Template talk:Infobox fraternity

Additional parameter

I think it would be valuable to add a parameter field for Conference, to be centered in the template immediately below the field for {{{caption}}}. Many of these organizations belong to one of the major Greek Letter conferences, while the rest would be listed as former members of one ore more of these, or as locals.

For reference, the available North American conference links could be:

• Association of College Honor Societies, abbreviated as ACHS
• Concilio Interfraternitario Puertorriqueño de la Florida, abbreviated as CIPFI
• Fraternity Forward Coalition, abbreviated as FFC (an emerging conference)
• National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, abbreviated as NALFO
• National APIDA Panhellenic Association, abbreviated as NAPA
• National Multicultural Greek Council, abbreviated as NMGC
• National Pan-Hellenic Council, abbreviated as NPHC
• National Panhellenic Conference, abbreviated as NPC
• North American Interfraternity Conference, abbreviated as NIC
• Professional Fraternity Association, abbreviated as PFA
• United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities, abbreviated as UCCFS

There may be others. This parameter ought to allow Wikilinks, affiliation with multiple conferences and additional modifiers, separated by commas, such as (former), (independent), or (local). Thoughts?
Jax MN (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the parameter, but I don't agree on the location. I think it should be down below with a label. To use the last example, I think simply having UCCFS without any explanation at the top is confusing, while having United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities in the same place is too long. I suggest Council as the most neutral Label. Naraht (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, NAPA was an article and deleted, under the old name, National APIA Panhellenic Association Naraht (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Your alternative placement suggestion sounds reasonable, and certainly it ought to have a label. Naming the parameter as "Council" or maybe "Association" would be fine. I wanted something which could allow for the word 'local' as well. "Nat'l Association" or "Nat'l Council"? As to the NAPA article, I'd left a number of redlinks in articles, assuming that one of us would get around to reviving and improving the original NAPA article. Clearly NAPA or NAPIDA is notable, with multiple citations available. I haven't yet investigated why the original was deleted. As a citation, the Baird's Online Archive will helpfully reference its member fraternities and indicates if they have an Asian or Pacific Islander affinity. Jax MN (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term used into the template that these are in is "Greek Umbrella Organization" which I'd *really* prefer something better.Naraht (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC) They moved the NAPA article into my personal area at my request, If you've got references so we can move it back that would be great.Naraht (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

NAPA is relatively new, but is occasionally in the press. Here are a couple of external references:

• NAPA noted in the Baird's Archive
• NAPA noted in the αΚΔΦ citation, in the Baird's Archive

As to "Greek Umbrella Organization", I agree that it isn't the best phrase. I don't see why we'd have to use it. Note too, I'd suggest that the template instructions clarify that this isn't for the name of a local Panhel (campus) group, but for a national association. Jax MN (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I found another template with a formatting style for multiple affiliations that may work for us: {{Infobox university}}. See its affiliations param. I don't see this change as particularly controversial. You, Naraht, have experience in editing templates. Would you be so kind as to do this one? Jax MN (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's actually figure out what we're doing before we start editing the template. From the sounds of it, the plan at the moment sounds like having either an |affiliation= or |council= parameter, which would have a label and a switch statement that would link to one of the above options (e.g. input |affiliation=ACHS and it would output ACHS). Does that sound about right? Primefac (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For positive entries, that seems fine. In the case of missing affiliations, or where the "affiliation" is simply 'local' or 'independent' or where a modifier like 'formerly' is needed, I'd like to ensure the parameter allows these words. Along with multiple affiliations: Alpha Gamma Rho for example is a member of both the PFA and NIC. Jax MN (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the #default would be the input, allowing for multiple or non-standard values. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So the idea would be to allow for other inputs, but to have a fixed list of attributes that would cause links to specific pages. So |affiliation=ACHS would give ACHS but OTOH, |affiliation=FOOA woud give FOOA and |affiliation=FOOA would give BARNaraht (talk)

