Omega members

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)

African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision

I was at the DC history center (https://dchistory.org/) and actually ran into a physical copy of African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision. There do appear to be two editions, but even so, I think each belongs in the template. I guess it doesn't meet the requirements of the library since a version isn't available online, but we can certainly make templates for ones that don't meet that. (As we did for Going Greek).Naraht (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Appear to be two editions: First: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=isbn:9780813140735 , Second at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=isbn:9780813136622 . I need to track down the years for the first and second edition, One appears to be 2012, not sure on which. And with the dates included in the publishing field (which is very wierd) could *both* have been in 2012 just on different dates?Naraht (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

And... apparently a paperback version as well. See https://www.kentuckypress.com/search-results/?keyword=fraternities which has

a "ISBN: 9780813129655 - 09/24/2010 - Paperback". Naraht (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

How often is this used as a source? Since it is not available online, I would not think it is a priority. Rublamb (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

38 times in mainspace. Definitely clears the minimum. And I tend to go purely by count for these rather than focusing on those that are available online. Otherwise, I would have ignored Baird's 14-20. :) Got a pref for what *should* be the priority? Note, as below currently working on the *large* effort on the Almanac.Naraht (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

No preference, other than going by times used. I agree that the Almanac is more importance and probably a bigger mess. Rublamb (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes. About 450 articles when I started. (Almost any article with the word "Lurding" needs to be done)Naraht (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of Racial limitations?

If I have a reference from 1938 that "All of the national fraternities on the University of Blah Blah have membership limitations. Specifically, the following racial/religious limitations: ATT only allows Caucasians, BTT only allows Caucasian Christians, and GTT only allows Caucasian Protestants, is it appropriate to add information for each fraternity on the specific page for each group. I guess that belongs on history since it is national rather than "Local chapter or member misconduct". Naraht (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This topic is incendiary; I'd suggestion caution. To my knowledge, none of the national race exclusion policies survived the late 70s or early 80s. Even by that time they were few. This is true for NPC, NIC and NPCA chapters. As Multicultural organizations sprung up, they followed that same lead, and even if celebrating a certain heritage (Jewish-friendly, Italian-friendly, historically Black), to my knowledge ALL of them were open to interested persons outside of the named racial, ethnic or religious group.

Of course, the outliers are well known, and have mostly been disciplined to follow the rules or were forced to disband. These would be individual chapters, or 'alumni oversight committees' that held to unofficial policies banning certain racial, religious or other identities. THOSE would fit under the Local Misconduct sections.

As a historical matter, because most chapters and all of these societies operate now with open doors to such diversity, if the early racial or religion bans were to be mentioned as a point of historical information, we'd have to ensure that this was shown well into the rear view mirror, and that the real story here is that Greeks (and college kids) were generally on the forefront of such openness. We adopted these changes earlier than most other sections of society, except for the military. Jax MN (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting find. We tend to talk about race and religious restrictions in the origin stories of historically Black and Jewish GLOs, yet ignore this history when discussing most of the historically white Christian groups. Is this writer's bias and/or diminishing a past that is embarrassing while also hurtful? Would its inclusion be undue emphasis on something that is more than 50 years in the past, by law? Or is this something that should be included because it is passing from common knowledge and into history? Its complicated.

I don't think it belongs in the individual GLO articles, simply because we tend to talk about membership criteria in present tense. However, it should be included in the general article on the history of fraternities, which could use more sources. That article also has the balance of covering the past up to today's multicultural groups. This doesn't mean the history of racism, etc. doesn't have a place in some group's articles. Since most groups changed their policies due do to federal law, we tend to mention early integration, chapters withdrawing over racial/sex/religious restrictions, law suits, and that one specific Southern fraternity that just stuck with it a bit too long. Honor societies, in particular, seem to want to talk about the reverse, specifically the admission of women, like it was some great thing they did and not Title IX. Rublamb (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I checked Phi Beta Kappa's official history and by a certain point in the 19th century, I think if a Martian had finished in the top X percent they wouldn't have batted a eyelash.

It took 100 years before chapters invited the first African Americans or women to participate in ΦBK. The first women were inducted as members at the University of Vermont in 1875, and at Connecticut’s Wesleyan University in 1876. The first African American men were elected at Yale in 1874 and at the University of Vermont in 1877, and the first African American woman was elected at Middlebury College in 1899.

The question is whether either or both of the following belong in local Misconduct: "Mu Pi Mu" was restricted to Caucasians until 1964 until when they became open to all men.

A) The Mu Pi Mu chapter at Northeast Ivy League School admitted a non-white in 1946 and rather than allow Nationals to cancel his membership, withdrew from Nationals became Pi Pi Mu and is still active as a local *and conversely*

B) The Mu Pi Mu chapter at University of Racism was caught on tape saying they'd in a meeting that they'd never pledge a non-white and had their charter revoked for that.

If we include both cases, I think we are being fair on a *macro* level, but the questions are whether listing A on a separate web page overlaps too much with the history of GLO at Dartmouth and Amherst (two of the *big* contributors to that) and whether it would be "fair" to do this knowing that some fraternities (mostly fraternities rather than sororities) would be hit more than others.

