This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Whistle was replaced in 2004, as I recall, with a differnt ultra-modern one or something like that. Check the Technique (www.nique.net) for details.
This is true. A contractor replaced it by a whistle designed to sound the same as the old one, because it was getting old. It might deserve brief mention. (thinking of moving some of that stuff to a later point in the article) Deco 23:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The new one is damn annoying, it sounds nothing like the old one.
Regarding the North Avenue Trade School nickname
I was under the impression that the reason the nickname is so persistent was because students felt that the teaching styles of some of the faculty was more in keeping with a trade school than a university. If there are other Tech alumni who share this sense, perhaps we should integrate it into the article. User:Exia
I hadn't ever heard the nickname, honestly, but I agree with your impression. I like to say that the undergraduate "computer science" degree is more of a programmer training course. Also, I think this portion of the article should probably be moved or put into a new section or something — it's somewhat overemphasized. Deco 03:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the NATS nickname was a derogatory phrase invented by those affiliated with the University of Georgia. I believe that I know of a source for this, but let me check. Bizob 23:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Georgia Tech bookstore (Barnes & Noble, now) sells "North Avenue Trade School" t-shirts alongside the offically-licensed GT memorabilia. (Ask the staff, they're there. They're pretty comfy, too.) However it got started, it's now an affectionate nickname. User:Exia 01/07/05
To some it may be affectionate, to others it may not be. Connotation may vary. I.E. Graduation from GT is often called "Getting Out" - it's become a cliche, but there is a reason it became popular in the first place; there's a reason the traditions of calling the school a "Trade School," calling the education "the Shaft," or calling graduation "Getting Out" won't go away. They're still fairly honest surrogate markers of what academic life is like at GT. 11:59 PM 2 Feb 2005
I'd say all the comments above are correct, to some extent. Once GA decided to have a technical school, a committee was formed to study other engineering schools. Some concentrated on theory, while others focused on practical skills. A concious decision was made to provide both. So, early students learned things like blacksmithing (the team was once called "The Blacksmiths" by some). As late as the 50s, all Freshmen learned drafting and surveying, along with calculus. Likewise, students often felt they were fighting "Ma Tech" right up until they received their diplomas, after which they loved it. The struggle was a very valuable preparation for life in the real world. Industry has always considered GT grads some of the best to "hit the ground running" in their jobs. While opponent fans use the NATS nickname as a derision, GT students enjoy it. User:Goldtimer
I was under the impression that the "North Avenue" portion of the nickname stemmed from the fact that during the start of Georgia Tech, both buildings were on North Ave., not because North Ave. is the southern border of the modern day campus. User:Bobthemilkman
Regarding the T
I added a link to the stolen T picture, the image wont stay there long as most accoutns are deleted after graduation. Anyone can put the image ( http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte165i/images/StolenT.jpg ) somewhere more secure and re-link it?
If we can get permission from the person who first took the picture, we can store it on Wikipedia (see Upload file in the left sidebar). Ideally we'd want a statement from them releasing it either into the public domain or under the GFDL — then we could redistribute it with the encyclopedia content. Deco 19:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I contacted the student hosting the image, and he doesn't recall its source. I'm afraid we can't upload it without identifying its original source. It looks professional, so I suspect the Technique. Deco 23:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone here have any first hand knowledge of the security stuff on the T? I suspect it's rumor, or at least exaggerated. --pfunk42 05:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Depending on what you heard, it may not be exaggerated at all. It's fairly sophisticated, and you can spot some of the equipment around the T itself if you look carefully. I'd like to get an interview from someone in the know, though. Maybe someone could e-mail the administration and ask who's in charge of "T security"? Deco 05:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
They got around the pressure sensors by obtaining schematics and layout for the roof and inferring a 'safe ' route to the T. The members of that team made dozens of trips up there to case the job. Initially they were going to alligator clip the connection, but once they stripped the wires they realized it was fiber optic. So they ended up cutting the T itself with a hacksaw (again, over many nights). The big night they were caught after successfully taking the T down, because secrets like this travel quickly. The perpetrators were given semester suspensions. Afterwards Tech made them reveal the exact route they took in order to retrieve the T, and fixed the security problems accordingly. In case anyone has any great ideas, it is highly unlikely that building schematics are available to us peons, the members involved in this last caper were extremely well connected. Ok... I'm showing my age, let's just move on.
