Template talk:Infobox fraternity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Couple of comments

A couple of comments:

• {{{crest}}} should be {{{coatofarms}}}. Crest is popular, but incorrect usage, and coat of arms is well-understood.
• Wikipedia is not a phonebook; I think providing the location of the headquarters without a street address is more than sufficient.

As this infobox is only used in a handful of articles at the moment, it shouldn't be too difficult to propagate the changes. - choster 21:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Potential Changes.

Some Fraternities do actually refer to it as their crest. But I think Coat of Arms is more standard. Let's wait a while on this one...

For the Infoboxes on Fraternities, I think our guide should be Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, which I believe does include Phone numbers. And on the "what wikipedia is not" page, the wikipedia is not a phonebook does *not* mean that wikipedia should not include phone numbers, it refers to the fact that people listed should at least be somewhat famous.

Naraht 01:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops, you are right on the WIN page-- but I can revise my statement to point out that Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries... If the headquarters building or building plot is notable enough to merit a section or an article, it is one thing. Most of the time, it is not. That is the principle behind the practice for corporations and various other organizations.-choster 15:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Birth Date and Age

Could someone (ccson?) point me to a fraternity which is using this, I can't seem to get this to work on the Alpha Phi Omega page.Naraht 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fraternity template using the birth date and age template? That template is meant for people. Rasamassen 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and baking soda was made for baking, but people use it for lots of other things. Think outside the box.--Ccson 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maxim vs motto

What is the difference between the fields Maxim and Motto? I think they're the same. Can some provide an example of a frat/soror that has both a maxim and a motto?--Ccson 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Theta Chi has both Maxim and Motto. I added the Maxim to the infobox for just this reason. Linguisticly, the words maxim and motto are probably pretty close to synonymous. I guess this was Theta Chi's way of getting another bite at the apple. Two mottos for the price of one, as long as you call one a maxim. Either way, the fraternity holds them both in equal footing, so to remove maxim would cause a problem. Andyparkerson 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK--Ccson 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Results of Mediation

The solution that was proposed and not challenged was the following

The Infobox shall contain both a Type Field and a Emphasis Field.

Type Field Definition: For groups represented in the most recent version of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (as of this writing 1993), the Type represents the section of the Manual where the group is listed, with the following clarifications. 1) Groups in the Social Fraternities section and Social Sorority section shall both be listed as Social. 2) Subsections of sections in Baird's such as the Service and Osteopathy subsections of Recognition groups may be used. For groups not listed, the guidelines contained in Baird's (as of the 1993 version on page I-9) and existance of similar groups shall be used to determine Type.

Emphasis Field Definition: This field, for Professional Fraternity and Honor Societies shall represent the specific field of study, if it exists, which the group limits its members to. For other types of groups, this field shall be optional and open in meaning.

Unless someone else does it first, I'll add Emphasis with definitions in the nowiki explanation section in a day or so.Naraht 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Vision and Mission

I think these two parts are not appropriate for the infobox. Visions and mission statements are usually very wordy, and more often than not are lengthy bulleted lists. This would expand the size of the infobox to a size that, I believe, distracts from the article and defeats the purpose of having a tidy infobox in the first place. What say y'all? —ScouterSig 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with dropping that for the above-stated reasons. Justinm1978 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change chapter count

I'd like to find a way to change the chapter count field, as the numbers given in a lot of templates can be misleading. I say misleading, considering how many inactive chapters of all the various orgs out there, and that undergrad, graduate, alumni and community chapters are lumped together. This leads to articles that say "we have 700, 800, 900+ chapters", which isn't entirely true considering how many of those may no longer be active, are alumni associations, or are not open to college students. What I'd like to do is break the chapters down like this instead:

• Collegiate- chapters that are chartered to college campuses (possibly including graduate chapters, since I don't know how many orgs separate undergrads and grads into two separate chapters, with a parenthesis afterward that shows out of how many charters (See Alpha Phi Omega for example).
• Alumni - chapters that are for alumni, including alumni associations
• Other - for chapters that meet neither of the above

Thoughts on this? Justinm1978 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Some organizations don't make their statistics (as far as chapters) available to the public. miranda 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a great idea. In my book, more info is better than less info. However, it may be hard for editors to find such detailed information in many cases. So, I would suggest having some way to take the easy way out and present only a single number, appropriately labeled. I agree that the numbers cited in the various articles are often misleading, and many orgs try to quote the number of charter's they've ever granted simply because it's the largest number. I don't think that it's a bad number to quote, but the difference between total charters granted and number of active collegiate chapters should be clear -- especially on infoboxes where people are likely to glance to find comparative statistics.