For Alpha Phi Omega, my fraternity (non-social), women were roughly in 1976 and first African American was not much prior to WWII, but then the first chapter at an HBCU was in 1947, so I wouldn't mind if much of that ended up in our articles. I understand that members of other organizations may not care at the same level, but we are going for NPOV. Naraht (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Since we have a rough criteria for inclusion in the misconduct section, as long as we follow that, there should not be an issue. Placement might be in the history or a stand alone section, rather than misconduct. Such as Alpha Delta Phi Society splitting off from Alpha Delta Phi over coed chapters.

I wasn't thinking about inclusion specific examples on the general GLO article since it seems unfair single out one or two organizations to be a poster child for a racist, anti-sematic, misogynistic, and/or classist system. Rather, a discussion on the general level that:

From their conception, most fraternities were elitist or high selective organizations whose membership was limited to white Christian men. Some organization went as far as to include policies prohibiting x, y or z in their constitution/bylaws (your sources here). Because they were excluded from Greek life, Jews and African American began establishing their own social, professional, and service organization where they would be welcome. As early as 19xx, some fraternities at College Anywhere started admitting African American members. Such decisions were often made chapter by chapter, with or without the consent of the national organization. However, this practice did not become widespread across all campuses and all fraternities until mandated by federal law in 19xx. Social fraternities and sororities were able to maintain their single sex status after the passage of Title IX because of an exception for organization that maintained living establishments.

Forgive my bad example, but my point is to have a general discussion that does not single out any one group, but can utilize specific sources. Looking at College fraternities and sororities, there are sections on multiculturalism (which covers added chapters internationally), religion, and gender exclusivity, but oddly no section on race. In the criticism section, there is a subsection on Alleged racism and minority discrimination, but this is not an historic discussion of whites-only organizations.

Back to your original question: Sometimes things are so much a part of the DNA or organizations that we dismiss their significance. I guess it does make sense to include something in the history section: Moo Moo Moo only admitted white Christian men for 80 years, admitting its first African American member in 1936 and its first Jewish member in.... But my sense it the history section is the right place, not the membership section. Thanks for bringing this up. Rublamb (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the Sauna reference really nails the summary. It is important to frame this in a broader cultural narrative from that time, and NOT with today's sensibilities. This is not to excuse the sins of the past, nor to promote our modern view as fully matured. Editors ought to realize that except for a few foreign students: the children of diplomats, these likely to be diaspora Chinese or Filipinos, prior to WWII, college participation was very unlikely for our Black, Hispanic, and native citizens. Further, most US citizens did not attend college. Those who did were almost exclusively white, though some had Spanish surnames. And the population who went to college were pulled from a very thin slice of the population. Many citizens, married and with children, hadn't completed high school. HS grads were a cut above the regular workers, and easily educated enough to form the bulk of the managerial class. Professionals were educated, certainly, but the need for such was limited to what we today call the STEM or professional fields.

I wrote a summary essay on this topic, paraphrasing Sanua, on the Talk page for the List of Jewish fraternities, now in Archive 1. --A note on closures.

This whole emphasis on fraternities and sororities as the "bad actors" is a false narrative. Students, absolutely including fraternities and sororities were on the forefront of the embrace of diversity and integration that roared into our campuses after WWII, thanks to the GI Bill. College populations that had been comfortably insular had previously served Protestants separate to Catholics and these separate to Jews, but these populations often had their magnet schools and the populations didn't mix all that much. Parental and clergy pressure drove this. The military (re)integrated, after racist President Wilson ended an earlier attempt, and by WWII the military was on the forefront of integration. Post WWII, students flooded into colleges, dominating the debate in most parts of the nation when they demanded equal treatment. After 15 years of this struggle, colleges and universities were mostly won over. The holdouts were individual professors and administrators, and individual fraternity chapters. (Perhaps a few lingering idiot nationals kept their doors closed with sub rosa bans, but the campus matter was largely resolved during the 1960s. I won't name them.)

It's not a perfect model, but for arguments sake, let's say the mainline fraternities and sororities were Protestant bastions. Catholics and Jewish students had formed their own fraternities and sororities, especially our Jewish students. As they integrated into the Protestant groups, re-defining them as non-sectarian, the weaker or smaller nationals and locals closed, and especially among the large amount of Jewish locals, the overriding trend was to merge. Often with each other, but occasionally into a larger, older now non-sectarian nationals. Blacks and Hispanics flooded into old campuses, classrooms were overcrowded and many new schools were formed to meet demand; some of these inbound students were offered membership into fraternities, some formed their own. The argument over inclusion-or-not was fought once again, this time over race. Sooner or later, the inclusion argument won everywhere except those who fought it on a sub rosa basis. All this occurred when rigid societal rules kept certain races out of certain jobs. Colleges and universities were largely integrated, and it was the students who accomplished this, with fraternities and sororities often leading the way.

Still, under that more recent false narrative of racism, fueled by a few individual cases, fraternities are framed as the bad actors. That is the truth of this matter. In summary, I agree with Rublamb that this topic could be included, briefly in a History section, not in a Membership section. and it should almost always be framed positively, not as the abject negative that is so common today. (This long-ish response written for future editors, not for current Project participants who already know all this.) Jax MN (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for framing this more specifically. My initial response was not to place UNDUE emphasis on this subject matter in a brief article about a single organization, especially if we are not providing context that the host institutions were also the exclusive domain of white males in the 19th century. This is not a justification for fraternity discriminatory practices. but rather an acknowledgement that we should not suggest that the entire blame for such decisions on individual GLOs.

