Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

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 (updated January 2025)

[edit]

The main list of infobox issues can be found at Category:Fraternity articles with infobox fraternity issues.

  1. missing image size - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing image size (87)
  2. missing |chapters= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing chapters (31)
  3. missing |members= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing members (836)
  4. missing |colors= - Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing colors (232)
  5. missing crest or coat of arms - tracked at petscan
  6. Missing country
  7. CleanupWorklistBot: https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Fraternities_and_Sororities.html (updates weekly on Tuesdays)
  8. Needs color boxes (Helpful link, has colors, flags, and addresses of Baltic, Scandinavian, German, and Polish fraternities)

Rublamb (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to create a category for infoboxes that lack a country? I have tried to fix all but may have missed some. Since country directly connects to scope, it seems like an important field. Rublamb (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup needed

[edit]

One of our main articles, Fraternities and sororities, has had a factual accuracy tag since March 2023. I just added a few sources, which is part of the issue. Since others have worked on this article in the past, you may have a better idea of what content is questionable. Rublamb (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a discussion on the articles Talkpage about moving this to Collegiate fraternities and sororities. Rublamb (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We just discovered History of North American fraternities and sororities which was off the radar because it lacked WikiProject tags. The two articles relate in many ways. I could see a merger of the two and/or splitting the history and cultural content into two articles. It would be a big project since these are both long articles. Rublamb (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restored from archiving to keep this on the radar Rublamb (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness builder

[edit]

Editors with ties to some of the GLOs -- some of the bigger social fraternities and APO are examples -- brand their User pages with small banner tags noting membership. It might be a helpful long-term objective for the Project team to create these, one for each society in their colors, that they might be picked up by editors (typically, new editors) to drive Project participation. We could pin them to each Talk page, with instructions for use. Jax MN (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Collegiate sororities and fraternities Rublamb (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the userbox template list on our Watch List so that it is easier to see which groups already have a userbox template. (I still need to check our list against the one linked above). However, some existing userbox templates are basically unreadable because of a lack of contrasting colors.
If we are going to add these to all articles relating to the GLO, my suggestion is the horizontal template that nests under the WikiProjects, rather than the verticle box that floats to the right of the page. I don't recommend putting the userbox code in a TalkPage comment as that could be auto-archived. Does anyone need to see examples of the two formats before commenting? I am willing to work on inserting the templates if there is agreement on style. Does anyone volunteer for template cleanup duty? Rublamb (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restored from archiving to keep this on the radar Rublamb (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming articles for Latvian, Estonia, Russian, and German groups

[edit]

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

As these are (or ought to be) treated more comprehensively in their native language Wikis, I think we should include a link to the original language article and use a consistent naming structure, probably the 'full' name, not nickname. As long as these are treated consistently within the English language Wikipedia, I would be amenable to whatever of the options you list that you determine works best. Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, using the full name is like naming an article "The Grand International Sisterhood of Moo Moo Moo, Incorporated", rather than "Moo Moo Moo" or "GIS Moo Moo Moo". (The later being what many of these corporations use on their websites, with "GIS" being common identifier for groups of that type). Since we already follow Wikipedia's naming guidelines and use the common name with US GLOs, I am pretty sure the article's title should be a shortened. It would be helpful to have a member of one of these groups or someone who speaks the language help us naviage what are and are not essential parts of the full name. For example, using "Korp!" may be akin to saying "Chi Psi Fratenity", with Korp translating as the unnecessary word "fraternity". Rublamb (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an exmaple I just found from a Swiss organization. Its full name is Katholische Deutsche Studentenverbindung Teutonia Freiburg i. Uechtland That roughly translates as "Catholic German Student Association Teutonia Freiburg i. Uechtland". All groups of this ilk (Catholic German Student Associations) use the abbreviation KDStV before the rest of their name, which is usually the city where the group is located. So, this organization's common name and the name used on its website is KDStV Teutonia. The name is not the city in this case because there is another group with the Freiburg name. Its English Wikipedia article is named K.D.St.V. Teutonia, with periods in the KDStV abbreviation. That appears to be non-standard.
With this example in mind, would you 1) use the full German name, 2) the translated name, 3) the German name with the prefix. I think we can assume that 4) number 3 with periods is clearly wrong.
In addition, would the related article by called Katholische Deutsche Studentenverbindung or Catholic German Student Associations? Rublamb (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has come up yesterday in articles where the title does not match the infobox, can we revisit? Is our preference the foreign language article name with an English translation in the article and/or infobox (as a free field) OR English language article name with the foreign language name in the lede? I have been looking at foreign universities to see what is the most common practice. I am finding many English translations but also many still in Spanish, for example. I don't care which way we go but would like them all to be the same, instead of the current mix. Rublamb (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd like to copy the Situation at Free University of Berlin. English name as Article, English name as name in infobox and add a "native_name" to Infobox Fraternity. *But*, would we need sources indicating a specific name in English, or for that manner any abbreviation to CGSA?Naraht (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this makes the most sense for the English version of Wikipedia. Good question regarding how we determine the translation. If the group has an English language version of their website (some do), that would be easy. However, most are just in German or Estonian, meaning we would be counting on Google translate or the like. It would leave us guessing as to Corp Berlin or Berlin Corp, for example. The good news is that once we figure out the umbrella group's correct English name, all of its members could be treated the same way. @Jax MN, maybe our new German corp contact could help? Rublamb (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list: notability or no ref tags