In short, go for it. I think it's the right idea. — gogobera (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and changed it to be activechapters of chapters chartered, and just eliminate my suggestion for breaking it down (even though I still think that would be the best thing to do) Probably not the best wording, so if someone wants to change it to something different, that's cool too. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem with simply changing it is that current uses of the template only specify a "chapters" variable. Meaning that whatever people have assigned to the variable to make it work, will now screw it up (see Delta Sigma Pi). For example, if a fraternity were to assign "chapters = 271 chartered, 206 active" with your change it would now display "{{{activechapters}}} active of 271 chartered, 206 active chartered" instead of just "271 chartered, 206 active chartered." I have reverted back. Come up with a better solution. Andrew (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, as a radical though, I just fixed the Delta Sigma Pi page to fit the template. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As a followup, is there a way to make this part of the template optional so groups that messes up don't see it? Justinm1978 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good follow up question! Actually, if you look at the list of pages that already use the template (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Fraternity), you can see the large number of pages that you are screwing up by changing it. Four out of the first five that I looked at would be screwed up. If you want to test stuff, use the sandbox. Unless you are willing to change all of the pages that use the template, do not change it back again. As the "being bold" policy states, you should also be careful (and extra careful when editing Non-article namespaces. I encourage you to contribute as much as possible, but when given advice, please do not ignore it. Andrew (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

Just a small note since I don't think many people watch it but I've gone ahead and updated the documentation (something similar to {{Infobox University}}) for the infobox. Please feel free to make revisions or changes as needed. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Members

Is "lifetime" members refering to "members since the fraternity's inception" or "lifetime members" who have paid for a lifetime membership? —ScouterSig 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's referring to those who have a paid for a lifetime membership, and I think its unnecessary in wikipedia.--Ccson 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to second that. It seems that things should be separated to active (undergraduate?) members and total (active+graduated) members. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"currently" should be changed to "collegiate". Members are members for life, so as long as they're still living then they would fall under "currently"; however, most articles are actually listing the number of active collegiate members, so I'm going to change the template. BlueGold73 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Iota Phi Theta city?

I was looking at the Iota Phi Theta wikipedia page and for some reason the city doesn't come out correctly in the use of the Infobox, can someone look at it and figure out why it doesn't work. It looks it was done correctly.Naraht (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 01:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Any idea what was done wrong?Naraht (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of the technical specifics but I've seen this happen before when the "|" follows after an entry instead of before. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on changing the format of this template

Hi, I’m relatively new to this project, but from an unbiased perspective it seems like other infoboxes (e.g. the Pi Kappa Alpha infobox) are much more aesthetically appealing than this template. Is there any way to make the current template look more like this. Note: the Pi Kappa Phi page used to have an infobox similar to Pi Kappa Alpha’s, but it was changed to meet project goal #4 of the Fraternities and Sororities Wikiproject. Please discuss your thoughts. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I also am new. I am visiting the template:infobox Fraternity and its talk:infobox Fraternity page to see if there was a way to make pages that use this template look as attractive and professional as those that do not. I agree that Pi Kappa Alpha looks good, as do Beta Theta Pi, Kappa Alpha, Kappa Sigma, and Phi Delta Theta, of those pages that I have looked at.

Features on those pages that make the boxes look better and more professional to my eye are the colored background on the top cell, the better font, the wider borders, the colored borders on some of them, the label "Coat of Arms" under the coat of arms graphic, the inclusion of the badge graphic and flower graphic on some of them, the motto at the top, the website link centered at the bottom, and the lack of parentheses around the Greek letters. The use of the word "fraternity" or "order" after the fraternity name is both more correct and more informative. Having the nickname at the top of the page is useful. These pages all use the same general pattern, and I think it is a good one.

Led by truth (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is designed to bring a standardization to all articles, and as such, pages in the scope of the project shouldn't have custom ones. The infoboxen you have cited do not look attractive and professional to me, nor do they look encyclopedic. I see those infoboxen as not only visually overpowering the article, but also cluttered and unorganized with graphics in seemingly random places, bullet lists, take up a lot of space. In addition, not using a standard template makes it hard to update/modify information across all GLO articles. Also, by using a custom template, the amount of data needed to display the information is enormous, hence why template are in use. These pages cited above will be brought "into the fold" eventually, and probably sooner once I have a few free moments to go through them all.