For the second one, I assume you mean it would be more like |affiliation=[[FOOA|BAR]], which would give BAR. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In other words:

| dataX = {{#switch:{{lc:{{{affiliation|}}}}}
 | achs = [[Association of College Honor Societies|ACHS]]
 | cipfi = [[Concilio Interfraternitario Puertorriqueño de la Florida|CIPFI]]
 | ffc = [[Fraternity Forward Coalition|FFC]]
 | nalfo = [[National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations|NALFO]]
 | napa = [[National APIDA Panhellenic Association|NAPA]]
 | nmgc = [[National Multicultural Greek Council|NMGC]]
 | nphc = [[National Pan-Hellenic Council|NPHC]]
 | npc = [[National Panhellenic Conference|NPC]]
 | nic = [[North American Interfraternity Conference|NIC]]
 | pfa = [[Professional Fraternity Association|PFA]]
 | uccfs = [[United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities|UCCFS]]
 | #default = {{{affiliation}}}
 }}

If an input doesn't match one of the pre-set values, then it will simply return that value without any formatting, meaning you can pass a Wikilink and it will display as intended. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Primefac Thank you for expressing it! but I'm worried about Alpha Phi Alpha which belongs to both the NPHC and the NIC (and there are at least half a dozen more, NIC&NPHC or NIC&NALFO, I think. Is the dataX logic what would make both nphc and NPHC give the same result regardless of capitalization? And is there any way to extract "formerly" from the string and add it to the result? (yes, I'm looking for sprinkles on my Sundae. :))Naraht (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we could in theory add a million different cases to the switch, but really I set it up like that just to keep some of the code cleaner (and yes, it is case-insensitive). I personally think that if the subject is part of two groups, then it would be added manually (e.g. |affiliation=NALFO and NIC). The other option would be to add an |affiliation2= param which would add the "and" in the above example. Regarding "formerly", I do not think we should include that option; if they're not in a council/conference, it should not be in the infobox (that sort of content is better for prose). Primefac (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Jax MN which sprinkles do you want on your Sundae? :) I'd prefer affiliation2 but I agree with Primefac on formerly that it should instead be in Prose. Also, is there any way to count the number of articles in which this infobox use a particular parameter or even a particular value for a parameter?Naraht (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This template uses TemplateData, so if a param is added it will show up there (lag time is a month, as the info is only cached on the first day), so if it's a more immediate need for tracking a tracking category should be set up. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Catching up, thanks for developing the code, Primefac, and to both of you for working through potential issues. The reason I hoped to allow "formerly" as one of the modifiers is its importance in suggesting their type. Phi Beta Kappa is formerly a member of the ACHS, certainly with no need to remain listed in that association: They are noteworthy enough. But articles for many lesser-known honor societies would benefit from the reminder that they once were ACHS, versus some other type. In that same vein, casual readers would appreciate understanding where FFC fraternities were previously NIC groups. It helps to clarify their niche. Next, I see you caught the issue of forcing all-caps where someone inputs "achs" vs. "ACHS". Good. Next, maybe the label for the param should be "Associations(s)" to allow for potential plural affiliations. Finally, there are at least 150 articles for local fraternities or literary societies where the param would be "local". As a Term of Art within the fraternal world, that word probably deserves its own link or definition. Outsiders may not know what "local" means in this context. Jax MN (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For local, I suggest a link to Fraternities_and_sororities#Glossary. My guess is that a majority of formerly aren't FFC, they are either groups that left the PFA and ACHS or were NIC/NPC that merged with other groups.Naraht (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that's more of a type than an affiliation. If a group isn't affiliated with any council, coalition, or conference (etc), then this parameter wouldn't be used. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, Jax MNBumping. And I agree that "Local" and IFC are not measuing the same thing. Kappa Beta Gamma is outside all of the affiliation groups, but isn't Local.Naraht (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Are we all good with calling it "Affiliation"? If so, I'll update the template. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the change. Thanks! Jax MN (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Primefac Any progress on this? *Thank you for your work on this!*Naraht (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Working!

