From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleTech Tower is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 20, 2008.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2007 Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2007 Peer reviewReviewed
June 1, 2007 Featured article candidatePromoted
July 29, 2023 Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on December 25, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that it is a Georgia Tech tradition to steal the "T" from Tech Tower?
Current status: Former featured article

List of Historic Places

A rather impressive article, to say the least! One question, though: Is Tech Tower listed on List of Registered Historic Places in Georgia, E-G#Fulton as the " Georgia Institute of Technology Historic District" or is that something else? — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Good question. I got the info stating Tech Tower was an historic place from a driving tour document; not exactly reliable. What would be ideal is if somebody could get us a picture of the historical marker -- both for the article, and to clarify exactly what is historic. MaxVeers 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Good idea. I added it to the WPGT image requests page. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems like a useful link. I wonder if it's the actual text of the plaque. If not, looks like it's still public domain (from the National Park Service). MaxVeers 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know?

I think this article is of high enough quality to go on Template:Did you know. To nominate this page, go here. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm struggling to come up with a good fact. MaxVeers 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Same here. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
How about:
"... that it's a Georgia Tech tradition to steal the 'T' off of Tech Tower?"
"... that Tech Tower is the only Georgia Tech building to be named after a woman?" — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 01:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I kind of want Georgia Tech traditions to be operational before we would use the first one. You can see how perfectly it would fit in. But maybe still a good idea. I like the other one, too. Is it interesting to add that she didn't attend the school? MaxVeers 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, I just moved it there, and gave it more of an article look. I've been meaning to do that for a while, but you gave me the impetus :) — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Awesome. So how do you feel about:
"... that it's a Georgia Tech tradition to steal the T from Tech Tower?
MaxVeers 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Sounds great! :) — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Done! MaxVeers 04:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Success! It's like... a Christmas present. :) — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 19:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Appearance

How should we handle the appearance of Tech Tower? I haven't actually described it in the article. Something should be said about the red brick, Victorian architecture, number of rooms and floors, the recent renovation, the TECH sign, etc. Should this get its own section or what? MaxVeers 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll think about it. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I still think this section is needed. In addition, it should mention important elements in the surrounding area, such as the named walkways (including the Tower Walk), the nearby memorials for WWI deceased and Paul Howes Norcross, the Class of 1903 fountain (first such class memorial on campus), Sideways' headstone, etc. I will get working on this ASAP. MaxVeers 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Sounds good. I think it's already GA-class, but I'm waiting until Georgia Institute of Technology passes before I nominate other Tech-related articles. History of Georgia Tech is next on my list to nominate, btw. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
An impressive addition. I'll nominate it now. I mentioned this on Talk:Georgia Tech traditions, but I found a 'Nique article with some good T history: Presidential opinions change over time — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Great link. I've done my best to integrate it. MaxVeers 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Wow, that's looking great. Perhaps it should be copied over to the traditions article? — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think either this article or the traditions article should have a more concise version. Not sure which place is more appropriate for the detailed one. Maybe traditions...? MaxVeers 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I would think that the traditions article would have the shorter version and have a "main article..." link to the t-stealing section on Tech Tower. I'm tempted to have an article entirely for The T, if only to spite that one guy from this AfD discussion. :) — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

NRHP category removal

I'm removing the category Category:Registered Historic Places in Georgia (U.S. state) from this article's main page. My rationale is that the Tech Tower is part of the Georgia Institute of Technology Historic District, but not listed individually at the National Register.
Simply looking at other universities with NRHP listings, there are other historic districts with individual buildings listed in them. An example is the University of Florida Campus Historic District. It has several historic buildings within its confines listed on the NRHP, yet not all are. Like, Library East is, but Library West isn't. The University Memorial Auditorium was built in the 1920s, and it doesn't have its own entry either. So there you go. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.  :) - Ebyabe 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Makes sense to me. Thanks. MaxVeers 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Photos

Just wondering... is there any way we can integrate this photo into the article without making it too crowded? — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

What's happening in that picture? MaxVeers 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You know the giant flame next to the whistle? This is a picture where the flame is between the camera and Tech Tower. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There's a picture in the blueprint of the T actually stolen. It's from the most recent incident. Excaliburhorn 20:56, 9-Apr-2007 (UTC)
I'd like to include photos like this (from The Technique) or this (from Tech Topics) but I think they're copyrighted. Anyone know if there's a way of getting permission? The "Stealing the 'T'" section really suffers without them, I think. Another great addition would be this photo of Roosevelt speaking in front of Tech Tower. Anyone know if it was published before 1923? MaxVeers 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Go ahead and use the one from the 'Nique under fair use. Make sure to use {{ Non-free fair use rationale}} when you upload it. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Done! That's a nice addition, I think. MaxVeers 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Looking good there. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 17:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Sweet link

This is amazing: [1]. Just... wow. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

See also: [2] and [3]. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I used this monument list to fill a lot of the places that didn't have references. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Quote regarding Stealing the 'T'