It is different if the GLO carried discriminatory mandates into the mid-20th century, adding policies to official documents after the start of integration. This can amount to misconduct. Picking on my own fraternity:

“In October 1961, members of the University of Virginia chapter chartered an airplane to Connecticut to try and stop the Yale chapter from admitting the fraternity’s first black member, Wendell Mottley. However, Yale University warned that a fraternity showing discrimination ‘would not be welcome on the Yale campus’. Mottley became a member of St. Anthony Hall.”

Mottley was a record-holding athlete, later an Olympic medalist and senator. This incident made the ‘‘New York Times’’. Ironically, no one outside the UNC chapter knew that it had initiated its African American cook in the 1950s.

As you mentioned, there is sometimes a mention of admitting a diplomat’s son from the Philippines, etc., in the early 20th century, suggesting a progressive integration that did not take place in reality until the 1960s with the pledging of the first African American member. That is also an example of UNDUE or, at least, whitewashing history that should be carefully considered by a neutral editor from WP:FRAT. Just as we were careful to place the Ku Klux Klan (honor society) in context.

As an extreme example, the article on Sigma Alpha Epsilon mentions its origins in the Antebellum South; it does not say that it was a whites-only group whose founders probably owned slaves. Yet the fraternity’s own history, and therefore the article, mentions the exact number of its members who joined the Confederacy (370) vs. the Union (7), and the 74 who lost their lives in the war. There is an entire paragraph devoted to the first member to die in the Civil War, a model Confederate. Clearly, this is UNDUE emphasis, especially considering that no similar content is provided for WWI or WWII. I typically would trim this content (and still may), but somewhat believe it and the lengthy section devoted to modern Discriminatory incidents paint a picture more vivid than mentioning it was once a whites-only organization. This is not the only GLO article that waxes poetic about the Confederacy, demonstrating the organization’s historical values linger today. Sometimes groups write the article they deserve. Rublamb (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

No idea why we are going so scholarly on this topic.... Rublamb (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a good discussion. In response to your points:

1. The topic comes up often, when new or less informed editors insert 'ORIGINAL RESEARCH', [read as:] their own opinions or inflammatory essay opinions, and distort the factual narrative to their own biases. Thus I hope it is helpful to have this more nuanced discussion available to quote from, or as the start of even further research.
2. Your comment reminds me that I forgot to mention that in the pre-WWII years, higher education was largely the province of males, and that the advance of women's schools occurred roughly in this order: Finishing schools = Antebellum period and after the Civil War, Vocational women's schools for typists, secretaries, teachers etc. = 1865 to 1900, Normal Schools and Vigorous 4-yr schools, typically for upper class women, 1880s to 1940, then after WWII the rapid growth of state schools out of Normal Schools which were coeducational from the start, while at the same time the older women's business and female vocational schools were shuttering. These vanishing women's business schools were often privately owned. (Rublamb, I'm very sorry for the omission, as it adds to the clear narrative.)
3. There were Southern holdouts, like "The Order" holding onto maybe an unstated but firm racial policy, and of course the culture that prodded the SAE example you mentioned. Even sororities got in this game. But I got a sense from reading how many groups hid these policies after WWII or left them out of official documents, that polite society frowned on a public airing of these rules. As the 20th Century sloughed on, those groups that did have systemic racial policies hid them, and then abandoned them, leaving certain chapters exposed, or certain groups of controlling alumnae and alumni.
4. The culture of these holdouts was so intertwined with the surviving mythos of the Lost Cause and the whole southern Gentlemen story, that I think the good things like Chivalry were inappropriately linked to more racist aspects. While the South remains often genteel and wonderfully polite, back 70 or 80 years ago, it was the northern and western states where their schools were more aggressive about integration. I don't know if that is true today. There are pockets of racism or hatred of "others" everywhere, which we all officially despise, and ban.
5. I wanted to note, too, that fraternities were able to point out to 'stunning' harmony or brotherhood between at least fraternity men of the North and South, which may have help shine a path toward healing. See the Masonic statue of opposing brothers, one helping another after a mortal wound; I think there were a set of two Zeta Psis that showed the same North/South chivalry, now depicted in a statue. Stories about transcendent brotherhood were reprinted across the US after the war.
6. A final note: reading numerous original sources, I got the sense that earlier documents shied away from inserting clear language into their constitutions and bylaws that prohibited certain races or religions. It seemed that many didn't care to legislate this, at least regarding the occasional foreign student. the anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic provisions came first, after say 1880 for some old line nationals. The race clauses started to finally appear in legislation after WWII for a brief period. Then were stripped away again 10, 15, or 25 years later... Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

   The Civil War totally ripped the early fraternities apart. Legend says the St. A's created a battlefield badge, reportedly saving a brother's life. Fairly recently, one of these mythical badges surfaced, so that part of the story is true. I frequently find references to Southern chapters losing most or all of their members in the war. As a result, these chapters were defunct after the war and were initially unable to reform under Federal occupation. I know of several examples where Northern brothers helped re-establish Southern chapters, supporting your no. 5. Given the political clout of many fraternity members, did this spirit play a role in reconstruction? (I would say it did with the Masons). Despite this history and impact, as you suggest, most fraternities want to leave it behind. I don't get the SAE article unless someone lazily copied an early 20th-century history. Family members of my generation belonged to SAE in Southern universities and in no way linger in the lost cause. Rublamb (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

National to Local over race, which schools?