[edit]
Delete: I added two sources but can't find significant coverage. Content has sources now, but mostly from its website. It is now included in both the African American and LGBTQ list articles, with a source. Rublamb (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can't find secondary sources Rublamb (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Greek umbrella organizations
Move: the law firm does not meet notability for an organization. However, there are enough sources for an article on the Anti-Hazing Hotline. So, one option is to move the article and subject, with a redirect for the law firm which manages the hotline. Or, we can go with a new article on the hotline. The newsletter, the original focus of the article, is not significant.
Merge into Collegiate secret societies in North America#Yale University
Merge: into either its parent organization, the National Art Education Association or its sister organization, the National Art Honor Society. Nothing was found to help this reach notability.
Delete: I found some articles in the campus newspaper but no significant coverage elsewhere. It is now included in List of social sororities and women's fraternities Rublamb (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete?: I added some sources and expanded/updated the chapter list. However, all of the sources I found are clearly from press releases. There is almost zero presence of this group on its host colleges' websites; I even found one that lists this as a non-recognized organization. A Reddit discussion notes that the group has used a copy of UNC's letterhead without any affiliation. Now that I have expanded the chapter list, I hate to say this--but it does not really meet notability. I suggest including it in the Honor society article but going for an AfD unless one good source shows up. Rublamb (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into College of William & Mary secret societies; I've searched the state library, the VA newspaper database, and the usual places and can't find off-campus sources. The logo and some info seem to be pulled from its Facebook page. Rublamb (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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----- this article from 1957 from El Mundo mentions it was founded

I think we should go ahead and start nominating some of these for deletion. Any concerns or opinions? Rublamb (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also will start merging as suggested above if there are no objections to that recommendation. Rublamb (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb, this rather long list has a significant variety of proposed outcomes. Sure, some could be recommended for deletion. Yet I'd only go that route if we were clearly suspicious that the organization actually existed. Myth and Sword is a good example. I'm certain they exist, and that the article is accurate. It just needs more references. By deleting this particular article, but at the same time keeping all of the articles for its peer Seniors Clubs, we are putting our finger on the scale, biasing casual readers to unfairly think either they aren't legitimate or that their history isn't as rich as the others. As an Inclusionist, I am strongly moved by the "Does No Harm" principle, when considering potential AfDs for those groups who may have faded, but which were notable at one time. It is a Wikipedia rule that Notability isn't lost over time. Where we know the group did exist, and where we have at least one source, IMO, we should keep these as works in progress. I don't support deletion merely to save space (not that that is your intent, either.) Jax MN (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: Naraht stared this list and I added to it as part of our cleanup project. The thought was to be proactive about WP articles that had flags for no sources or for notability, elevating the credibility of WP:FRAT in the process. We have found sources and fixed articles more often than not. In all cases, I have conducted a deep dive into potential sources before suggesting merging or deleting. (Naraht has been checking behind me, but you are welcome to do so too).
I too am an inclusionist but we are dealing with articles that do not and cannot meet notability. Many of these articles have had notability tags for years. I worked on some a couple of years ago, and still cannot find enough sources to meet notability. However, these groups do meet the requirements to be included in the many list articles about GLOs; I am being careful to make sure that coverage exists before we start the AfD process.
Myth and Sword is a good example. Most of Yale's senior societies do not have articles in Wikipedia; just those few can meet notability. With the Myth and Sword article, most of the text is about a defunct chapter of a national fraternity and its various chapter houses. The only sources that actually use the name "Myth and Sword" are 1) a list the senior societies at Yale that just gives the name 2) a mention in one sentence in Yale newspaper article, and 3) one sentence in a article about the former fraternity's buildings published by a Yale Linguistics Dept. (and it is possible that Wikipedia was the source for that sentence). Simply put, we barely have proof that Myth and Sword exists, must less enough content for an article. I have tried several times to find sources. Merging this content before someone else nominates it for AfD is the responsible thing to do. Rublamb (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a deletion prod to several that lack sources to meet notability. Rublamb (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive essay

[edit]

The essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Notability is noted as dormant because the discussion about it ended before it was approve. Do we want to revisit it? Rublamb (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on that article's talk page. Thanks, Rublamb, for the extensive organizational work you have done on the project's pages. Jax MN (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the NFRAT article focuses on Greek Letter Organizations (or closely related like FarmHouse) based at colleges. The recent expansion of the WikiProject to include groups in Eastern Europe, in Africa or were never college related (Loyal Order of the Moose, etc.) means that we almost need to start from Scratch (and based on that, it may make sense to move groups like Loyal Order of the Moose to a different Wikiproject.Naraht (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, the essay does not set limitations on the type of fraternal organization or a requirement to have a Greek letter name or a collegiate connection. The article is inclusive of "fraternities, sororities, and other Greek letter organizations" and "college Secret societies and student clubs". General and community-based fraternal organizations are covered by the terms "fraternity" and "sorority". The recent WP expansions that are not specifically mentioned (and should be) are honor and literary societies. Defining notability and the scope of the WP are two different topics that should be covered in two different essays/pages. Rublamb (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht brings up a reasonable point where other editors may inquire as to scope.
To summarize for readers, here are the cut-off points which logically could make sense for us.
1. Every notable group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, FarmHouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies, AND those in the Masonic family. This includes community-based fraternities, and non-collegiate military fraternities. We could aim to identify these globally.
2. North American only: Every notable group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, Farmhouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies, AND those in the Masonic family. This includes community-based fraternities, and non-collegiate military fraternities. BUT limited to North America.
3. N.A. and collegiate only: Every notable collegiate or once-collegiate group, past or current, which has or had a Greek Letter name, and those operating as such. (Acacia, Farmhouse), AND literary societies, AND secret societies. DISCLUDING those in the Masonic family. DISCLUDING community-based fraternities, and DISCLUDING non-collegiate military fraternities. Limited to North America.
There is a dormant project for Collegiate secret societies in North America, and a vigorous List of Masonic Grand Lodges (start there, many sublinks. We've only scratched the surface of these). But to my knowledge, there ISN'T a project for literary societies. We've picked up the collegiate ones, but there are examples of non-collegiate literary societies that have existed in the US since 1849 which we've not picked up. Nor is there a project or list of ancillary organizations to the Masonic fraternity: We (Freemasons) call them either Appendant Bodies or Subordinate Bodies. There are many, many hundreds: These include the Shrine, the Scottish Rite (which in some countries is a de facto grand lodge), and stretching further, non-Masonic groups like the Odd Fellows or Woodmen of the World. There is no home for military fraternities, besides us. Nor for community-based groups like those in Indiana (Tri Kappa) or the various new LGBTQ groups, mostly non-collegiate. We started with the Puerto Rican and Philippine collegiate fraternities, added fencing fraternities in Europe, then the gang-like Nigerian confraternities. We are looking for consensus on where our project draws the line of inclusion.
Which path do we take? We could blaze a trail to be trackers of ALL fraternal activity globally, tracking every group in option #1 above. This appears to be our current heading. In this, we'd aim to create the definitive list. Not voting yet, but I personally like the clarity this provides, so that groups choosing a name don't tread on others with the same name. Or, Naraht may be right, that a split is necessary; maybe the Masonic project needs a push to create a list of their subordinate / auxiliary groups. There may be some 5,000 individual Degrees, jurisdictions or groupings of degrees that have current or recent activity and which are part of the Masonic world. Counting just grand lodges alone, (first three degrees, some geographical bounds) these number maybe 2,000 themselves. That would offload some of our work.
FWIW, merely on grounds of clarity I would rather not lose track of Greek letter groups outside of North America. I'm more comfortable offloading the Masonic entities, because they have an active project group. I could be convinced to limit our scope to collegiate only. Jax MN (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to keep these as two conversations and projects--scope and notability. The Notability essay should be fairly easy as we are just supplementing the well defined Wikipedia guidelines. I am going to restart scope as a different thread. Rublamb (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to circle back to this. @Jax MN, could you merge your more recent list into the essay? I like the idea of this content being in an essay, rather than a Talkpage discussion. We will be able to link the essay through a tab, making it more visible. And I still think we can update the essay without bringing in the wider conversation on what is included under WP:FRAT or, at least, with an agreement to ignore that issue for now. If we are not going to update the essay, it should be AfD, but my preference is to update it. Rublamb (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will. My regular duties interfere, but I'll get to this. Good idea to make it a tab. Jax MN (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Infobox Fraternity for umbrella groups?

[edit]