I am one of the "extremely well connected" individuals who last stole the "T", and I'm happy to quickly set the record straight. We did not have any building schematics. Rather, we figured out a safe way up by trial and error, and a little creativity. You are right that we were on top of the building several nights (my recollection is ~15), and that we originally thought the fiber optic line was an electrical circuit that we could by-pass with alligator clips. We also did have to show the administration how we made the ascent, but have since figured out a new way up that might actually work pretty well. The suspension was one semester, but we had to fight pretty hard to escape two semesters. Expulsion was thrown around briefly, but not really an option because we turned ourselves in. But that is a different story...
Regarding student media and organizations
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of student organizations at this school. The ones listed after the first two aren't significant in any way other than that they probably had members who came to the page and thought it would be a good place to get some free advertising.
For this reason I removed the irrelevant entries. If you feel the need to put them back please explain your reasoning here or I will revert to my edit.
I added back the reference to stealing the T & Beta Theta Pi. I know the entire saga behind that if anyone thinks that would be interesting in this article (probably deserves its own page).
Sports
The Yellow Jackets advanced to their first NCAA finals in 2004, losing to UConn. The Jackets have since become a perennial Top 25 team. In 2005, the Jackets lost to the University of Louisville in the 2nd round of the NCAA Tournament.
How can the team be "perenially" a Top 25 team after one year? The word "since" implies "after 2004," which means the word "perennial" needs to go. I'd change it but I don't know what to. Mike H 16:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Changed to The team has been consistently ranked in the Top 25 since the 2004 season.Autiger 17:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think that was the intention of whomever typed that sentence first. I've changed it to "Tech has been a perennial top 25 team since the 1983-84 season." (which is a useful fact) User:Goldtimer
Also, this page claims that Tech's 8-bowl game streak is tied for longest in the nation. This is not true, Tennessee has been to 13 bowl games in a row. Far surpassing GT's eight.
Can someone confirm that Georgia Tech does not allow any building to be built at an altitude higher than Tech Tower? I was told by several faculty/staff but I can not find any literature to confirm it. Apparently Tech Tower was the tallest building in the Southeast back in the day and GT has a tradition of keeping it the tallest building in campus.
Seems like I heard or read that at one time, but I couldn't confirm it. Practically speaking, it's not likely any building taller than the Tower will be built, as the spire is rather high and it's on high ground. Some years ago, some wanted to replace the tower with a new Administration Building, but the traditionalists perservered, and it was renovated instead. 7/23/05 User:Goldtimer
Yea, this is standard trivia for Connect w/ Tech & Faset Leaders to parrot.
Actually, it's not the tallest building anymore (eg. Love Building, CRC, and new COC). There is no rule that prevents buildings from being taller than Tech Tower.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Excaliburhorn (talk • contribs) .
Instead of "new COC" I like to use "COCK" - College of Computing Klaus. Even though the official name will be the "Klaus Advanced Computing Building" (KACB). Whose idea was it to call it the KACB, anyway? There's no way anyone can pronounce that. --Disavian 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have exact heights with me, but you can look outside the current CoC and see that Tech Tower is higher than the Klaus building. I think the point isn't taller from ground level, but taller overall- remember Tech Tower is on a hill (anyone with freshmen housing on east campus remembers that bloody hill). --User:Justinmmitchell 7/17/2006
Famous Alumni
I'd like to see the famous alumni categorized by type. Right now, the list is dominated by sports types. I'm all for having really famous sports alum listed, but feel their sheer number are making those famous in other fields not stand out. What do you think? Is this a good idea, and is it acceptable to Wikipedia? 16:05 Z Sun 24 Jul 05. User:Goldtimer
I think that it is probably wrong to refer to Geronimo in the partitive, even lax as today's English grammar may be. Perhaps Leonard Wood captured of Geronimo or part of Geronimo, but I would guess that he actually took part in the capture of Geronimo. Apesteilen (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Fight Song Details
The details around the GT Fight Song seem out of place in the middle of the sports section, does it merit a new section? -- User:Ronincyberpunk
Zip Code
Could someone confirm (and add to the article) GT owns the entire zipcode 30332 ?
