Talk:MIT class ring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK. Given that the article Massachusetts Institute of Technology is bursting at its seams with cruft already, we really don't need to be pumping more into it. Anville 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Recognizable Rings 2 Layout Change?? 3 Original Brass Rat 4 So, picture of the 2007 ring? 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Mit ring bezel 2007.jpg 6 Fair use rationale for Image:MIT ring 1930.jpg 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Brass Rat Advertisment 1933.jpg

[edit] Recognizable Rings

"It is said that the Brass Rat is the second most recognizable ring after the Superbowl ring."

That seems to come from MIT's Class of 1975 President, William Wang: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2000/1975-0607.html Nationalparks 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

and the way it is presented in the article here on wiki makes it look like it is commonly said . . . in fact, it was merely an opinion stated. I'm similarly disappointed that the VMI article suggests their rings are heavier than superbowl rings, with no citation. More ego strokes, that's all.--Vidkun 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it as uncited, then saw this, and reinserted it as a statement of the form "X said Y about Z." However, I doubt that the brass rat is really as recognizable as alums think. But did you see the comment in the article to the effect that "When people saw I wore the MIT ring, walls went down and curtains went up?" Eeeewwwwww...

We're told that MIT is top 5 for recognizable rings... and it seems to hold true based on the number of reactions i've gotten while wearing it. I would like to find the exact ranking though Psycadelc 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? I would be astonished if anyone has formally tested or ranked them. Where were you "told that MIT is in the top 5?" The article simply quotes someone's opinion that it is one of three "recognizable," not even necessarily "the most recognizable." I believe there are very few people in the general population who would recognize a Brass Rat, and, outside of the military, very few that would recognize as West Point ring. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was told at MIT by students and staff alike. Maybe it was a bastardization of "most easily recognizable" (due to size and shape of this hunk of metal)... i'll look into it some more because i'd like to provide accurate information on the subject Psycadelc 21:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• All i've googled so far on recognizable rings

"Members of the Class of 1975 relied not only on skills learned at MIT but also, literally, on the "brass rat." Observing that there are "three recognizable rings in the world&emdash;the Brass Rat, the West Point ring and the Super Bowl ring," Mr. Wang asked the group, "How many wear their MIT rings all the time?" Numerous hands went up." - http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2000/1975-0607.html Psycadelc 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The West Point ring does look big and impressive, and the ditty at the end is interesting:

"Oh my Gosh, Sir/Ma'am, what a beautiful ring.
What a crass mass of brass and glass.
What a bold mold of rolled gold.
What a cool jewel you got from your school.
See how it sparkles and shines.
It must have cost you a fortune
Please Sir/Ma'am May I touch it,
May I touch it Please Sir/Ma'am."

U. S. Naval Academy rings [1] look pretty much like any other class ring to me, but I've read numerous references to "ringknockers," Annapolis graduates who have the habit, unconscious or cultivated, of tapping their rings on the table which has the effect of calling attention to them. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Googling around for class rings, I'm struck with the observation that apparently every school makes a big deal of the utter uniqueness of its ring, the design of which is different every year etc. etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Class of 1990's ring had the Citgo sign, and in fact was the very first ring to have the skylines on it. --David Plass 6-3, 1990.

[edit] Layout Change??

I think the table should be 2 rows per year, with the descriptions under the section of the Rat. As of now, there really isn't enough room in the table to describe all the features and the top picture only leaves out 2/3 of the ring. Let me know if you agree/disagree and I'll change the table and update the 2006 entry in a few days. Psycadelc 17:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone decided to roll back my updated template? The template change was intended to increase the amount of information readily available.. I'll make a sample entry for 2006 sometime tonight and put it in discussion so you guys can see where I was going with the template. Psycadelc 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try this again because noone has responded. If you feel the need to rollback the template, PLEASE post in the discussion this time.Psycadelc 02:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The new layout is more comprehensive, but not as easy to read. I don't think we would need a separate section for each part of the ring. If there were just one section for bevel, and then one section for sides, that would reduce the clutter. All embellishments could be placed in one section without loss of information. In addition, the duel headings is confusing. If you had "Skyline" with the picture and feature information, again, no information would be lost.

Also, if there are two rows, the year (e.g. 2008) should cover both sections. I will try to edit accordingly.Coolhandscot 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea you went with, but I'm finding the font nearly impossible to read... I think we're getting closer to finding a good solution though. In the meantime, I'll upload the pictures for 2002 when I get back from work. Psycadelc 17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The font size is a computer specific issue, but I agree I made it much smaller to fit everything in. If anybody knows how to squeeze those lines together in the table please feel free. -Coolhandscot 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Computer specific, yes but we cant expect every single user of wikipedia to fix the problem for themselves. (Think IE Padding Issue) Anyway, I haven't gotten around to the uploading yet.. hopefully I will soon -Psycadelc 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Brass Rat

I have replaced the image of the "original brass rat" on this page with a verifiable image of the 1930 ring. No source was given for the previous image, which conflicted both with the advertisement to its right and with the ring on display at the MIT Museum. Previous image more closely resembles the rings made in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Pigsfly33 23:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, picture of the 2007 ring?

Man, it's wonderful that nobody can quickly see what the 2007 ring looks like. I'm intrigued though as to why only the 2007 bezel image was removed, since it seems that basically none of the source websites for the pictures have an explicit GNU or release-from-copyright notice. I mean, if we're going to blindly adhere to the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law (and ignore the doctrine of fair use), then we might as well be consistent, right? So why weren't all the images tagged for deletion? Laziness? Hypocrisy? Fair use is what it is--how a particular user "feels" about the inclusion of such images in a free content encyclopedia is utterly irrelevant. 71.206.188.198 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mit ring bezel 2007.jpg

Image:Mit ring bezel 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done 71.206.188.198 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MIT ring 1930.jpg

Image:MIT ring 1930.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Brass Rat Advertisment 1933.jpg

Image:Brass Rat Advertisment 1933.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Pigsfly33 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)