Not all GLO's have a badge that they make public. It is a waste of bandwidth to include a picture of the flower when a link to the flower would suffice. Colored borders are hard to control and are also a waste of bandwidth. The infobox is supposed to be a quick snapshot of the pertinent information about the article. Justinm1978 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they look unattractive or unprofessional at all. I remember when all the fraternity and sorority articles had custom templates which allowed modification for each individual organization's unique attributes (e.g. The head of a fraternity may have different titles). Then all of a sudden a so called standardized infobox popped up and taking over but since early 2005 I never recalled any discussion reaching consensus of a standardized infobox. There were discussions, but there was no consensus. If done properly I don't think images in infoboxes are nothing but clutter. The pictures on the Phi Delta Theta infobox would look very cluttered on the main article if pictures are spread throughout since there many pictures are there already. I for one, am opposed to any changes to the Phi Delta Theta article considering it became a "Good Article" with the present infobox used. There are a lot more problems to the Greek pages than the infobox: the bias, no-verification, original research and the rampant vandalism of the extreme immaturity (stupidity) of people coming on to Wikipedia to give away fraternity secrets and any homosexual themed slur directed to any fraternity. Then there are many other fraternity articles in which the majority of the "information" are famous members. People seem to care more about who's part of their organization than the organization itself. It is for these reasons, I've pretty much stay away from Greek articles now. I would rather have a customized infobox accompanying a fuller and richer article than a standardized infobox in which the article is nothing but a skeleton. Anyway, I'm not going to come back here and discuss or argue. These are my 2 cents. Whether the infobox changes or not, the point is to always seek consensus before taking a unilateral decision. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lifetime Members

If you take a look at Sigma Nu, you can see that the infobox is showing the placeholder for the lifetime members, even though the author didn't include that in the infobox. I made a couple attempts to fix it, but as I'm not familiar with template design, it didn't work out. Can someone more familiar w/ templates fix it? Thanks!Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now lifetime is a required parameter. I'm not sure why there's a difference between members (collegiate) and lifetime since they are not static numbers. Personally I think lifetime needs to be required and collegiate needs to be optional.. I'd like to see others pitch in on the lifetime/collegiate numbers before changing the infobox. --ImGz (t/c) 23:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to apologize if this seems forward, but given the lack of further feedback, and an anticipation that a proper edit to the template would have far-reaching positive effect, I'd request an editor to be bold and try to fix this. Again, I sincerely apologize if this sounds like I'm telling someone what to do, as it is really honestly my intent just to see positive impact here. I'll keep an eye here for further updates. Thanks! Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

converting

This template should be converted to the standard {{infobox}} format. I'll get around to it as I can, if no one else does. --Ludwigs2 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Zip Code?

Does anyone see any reason not to include a zip code to enable the entire address to be included?Naraht (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see no harm in doing this. NYCRuss ☎ 15:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change regarding Title IX

I propose that "Legal Status" be added before "Type." There are many Historically Black Fraternities and Sororities (first example that came to mind but there are others) that may be legally classified as "social" under Title IX, but have historical civil rights, human rights and community service mandates. Much like arguments about HBCU's, the current infobox and the related discussion does not account for this fact. I can give examples if you wish.-Robotam 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

* disagree - Most, if not all, GLO's do more than their legal classification, but that doesn't change their primary classification and membership in various councils (NPC, NPHC, IFC, etc.). This is a pointless addition, and only serves to clutter up the box with information that can easily be gleaned from the article. Justinm1978

Do I understand correctly that your argument is that most GLO's do more than their legal classification, but that it is pointless to show what that defined "more" is? Looking at your various arguments, it seem your position all along has been founded on LEGAL classification, which the current infobox does not cover with just "type." Also, looking at the current setup, with philanthropy & charter city included, I find the "clutter" rationale less than persuasive as well.-Robotam 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't having "philanthropy" and a focus, which becomes "service" for many redundant? This template change isn't anywhere close to universally applicable and is highly disruptive across the board. It seems that the objection of calling APA a "social" fraternity is coming from two members of APA, and this template modification is just trying to skirt around being called a social. If your objection is to being called "social" then change type to general. If your objection is to not being called "service", then petition your national fraternity to change and become co-ed.

I'm undoing this change until a better discussion can take place here, because there is too much POV on both sides. Justinm1978 14:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Assuming good faith, I still believe you know every category does not have to be used, and having both does not take away from the uniformity of the box. Those are some interesting and personal accusations you have levied against me, but that's OK.-Robotam 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No personal accusations or bad faith. Assuming good faith, you know that there should be more discussion on something like this, especially when someone has clearly voiced an objection to this and discussions on the talk page that sparked this change do not, IMO, add support to your change. I'm reverting again, and requesting protection. Justinm1978 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because me sniping at your change isn't really constructive, how about this instead:

Drop "type" altogether for now. Do not put up Title IX Status, focus or anything else. Let's come back here and discuss this a bit more rationally, or at least come up with something that is more collaborative than rushing to the extremes on both sides. I'm not opposed to putting some type of categorization and focus in the box, but the combination of Title IX Status and focus just doesn't fit very well without additional research on the part of the reader, which isn't helpful. Justinm1978 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I don't think any of this should ever become personal. People are usually closer than their asserted positions allow. For the record, I believe that "Type" should be changed to something clearly showing "Title IX" or "Legal Status," and "philanthropy" should be changed to something like "focus."-Robotam 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All Title IX did was use a well established category out of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. That category was "social". Baird's splits all of the groups it covers as well as those similar in type such as Farmhouse into four categories: Social (also known as general), Professional, Honorary and Recognition. Service is a subset of Recognition. Those are quite appropriate to use as type, with the Service Fraternities and sororities possibly using "Recognition (Service)" rather than Service if we are truly following Baird's.