Thank you Primefac! I have added it to Alpha Phi Omega. I added affiliation to the list of acceptable parameters at the bottom. Let's see how that works and see how much need there is for affiliation2.Naraht (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Were one of you adjusting the page description and template on the article: Template:Infobox fraternity? Looks great. Jax MN (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just added the affiliation param to several of the NAPA fraternities. Looking at Beta Chi Theta they are members of both NAPA and the NIC. Does use of both acronyms separate by a comma, does this negate their Wikilinks, requiring manual links? Jax MN (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I've added what neads to for the document.Naraht (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it will negate the wikillinks. That's (and Alpha Phi Alpha and the other NPHC/NIC groups) was the reason that affiliation2 was also proposed.Naraht (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Affilation2

So, what would affilation2 look like. Same as affiliation, but if it exists, it would simply have ' and ' and then the same set as the first? Also, we know of at least 5 groups that need two groups (Beta Chi Theta and the NPHC Fraternities other than Omega Psi Phi) how many more? I'm excluding the entries where one or both is a "former" (the ACHS crossovers with the PFA(and its predecessors) would actually be the worst). Do we have any triple affiliations?Naraht (talk)

Oh, yeah, forgot about that. I can add it in. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I cannot think of a triple affiliation. Such a situation would be expensive, and I know the major fraternities well enough to know their affiliations, limited to one or two. Jax MN (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Progress

Completed groupings. (making and adding to this list as we go). This assumes the list of current and former members on each of these linked WP articles is accurate:

• ACHS - Former groups done. Active groups updated through end of Alpha (many infoboxes added) - Did a search for the ACHS Category without an infobox. 20 of them. Can't add the affiliation if they don't have an infobox. So we have to create the infoboxes... (Naraht)
• CIPFI - Completed. (Jax_MN)
• FFC - Completed (Jax_MN)
• NALFO - Active groups completed. Some of the former groups may still need annotation. (Naraht) Former groups now noted. (Jax_MN)
• NAPA - Completed. (Jax_MN)
• NMGC - Completed (those with WP pages). There's a discrepancy on the website and WP, one group may have dropped. (Jax_MN)
• NIC - Completed: active, former and dormant (Jax_MN)
• NPC - Completed: active and former. (Jax_MN)
• NPHC - (Affiliation done by Banan14kab, Naraht added affiliation2 for APHiA, KAPsi and IPhiTheta, (and found to his surprise that PhiBS was no longer NIC))
• PFA - Completed: current and former groups (except a few former affiliates without infoboxes). One exception: Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo, listed on the PFA page, but not on the PFA page. I wrote to both organizations. Listed in error? (Jax_MN)
• UCCFS - Completed (I may have done these; it was late. Heh. Jax_MN)

• local groups with WP article on our watchlist are now noted with "local" as scope; For these I did not use the affiliation param. (Note, this is IF they have Wikipedia articles AND infoboxes) (Jax_MN)
• non-affiliated or never-affiliated national groups should be updated using the unlinked word "independent" on the affiliation parameter line.

I've placed a manual link in the affiliation field and the word "(former)" to show groups that have left one of the conferences. Jax MN (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we will need another affiliation group. Four of the premier Honor societies have formed a consortium called Honor Society Caucus. No WP article yet. These are: Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Xi, and Omicron Delta Kappa.

Note, I fixed the second of these references to omit the spurious mirror site "honorsociety.org", which seems parasitical and maybe a scam. I don't know why they were advertising the Caucus.

I added a paragraph on the ACHS page, within the Former Members section, to talk about the Honor Society Caucus. I created a page name redirect to this section. I see that Phi Kappa Phi mentions it, listing all the members on a page on their website, which seems proof enough. Curiously, the other three members don't have a mention of it that I can see from a cursory review. But Purdue University also mentions them. I therefore do not know when the group was founded, nor its parameters. I assume that these large, established groups don't need much in the way of support, and don't want to pay ACHS dues. But they use the Caucus for lobbying, perhaps. I've updated all four articles so that each mention their prior membership in the ACHS, and their current participation in the Caucus. Still to do, add the Caucus to this Affiliation param for the infobox, and update the template to reflect these four former members as part of a new group. Jax MN (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

remaining entries in Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with non-matching name