As perhaps the founding of a GLO system wide page...

Looking at the List of Cornell University fraternities and sororities, it appears that the Sigma Kappa chapters at both Cornell and Tufts had their charters revoked over plans to initiate Negros (I'm using the term of the time, will change to more modern terms if preferred).

Is there anything approaching a list anywhere of what schools had this happen at them? Note, this could be voluntary, chapter X *decided* to pledge a Negro and Nationals revoked the charter *OR* school X says only GLOs that allow Negros to pledge may stay on their campus and after failing to get their National to bend, went local in order to stay as a coherent group at school X. (Dartmouth and I *think* Williams are the best examples there)

I've never seen any sort of comprehensive list. I would guess that the number of affected chapters, nationally, would be in the hundreds. I know that in the Big Ten, Wisconsin was the first to demand that its fraternities and sororities drop all bias regulations, followed almost immediately by Minnesota. However I do not know the specific date of this anti-bias legislation. At the University of Minnesota, a forty-year-old Sigma Kappa sorority chapter gave up its charter in 1961 to protest racial restrictions; it became a short-lived local called Beta Tau Lambda, dying in 1964. Several Dartmouth chapters went local due to national bias clauses, so they claimed, but I know that the Phi Sigma Kappa chapter there had recently taken a substantial loan from the national fraternity, and promptly withdrew, citing an informal rule they observed was racist. They became Phi Tau local. But this situation was conveniently timed as an excuse not to pay their renovation debt. Ironically, Phi Sigma Kappa's race inclusion policy was one of the first to be rescinded nationally, a year later, mooting the issue.

This topic sounds like it would lead to a Hank Nuwer sort of project. I think it would be interesting, and showcase just how much fraternities and sororities were on the forefront of the racial inclusion debate. Jax MN (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:FratChapterStart

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)

Quicker in external editor

Rublamb I did some tricky find and replace in an external editor. Could you take a look at List of Beta Sigma Omicron chapters and let me know if the transformation was good?Naraht (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I am super impressed. It looks like the conversion was successful, with all notes, dates, and citation migrating. I can now quickly merge the notes and ref column in VE using cut and paste. This also means be newbies can edit this without understanding code. I will proceed with my end of the cleanup. Rublamb (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Merger completed in about 1 minutes. Wow. Rublamb (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice work. Jax MN (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanx. So if I'm understanding correctly, the additional changes boil down to

1. ) Combine the Ref and Notes columns into a reference column, putting the references before the Notes.
2. ) Handle two cases of dashes correctly, While there are no spaces around the hyphen in 1932-1988, there are spaces around the Hyphen for January 6, 1932 - 1988.

But those are less ugly than the original transformation away from the templates. and if I can just do the transformation that I did for the List of BSO chapters, that's still useful.

If so, I'll try to start the remainder by Monday, this weekend is sort of wierd. Naraht (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem. Rublamb (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Transformed: Pi Lambda Sigma; List of Gamma Sigma Delta chapters.Naraht (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to tell you, when I was manually converting the others, I found something new to me--the section lead was part of the table, rather than being text above the table. That means that we will need to go back and recover that content after your process. That is a simple cut and paste from an older version, so still easier that manually move the notes and citations. Rublamb (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup completed on both Rublamb (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Current List

Yes, I know we can link to it, but since this is a two-part process, linking here:

• Delta Phi - Transformed  Done
• List of Zeta Psi chapters - Transformed.  Done
• List of Alpha Sigma Alpha chapters - Transformed  Done
• Theta Upsilon - Transformed  Done
• List of Kappa Alpha Psi chapters - Transformed  Done but we are still working on dates and sources for multi-school chapters
• List of Phi Beta Sigma chapters - Currently seven different sections (one for each region, so transformation would presumably also be merger.
• List of Xi Sigma Pi chapters - Transformed.  Done
• Beta Kappa - Transformed  Done
• Eta Sigma Gamma - Transformed  Done

Ends up we were missing a huge hunk of its chapters. By using Wayback captures, I have all but one now. Getting sources for dates, so that I can split it as a standalone article.  Done

• Beta Sigma Tau - Transformed  Done
• Omicron Kappa Upsilon - Transformed  Done
• List of Phi Sigma Delta chapters - Transformed.  Done
• List of Tau Delta Phi chapters - Transformed.  Done

List of Phi Beta Sigma chapters

This one not only has the templates, but there is a separate section for each region. We need to figure out where in this process we are going to merge.Naraht (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It is the only one remaining.Naraht (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

That one has been on the chapter list project for a long time. I don't mind merging through cut and paste in VE after you do your trick. Rublamb (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe on Monday, but unlikely to be over the weekend.Naraht (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