Philanthropy is a completely different thing. For example, a large number of the NPC sororities for example have a specific National Philanthropy such as March of Dimes that projects to raise money are done a couple of times a year as part of what the National sorority expects. This does not make them service sororities.Naraht 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Justinm1978, i think you're being disingenious in your accusation "It seems that the objection of calling APA a "social" fraternity is coming from two members of APA." You omitted the fact, It seems that the two main editors calling for APA to not be listed as a "service" fraternity is coming from two members of APO. Plus, I am surprised that you objected/reverted Robotam's effort to link type to title ix, since that's the basis for why you and the other APO member asserted APA is not a service org. If there's still more discussion, why have you changed the APA type to social? Please explain again why APA is not listed as a service fraternity in its article. Perhaps we should Naraht's contribution and let "type" refer to the Baird's classification since it's a reputable and verifiable source, and has been around for almost as long as fraternities. --Ccson 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, however, the poll taken on the talk page for APA disagrees with you in that only two of the 5 people participating were in APO, and of those 5, 4 agreed that it is to be classified as social. I made the change because the discussion was left for two weeks with the only objector being yourself. Two weeks is more than enough time, considering most AfD's are only given a week. If you really think the discussion needs more time then please continue to contribute to the discussion there and we can bring it back to a close in another couple of weeks, but I doubt consensus will change on the matter. Title IX is the basis for my objection, yes, but unless you've been involved in these discussions, listing "title IX classification" along with "type/focus" makes no sense to the average reader, which is whom the article is directed toward.

I'm ok with Baird's Classification being the accepted "type", as that's probably the most reputable, neutral/independent source out there on the matter, and really brings to a close any argument related to self-published material. Justinm1978 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussions that have occurred, not the one comment on Agree or Disagree by the other non-APO members. I thought the consensus was based on your interpretaion of Title IX and that APA was not coed. Are you saying that you changed APA based on a vote of personal opinions, not because of Title IX? I don't care what you call the field, but if you expect APA to remain classifired as social, then you need to add this comment to the infobox that you entered on the NPHC talk page The type listed must be in-line with the legal definition of the organization as defined by Title IX, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. If the consensus was reached beacase of Title IX, there's no reason not to change the this template so that the disucssion will not occur again. If you're not satisfied that the consensus is based on a reputable and verifable source enough to simply add a comment to the current field, then change APA back and wait until a definite decision has been made, otherewise the consensus was based on original research. One last time, if you have a consensus on how to source the "type" field, pls place that consensus as a comment so others will know.--Ccson 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you are asking/commenting/inferring here, so if I'm not addressing the right thing, let me know and I'll take another stab at it.... I changed the article based on the consensus that was reached with all the facts presented, including the Title IX concerns and the content of the article. I never said it was based on personal opinion at any point, I would think that is pretty clear by the comments made by the contributors to that discussion. I don't see how using the words of the article along with the information regarding Title IX is "original research", but apparently that's subjective to the individual. News to me, but whatever. I expect APA (and all other greek-lettered organizations for that matter) to be classified as what reports itself to Baird's to be since the Title IX argument isn't enough for you, and Baird's is about as clear as you can get. It appears that a few of us are starting to be in agreement that Baird's is a reputable source on the matter, and I suspect that Robotam will probably be in agreement as well. I'm confused why you are taking such issue with me agreeing with you on Baird's being the source for "type" being that is a pretty cut-and-dry classification and leaves a lot less room for interpretation and misunderstanding about why Title IX (which most people see as a sports thing) is being applied to the greek system. I think it's an opportunity for education about it, because up until a few years ago, I had no idea that Title IX impacted greeks, and that is probably something that needs to be addressed in better detail in other articles as not to replicate data. Justinm1978 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RESET, I'm saying that you're not simply changing the APA article, you're changing APA's use of a wikipedia template that's being used in many articles. I thought your consensus was on how "type" was defined in the template and that the editors were agreeing to your proposed definition. You can all agree that that APA is a social frat, but if you're not ready to change the template being used, then you can't in good faith simply target APA use of type in the template if you haven't defined type in the template.

Let move's this discussion to the fraternity infobox talk page, and it shouldn't be about APA, it should be on "How to define "TYPE".--Ccson 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if I understand correctly, you're saying that I'm wrong in changing APA's use of this template to be in-line with everyone else's use of the template? The consensus was on how APA is classified in it's "type" entry in the template based on the contents of the article and Title IX. Now, if we change what that "type" means across the board to be Baird's, then of course that will have to cascade down to the rest of the articles. However, it appears that most GLO articles are already directly matching Baird's classification anyway, so this is more of a formality and codifying what is already in practice on dozens of articles.