It seems like using Infobox Fraternity for umbrella groups is a bit shoehorny. The NPC (to pick one) seems to be closer to needing Infobox Organization than Infobox Fraternity. It certainly doesn't have a pin for example. Naraht (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up earlier, but we never made a decision. The main advantage of using Infobox Fraternity is that the articles pull into petscan reports. As part of our cleanup project, I found several umbrella groups that we had missed for our watchlist and also discovered that most umbrella articles lacked an infobox. I made the decision to go with Infobox Fraternity because it put these in our petscan reports and would also let us include quirky fraternal data like emphasis and colors that are not components of Infobox Organization. The European umbrellas' data that is almost identical to that of US GLOs and would be difficult to fit into Infobox Org. That being said, I am fine either way. Rublamb (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to change the US umbrellas to Infobox orgnization and leave the European umbrellas (essentially fraternities and sororities) as Infobox fraternity? Now that we know these are all on the WP watchlist, the infobox type is not as important. The only downside would be that they will no longer show up in the petscan report for missing content. This may not be a big deal if we go ahead and add all that can be found when making the change. Rublamb (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: do you have an opinion on this? Rublamb (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather leave these with the fraternities infobox for the reasons you stated: colors, emphasis, etc. Jax MN (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the Umbrella organizations use colors? Are we talking the European multicampus umbrellas?Naraht (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the European umbrellas have colors, etc. We could treat US groups differently. Rublamb (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jax has access to a member of a German fraternity. We have confirmed that each group is essentially a "chapter" of the umbrella, which is essentially the main fraternity. This is why infobox fraternity fits the European umbrella better. @Naraht, would you be okay with the European umbrella being off the table for a change, and leaving this discussion to the American umbrellas? Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Different setup for the European Umbrellas which are in some ways more similar to a group like Theta Upsilon Omega formed from multiple locals, except without requiring certain levels of commonality.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: I think your idea of having and umbrella group type makes sense. Does this mean we can leave all of these articles with the Infobox fraternity, or do I still need to change the American umbrellas to Infobox organization? Rublamb (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb Leave them, I guess. Just this will direct them to a common place in terms of what they are. I have no idea what to do with the European Umbrellas and the Philippine "Umbrellas" are even wierder.Naraht (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to a new contact of JAX, we are getting closer to understanding the European groups. For most, the umbrella is what American's think of as a fraternity. The various local European fraternities are actually chapters of an umbrella, they are just named Korp! Moo Moo and Korp! Cow Cow instead of having Greek letter names. In reality, there should be an article on the umbrella, with redirects for its various chapters (instead of chapter articles, which usually lack secondary sources anyway). We can readdress the infobox situation when and if we ever get around to more umbrella articles. Rublamb (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category Structure for founders, etc.

[edit]

Right now, we have Category:College fraternity founders , Category:College sorority founders and Category:College honor society founders as well as Category:College fraternity members in Category:Lists of members of United States student societies and none of them *really* belong there because they simply aren't lists. I'd like to move all four of them out of the Category. I'd like to create Category:Founders of student societies in the United States in Category:Student societies in the United States and put the first three in it and remove the cat for Category:College fraternity members (it would still be in Category:Fraternities and sororities.

In addition, one of the groups in Category:College fraternity founders is for Sigma Pi (literary society) and that has two founders. If I find one more founder of a literary society, that should probably create a Category:College literary society founders in Category:Founders of student societies in the United States as well.

thoughts?Naraht (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I think either Category:High School honor society founders or Category:Secondary honor society founders would make sense for the founder of Cum Laude Society.Naraht (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Wikipedia article is called Secondary school, with a redirect for high school. Let's stick with that language (which also matches the Honor society section header). Rublamb (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I don't remember there being many, but it will not take long to run through the list of literary societies on our watchlist. We will just have to figure out what to do with the founders of literary societies that became traditional fraternities at a later date. Would those founders get both categories? Rublamb (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Secondary school honor society founders then? and I noticed neither of you objected to Category:Founders of student societies in the United States, so that is a go.Naraht (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Founders of student societies in the United States created, will move the Cum Laude founders cat.Naraht (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added both to our watchlist Rublamb (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, while the article is Secondary school, the article on the societies there is Category:High school honor societies. Which way should we straighten things out?Naraht (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Wikipeida's guidelines are to go with the common name. High school is the common term in America, but not so much elsewhere. I think that is why the main article is called Secondary school. Can catagories be moved easily like articles? I looked and there is not a move option in VE, as with articles. My gut is that it should be Secondary not High School. I guess a redirect would be better than nothing. Rublamb (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did not answer this question before. To me, Category:College fraternity members would be for individual biographical articles. I was expecting a horribly long list of people who belonged to a fraternity that lacks a member category. However, the articles currently using Category:College fraternity members are lists of members of the individual fraternities. Those make more sense to be under the Category:Lists of members of United States student societies or something similar. Is that what you were thinking? Do we want to keep Category:College fraternity members as a category for individuals? Rublamb (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List articles belong in one cat and its subcats, categories containing member articles in another. they are *not* the same. Category:College fraternity members would have Category:Chi Omega members under it, Category:Lists of members of United States student societies would have List of Chi Omega members under it.Naraht (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Higher Honor Society Level and rearrangement?