It's quite possible but not really notable. Most universities and many other agencies, even private companies, do as well. See Zip Code by Type. Autiger 06:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
30332 is the zip code for the Georgia Tech Post Office and all student affiliated postal boxes. Nullchain86 11:05, 27 January 2006 (EST)
I don't know if GT owns the entire ZIP code. You can buy maps with ZIP code boundaries as well as streets to check this, or you could try lining up this map with a road map somehow. Deco 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Every post office has a zip code. Tech has a post office. Ergo, tech has a zip code.
Yes, GT owns all of 30332. I have no way of proving this, but I know it. Disavian 01:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Section on achievements
I do believe we need a section that will highlight the strengths and achievements of GT. (e.g.). After all, it is a nationally respected
school.--Nightryder84 20:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is sorely needed, especially now that I've added an academics section to the article. MaxVeers 05:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
I belive this info might be helpful on the article:
Source: Prof. Colin Potts (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~potts/) (Info given in class, not listed on his page but you may email him for confirmation)
A Myers-Briggs Survey performed at Georgia Tech revealed:
However, are these results typical of all American colleges or just Tech? -SCEhardt 19:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I've had potts, he gives this to CS MAJORS, which are at the far end of the spectrum as far as these things go, and totally useless for the population at large.
The data in that table are questionable on their face; the percentages are the same for each spectrum. Assuming one did get the 'accurate' results from professor, if unpublished, is the data not in conflict with WP:NOR?
SCEhardt, I would expect GT's (or any other technically-oriented university) results to differ from those of the entire set of American university students which should pretty closely track those of the American Public, being a much broader sample. Autiger 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You're probably correct. The point I bring up is that these statistics should only be mentioned if they are fairly unique to Tech. I also agree the statistics look very suspicious in general and would need to be verified. -SCEhardt 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
That data is obviously wrong. A 30/68 breakdown for every dimension at Tech, and a 70/32 in every dimension in the general public?? Not to mention, the former adds up to only 98%, while the latter adds up to 102%.
It is curious that the data for every dimension is a 68/32 breakout at Tech and 30/70 in the general public. However, the math course you transferred from UGA is showing. :) The rows for Tech and the general population each sum to 100%. C.Fred 23:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Facts
Does anyone have anything to backup the "Virgin Graduate" entry? I've been unable to find anything related to it online, but in general it may be a standard college legend?
I was a student for several years recently and recall no such legend. But maybe a current frat student or something would know better. Deco 02:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Social Life
There seems to have been a minor struggle a few times in edits to cover the internal stigma of Tech as an unhappy place by deleting or "glossing" over parts of the student life section and replacing them with irrelevant or nonspecific (to tech) college facts. I think that it's safe to say that Tech is probably one of the worst major colleges to go to socially and that that is pretty well accepted at the school itself, although it's pretty tricky to portray that without violating NPOV. I know that the School of Psych published a report about high levels of depression a few years (2002, maybe?) ago, and also that the Princeton review published a list of the most hated schools (by their own students) that tech was on. Can anyone find links to either? Also helpful would be any information that could provide a more informed counterpoint to the antisocial side.
Leppy 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
My first two attempts were vandalism, I'll admit it, even though I had planned on changing the site back shortly. However, the link I added is extremely popular, even a few years after it was published. I think it is very relevant to the average Tech student.
It may be a popular site, TechStudent, but the site is an admitted work of fiction. For that reason, it does not belong in the list of external links. C.Fred 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that gtsux doesn't deserve some mention. I was at GaTech when it hit and it was a pretty big deal for the school. The creator of the website was a student, and he was threatened with academic censure if he didn't remove the site. That wasn't upheld , but the school successfully sued him for copyright violation (the site originally had the GaTech logo on it). I'm not sure how to properly include this in the article, except as an example of common editorial for the school. But within in the bounds of GaTech it is definitely noteworthy. And I don't see it said anywhere that it is a work of fiction.Leppy 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'll grant that it does deserve mention in the text of the article. A couple of sentences, possibly near the section on the Shaft, would probably do well to set it up—especially if there's backstory. As for the fictionality, the disclaimer at the top of http://www.geocities.com/gtsux2002/ says "NOTHING ON THIS SITE IS TRUE. IT IS ALL FICTIONAL, SO LEAVE HERE NOW." C.Fred 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That was in the same disclaimer (added the same time as the logo change) that says that you are all asexual martians. Leppy 06:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, almost everything on that page is in fact true. Some of it is somewhat exaggerated, but not extremely so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.62.13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC).
gtsux
I present the following paragraph for contemplation of inclusion at the bottom of student life. Before posting, I want to get some consensus here and make sure it captures events fairly.