APA is being "targeted" in the sense that when changes were made, it was the only article where the change was seriously contested, hence this month-long series of back and forth comments. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I've been making the change across the board and citing my reason, so APA is hardly being singled out. But I digress....if you want it to be Baird's, I'm letting you know that I'm OK with that because that's an independent, recognized, and third-party source that we can all agree on, and sets the standard across the board for all US-based GLO articles. Justinm1978 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my view that it is inappropriate to use Title IX as the definitive classifier for Wikipedia. It is a United States law, and the scope of Wikipedia is not restricted to a single nation. Also, using a law, rather than normally accepted classification practices, seems like a very imprecise and problematic way to implement taxonomy. I believe that a better way to figure out how to determine the type of organization is look at which fraternal trade associations that they belong. If a group is in the NIC, it is social. If it is in the PFA, it is professional. If it is in both, we'll have to figure that out. I'm going to post an RfC on the Sigma Phi Delta, and I hope that all will participate. NYCRuss ☎ 20:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

State/country and general accessability

Either of "state" and "country" should be optional because when you apply this template to fraternities outside the US, the adress format will of course change. That said, I think also the documentation should become a bit more general in terms of explaining the parameters as this template can be useful for any type of fraternity, not just for the standard US college version. Also the general editor using this template should not be required to be an expert with access to Baird's manual. De728631 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on change to description of the letters field.

I'd like to change the description on the letters field from "The letters of the fraternity or sorority if applicable. Use Greek letters when possible. (Example, ΑΒΓ)" to "The letters of the fraternity or sorority if applicable. Use Greek letters when possible and commonly used. (Example, ΑΒΓ)". Basically, I'd like to formally have a "Fiji exception". This is *not* because the Phi Gamma Delta brothers object to the use of Phi Gamma Delta in this case, it is because, IMO, someone is more likely to see Fiji as a descriptor of the group than the greek letters. On Wikipedia, IMO we should use the more common term in this case. Naraht (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(You can say this is *not* because Phi Gamma Delta brothers object, but it's a tough statement to swallow.) Per the FAQ on that talk page, they are used on member badges, on the seal, on the flag, on houses, on memorials to deceased members, on a certificates of membership, and on a college rings. If you want to make an argument for including FIJI along with the letters, fine. Removing the letters just shouldn't happen IMO. --Onorem♠Dil 18:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

From the Phi Gamma Delta talk page: "The decision to include the Greek letters in articles about fraternities was made at WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. They have decided that the Greek letters add encyclopaedically useful information to articles about fraternities and sororities." I agree that Greek letters add useful information to articles about fraternities and sororities that use them commonly. FIJI does not, and it is more likely that a non-member would encounter "FIJI" or "Phi Gamma Delta" than the Greek letters. Furthermore, since FIJI uses "FIJI" in the same ways that most other fraternities use their Greek letters, and they use their Greek letters in a strict manner that other fraternities do not, I personally feel as someone who is not connected to Phi Gamma Delta that it is misleading and unencyclopedic to use the Greek letters on their infobox. I do not feel as though this is an issue of censorship. It's an issue of properly reflecting the subject matter at hand.Sycamore (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Onorem, or to express it in another way. The argument is not

• A)"Because the Phi Gamma Delta Brothers object to the use of the greek letters outside the 7 places, we should use 'Fiji'in that location",
  it is rather

• B) "Because the Phi Gamma Delta Brothers object to the use of the greek letters outside the 7 places, 'Fiji' is more commonly used where the general public would see it than 'ΦΓΔ'" and

• C) "Because 'Fiji' is more commonly used where the general public would see it than 'ΦΓΔ', we should use 'Fiji' in that location.