[edit]

In Category:Honor societies, we have Category:High school honor societies (possibly to be moved to Category:Secondary school honor societies ) and then the main category is for Collegiate honor societies. Given the existence of groups like Alpha Omega Alpha, it feels like Honor Societies should be split into Four subcats with *most* of the organizations in the main category moved to a undergrad collegiate category and Alpha Omega Alpha either moved into a category with in a grad collegiate category or a subcat under that. There will be groups that cross some of the four subcats. Mu Alpha Theta belongs in both Secondary school and two year and ACHS will cross at least two year and four year (Psi Beta is two year) but it is unclear to me whether now that Alpha Omega Alpha is gone whether ACHS includes organizations that are only at post graduate schools. like Law Schools and Med Schools (Phi Lambda Sigma in pharmacy)Naraht (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we have any articles for middle school/junior high school honor societies or GLOs. but "secondary school" would be a more inclusive term than high school. I am thinking about groups like the Beta Club that cover both high school and middle school. Rublamb (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date sort issue

[edit]

A zillion sources later, I finally have dates for all chapters in List of Sigma Gamma Tau chapters. The society does not appear to have a charter date for Saint Louis University and it is not included in Baird's. However, this chapter hosted the 1970 convention, so "Before 1970" is the closest I can get. How do I navigate the date template with the phrase "before"? I believe everything else is sorting correctly. Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another of our editors may have found a technical sort workaround, but I've occasionally used a 'less than or equal to' symbol, prior to the tag.
So: ≤{{dts|1970}}. Jax MN (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you can add format=hide as a last parameter in the dts template and it will be hidden, so for example, {{dts|April 1, 1970|format=hide}}Spring 1970 will sort as April 1, 1970 but show Spring 1970. Just decide where you want it sorted and what text you want to show.Naraht (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much better. How would you set up the Boolean string to search our many Project tables for ≤, ≥, ⟨, and ⟩, in order to update that metatext to the 'hide' parameter? I've used this syntax a couple dozen times. Jax MN (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works great. Thanks for the tip. Rublamb (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went through, the only one with one of the symbols immediately prior to the {{dts is Alpha Gamma Upsilon and that is in a closing date, not an initial chartering date, so no effect on the sort.Naraht (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Defunct vs. Merged

[edit]

Given that we separate groups in the infoboxes that died on their own like National Collegiate Players from those that merged (either as equals such as Tau Omega or into another group like Phi Epsilon Pi), I'm thinking of creating a Category:Merged fraternities and sororities category either beside or possibly under Category:Defunct fraternities and sororities, ideas? Which cat they go into should be the same as the value in the infobox. Naraht (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific idea. Very helpful new cat. Jax MN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made it a child. Done with those in the Category:Defunct fraternities and sororities and the ones in the NPC subcat, got to a point on the ones in the NIC subcat, but have to go make dinner. Will go back through, the NIC and NPC ones to make sure that if there is a cat for the (eventual) merge into, that they are there (like Category:Zeta Beta Tau. Will create a check for the Merged cat matching those with Merged in infobox. Will be at least a few where they are merged but we pulled out the chapter list like List of Delta Sigma Epsilon chapters Naraht (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also we have a few mismatches where they are in the Defunct cat but active, like when the group has lost all student groups but continues to operate.Naraht (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went through all of the entries with a successor and if that successor (or a successor's successor (see ZBT family)) has a cat added to that if not already there. Next step is to find places where infobox and cat disagree on active/defunct.Naraht (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Rublamb (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid "the"...

[edit]

In doing recent cleanup, I've been running into things like "Michaels was a member of the [[Kappa Sigma Fraternity]]. In addition to changing it to [[Kappa Sigma]] fraternity for WP:MOSCAPS reasons and simplifying the link, I've also been removing the "the" to get to Michaels was a member of [[Kappa Sigma]] fraternity. Agreement on the removal of "the"?Naraht (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Yes, I'm OK with this as a general rule, though there may be times where, grammatically, it may make sense. Jax MN (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not always. For example. "Unfortunately, the only greek letter organization left on campus was the Kappa Sigma Fraternity."Naraht (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remove these too. I also think "Fraternity" can be dropped in most cases, only being used in the lede and the statement about its incorporated name. Rublamb (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I lean in the other direction, having hit more or less "member of Kappa Sigma Fraternity and Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society" a few times. Doesn't seem quite right to me to say "member of Kappa Sigma and Phi Beta Kappa".Naraht (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping list of GLOs from University articles...

[edit]

For changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Redlands&diff=1266148006&oldid=1263326808 , what is the procedure? Naraht (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have to look up the editor to know who did this. Honestly, I am pretty burnt out on fighting this individual who has been gradually doing to to every university article for a least a year. WP:UNI is not very active but its members have agreed in various discussions that Greek life belongs in university and college articles. Also, GLOs are part of the WP:UNI content guidelines for articles. However, there is no guidance on how must info to include. I think we have discovered that the WP:UNI editors do not like the lists of every organization and no one thinks a generic statement about there being fraternities and sororities is helpful. Trying to find the middle ground, I have made a suggestion that got support but no guidance on how to incorporate it into practice or WP policy. Unfortunately, this editor continues to remove GLO lists instead of improving or converting lists to text.
My suggestion was to replace lists with a Greek life text section uses U.S. News & World Report's data on percentage of students that belong to GLO, a summary of the number of and types of organizations, and mention of any nationals that formed at that college. Other unique items, such as notable architecture or campus traditions can also be included. It is also reasonable to include more information if the campus has a large percentage of students in GLOs vs. campus that have a low GLO presence. In other words, a section that is appropriate to the campus rather than all being the same. We also need to lean into secondary sources, not just the university's website.
Conversations about this issue have mostly been on the talkpages of various articles. I can't remember if we (Jax MN or I) posted on the WP:UNI talkpage but that might be one approach. We could also contact Elkevbo directly as this is the most dominate of the WP:UNI old guard who supported some GLO content in university articles. In the past, I have also suggested trying to figure out a way to add the Greek life sections of university articles to our watchlist so that we will know when edits are made. Unfortunately, we randomly run into these, mostly after the edits have been made. Almost every time we spotted the talkpage message announcing the pending nuking of the Greek life section, we have been successful in minimizing the damage. Of course, since you are new to this, maybe you could persuade this editor to post on WP:FRAT whenever a problem is found so that we have a change to fix this, realizing that WP:FRAT has to accept that the long lists or tables need to be addressed to find common ground. Rublamb (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: Any thoughts? Rublamb (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mess. Melkor, (Damn, I did it again), MELCHIOR, continues his/her attempts to delete these sections and much other standard and broadly accepted content from university articles. These aren't just pot shots, or random attacks by an unthinking Deletionist. But neither do they follow a methodical pattern, supported by consensus. It appears his/her campaign is a sporadic one, just the work of a single person confusing "being bold" with their narcissistic impulse to destroy what he/she doesn't understand. Each deep culling has the same ill intent, to pare down college and university articles to the barest skeleton of what they were, making the "summary" about the institution an anemic summary-of-a-summary. I don't know why; we aren't running out of space, and these articles ought to flesh out the topic so to provide a valid and useful sense of the campus. Many, many experienced editors have taken the opposite course in building up the articles, Wikipedia being a work-in-progress. By relegating these articles to only the dry bones, they clearly lose their effectiveness as summaries, making Wikipedia poorer. I'm sure Melchior thinks they are helping, even if they are acting on their own, far outside of consensus by the F&S project or the University project teams.
To unwind this will require a methodical review of all the campus articles that this person has touched. Jax MN (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing entries for 20th ed of Baird's

[edit]

I fixed occurances of 20th edition, but I will also be changing the ISBN for that book once I get the correct entry. I'm not sure what is incorrect, but it is throwing an error for that ISBN in the checkwiki runs. I'll change them all. (No other ISBN in wikipedia shows up up as wrong more than 4 times, this one is over 40, I think. :)).Naraht (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Baird's, I started with the citations from Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities because that was easy. No idea how my version got corrupted from 20th to 20h--thanks for catching that. I have fixed my code sheet so that won't happen again.
I am not sure that is going on with the ISBN as I don't really know what checkwiki is checking against. When I search for 0963715909 in Wikipedia's Book Sources, it provides the correct Google link to Baird's 20th. This may be a case of a correct number that the system doesn't recognize. Many times, I have noticed that it only recognizes one of the two ISBN numbers. Is there a way to add this ISBN to the entry that checkwiki uses? If not, try changing one from 0963715909 to 9780963715906 and see if it passed checkwiki? Although, technically the ten-digit ISBN is the correct one for a book from the 1990s. Rublamb (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/0963715909 clearly says 20th edition of Baird's. And both should be equally correct. the first 9 digits of the isbn-10 is in the isbn-13 with the 978 prefix (which is default, 979 is for when the 978 is used up, the last digit is a checksum. So unless the checkwiki is simply saying *all* ISBN-10 should be changed to ISBN-13 then I don't know what is going on. (And I just used https://www.loc.gov/programs/preassigned-control-number/isbn-converter/ to check that the hyphens are in the right spot for 0-9637159-0-9)Naraht (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, neither my copy of the 20th nor the 19th editions have an ISBN listed in the colophon, nor elsewhere. The 20th once came with a dust jacket which may have had it, but that has long since been lost. The colophons for each book do however state the Library of Congress number. My template ISBN citation uses 978-0963715906, with the hyphen and the last digit as a 6. Let me know if this ought to be changed. Thanks all! Jax MN (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published with an ISBN, it would have been the 10-digit version and probably was on the jacket (it took longer to get ISBNs back then and the jacket was the last thing printed) ISBNs did not start having 13 digits until 2007. They went back and assigned 13-digit numbers to older books. It is so annoying that World Cat does not include ISBNs in its public portal but, in general, Google, Amazon, and Abe Books are reliable. Rublamb (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced the ISBN-10 is correct, we just need to understand why it got flagged. I may put it in for the autodetect of hyphenation and it doesn't hurt to go with the ISBN-13 instead...Naraht (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Before I remove the links, I'd like opinion here. Let's say that John Doe belong to Mu Mu Mu Fraternity, that would be linked. If he belongs to Omega chapter and there is a page for the house that Omega chapter owns (or owned at the time of membership) because it is on the NHRP, I have seem some links to the house. But, I don't feel that house = chapter and thus there should be no link. Opinion?Naraht (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No link. Rublamb (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree, but would make an exception for an alum who designed the house, or who is cited as being the benefactor who built it. This issue may require additional rules concerning the Architecture fraternities or a fraternity specifically known for noteworthy structures. St. Anthony Hall, anyone? Jax MN (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the links are going to be included in the articles about the building and member, I don't think you need a link in the notable member list. Rublamb (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming no other attachment to the house than that he lived in it during his time as an active at Omega chapter. Now I just have to find my example. :)Naraht (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think we've long since decided that fraternity should be lower case in most cases, so instead of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, we do Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. However the question is Society. So which of the following: Phi Beta Kappa Society, Phi Beta Kappa society or Phi Beta Kappa society, or simply Phi Beta Kappa? We also have situations where Phi Beta Kappa Society is placed side by side with groups like "Periclean Literary Society", Is Society capitalized consistently there?Naraht (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we decided that society/fraternity would be capitalized when being used as part of the group's formal or full name. So, Moo Moo Fraternity Inc. or Cow Cow Society in the lede and maybe the first mention in the history section. I would drop to Phi Beta Kappa rather than Phi Beta Kappa Society in the rest of the article as that is its common name and the name of the article. With a group like "Periclean Literary Society" where society is in common use as part of its name, I would expect to continue using Periclean Literary Society (capitalized) throughout as that is still the formal name. However, I would use lower caps for "the society's colors are black and white" because that is not its formal name. Does that help or did I just muddy the water? Rublamb (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than once in the header of the page and on pages like List of college literary societies drop it more or less everywhere. So I've got some "Phi Beta Kappa [Ss]ociety" entries to clear out.Naraht (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am on board with this plan, as noted in Naraht's first paragraph on SAE. Since Greek letters are so indicative in context that we are talking about some sort of society, fraternity or sorority, I don't see a need to include that additional word in the Wikilink. However, if it is part of the formal name, we should at least use that once, in the lede or first descriptive paragraph versus the "common name" we use in the infobox. Finally, regarding the example of Periclean, it would be less obvious to casual readers that this is a Greek-like society, or a literary society. I favor continuing the syntax using Literary Society also capitalized, as this is the group's formal name, but also because in this case, by including "Periclean" we are defining a particular literary society; in legal, formal, or technical writing, this "term of art" earns the clarification of capitalization. When used generically, lower case is correct. Jax MN (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSCAPS and house names.