These efforts are not always successful in improving conditions for students. Most notably, an anonymous student launched the GT Sux...Enough Said web site in the spring of 2002. The site proved popular with fellow students visiting the site and also sharing their grievances against the Institute. Within a week of its launch, 4,700 persons had visited the site.
With a reference to this interview with the author of the site. Does anybody have a citeable source, other than gtsux itself, about the author being threatened with expulsion? C.Fred 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I remembered an AJC article about it, but can't seem to find it now...Leppy 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I went through the 'Nique archive before the interview, back to the launch date, and I couldn't find an article there. C.Fred 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only is everything on that site true, it was also true 24 years ago. Only differences now: it looks like there are more bricks in the sidewalks and they've built a bunch of new parking garages.
people/alums
The listing was just starting to get out of hand, so I made it its own article. Can we get a good listing of presidents with dates? Leppy 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Should the page be limited to alumni, or is it for all Georgia Tech people? I.e. faculty, presidents, current students, George P. Burdell...do they go to the page too? C.Fred 00:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it should be limited to notable people, not alums. FOr instance, wayne clough (the president) is not an alum. Leppy 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Nor is Reggie Ball an alum (yet). If he is deemed notable, he goes on the list also? C.Fred 22:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there are more "important people" in the institute than just G-Wayne. What about the VP, and head of GTRI, Stephen E. Cross? Maybe the dean of students? Admittedly, it's hard to know where to draw the line on this subject. Disavian 16:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Jargon
I noticed that the wiki for New York University has a "Jargon" section. Think something similar with definitions for terms like "sac," "shaft," "coc(k)," "oscar," "buzzcard" etc would be a good addition to this wiki? Disavian 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
not really. I don't think there is much notable "jargon" there.Leppy 12:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Tech has at least as much jargon as NYU. Though I'm pondering how to write up Tech Bitch Syndrome from NPOV. :) --C.Fred 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That's very likely. But that isn't the standard for notability or encyclopedic knowledge. I would debate that jargon should be in NYU's article. Leppy 16:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You should go tell them that, then. :p Disavian 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
TBS is something that should be mentioned in this article, at least as a definiton, but not nessasarily in a special section. Disavian 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
the MIT of the South
This was removed for NPOV, but I can't see why. Tech is sometimes called the MIT of the south.Leppy 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think that Tech is "the MIT of the South." Disavian 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't saying anything about Tech being or not being "the MIT of the South," just that it's often called that. Leppy 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you're talking about - we're just saying that it shouldn't have been removed for NPOV. Disavian 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess the problem is, depending on who is calling it that, it could be perceived as biased, so more context is needed. If the phrase "University [sic] of Georgia" were inserted into the UGA article, it would clearly be seen as non-NPOV, at least without context. However, I found a ’Nique editorial where a student editor uses the phrase, so I'm going to restore it to the article cited. (Oh, and by the way...back in the day, I had a t-shirt from the bookstore reading "MIT: The Georgia Tech of the North.") —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's an awesome shirt. I want one now ^_^ Disavian 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Drownproofing
I saw the obviously wrong distance that claimed "swim the length of an Olympic-sized pool and back underwater" which would mean 100 meter, which for most people certainly is not doable. So after some searching the net the only credible source I found was this article and it clearly states 50 yards and that it was a multiple of 30 feet. (5*30 feat = 50 yards.) And that makes 45.7 meter, which is more doable. But it still means many will faint when they put their head over the water and thus get less blood pressure.
And a BIG warning! Do not try this distance if not under professional close up watch by a lifeguard. Some people will faint and drown! This is VERY dangerous to do. My friends and me decided to never again go further then 25 meters (27 yard) after several had fainted. Most can do 25 meters safely. But note: You still should only do it under supervision since if something happens when you have been swimming that far you might not have the strength left to handle the situation. (Typical is that some other swimmer kicks you by accident since they don't see you "sneaking up" underwater.)