I agree that A as expressed is not a valid reason, however B we have no control over and C appears to be a valid reason and yes, B & C together equals A.Naraht (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for statement C? The Greek letters are a direct reflection of the name of the organization. The name of the fraternity is Phi Gamma Delta. We have already allowed the Greek letters to be hidden by users, similar to other supposedly objectionable or disrespectful content. Furthermore, the article explains the use of FIJI, and that the fraternity does not use ΦΓΔ outside of specific circumstances. I do not think Wikipedia should be compelled censor pertinent information in deference to a superstition.Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I was the one who added the code to allow registered users to hide it. Yes, the name is Phi Gamma Delta, not ΦΓΔ. And I've worked enough Fraternity Copyright law to know that legally they are different...Naraht (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about their legal differences. Are you saying there is a legal reason for this change? My point is that the Greek letters are directly connected to the name of the fraternity. Wikipedia is not a field-guide to fraternities, so what is most recognizable should not be the deciding factor for inclusion. The letters are not obscure trivia, they are significant to the identity of the fraternity. If you want to include FIJI as well, I think that's a good idea, but the Greek letters belong. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No legal reason. The infobox does sort of exist as a mini-field guide in some ways...Naraht (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources that show that FIJI is more commonly (read: always) used where the general public would see it than 'PGD': Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4,Source 5, (more coming). The greek letters are literally never used by the informed general public when referring to the fraternity. Source 6 - ask a college student. By encyclopedic principle, shouldn't we use the universally accepted version, not even including brothers' opinions? 12:56PM, 29 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.124.247 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded by any of the new arguments. The letters are the letters. The brothers have rules about where they can display them, but Wikipedia is not a brother. Again, if you want to make an argument for also showing FIJI in the infobox, feel free. I can't think of any reason off the top of my head to oppose that. --Onorem♠Dil 03:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the letters are letters, they are encyclopedically relevant, and should not be censored. However, the members are correct that in many of the places where other fraternities would use their Greek letters, Phi Gamma Delta instead uses FIJI, so those letters are also encyclopediacally relevant. I see no problem with listing both sets of letters in the infobox side-by-side. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The letters themselves are not encyclopedically relevant. One could list each fraternity's letters in the Latin alphabet, and then some sort of equivalent in Hebrew and Cyrillic, and they would mean as much as a list of greek symbols. The letters are a representation of the organization. The fact they are greek does not mean anything. If Phi Gamma Delta is represented by "FIJI", then this article should reflect that representation. Also, all I'm seeing are arguments to not use FIJI, but none that put the greek letters above FIJI in value. Why have we placed the letters on the pages for every fraternity, if not to document the letters that these fraternities go by? The reason cannot be to simply translate initials into greek alphabet, because that by itself would be a little value. What importance do the greek letters for this fraternity hold for the article that is more encyclopedically valuable than FIJI? All I can think of is convenience for sorting algorithms for tables of Fraternities. I shall procede to change the letters to FIJI. Just as you have asked of others, you must provide a reason that changing it to the greek alphabet is more encyclopedically valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.4 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Alternate idea: add a "common name" field under the "letters" field. That way, both are there, and you can avoid censorship and use the encyclopedically valuable info of the common name.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, this is my first time working with a Wikipedia discussion, but please bear with me. I myself am a Fiji and would like the Greek letters replaced for all of the reasons noted by Naraht. I accept that I am naturally biased, but would like to have a logically-based discussion about the topic. It isn't really censorship, it is kind of disrespectful to the fraternity as a whole to keep the letters there. I can assure you we go way out of our way to only place letters on allowable places. Our shirts say "FIJI", ankle tattoos read "FIJI", and honestly a non-member would have to go out of their way to see the Greek letters. Perhaps the portion where the letters are posted can say, "FIJI (See section 3.1 for why Greek letters are not included.) ...or something along those lines. Thoughts? BDWabashFiji (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We understand that members find it disrespectful, but disrespect simply isn't a factor that Wikipedia takes into consideration when deciding what to include; all the encyclopedia cares about is that information is verifiably accurate, written in a neutral voice, and doesn't violate Florida law. Allowing the subjects of the articles to say what is and isn't included, even for reasons of respect, is considered too much of a slippery slope. If you want to include "respectful" as a criteria for inclusion, you'll have to start an encyclopedia-wide discussion, not just a discussion on one template. Fiji is not the only group being targeted by this policy; take a look at the discussions about Muhammad, where many Muslims find the inclusion of images of their profit to be disrespectful yet they are kept anyway. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with the project on this issue. Many of your brothers instead resort to vandalism. I understand your point of view, but your fraternity's rules on display of your letters do not apply to anyone who isn't a member. If you think that's controversial, take a look at Muhammad and the hubbub about displaying picture of the prophet (PBUH). Greek letters have nothing on that debate.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible we "own" the letters in a way? And even if we don't, while I understand the slippery slope argument, the "slippery slope" is, after all, a fallacy is it not? I just don't see the value of putting the Greek letters up. In fact, if anything, "Fiji" will cause intrigue as to why "Fiji" is up instead of the letters, and then people will be enlightened when they find out why. BDWabashFiji (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You do not own letters from a 2,800 year-old alphabet. I, and many others, DO see a value to including the Greek letters, and causing intrigue isn't really the point. The fraternity is named Phi Gamma Delta, not Eff I Jay I. Asking others to obey your traditions is onerous and unrealistic. In addition to the Muhammad issue, an even more direct parallel is the Tetragrammaton. Are you suggesting we take those down, too? If so, then the slippery slope isn't so fallacious, and if not, then perhaps you should question your motives here. Grayfell (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note that, even if the fraternity "owns" the letter in the form of a trademark (which I believe they do), it is not an infringement of that trademark to display them in a non-commercial, descriptive manner, in the way that the Apple logo is displayed in its article. If the fraternity has rules about where the letters can be displayed, that means that the Greek letters are a representation of the fraternity and thus it is reasonable to have them on the Wikipedia article to reflect this. Furthermore, the restrictions on display only apply to members of the fraternity, which Wikipedia is not. ... discospinster _talk 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Phi Gamma Delta unlike every other Fraternity I've seen (including my own) does *not* have the greek letters trademarked. It has 'Phi Gamma Delta' trademarked, but not the three greek letters together (and for Trademark purposes those are certainly different. It also has the membership badge (the diamond with the star, the three greek letters and additional lower case alpha omega mu eta) trademarked. As far as I can tell, the prohibition on putting the three greek letters together outside the 7 locations includes being unwilling to put them on a trademark application. And I'd split hairs a *little* on the second sentence, my fraternity has rules on where the ritual materials may be kept and used and yet the entire ritual wouldn't belong on Wikipedia even if it were found in a suitable reference (whether it belongs on wikicommons would be a separate question). Entirely agree on the last sentence.Naraht (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unwelcome details