No rush. You've given me plenty to work on. Rublamb (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm making the assumption that although we are merging the regions, we are *not* merging the Collegiate with the Alumni. In fact, We may be better off splitting into collegiate and graduate chapters like Delta Sigma Theta. Does that work?Naraht (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Building just the alumhi chapters at User:Naraht/fbsgrad. Still need to replace refs that are there for the first time in the Collegiate.Naraht (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The references are why I could not deal with this via VE cut and paste. Rublamb (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll go back and try to finish this, may not be today, but next project.Naraht (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

When you finish with it, do you want to take a stab at {Mem/f} Rublamb (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Regions

There is a great deal of variance in how our articles cover regions. For this purpose, they are a mostly or entirely geographic administrative split of chapters that may or may not have a specific representative on the national board elected by the chapter in that region. The treatment in articles ranges from bare mention to having a column in the chapter lists to even separate listing. This is often easy to document for the active chapters, but sometimes may be more difficult for inactive chapters (which might even not be in a region). What is the appropriate level of coverage and treatment? Naraht (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I mention in the main article under governance or tha chaper section, but do not include in the table. It falls under trival, non-encyclopedic detail to list for each chapter. Rublamb (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Rublamb is right. I don't think members care about, or even know which region or district is theirs. This is more of a non-encyclopedic detail which is of interest internally in the larger societies, mostly impacting governance positions. Jax MN (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

For Alpha Phi Omega, we *definitely* do. Annual meetings just restricted to the chapters of that region (separate from the national convention, specific suites at convention for specific regions, regional (geographical rivalries), etc. The were looking to redo the structure of Alpha Phi Omega at that level and the changes in the chapters that a given chapter would be expected to communicate was somewhat like what happens when a school moves an athletic conference. And any pledge who doesn't have that known at the time of initiation has been willfully blind. (and I'm betting the NPHC fraternities are far, far beyond that)Naraht (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Naraht, I agree that members might care, but they are probably the only ones. Your description of how APO uses regions falls under governance. That is why I would include the list of regions in that section. In terms of members who might want this info: wouldn't they go to their manuals or the fraternity's website if they have questions about regions or which convention to register for? I might agree that the APO Philippines could be different since we are dealing with a geographic area that most English Wikipedia readers might not be familiar with. However, unless there is a key (map) to go with the list of regions, I am not convinced that words convey the intended meaning since regions do not always match established geographical areas of a country. Rublamb (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Rublamb if a description of the Regions at the top of the page would make the difference, I will happily add.Naraht (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, its needs a "key". Rublamb (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I also concur with @Naraht's comment.

It can be argued that the region column added to some fraternities could bear some importance and nuance that other fraternity pages don't care to have/list in their tables. This information can be beneficial for non-greek visitors and greek visitors alike. Non-greek visitors could benefit if they are interested in the organization, and are searching to see established and non-established chapters at certain institutions in their region. Greek visitors not in that fraternity would share that same benefit to see established chapters local to them, and it could possibly assist them in researching and contacting chapters in regards of local collaboration and other things. I can personally attest that there are pledge visitors that benefit by being able to see an established list of chapters within or outside their region, with relevant information easily accessible in one table list (name, location, charter date/range, etc.)

These points are just one of many nuanced things to consider with fraternities having that region column. While I can't attest to other fraternities, I can personally attest that the region information for Sigma Lambda Beta is important to know, and is just as important as the name or location of a chapter. Jcjoseph9852 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

We also need to consider sourcing. Region content is always sourced to the GLO, meaning that it fails the requirement for independent sourcing. Although we use organizational chapter lists for alumni chapters, status checks, and for full charter dates, we have to remember that these chapter list articles have to primarily come from secondary sources in order to meet NLIST. For me, this huge data set seems to tip the scale for most articles. Wikipedia is not meant to replicate the GLO's website, and readers can follow the links in the sources or External Links section to learn more. Rublamb (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Current List

Sort of separate from the discussion above are how many Lists we have that have it. I did a quick check with a search for

• Epsilon insource:/! *Region/ -nintendo -"reality television" intitle:List of

and it returns 12. No guarantee there aren't others that either don't use greek letters or that are on a non-split-out page, but I think both are less likely. Note this probably misses a few, including Alpha Phi Omega USA because the header includes a width in between the ! and the Region. Naraht (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

In the past, we have decided to leave regions in lists, especially if there is width. I don't fill strongly about removing it from a list; maybe it depends on how active non WP editors are with the page. Certainly, it is a quick as one click in VE. Rublamb (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Twelve, eh? That makes sense. See, Naraht, Alpha Phi Omega is a huge society, like SAE, KS, Phi Delt, the larger NPHC groups and a few others. I don't mind including region or district, whatever they call it, if it is valuable for external readers / casual researchers to help them understand these organizations. I understand and accept your APO example above, but maintain the opinion that regional and district designations are a topic of interest to HQ staff almost exclusively. Jax MN (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Some of these groups aren't *that* big. And this list doesn't include the NPHCs. Naraht (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• List of Alpha Gamma Delta chapters - it almost makes sense here, since they name chapters based on regions Rublamb (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters
• List of Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) chapters
• List of Iota Phi Lambda chapters  Done
• List of Omega Delta Phi chapters  Done
• List of Sigma Gamma Tau chapters  Done
• List of Sigma Iota Alpha chapters -  Done region here is actually the area served by alumni chapters
• List of Sigma Lambda Beta chapters  Done - already some push back
• List of Sigma Lambda Gamma chapters  Done
• List of Sigma Phi Alpha chapters  Done
• List of Sigma Tau Gamma chapters  Done - this was the name of an alumni column (region or city)
• List of Theta Tau chapters  Done
• List of Triangle chapters  Done - is used in a stats table