I've gone through all of the entires in Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with non-matching name and there are 29 left that either I'm OK with the non-matching (like alpha Kappa Delta Phi or am torn as to whether or not to change. Note for a few of them, the name in the infobox is actually shorter than the page name like Adelante Fraternity. In some cases, oddly the solution seems to be to change the page name to match what is in the infobox. Please let me know if you think any of them should be changed in some way or go ahead and do so. Oddly this has really brought home how much a few of the groups that use the template are *very* different from the stereotypical examples with Greek Letters or part of that collegiate culture.Naraht (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, it appears you are asking for support, and I concur. I urge changes to the page names where it will aid in clarity. For example, I don't mind that the Philippine groups have that country name modifier in their article names. As for the various secret societies without standard-style Greek Letter names, these may actually benefit (~more clarity) from use of the word "Fraternity", even though that would be an exception to our general rule. I.e.: the Adelante Fraternity. Acacia (fraternity) is another example. Jax MN (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

All ACHS groups to this template?

I've been generally converting the ACHS groups from Infobox Organization to Infobox Fraternity, but for some I really wonder. For example: National Society of Collegiate Scholars.Naraht (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think a good demarcation line would be to include them with the project if they were born out of a Greek Letter organization. Some were renamed long ago, but it doesn't cause harm to: A), keep them on our watchlist, and B), occasionally tidy their infobox, if they use ours.

I find the Fraternity infobox an improvement over the organization template for these groups, as they operate much like fraternities, sororities and student societies with oft-changing leadership, a dispersed chapter structure, and regalia symbolism. The Organization template is good for a more commercial style of organization. Jax MN (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Merged?

For quite a few of the inactive fraternities, it would be appropriate to have a "Merged Into", especially if it was a clean addition like Phi Kappa into Phi Kappa Theta or Pi Lambda Sigma into Theta Phi Alpha. I'd suggest merged_into and merged_date so

merged_into=[[Theta Phi Alpha]] merged_date={{dts|1952|8|1}}

would come up as

Merged Theta Phi Alpha on September 1, 1952

or something similar (maybe don't combine the lines?) Naraht (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be much more useful to have a freeform "fate" field, as Infobox company does, which could be used to indicate a merger, denationalization (e.g. Delta Kappa), or dissolution among other fates.-- choster (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with fate, allow for Iota Alpha Pi to be described more cleanly.Naraht (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Any one object to fate?Naraht (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Delta Kappa example is useful, to consider options. I have been working on a number of infobox updates; some would indeed have an obvious need for a "fate" param at times. But for many, the three 'free' fields have worked well. An example is the infobox for Lambda Omega. I inset the secondary target (using free1) for a later merger, and by happenstance these fields all tend toward the bottom of the infobox. By placing the date in parentheses it looks pretty clean. In addition to a known merger partner I've used words like "scattered" after the label "Merged into?" I've landed on what appears to be a solution for all these, then another twist appears. The outcomes of all these groups are each a little dissimilar. I've used these "merged with" free labels several dozen times, but look forward to hearing other ideas.

Sigma Mu Sigma is another wonky one, where the normal rules don't fit. Take a look to see how I handled it there, and let me know if you've an alternate idea. Jax MN (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Restart

Yes, I see that there are a lot of possible fates. I still like having fate = ... but, to keep the flexibility, I think that it should go in the "natural" place, last, which is just before the free & free label entries (and after everything non-free).Naraht (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. Let's flip this around, does anyone have a *problem* with Fate being added just before the free/free_labels. If no one comments by the end of February, I'll be Bold and add it. For complicated ones, we can either use Fate with the "Free"s or just leave as "Free"s.Naraht (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I wish I could think of a short word between "fate" and "outcome" in its emotional weight. Fate certainly works, but it's got that "drumbeat of doom" vibe. Jax MN (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And fate doesn't really seem the right emotion for the equal mergers of healthy-ish groups into a new name like

• Omicron Nu and Kappa Omicron Phi into Kappa Omicron Nu
• Phi Kappa and Theta Kappa Phi into Phi Kappa Theta

Outcome does seem more neutral, but I agree it doesn't quite fit either.Naraht (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Remove/Keep Mission and Vision?