[edit]

In general, I will use WP:MOSCAPS to uncap both chapter and fraternity in "While at Michigan State, Jones became a brother of Omega Chapter of Mu Mu Mu Fraternity." however, often the NHRP articles for Fraternity houses look like Pi Chapter House of Psi Upsilon Fraternity. I think Chapter should stay Capitalized, (but not sure) but the Fraternity, I'm not sure of. I can put a list together...Naraht (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on most of the NRHP chapter house articles. If the formal name of the house, according to the NRHR, is Pi Chapter House of Psi Upsilon Fraternity (in caps), that is what should be used. "Pi Chapter House" is caps would also be correct as a shortened version of the name. However, if somewhere in the text, there is something like: "The chapter house was renovated in 2021", it would be lower case as this is not its formal name, similar to "The building was renovated in 2021". Rublamb (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so everything except "of" ends up capitalized. I'll let you know if I see any with other words lowercased.Naraht (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

membership in Women's Fraternities

[edit]

For a member/founder of one of the women's social GLOs that refer to themselves as a fraternity such as Alpha Phi. Is there a preference in the article about the person: "Mason was a member of Alpha Phi fraternity", "Mason was a member of Alpha Phi sorority" or Mason was a member of Alpha Phi women's fraternity" and if so, is the preference strong enough to change. I don't really see a strong preference (other than *perhaps* against "Mason was a sister of Alpha Phi fraternity", which while correct *may* be confusing.)Naraht (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "women's fraternity", as "fraternity" is most accurate and "women's" makes it less confusing. When I find instances of "sorority" within the article about the GLO, I change them. So, I guess it makes sense to also make that adjustment in member's articles. Not to confuse things, but I think some GLOs that were formed as women's fraternities now also refer to themselves as "sororities". Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the group is not formally named a "sorority", the clearest solution is to use either "fraternity" or "women's fraternity" in the lede, and to use the latter of these when the technical corporate name is fraternity instead of sorority. From a practical standpoint there is no difference; it seems to me that groups may not bother changing their formal names because of cost or other reasons. For those women's fraternities, I do not know of any of them who would object to referring to themselves as sororities in casual or common usage. The word 'fraternity', for them, comes up only in legal or formal writing, or when a speaker is attempting to make the not-so-subtle point that "We are one of the oldest of the women's groups". --Oh, bully for you, ma'am. Aside from the lede, in informal use, or elsewhere in the article, where they have no preference I'd substitute and use the word "sorority". Jax MN (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange vs. La grange

[edit]

Given google searches for

  • "la grange synodical" site:gov

vs "lagrange synodical" site:gov

Which name should the article be created under, with or without the space? We actually have links from chapter lists both ways.Naraht (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Grange is correct, based on historical documents in the Library of Congress and this one at Hathi Trust. It currently is list that way in Synodical College too. Rublamb (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IUPUI