I have updated the list above with my progress. Alpha Gamma Delta is an interesting case. Does it merit an exception? I did not address APO yet, but note that it is an extra level of uselessness since its regions are letters without a key. @Naraht, am I good to remove the column from the two APO lists? Rublamb (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I am going to add List of Phi Beta Sigma chapters to discuss as it is a holdout from out the {FratChapter} template project. If we keep its regions, we will have to add region data to the dozen or so tables before we can update and merge them. It is an added step that has been problematic. Rublamb (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

For Alpha Phi Omega, a complete definition of the states and counties for Alpha Phi Omega is at https://apo.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Fraternity-Operations-and-Policy-Manual-February-2026-0225.2026-1.pdf (pages 15-17).Naraht (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

And a map at https://apo.org/map/ , I'm not sure if a map filled in based on a list of states and counties counts as being copyrightable.Naraht (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not add the map. I am not sure either. Rublamb (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have added this to the list artice. Rublamb (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wierdly enough, the Fraternity Operations and Policy Manual that I gave as a reference has an incorrect listing, the Region that I'm in (I'm just north of DC) is listed as only Maryland and DC and it actually extends into Northern Virginia and far eastern end of West Virginia. I've added a hidden comment to that effect, but this is definitely a case where what is verifiable is different from Truth. I've emailed the National Office and dropped a note in the primary facebook group for the Region, so I'm quite sure my stink will be heard, however I'd actually be surprised if they fix it before the next convention. Something to know if a well meaning APO brother changes it.Naraht (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirecting conversation

Since representatives from two of the twelve GLOs with region lists (@Naraht:@Jcjoseph9852:) have already indicated they feel strongly about keeping the regions in the table, I think we need to revisit this entire conversation. Does this fall under the WP being too pedantic, OR are there legitimate reasons to remove this content?

• Pros: the info might be useful to someone; GLOs want to include this content; it does no harm
• Cons: only sourced to the GLO; no evidence that this is encyclopedic content because it lacks secondary sources; makes the table crammed; makes a higher percentage of the table's content come from primary sources; this doesn't fit into the agreed-upon design of the chapter table.

If we agree that a region column can be included, it should be listed as an allowable variant of the chapter table "instructions". (Now that we have killed {fratchapter}, I am not sure where this would go.) There should be guidelines, such as the region data must be sourced and should have a key, preferably both in text and a map, but at least a text description. My suggestion for the placement of this column is between the location and status columns.

This issue complicated since I already removed the column from most of the list, followed by other edits in some cases. However, I think we should restore the data for all if we agree to retain it for one group. Rublamb (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

So, for those groups that wish to highlight their regions, does this imply that we should also list regional officers? Jax MN (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

No. Those are still non-notable people. Rublamb (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed.Naraht (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

So does this mean that we need to restore the list to the articles above or leave with its removal since there were no complaints? Rublamb (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jax MN and @Naraht: please advise. Rublamb (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Regions, whatever they are called, are a creation for internal convenience and are not intrinsically historical. No matter how long a region has been in existence, with a simple decree they can be revised to a different numbering or naming system - or dismantled altogether. And no one would care. The extra designations may add clarity, akin to being part of the formal name of the chapter. But they are one of the least important, but still allowable things I can think of including here. I see the value of them for very large organizations, and will not jump to delete them in those instances. But would relegate them to be "allowable, but non-standard" variances. Sure, if you have deleted them from the aforementioned list of 12 big groups, if you have time, go ahead and restore them. But we have many other priorities for our strongest volunteers, like you. Jax MN (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration and perspective on this topic, and I thank you for agreeing to keep them as allowable information. I would be more than willing to help restore the region columns to the lists of the 12 groups. Jcjoseph9852 (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Joseph, thank you for your offer, and your respectful engagement. We work by consensus. The addition of a Region column throws a small wrench into our effort to settle on a single table format. There are technical reasons why this is/will be valuable; we can either adjust these 12 fraternity articles manually, or update the template we now use. Several of the Project members are skilled at updating templates and are already engaged in this discussion, so I'd suggest you let them attend to the structural decision. They may take you up on the offer to populate those fields, at least for Sigma Lambda Beta, after the framework is in place. Jax MN (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I imagine for the ones that have changed, we will be doing some level of reverting. Some like List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters were never changed. Some like List of Phi Beta Sigma chapters (I think), we've got separate lists for each Region and need to combine the lists and *add* the region as we do so. (Not quite sure how we are doing that). Note, having nuked the fratchapterstart/fratchapter/fratchapter end templates, I think it will be easier.Naraht (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

For Phi Beta Sigma, I will add the regions by copy/paste in VE when I merge the lists (which were organized by regions). That was my original plan, so it is an easy addition. @Jcjoseph9852, I would appreciate your help in restoring the regions to the following.