The question also is, how big were Olympic-sized pools at the time? Were 50-yard pools standard, or were 25-yard pools still in use? —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Buzz Studios
I think Buzz Studios is less "student media" and more a club, and thus shouldn't be mentioned alongside of WREK and The Technique. The latter two are established publications/network(s), they're Tier II for student funding, and I've heard of them before. If there was a section or page on GT clubs/orgs, then I'd think it'd go there. Otherwise, it's not important enough for the main article. If it is important enough, then so are the fifty thousand other GT clubs/orgs. --Disavian 17:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
From Institute of technology: "[I]nstitutes of technology (as MIT and ETH Zurich) are considered universities when they have autonomy to offer Masters and Doctoral degrees and they are at the same time independent research institutions, being these conditions necessary to be formally considered a University." Georgia Tech meets these requirements. MaxVeers 00:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Georgia Tech's PR page, "'Institute' is acceptable, but not 'university'." [1]VinnyR
Compelling evidence. I'm inclined to search the article and replace all uses of "university" with "institute". MaxVeers 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Where to put it?
House-Flaschka-Ashby Graduate Student Award -
In digging up details for the Hermann Flaschka page I came across the above award that was named after, among others, Hermann's dad. The School of Chemistry doesn't have a wikipedia page. Neither does H.A. Flaschka. I think it's a bit off topic on his son's page. So where should it go? Plse. make suggestions and/or add to the appropriate page. BTW. There are tons of these award things around, so this is not going to be a one off problem. A general solution would help. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest making a page for the dad if you think he's notable enough to have one. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I was more thinking along the lines of creating a page for the various awards if we can't squeeze them in here. There's scarce enough info for biographies as it is. If we want to make separate pages for all the people that have awards named after them we end with a heck of a mountain of work. H.A. Flaschka has published a fair bit, but I think that's too flimsy to make a page. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That's usually the approach that works, though. For example D. M. Smith was important to the school but most of what we know about him came from Engineering the New South. Can you find a an award page like the one you're suggesting somewhere else in Wikipedia? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous separate awards pages. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Scott_Ferguson_award or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Outstanding_Students_Awards I think this approach, just like starting a page for someone we have very little info on just leads to pages that won't go anywhere and will remain short forever or more likely get axed after a while. I've had some bad experience with 'Deletopedia' I think putting all the awards on one page and then farming them out once there's some flesh on some of them would make more sense. A couple of issues of the "Nique" should give enough of them to make a list on a page that can be used for further work. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The Pioneer
So, the following text was added to the article, and I'm moving it here as-is so we can discuss its inclusion.
A monthly newsletter based in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory, The Pioneer[2] is powered completely by undergraduate students at Georgia Tech. It serves as Tech's channel of communication for undergraduates, graduates, faculty, staff, and alumni of the biotechnology community. Founded Spring of 2007, The Pioneer was originally distributed online and intended for members of GT Biomedical Engineering Society[3]. Since then it has grown to cover biotechnology news, student and department events, outstanding professors, students, and alumni, and tips to help students succeed to supplement the flow of communication in the GT Biotechnology Quad. The newsletter is supported by a team of students in the Coulter Department and advised by numerous faculty and staff of the Georgia Institute of Technology.
My thoughts:
It's unreferenced other than blatant external links to content
It was added by a user that apparently has not edited Wikipedia before that edit, Steven.touchton (talk·contribs).
I agree with the removal. Probably much better suited for the department's wiki article, though a full paragraph might be too much. MaxVeers (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
File:GT Lorraine.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:GT Lorraine.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
Yeah, there were some news articles about this. I just haven't gotten around to revising the article yet. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This is being directly linked so it can be archived
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
dead link?
Fn 155 ^ "Princeton Review says Georgia Tech is One of the Toughest". BuzzWords. Georgia Tech Alumni Association. 2002-01-01. Retrieved 2008-02-09. "It's not news to students or graduates, but the Princeton Review confirms that Georgia Tech is one of the nation's toughest schools." appears to be a dead link.Kdammers (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
While unfortunate, it doesn't seem to have had any lasting impact on the school or on society at large, and doesn't appear to reflect any issiue solely intrinsic to Georgia Tech. The article is from 2007 and there is little mention in other sources after 2009. Acroterion(talk) 13:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I briefly mentioned the lawsuit against the school in the article about G. Wayne Clough, but that already has plenty of sources. Disavian (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Ray Anderson in Alumni
Hi, I was hoping to add Ray Anderson in the Alumni section. He is a bit of a hero to me, and I have read in his book "Confessions of a Radical Industrialist" that he attended Georgia Tech. It also states this on his wiki page, "Anderson was an honors graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology in the school of industrial and systems engineering in 1956".
