Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology/Archive 1

Article Generation / general comments

This page was created in response to the ongoing discussion regarding the existence and format of Wikipedia's treatment of Caltech's House System. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Articles on Caltech dormitories. I hope others will take it from here and make this a good article. --BlueMoonlet 07:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The persistant (potential) problem with having one page is that some information is extremely House-specific; it's not obvious if such information should go here. For example, one person complained about the Church and Hovse of Blacker, TTBOAI being mentioned here; arguably, that's not really notable information, but what about listing of alley names in Houses which have them? Unless there's a standarized policy about what should or should not be in this article, I see the potential for abuse and vandalism. 131.215.166.9 10:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point of an article should be to acquaint outsiders with the important facts about the subject. In my opinion, details like TTBOAI and a table of room numbers by alley are basically devoid of interest to anyone who has not lived in Blacker Hovse. Therefore, I don't think they really belong in a Wikipedia article. As you mention, these kinds of details feel more out of place in an omnibus article than in house-specific articles. I say that is by design. --BlueMoonlet 17:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the Lloyd section currently mentions all of its alleys within a single sentence. That seems perfectly appropriate to me. --BlueMoonlet 17:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite feel like slapping a vfd on this article at this point, and I've contributed to some arguably marginal articles myself, but this seems like much too long of an article on a topic that is of little general or encyclopedic intrest. You don't see too many analagous articles for other universities, and those that exist are generally much shorter. I believe it should be condensed, and quite possibly merged into the general article on Caltech. --Ithacagorges 07:46, 16 Jul 2005

This article was in fact created as the outcome of a hotly contested vfd process, q.v. Formerly there was a separate article for each house, and condensing them into a single article was judged a compromise that everyone could live with. Please read the discussion there before deciding if you want to start a new process. --BlueMoonlet 19:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As a deeper insight into one institution, this is great. I was at Caltech for 1 year, but being able to reference traditions as illustrative of a particular organization and set of people is very useful.

But they're all fine houses.

As a Techer, I'd like to see some mention of Rotation rules in any discussion about the Houses, but I'm not sure if this is acceptable under Wikipedia rules. Also, it might be nice to note that during the 50s and previous, members of Ricketts were known as Rowdies. This distinction is extremely important to those members of Ricketts who are from that time period, since a major cultural shift accompanied the name change, similar to the difference between current Darbs and "House of Captains"-age Darbs. CraigMontuori 131.215.90.179 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Craig! I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule that would keep Rotation rules out of the article. "Be Bold!" and put something into the article, if you think it belongs here. Or, if you'd rather, leave a note on my talk page explaining what you think ought to be changed, and I'll edit the article to include the altered or additional information. Or you can even mailto:bryant@alumni.caltech.edu and make your suggestions that way, if you want to. Oh -- I'll go and put something about "Rowdies" into the table right now. DavidCBryant 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party so let me first offer my apologies for commenting on what is now a "closed" discussion. After reading the VFD page and this article, I think we really should have separate pages for each of the houses. The House System article should be about the House System and not serve as a shell for articles about its constituent houses. Perhaps we should add some more information about the survey that was conducted to create the house system (my memory's a little fuzzy on this, but I remember something about a student and administration committee that visited several universities), more about the governance of the House System (there's just short mention of the IHC and inter-house sports. Details about the Fleming Cannon, the inverted pentagram, and which building number Lloyd is on the Caltech map seem misplaced in an article that is titled "House System at the California Institute of Technology". Thoughts? --Baldeep 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Baldeep, you're the two-year IHC Chair from '98-'00? The tour you mention was done to Ivys and English colleges in the late 20s. There was another tour done in the mid-50s before the North Houses were built, mostly to small, liberal arts colleges in the NE (Swarthmore and such). Additionally, Joe Rhodes toured nationally in the late 60s, but that was mostly for the purpose of studying Campus Unrest.

Should we mention the TURLI report which caused a good deal of campus controversy? We could also mention the fact that Rotation was suspsended from '59-'63 post-colonization of the North Houses.

By the by, how did NO get elected ASCIT Prez the year you and Jaideep left?

Thanks David, I'll put a link to Rotation Rules and maybe also a short blurb about Rotation.

CraigMontuori 131.215.90.179 08:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost sure that the first lloyd xmas tree was in 1995. Furthermore, that was only a prank that one year, after that it was just something that lloyd does, everyone knows about it, it's neat, but not a prank. That whole section certainly needs cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.201.226 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dabney social membership

While Fleming nominally has social memberships, they consider all undergraduates to be social members automatically (and they don't require social members to pay dues). So in effect, Fleming does not have social memberships. The same is true of Dabney.