• List of Iota Phi Lambda chapters
• List of Omega Delta Phi chapters
• List of Sigma Gamma Tau chapters
• List of Sigma Lambda Beta chapters
• List of Sigma Lambda Gamma chapters
• List of Sigma Phi Alpha chapters
• List of Theta Tau chapters

I hope most are a simple revert; I may have made other simple edits or updates with some. Rublamb (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rublamb, the region column of the seven organizations that you've requested have all been restored. Please let me know if there is any others that you would like assistance with! Jcjoseph9852 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Multi-school chapters

Our discussion on the Talk page for the List of Kappa Alpha Psi chapters brings up an interesting point. I've heard that about 1/3 of NIC chapters permit members from other, nearby schools. At Minnesota, for example during my tenure as a volunteer, my own chapter has had members from Augsburg University (1 mile), Macalester College (8 miles), St. Cloud State University (60 miles) and St. John's University (70 miles). It was explained to me that this is a helpful way to strengthen existing chapters and to pioneer new interest groups.

I think the fact that a national group permits this is worthy enough of a mention in the lede of a list of chapters that do so, as readers will go to that page to see if their campus is served by a fraternity. Of course this is common among NPHC chapters, and I think some national sororities offer this, too. Thoughts? (I am inserting a note to this discussion, on the Talk page for the List of ΚΑΨ chapters.) Jax MN (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I've heard of this with NPHC groups, (and NALFO groups that have adapted similar traditions), but haven't heard of this in NIC groups. (Which NIC group?) For Alpha Phi Omega, they changed their bylaws to allow it, but only in the situation where the secondary schools were on the travel to being independent chapters and four years later they took it out of the bylaws. Now APhiA, KAPsi, Phi Beta Sigma and KAPsi do count as NIC, are you including them?Naraht (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Do we mention that most chapters includes just one institution in other articles? Also, there is probably never going to be a source that says "the fraternity allows several institutions to operate under the same chapter name or the same charter". While there might be sources that indicate several institutions for a chapter, but replicating that information in the chapter list and drawing a conclusion worthy of mention the lead are not the same thing. Rublamb (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Anti - WP:RECENTISM (Shower thoughts)

After looking at a recently changing situation on an article, I saw a link in the header to WP:RECENTISM, read it, and was amazed by how much this Wikiproject is tilted in the *other* direction. I think a good deal of this is tied to the basic idea here that if a group gets a full listed in *any* edition of Baird's that isn't in the "other" section (and a good number that *are* in the "other" section), it should have an article. And with the fuller coverage of groups in college city newspapers prior to about 1950, the article will have enough references to make it work.

I think an example of this is the fact that if there was a 9 chapter GLO founded in the 1880s, gets a decent writeup in the 5th (1898) and 6th (1905) editions and falls apart in the Great Depression, there would be enough between Baird's, one of the other reference works and the Ann Arbor, Michigan and Columbus, Ohio city newspapers to put together an article. However make everything be a century later and have the group be an ethnic GLO (NALFO or APIDA) and it might not have enough to meet the references needed.

I run into this with the Philippine Fraternities as well and shudder to think what our work in this area would be like without William Baird's work and similar reference books.Naraht (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this issue impacts the Project, but don't see a way around it. Until, perhaps one of the multicultural umbrella organizations gets moving on a national history, like the NPHC has sparked. Or a deep dive, like the Sanua book, which is, itself, incomplete. Jax MN (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

We do a pretty good job of distinguishing trivial current events from important mentions within a specific article, especially when examining controversies. The biggest issue we have is defending the notability of newer groups to those outside of WP:FRAT. As editors who specialize in GLOs, we understand the historical importance of the rise of multicultural organizations, for example. Yet, the general coverage does not necessarily document this importance because 1) Baird's is no longer published, 2) newspapers no longer have sections devoted to societies and clubs, and 3) both of those sources and any others from the late 19th and early 20th century had a bias against those types of organizations. As I have said elsewhere, we sometimes need to be less stringent on sourcing if we want Wikipedia to be inclusive and diverse. Not a popular sentiment and not one usable in an AfD, but nevertheless true if we want to avoid historical bias within Wikipedia.

(In the midst of your post, I just wanted to mention that was a darn good point.) Jax MN (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Since we are always better off defending an article from an offensive position, I have purchased Brothers and Sisters: Diversity in College Fraternities and Sororities and The Divine Nine: The History of African American Fraternities and Sororities to help strengthen articles. Unfortunately, Brothers and Sisters rarely rises to the level of significant coverage, but is certainly a solid-looking source from the perspective of those outside of WP:FRAT. I suspect there is other coverage in academic journals that we don't have access to online. I have been thinking about purchasing Moving Culturally-Based Sororities and Fraternities Forward; oddly, its paperback and Kindle editions cost essentially the same. I will probably never place in one of Dr. Blofeld's destubbing challenges (a new one started yesterday), but I do appreciate the awards of Amazon gift cards to purchase additional source material. Are there any other sources that we should add to our collective libraries? Rublamb (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision

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)

Phi Beta chapter list oddball

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)

Proper categories for Lists for Fraternities/Sororities/etc.