[edit]

Since Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis split into Indiana University Indianapolis and Purdue University in Indianapolis in July 2024, we have a number of chapter lists that need updating. Unfortunately, we will have to research each case to determine if the chapter closed or moved. Rublamb (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baird's 12th, 1930

[edit]

Baird's Manual 12th edition (1930) is now available through Hathi Trust. I have added it to our referenced list. Since the book is out of copyright, its illustrations can be uploaded through Wikimedia Commons. I have only used it for one GLO; so far, it has chapter info that is not in later editions of Baird's. Rublamb (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I squeed a little on this one. While founded in 1925 my fraternity, Alpha Phi Omega, was not in the 1926/1927, which is fair. I posted a link to the pages for APO to our History Facebook group. Note, there are *several* things in there to confuse the average brother today. :)Naraht (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Year only in lede

[edit]

As a general rule, I think that the lede should only contain the year of founding (and merging and defunct), with the date if known going in history, agree?Naraht (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Glad to find out this is not just my opinion. Rublamb (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the lede paragraph is a summary of the entire article, and ought to be a brief one at that, this makes sense as a general style point. I'd proceed with that style unless there was some important (notorious?) and external historical reason to tie it to a specific date, like a sorority formed on Christmas Eve while snowed in, or a fraternity formed on the Fourth of July. Jax MN (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at the fraternities and sororities of the NPHC. Of the nine, eight had the date (Month Day, Year) of founding (the one in the infobox) in the lede. Sigh.Naraht (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have been working on items in the new report, I keep finding problems like this. Also, articles with no secondary sources when the group is easily found in Baird's. Rublamb (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EUPHEMISM - Memorial chapter

[edit]

Joseph R. Fugett has "On October 21, 1908, Fugett was an initiate at the Alpha Chapter Annual Banquet. In 1975, Fugett entered the Omega Chapter." I think this would count as falling under WP:EUPHEMISM just as if it said, "Fugett had passed away". Feelings?Naraht (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly. To phrase it with "entered the Omega Chapter" could be appropriate for their own website, but not on Wikipedia. We need generic or vernacular language. Jax MN (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, in more encyclopedic language, "Fugett died in 1975". I don't, but if one felt a need to acknowledge the fraternity's memorial chapter, you could add, "The fraternity honored Fugett with membership in its memorial Omega chapter". Rublamb (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's something that is a specific decision with that fraternity (i.e. it's not "all members are in this chapter by default") then I think it be reasonable to say that he was honoured per Rublamb's suggestion. Otherwise, his death is already indicated further down the page and we don't need to duplicate that information. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Women in Communications

[edit]

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

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

Categories for GLOs members

[edit]

There are numerous CfDs for categories such as "Category Moo Moo Moo members". I am not addressing any of these specifically but, rather, the general concept and benefit of this type of category for WP:FRAT. @Naraht, a while back you mentioned that there might be some push back on this type of category. Is there any info you can share that could help WP members understand how these do or do not fit into guidelines for categories. I have a general feeling that these might be helpful to some users but have no knowledge of how Wikpedians decide if a category is necessary. Rublamb (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It boils down to defining characteristics, see Non defining charateristics on Wikipedia:Overcategorization. If a Moo Moo Moo member was Governor of Georgia and won a Nobel Peace Prize, being in categories for the last two would be defining, being a Moo Moo Moo member would not be. Otoh, being a Moo Moo Moo founder would be. Unfortunately on some of the groups, (like Alpha Kappa Alpha and Delta Sigma Theta we might end up having to WP:SALT the category eventually. Naraht (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the info I needed. Thanks for explaining. I think a couple of honor societies might fall under defining but will need to think about some more. I am currently working on List of Tau Beta Pi members and am finding that even major players who are decades into their career seem list it as a honor. Rublamb (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to show "families"?

[edit]

If a four year honorary also controls a similar subject two year honorary, a high school honorary and a junior high honorary (not sure any single one example covers all) is there any appropriate way to link them other than "See also"? I'm not sure any of the examples have enough groups to be a category.Naraht (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a section (Related organizations) mentioning the related group(s) with a main article link. With some, we may need to look at merging the two articles, especially if sources are thin for the secondary school group. I can think at least one (currently in our list of articles that need sources) where this may be the best solution. Rublamb (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signet Society

[edit]

An IP user came in and did some edits on Signet Society and removed type = Final Club and I've reached back out to him, but I've also found https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1986/4/28/the-signet-society-pamid-all-the/ which indicates that at least as of 1986, that didn't apply *that* well to it. Ideas? (Literary?) Naraht (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, membership is open to sophomores and up which fits Harvard's definition of a final society, as I understand it. Maybe content them directly? There is a contact form on their website. Rublamb (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment on Template talk:Fraternities and sororities

[edit]

At this point, I think we should make sure it is limited to only active groups. See Template_talk:Fraternities_and_sororities#Only_active_groups?. Naraht (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities&oldid=1280177631"