Anyone oppose this? I do not mind if someone wants to add it for me, I am just not sure on the etiquette for doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNicoll (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Removal of the STRESS section
I removed the section on Student Stress and although less than 12 hours later it was put back up, I really think that it should stay gone.
I am new at this and am not looking to flamebait anyone but it does not make sense to devote 5% of the article about GT to student stress. Where do I begin to refute this section? NO other College or University article on Wikipedia has a section devoted to student stress. Stress is definitely a part of college life and I am not trying to downplay it, but most high level schools engender some levels of stress, yet only GT has a section on their Wiki page? GT does not have a monopoly on stress. Would the editors who insist on GT having a section regarding its stressed student body have any luck starting a section on student stress on other university wiki articles? NO.
The article references 2 Princeton Review surveys (both over 12yrs old) that were basically refuted for their lack of scientific rigor, it is just not worth mentioning. Following the the 12 year old surveys the article cites one article in "the Daily Beast" that says GT is in the top 50 stressful Colleges then turns around and cites "the Daily Beast's" contrary survey about how GT is in the top 100 of happiest student bodies, again, really not worth mentioning. Finally the section ends with a 9 year old reference to an article in the student paper where students refer to graduation as "getting out" (the link in the reference here is a dead link, but I don't doubt its existence). Referring to graduation as "getting out" is so common that I would be surprised if some of Socrates students didn't say this too. In fact, every single school to ever exist has had some of its graduates refer to graduation as "getting out", again not worth mentioning.
To even consider having an entire section devoted to the stress level of the student body would require a total rewrite of the section with newer more recent references, (GT is not in Newsweek's top 25 stress Universities in 2012 or the 2012 DailyBeast list) maybe more worthy sources than the Daily Beast, fixed dead links etc. It seems a small insertion regarding the choice between sleep study and social life, or how hard the students must work could be included within the course of the article without elevating it to "section" status. Maybe there should be a separate article regarding student stress in general not within GT's wiki article.
Wikipedia advises:
"Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
I strongly believe that until other institutions cited as stressful put a section in their own wiki articles, for GT to have one misleads the readers. I believe removing the section is what is called for here.Chekit (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
PS
Any experienced wiki people want to back me up on this or help me would be greatly appreciated;.
Thks
Addition to alumni section
On May 4, 2014, a Georgia Tech alumni was elected president of the Republic of Panama. His name is Juan Carlos Varela, and he received a B.S. in Industrial Engineering in 1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.164.28 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
He's already in the alumni list, but I think that's notable enough that he belongs on the main article as well, so I took care of it. Thanks for posting! :) Disavian (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
"Innovation ahd Research" = "and"66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out! ElKevbo (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 47 external links on Georgia Institute of Technology. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I have just modified 7 external links on Georgia Institute of Technology. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I have just modified 9 external links on Georgia Institute of Technology. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I have just modified 8 external links on Georgia Institute of Technology. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I have just modified 6 external links on Georgia Institute of Technology. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
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: Moved. Consensus is that "Georgia Tech" is the common name and per Wikipedia policy that's where it resides, irrespective of the institution's own style guides. — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Observation. Georgia Tech's style guide says "Use Georgia Institute of Technology on first reference. Thereafter, only Georgia Tech, the Institute, or Tech may be used."[4] By contrast, Virginia Tech's style guide says "Our official name is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, but using the full name is cumbersome. Thus, 'Virginia Tech' is preferable in all but formal uses. Virginia Tech is used in news releases, feature articles, academic journals, and publications and on the Web."[5] So this is not an apples-to-apples situation on the initial naming side: Virginia Tech's style guide encourages the shortened version, while Georgia Tech's does not. That said, Wikipedia's concern is what is the common name, and in all but academic circles, that probably is Georgia Tech. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Didn’t realize that. I guess I’ll have to Oppose the move for now. 24.228.135.248 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia has its own style guidance, which does not grant any authority to the people who run the institutions that are discussed in its articles. Wikipedia prefers to use the WP:COMMONNAME of institutions, as used by independent reliable sources, and the above-referenced style guide appears to acknowledge that the common name of the institution is "Georgia Tech". OTOH, I think it is sometimes appropriate to lean toward being a little bit formal in an encyclopedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech should not be used against each other to create a false consistency. Virginia Tech's usage has consistently moved away from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University/VPI, while Georgia Tech has kept closer to the formal Georgia Institute of Technology. A closer comparison would be between Georgia Tech and MIT - I don't think anybody is ready to propose moving the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to MIT. Nor do we title Pennsylvania State University Penn State or North Carolina State University NC State. COMMONNAME can be taken too far. In any case, the formal name should show up first in the article, as it does for both MIT and Virginia Tech. Acroterion(talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, North Carolina State University's official name is "North Carolina State University at Raleigh". Per its Wikipedia article: the name was changed to the current North Carolina State University at Raleigh.[1] The "at Raleigh" part is usually omitted even on official documents such as diplomas, but is part of the school's official name.Rreagan007 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
True, and then there's the whole The Pennsylvania State University and The Ohio State University. All showing that there are no universal conventions or consistencies that we can achieve. Acroterion(talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
If the commonname arguments prevail, we can expect that there will be calls for wholesale renaming of articles on universities - almost none of the following, for instance, are titled according to common usage, so we'll have the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for to MIT, Texas Tech University to Texas Tech, Ohio State University to Ohio State, California Institute of Technology to Caltech, the University of Southern California to USC, the University of California Los Angeles to UCLA. As a matter of precedent, such a rename should have broad consensus, since the consequences will be extensive. All of the Foo State Universities will become Foo State, all of the Foo Institute of Technnologies will become Foo Techs, while Universities of Foo will stay as they are, and all of the acronym universities will just be letters, introducing a two-tier level of formality in naming that does not presently exist. Virginia Tech was a one-off, as the university has consciously promoted that name. No other university has followed that lead. This opens a can of worms that requires a broad consensus, not a local one. It's probably time to develop a specific naming protocol as a supplement, rather than blindly following COMMONNAME - but which I'll point out states that titles should resemble titles for similar articles. Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Do we propose to depart from that part of the policy? Acroterion(talk) 17:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I see nothing in the above discussion that gives policy-based reasons to do anything but support per COMMONNAME. No one denies the common name in usage is Georgia Tech, which any Google search confirms. --В²C☎ 22:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY with other university articles. We tend to use the more official/formal university name for article titles. There are many examples, some that are already given above. This would need to be a much broader discussion about university naming conventions in general to move this article from its present title. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. I almost closed this as NC but then I was compelled by the argument for COMMONNAME - which is the most important criterion for naming from PT is not in question. Since it'd be a supervote to close in favor of the move, I thought I'd address that Common Name is much more important than consistency. Otherwise we'd have an article on Queen Victoria I of England. RedSlash 00:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Support move. Georgia Tech is quite obviously the common name. O.N.R.(talk) 05:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Support On Google, "Georgia Tech" had 927,000,000 results. Georgia Institute of Technology had 241,000,000 results. The website itself is called Georgia Tech. AmericanAir88(talk) 23:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Updated Institute Branding/ Visual Identity Standards
As of September 2021 the Institute has implemented updated branding and visual identity standards. Information is available at the link below:
The Wikipedia article needs to be updated to reflect the new standards, in particular both the Institute seal and primary logo, which are now dated.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpw67 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like we've updated the logo but not the seal? There is also a new Official Seal... 71.81.193.74 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Georgia Tech University
Is there any situation on Wikipedia where it should be proper to refer to the school as "Georgia Tech University" or should that be killed with fire? I recognize that Georgia Tech and Georgia Institute of Technology are both acceptable.Naraht (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Naraht: No, barring any limited discussion of usage of that misnomer by other parties. We can certainly call it a small-u "university", as in Georgia Tech is one of the universities that is part of the Atlantic Coast Conference or the University System of Georgia, but I don't see where the capital-U term would ever properly apply. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
C.Fred Flamethrowers should be applied within the next 24 hours. :) Naraht (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Institute Seal updates?
Hello, I have observed that the GT logo on the article was updated some time ago yet the Institute Seal, which was also changed in last September's branding update, has not been updated. Consequently the article still shows the old seal. Any reason for this? Can the Seal be updated to the new one? 97.82.216.220 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