Mean as custard has in the last 24 hours deleted either Mission or Vision or both from the infobox template of three Fraternities (Alpha Zeta (professional)‎, Sigma Xi, and Alpha Kappa Psi). IMO, there are really two choices,

1. Revert the changes and keep Mission and Vision in the templates
2. Remove Mission and Vision as parameters.

The *Essay* Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements is probably useful. It is an essay and as such not official, but it does represent a fairly well organized set of arguments. I'd like to keep the discussion here, but will mention it over at the Wikiproject, just in case someone there *doesn't* have the template in their watchlist. (I'm not intending to indicate that Mean as custard has done wrong, but merely that I'm fine with jumping to Discuss rather than throwing in the Revert step. :) ) Naraht (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Mission and vision statements are only valid if they are sufficiently unusual and encapsulate the organisation's function and aims in a way that cannot be better explained in any other form, or if they have been the subject of considerable third-party comment and so become notable in themselves. Virtually all of the time they are merely puffery and removing them improves the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support removing these parameters. It may sometimes be appropriate in the prose of an article but this information has no place in an infobox, a table that is intended to present readers with a concise, high-level overview of the subject of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I sympathize somewhat. Dumb, wordy or ponderous mission or vision statements don't add much value for me, here nor in corporate management. Yet to label them such, these are all subjective opinions, except that one might quantify a number of words beyond which a statement ought to be considered 'wordy'. Sometimes groups appear to get excitable about formation steps, and go overboard, manufacturing a Mission, Vision statement, Pillars, Motto, yada-yada just because others have them. Perhaps it is easier to do this versus the hard work of recruitment and team-building.

Clearly, some mission and vision statements ARE instructive, pithy, and of significant importance to defining the nature of a group. Where then do we draw the line? Just having these parameters available will prompt many groups to fill them, sometimes extending an infobox for fifteen or twenty lines of text. To deny some is to allow a subjective judgement.

Maybe we set a Project standard to allow one such statement: Pick it, whether motto, pillars, mission statement or vision statement. Interested readers can always follow the link trail back to the GLO's own website, to read the detail. Jax MN (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Motto (and pillars) seems to fall into a different category to me from Mission/Vision Statements, whether or not they should. A 150 year old fraternity/sorority likely will have created a motto *at* the time of founding or soon after and changing that motto might require votes of multiple conventions due to a meaning explained in the ritual. A Mission Statement is likely to be something created by an employee of the National Office and simply need approval by the National Board.Naraht (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a great discussion. I agree motto/pillars are different and do belong in the infobox, while mission statement should go. For one thing, the motto is usually short and can reasonably fit into an infobox slot, while a mission statement can take up an inch or more of vertical space. Some mission statements are several sentences or a short paragraph. They are just too long for the infobox. Another difference: mottos are often found in a secondary source such as Baird's, while mission statements almost exclusively come from the group's website or other publication. When included in the article, the mission statement rarely had a sourcee. We could remove them on that basis, without even getting into their generic/puffery nature. Rublamb (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If the Mission/Vision Statements are the topic of news, then they belong in prose.Naraht (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, on including these when they are a topic of news. I also agree with ElKevbo on the matter of making infoboxes tight and summarial. This leads back to it being a subjective matter, resistive of making a hard-and-fast policy. Some years ago I had an exchange with MeanAsCustard, where I pushed back on what I thought was too-aggressive removal of text from GLO articles. I don't want to wholesale delete *all* these mission and vision statements (etc.), but I am sympathetic to the removal of unnecessary, non-encyclopedic text. This is a useful discussion, as we mull this over. Jax MN (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Jax MN I would have no problem with doing this in a manner that would allow you to see all of the deleted fields and determining which ones would make sense to add as prose. Naraht (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Rublamb I understand a rule saying that Mission/Vision statements have to come from third party sources, but frankly that would almost always be equivalent to "if a third party has a reason to repeat it, it probably belongs in the text with the reason that they did so"

Restatement

This is *only* a proposal to remove the vision and mission fields. *No* change to motto or pillar fields.Naraht (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)