Some of the fields in this template should be removed as they provide unnecessary information for an encyclopedia article. In particular, the address and factoid fields should be removed. The address field is unnecessary and unwelcome as this is an encyclopedia and not a directory. The factoid field should be removed because it is (a) not something that belongs in an infobox and (b) ripe for misuse in allowing and encouraging editors to include trivial information. ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Concur.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Having heard no objection, I will delete these parameters. ElKevbo (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Colors" vs "color"

Phi Gamma Delta only has one official color, and I bet there are others. Could we get an alternate field that uses 'color' singular? Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Infobox organization?

Is this separate inbox really motivated anymore? Couldn't it, and shouldn't it - with a few merging adjustments - easily and suitably be amalgated with the Template:Infobox organization? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms vs. Crest

I'd like to see one of the following two things happen

1. Change the entry for Crest to Coat of Arms for both the parameter name and the output
2. Add Coat of Arms as an alternate for Crest.

I'd prefer #1, but I'd like to have a discussion.Naraht (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of #1 as Lambda Chi Alpha has, at least officially, begun using the term 'crest' in the heraldic sense, i.e. in reference to the crucicrescent set atop the helm. They had already long deprecated the use of 'crest' as a synonym for 'coat of arms'. -- choster (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Done

I went ahead and made the change, crest is an alternate.Naraht (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove Mission?

Should Mission be removed given the WP:MISSION essay?Naraht (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Might be worth it. I do note that MISSION doesn't explicitly mention these statements in infoboxes. Mottos should be kept, though. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree that Motto should be kept. Missions tend to be long enough that I'm not sure they really belong in infoboxes anyway. But I'd like more discussion, if possible (though I'm not sure how many other people ready follow this page. :(Naraht (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move to Template:Infobox Greek organization

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox fraternity → Template:Infobox Greek organization – Per MOS:GNL, let's please ditch the mascunormativity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the requested move as it is confusing in a project with an international audience. I strongly recommend a move to Infobox fraternity or sorority or something similar. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Template currently has a redirect at Template:Infobox Sorority, so either may be used. We've had a few people deliberately changing the template from fraternity to sorority on pages for a sorority, but that doesn't change anything so, no reason to change it back. The proposed name sounds like it should be used on Democratic Army of Greece. I have no problems with additional redirects (Template:Honor Society, but no other terms really make sense (whoever came up with Frarority should be shot).Naraht (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, guessing there are plenty of other kinds of Greek organizations. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this unnecessary and confusing move. Naraht makes a good point about redirects. Thanks for the tip. Jax MN (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Of course the women's fraternities like Alpha Chi Omega and Alpha Gamma Delta make Infobox fraternity not mascunormative in the first place. :)Naraht (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Greek is a far more ambiguous description, and as Naraht notes, fraternity is used by historically male, female, and mixed-sex organizations alike.-- choster (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have no objection to {{Infobox fraternity or sorority}}.-- choster (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• The point about potential confusion with organizations from Greece didn't occur to me, and it's valid. I do not think the same of the point that {{Infobox sorority}} exists as a redirect—if {{Infobox person}} were located at {{Infobox man}}, I don't think we'd accept a redirect from {{Infobox woman}} as an excuse—so I would prefer ElKevbo's suggestion of {{Infobox fraternity or sorority}}, but if it continues snowing I'm fine with this being withdrawn. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to {{Infobox fraternity or sorority}} – with the existing redirects, this is by far the best solution to this problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up discussion

If this is re-RMed later, consider me in support of {{Infobox fraternity or sorority}}. "Greek" was obviously too ambiguous, but just having the sorority version redirect to the fraternity version as if "male is naturally the default" is probably contra-indicated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirects.

