Talk:MIT class ring

[Untitled]

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)

Which finger?

Can someone clarify which finger the ring is supposed to be worn on? This is a very detailed and informative article, but I couldn't find the single piece of information that I came here the find. Anonymous.translator (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC) It's worn on the fourth (ring) finger on your right hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:D000:A59E:E865:F3C0:D06E:F407 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is listing every depiction of the Ring really necessary?

If you ask me, it clutters the page. Vasant56 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep the depictions, because (a) they're in a table at the bottom, and (b) the ring design changes every year. Awickert (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it clutters the page at all. One of the reasons I visit the Brass Rat page is to see what changes each class has made year on year. One of the important features about the history of the Brass Rat is that each class puts its own mark on it and personalizes it. The images are much better than the words that describe it. - Aisha, MIT Class of 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.194.28 (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The table after table describing the minutiae of each ring make the article look terrible. I'd like to see them removed.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the information is of interest to at least some readers, and I don't know of any other way to find it all in one place. I don't think that it makes the article look "terrible" at all, just comprehensive. I'd be amenable to splitting the detailed info into a separate article ("List of MIT class ring variants" ?) if absolutely necessary, but I also think it's fine where it is. One possible compromise might be to move the final "Brass Rat sightings" section up before the detailed listings. Simply whacking away the detailed information really impoverishes the article, and denies some Wikipedia readers details that really fill out the history. Readers not interested in the details can simply skip them and move on to the next article.

Summary: Don't just delete information of interest to some readers, let them see it. Reify-tech (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I highly doubt that anyone cares that on the 2006 ring, "A snow shovel is featured on the Mens et Manus side of the ring, signifying the occurrence of the only Institute snow day in recent history." It's MIT-cruft--GrapedApe (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • While certainly some details may be extraneous, the conversation above does not seem to reflect GrapedApe's actions to entirely remove this section. As mentioned above, there is no single source to find these details together, and if it is already here, and not in some more general page (e.g., about ring designs or MIT itself) what is the reason to remove?-Coolhandscot (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you want to make a section as a summary? I'd be OK with that, but not with the giant sections detailing every year's design.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I have removed the sections on "design variants" as being WP:CRUFT and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a repository of extensive description of 50 years' worth of class rings.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability

An editor "Removed the statement that it is the "third most recognizable". Citing the class president isn't strong evidence. Other universities make the same claim.)"

I've restored it.

I remind editors of WP:V and "verifiability, not truth." The article says that a named person called the ring one of "three recognizable rings in the world." A source is cited.

By the way, I imagine it could be a mistake in the MIT News Office article, but he is not quoted as saying it is the "third most recognizable" ring in the world. In fact "most recognizable" does not appear in the quote. He says there are "three recognizable rings in the world" and the MIT class ring is one of them.

This is indeed weak evidence for ring's really being one of the "three recognizable rings in the world." It is fair evidence that MIT graduates believe it to be very recognizable. And it is good evidence that a person named William Wang really said the words that appear within the quotation marks.

Readers are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how much credence to give the statement.

What MIT graduates think of their class ring is certainly relevant to an article about the ring.

If other universities make the same claim, that is an interesting and relevant point, which I think should be stated--but a source should be cited for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that class rings (or the Super Bowl Ring for that matter) will be recognized anywhere outside North America, given that they only exist in Canada and the United States. Talking about the whole world here seems like hyperbole to me. Hypocryptickal (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

other thoughts

Hi, I'm the editor who made the change. The reason I made the edit is because more and more schools are claiming that their ring is one of the most recognizable in the world and I want to try to prevent these myths from becoming reality.

At the website for St. Francis Xavier University in Canada, for instance, it claims that "the X-Ring is the most recognized ring in the world after the papal ring and Super Bowl ring.".

Likewise, at Clemson University's website it is stated that their ring "is one of the most recognizable of all college rings today".

Claims like these exist at every university, and the website for the University of Miami even claims that their mascot "one of the most recognizable college mascots in the United States.".

I'm sure I could find more examples, but hopefully you're getting my point. Claims like this are so common, that we need to be careful how we include them in Wikipedia.

While I personally agree in "verifiability not truth", I think we should do it in a way that won't be misleading. Given he's a student, I feel that this particular source isn't credible, and we don't even know the context of the quote (it could have been a joke).

I have modified the page to be more neutral in stating that "Many MIT students consider their ring to be among the most recognizable rings in the world with..".

I don't consider this a permanent change, however, and am open to further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasant56 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I like your current wording. I wouldn't object to making it stronger, e.g. "MIT students, like those of many other universities[ref StFx here], take pride in what they regard as a very recognizable ring. Class president William Wang, etc. etc." In fact I think I'll make that change. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I actually tweaked it a bit more. I think it's very clear now that it's a "fact about opinion" and that the opinion is not universally held.

By the way, I think MIT must be the only university in the world which does not have an urban legend to the effect that the library is sinking into the ground because the architect forgot to allow for the weight of the books. It's curious, because MIT is in fact built on marshy "made land." But perhaps MIT's small and unimpressive library building does not look very heavy.Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would MIT's architect forget to allow for such a thing? it is, afterall... MIT we're talking about, amirite? He probably even weighed the books and did infact include all of the calculations! (this is a joke, from an outside observer, lighten up and laugh).98.228.195.210 (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple libraries on campus. Which of the 6+ are you talking about? 108.41.57.230 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

The claim that the Brass Rat is one of "three recognizable rings in the world—the Brass Rat, the West Point ring, and the Super Bowl ring" is a very extraordinary claim, which, according to WP:REDFLAG, must be supported by equally extraordinary evidence. Because it is sourced to quote from William S. Wang, MIT's 1975 Senior Class president. That is simply not enough to substantiate such a claim under WP:V.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MIT class ring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206071113/http://alum.mit.edu:80/ne/noteworthy/news-features/grad-rat.html to http://alum.mit.edu/ne/noteworthy/news-features/grad-rat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MIT class ring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710024435/http://gradrat.scripts.mit.edu/Design/Index to http://gradrat.scripts.mit.edu/Design/Index
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214164648/http://alumweb.mit.edu/classes/1993/brassrat.html to http://alumweb.mit.edu/classes/1993/brassrat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)