"A high point of the celebration came when Tech students unveiled and present..." Is this the actual wording from the source? (I couldn't look it up since it's a book.) Using "present" instead of "presented" sounds akward to me. → Wordbuilder 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It's probably just a typo. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 06:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I looked it up in the source, and it was a typo. Good catch. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Unsourced addition

The following unsourced but probably correct content was added to the article:

I think we have an image around here somewhere, but I'd like a source for that before we add it to a featured article. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I found the picture. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Nice! I restored the text and image to the article. That's a great addition. MaxVeers 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I'd still like a source, but I suppose the image will do for now. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, I did find this, but it's a blog entry... — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems unlikely that a more authoritative source will discuss the issue. We may want to tone down the "widely assumed" part and note that it's unclear what really happened. MaxVeers 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply

...an historic place

I believe that is the right way to write it. Not "...a historic place". Can any grammar experts back me up on this? Wrad ( talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter according to this. I prefer "a historic" though. "An" is usually used for words that start with a vowel sound. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
From Dr. Grammar: "Writers on usage formerly disputed whether the correct article is a or an with historian, historic, and a few other words. The traditional rule is that if the h- is sounded, a is the proper form. Most people following that rule would say a historian and a historic...Even H.W. Fowler, in the England of 1926, advocated a before historic(al) and humble....The theory behind using an in such a context, however, is that the h- is very weak when the accent is on the second rather than the first syllable....Thus no authority countenances an history, though a few older ones prefer an historian and an historical. Today, however...an historical [is] likely to strike readers and listeners as [an affectation]. As Mark Twain once wrote, referring to humble, heroic, and historical: 'Correct writers of the American language do not put an before those words' (The Stolen White Elephant,1882). Anyone who sounds the h- in such words should avoid pretense and use a." And as for my own two cents on the matter, I was taught that placing "an" before "historic" or similar is only done in speech if one tends not to aspirate the letter H, and never in writing (at least not in American English). LaMenta3 ( talk) 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
"An historic" is an acceptable construction, but "a historic" seems to be the norm these days, at least in American English. (That may be overgeneralized -- I'm sure we can find some dialect of American English where "an historic" is the preferred usage, perhaps because the "h" is silent.) There's a discussion of it here: A and an#Discrimination between a and an. • WarpFlyght ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
You're right, some northeastern American dialects have an non-aspirated H in historical and similar words and place 'an' before it in speech. (Just listen to a Kennedy talk.) However, it is still a bit of a linguistic anomaly in the States. LaMenta3 ( talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This repeatedly caused edit warring on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, despite numerous comments on the talk page from myself explaining that either way was correct. Finally, I had to outright threaten to block anyone who changed it. That seemed to end it. Raul654 ( talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Theft section

The second incident concludes saying the T remains at an undisclosed location, but the next paragraph says "the same 'T'...". I know what it means, but could it be made clearer that it wasn't that specific material 'T', it was the replacement? (It also doesn't indicate when the T was replaced.) This is a very trivial thing, and the answer is probably no, but that sentence made me look twice. ALTON .ıl 09:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Good point. I tried to make it a bit clearer. MaxVeers ( talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling ( WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Google Maps April Fools 2012

I just wanted to mention that Tech Tower is one of the landmarks in the 2012 Google Maps April Fool. Ref: Seawright, Erik (2012-03-31). "8-Bit Google Maps Released for Nintendo & GameBoy". Z6Mag. Retrieved 2012-04-01. Disavian ( talk) 06:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tech Tower. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tech Tower. 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Tech Tower. 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tech Tower. 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

FA concerns

I'm reviewing this older featured article promotion as part of WP:URFA/2020, a process to conduct a quality sweeps of featured articles promoted in 2015 or before. Some comments below:

  • The campanile is now featured in all Georgia Tech logos, though some have argued that Tech Tower itself would be a more appropriate symbol - is sourced to a student editorial from 1996; better source needed
  • It's unclear if most of the first paragraph of the Modern Use section is actually supported by the references; there's a map, a set of directions, and a forever-dead .swf file; the former two sources certainly don't support most of the content in that paragraph
  • To handle this financial burden, the restitution fee alone totaling $14,823.98, a GoFundMe was created by a friend of the thief that was well known on campus, to assure its legitimacy, without revealing the thief's identity (the friend's name has since been removed from the post because of negative pressure from the GT administration). - sourced to the GoFoundMe page itself; better sourcing is needed for material in a featured article
  • " "Who stole a T out of NC STATE". Wreck Ramblin. November 6, 2006. Archived from the original on April 17, 2008. Retrieved January 21, 2009." - not a reliable source
  • "Tech Tower is considered an iconic representation of Georgia Tech and of higher education in Atlanta." - needs a better source than a student newspaper
  • "In this case, the thief admitted guilt after detectives approached him at his residence that afternoon, and was suspended through the following summer, while also having to pay a restitution fee and tuition to retake his nearly completed Spring 2014 classe" - not in source?

In general, this article has issues with dubious sources, text that is poorly supported to its references, and other concerns. A comparison to Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1 is probably in order, as both this FA and that one rely very heavy on institutionally-affiliated sources. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tech_Tower&oldid=1204221966"