We had as redirects:

• Infobox Fraternity (capitalized)
• Infobox Sorority (capitalized)

I've added

• Infobox sorority (uncapped like the actual template)

Only other redirect that I can think of off the top of my head are

• Infobox Honor Society (pick your capitalization)
• Infobox Greek Letter Organization (definitely pick your capitalization)

and maybe

• Infobox Honorary

, but I'm leaning against that.Naraht (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Iff this template is also used for hono[u]r[s] societies, then we should have redirects from Template:Infobox honor society, Template:Infobox honour society, Template:Infobox honors society, and Template:Infobox honours society, since the terminology varies by educational system. The documentation should be clear that this template is for such societies as well, even if they are not "Greek". Since the phrase "Greek letter organization" is sourceable as being in actual semi-common usage, we should also have Template:Infobox Greek letter organization and Template:Infobox Greek letter organisation. (The -our and -isation spellings are not 100% universal in Canadian English, but are dominant and actually growing in prevalence in that dialect after standardisation efforts over the last two generations or so.) "Hono[u]rary" is too ambiguous to be of any use; it's the kind of confusing redirect that WP:RFD is likely to delete, especially if it is not yet seeing much of any deployment.

However, we really don't need a profusion of redirects, especially over-capitalized ones. "Redirects are cheap" when it comes to mainspace; it's important that readers be able to find what they are looking for in the encyclopedia. Redirects outside mainspace are not cheap and are a maintenance hassle. We don't need template redirects except when we think they will genuinely be used, e.g. because they serve a shortcut function like {{cn}} does for {{citation needed}}, or for technical reasons like a {{R from move}} case, or when there's another good reason to have one, like MOS:ENGVAR "-our" vs. "-or" spelling differences. But "Infobox Greek Letter Organization" is not a phrase anyone ever has any reason to use when trying to get a template to show up.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

PAGENAME vs name= difference

I'm going through and finding cases where the value of name= and the PAGENAME (without any dab) are unequal. This is not a great comparison, I'm doing this with an insource search.

• Jefferson Literary and Debating Society , infobox name is The Jefferson Society.
• Phi Sigma Rho , infobox name is Phi Sigma Rho Sorority
• Eta Kappa Nu, infobox name is missing (which is fine), see updates in other section.
• Mortar Board, infobox name is Mortar Board, Inc.
• Omega Phi Chi, infobox name is Omega Phi Chi Multicultural Sorority
• Gamma Eta, infobox name is Gamma Eta Sorority, Inc.

And I've done this inefficiently long enough. Let's add the way that Category:Pages_using_infobox_television_episode_with_non-matching_title does it.Naraht (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've added them. Pages will show up in Category:Pages_using_infobox_fraternity_with_non-matching_name , but only once they have had an edit.

Making a null edit in all infobox fraternity (/sorority) using autowikibrowser. Looks like about 80 non-matching at this point.Naraht (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Final count after all the null edits was 99, will work on a some of the more clear.Naraht (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Formal name vs. common name

The instructions for the infobox "name" field explain that it requires the formal name but omitting the word "Fraternity" or "Sorority", etc.

Here, "Formal" may be tripping us up. Some editors include the word or abbreviation "Incorporated", which may be a bit pedantic and unnecessary. Virtually all these groups are corporations. Nor does inclusion of that word in a Wikipedia article lead to a group becoming more secure in terms of copyright of that name. It's always struck me as being unnecessary, as in the case of the Divine nine fraternities and sororities who all make a point of stressing their incorporation.

This came up in a recent edit discussion about Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, the music fraternity, where an editor had inserted a name that extended into two or three lines of Infobox space. The expanded name was "Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Fraternity of America". My sense is that everyone involved will recognize the fraternity from just the first four words, in fact the title of the Wikipedia article itself. I don't mind placing this longer, formal legal name in the lede or top of the body text, but I do not think adding "Fraternity of America" as the infobox title adds clarity. What say you? Jax MN (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To me, what should be in that entry should be equal to the name of the article minus any disambiguation terms. I believe that there are infobox setups that will fill it automatically based on that rule. Naraht (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we alter the document for that? Naraht (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a way to have the PAGENAME stripped of dab terms be the automatic value for the infobox, but I'm not sure. It would then change to something else only if the variable is set. Naraht (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the name on the Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia page while we discuss further. It appears yours is the compelling argument, Naraht, in that the infobox should match the actual article name. As to the mechanics of PAGENAME variables, I am not weighing in on that point. Jax MN (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the template already contains part of what we want. See Template:PAGENAMEBASE which we are already using for the name value if it doesn't exist. Basically PAGENAMEBASE gives the value of the PAGENAME with the last set of parentheses and what is in it deleted. So if there is no name field value, Alpha Tau Omega would return Alpha Tau Omega and Delta Phi Epsilon (social) would return Delta Phi Epsilon. So if the field parameter and value are deleted in an article's infobox, we more or less get what we want. :) 15:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm clearly in the minority here, so do what you will. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)