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)

Category:Members of Upsilon Sigma Phi is up for deletion

That is up for deletion, the continuing question as to whether Category:Members of Mu Pi Mu should exist.Naraht (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This has been expanded to include additional categories. Rublamb (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Broader

Looking at Category:College fraternity members, the parent of Category:Members of Upsilon Sigma Phi. It has (All of these are Categories, not pages) College fraternity founders (28 C, 15 P)

• Acacia members (67 P)
• Delta Chi members (74 P)
• Delta Upsilon members (223 P)
• Kappa Sigma members (1 C, 12 P)
• Phi Delta Theta members (385 P)
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon members (291 P)
• Members of Sigma Delta Phi (20 P)
• Sigma Pi members (174 P)
• Members of Upsilon Sigma Phi (95 P)

We also have.

• Phi Beta Kappa which is mostly a category of members
• Delta Sigma Theta members
• Alpha Kappa Alpha members
• Alpha Phi Alpha members

Phi Beta Kappa *may* belong. The others? I don't think so based on the concept of a non-defining characteristic.Naraht (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm watching this CfD with interest. The main implication of this discussion is that membership alone is not sufficient to warrant a category. I get their point--that categories are for identifying main characteristics--and these categories have been used indiscriminately, without consideration for the level of involvement. You and I have suggested that founders and national presidents might warrant such recognition. (I am not sure if that means there should be a founder and president category for each group, and/or if we would be allowed to add these categories without pushback.) In addition to the categories you have identified above, many have also used general categories (just the GLO's name) to identify members when "cat:Moo Moo members" is lacking. There is also a category for "American Freemasons", which is necessarily under WP:FRAT, but is used in many of the biographical articles we monitor. I suspect most of the general fraternities have one or more categories for members. Again, specifying presidents or the like would limit the use of these categories. Membership Phi Beta Kappa or any other honor society seems even less important than a typical GLO under the guidelines being discussed, as its membership requires no involvement other than a registration fee. Rublamb (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Cleaning this up may get messy. Here's an example: Category:Skull and Bones Society. This is only used for the article Skull and Bones and various members. Why would we even need this category if members should be excluded? There is also a Category:Members of Skull and Bones which includes more than 300 articles, but is not nested under Category:Skull and Bones Society. I have not checked, but assume this is duplicated in List of Skull and Bones members; if not, it could be before removing the category. Rublamb (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the duplication with the Skull and Bones categories (people are now only in members) and have checked all other know cases of main GLO/members categories pairs. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

High school fraternities and sororities

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)

Focus on Fraternity History

Fran Becque runs a Facebook group called Focus on Fraternity History. Looks like news updates (i.e. sources for article updates) are shared. With 4.9K members, it might also be a good place to ask for help on specific groups. Rublamb (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm on that group as well. One of us should post a more general "here is what we are, if you'd like to come join us"...Naraht (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Use of the status "colony"

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)

Evans Scholars

The Almanac includes a list of chapters for the Evans Scholars. There is a related article in Wikipedia: Evans Scholars Foundation. It seems more like a scholarship program that one might be able to call an honor society. Any thoughts as to why it is in the Almanac? Should it fall under our umbrella? Rublamb (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Because that's a list of coed/gender-inclusive organisations? It doesn't sound like it's one of our monkeys. Primefac (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. However, the Almanac only includes social/traditional fraternities and sororities. Thus, my confusion. Rublamb (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Osteopathic organizations

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)

English Honor Societies

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)

Beta Sigma Phi closing their International Office and chapter listings worth it???

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)

Gap in coverage

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)

Delta Psi Omega chapters

Having found https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433095946376&seq=469 which lists the first 92 Delta Psi Omega casts with their number from 1-92 in the Delta Psi Omega portion of the Playbill of 1934, I think that's probably enough once we get that list to separate the Delta Psi Omega chapters into their own article. I was going to create List of Delta Psi Omega chapters as a redirect, but I figured that might get in the way for a bit when we actually split the lists. It does pretty much meet all of the other characteristics we've had for creating a chapter list as there are 4 references for individual entries plus whatever the current list of actives is from.Naraht (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Nice catch... Jax MN (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Cart before the horse. We don't yet have an article about Delta Psi Omega, nor have we found any secondary sources about this junior college group. But great find so that we can fill in gaps on this list!!! Rublamb (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, we've got sources in terms of headquarters and leadership, but lacking even something as simple as where its first chapter is (other than the chapter list), And we certainly have been willing to split chapters into things like Delta Sigma Theta chapters vs. Delta Sigma Theta graduate chapters. But I agree that a reasonable next target enough things that make it reasonable (even if we don't do it) to have it as a separate article. I'll see what I can do from the Playbill that we got the chapters from.Naraht (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The difference is that there are secondary sources that provide significant coverage for Delta Sigma Theta, meaning the list article is a legit spinoff of the main article. Also, Baird's, etc. can be used a a source in the lead of the chapter list articles, even for the graduate chapter list. To my knowledge, we have yet to find significaint coverage of Delta Psi Omega in a secondary source. Lacking that, improving the society's section in the Alpha Psi Omega article may be our best option. Rublamb (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And I'm not sure Baird's *ever* had coverage of two year college honoraries. (quickly checked the 18th and 20th and neither mentions DYO either in the section on AYO or separately. ) Wild that the High School affiliate International Thespian Society has enough for a separate article and the two year doesn't. But agreed, add to the AYO article. I did find the coat of arms for DPO at https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433095946376?urlappend=%3Bseq=64 , I'd hope we could find better. But giving it a separate infobox might be appropriate.Naraht (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)