I have been a member of Dabney for a couple of years now and have never heard of this concept. Thus, I am removing "The same is true of Dabney." The same may have been true of Dabney at one time, but not now. (Alas, the only copy of the old Dabney House constitution that I know of is in storage somewhere inaccessible.) --Virtualphtn 05:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mergefrom DEI (Dabney Eats It)

If each individual house is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article, I don't think DEI should have an individual article. --Karnesky 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The thing about DEI is that it has grown beyond just being a quirk of a Tech house, much like Pomona's popularization of 47 (which is in the '47 (number)' article and not restricted to an article on Pomona). 47 lore has shown up widely (it was big at Tech when I was there), just as DEI shows up throughout the world and galaxy. And for fun, another siting worth mention: DEI was the first half of the code to release the bomb in Dr. Strangelove. -Brian Leahy, Ricketts '83. 18:30, 06 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the code for "wing attack, plan R" is "FGD 135". And coincidentally, the initial letters of a blasphemous Ricketts House exclamation are "FGD". 204.210.29.236 05:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. If the use of "DEI" is intentional, "FGD" is almost certainly intentional as well. "FGD" is in common usage as Ricketts slang, usually in reference to the act of breaking an empty bottle against Crud Roof, which traditionally involves yelling "Fuck God Dead!" N6 10:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

There is definitely some information here that would be a benefit to Wikipedia, but the current state of the article is shameful. I understand that this situation is the result of merging a number of disparate pages, but it has been several months now and it's time this was cleaned up. 63.201.92.7 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a Lloydie (BSMa '73) who just recently signed up as a user on Wikipedia.

I read through the article, and except for a few minor grammatical and idiomatic errors, it looks pretty good to me. I'll patch those up sometime soon, but I'm wondering if someone has substantive criticisms of errors, or of bad style, or of something else of that nature I may have overlooked. If so please mention it here ... I'll be keeping an eye on this one for a while. DavidCBryant 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The style of this article could best be described as sophomoric ... and that's being kind. —Quicksilver^{T @} 07:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your incisive, constructive, and specific criticism. DavidCBryant 12:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should start with an overview of the Hovse system as a whole; some of this information is at the bottom but it could be expanded and should be moved to the top. Some more information on the history of the Hovse system would be good too: a good source is here. Antony-22 03:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Antony-22 that this article should be reorganized. I read through the report he linked to. It contains a lot of valuable historical information. I'll try talking to BlueMoonlet first, though, since he apparently did most of the work to create this article (by merging the seven different articles that used to be on Wikipedia). DavidCBryant 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some rearranging and added information about off-campus housing. The History can still be enhanced with information from the previously-mentioned source, and the individual House sections should probably by harmonized somehow. Antony-22 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Booty house

Hi, N6!

I noticed your edit. Terminology must have evolved. I have absolutely no recollection of "Booty Hovse". "Foo", on the other hand, rings a bell for me. But it's been almost 35 years ... thanks for the explanatory bit. DavidCBryant 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a change in the rotation rules in 2000 that strongly discouraged giving the frosh details about other houses' traditions and character. People started using "Booty House" when they wanted to trash talk a house during rotation without mentioning it by name. I'm not sure this is where the phrase got its start, but it's where I first encountered it. n₆^c 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Booty house stemmed from one other Lloydie and I (alex sheive) mishearing a song at the ASCIT halloween party (1996) as having the lyrics "Lloyd house... booty house". This was then picked up by some lloydies that made "Booty House" lloyd shirts. I assume that it then snuck into rotation rules and such via the fact that a subset of the lloydies that became fond of the phrase held several positions on the IHC.

Ruddock House Motto

The Ruddock House motto is indeed "Virtutis mammilas exsugimus." It was decided at the last Ruddock House election. Please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.172.225 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, but this seems to be a non-wikipedia-citing example. timcat12 ⟨talk⟩ 06:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition, it appears there previously was a reliable source ^{(ref 4)} but that page is no longer available nor is it archived anywhere that I could find. timcat12 ⟨talk⟩ 06:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Interhovse

So Interhovse was brought back this year after it's 17(? last one was in Nov. 1989, this one was 2nd term for the 2006-2007 school year, but it was technically Interhovse 2006) year hiatus. It was also billed as the South House Reopening Party and took place in the four South Houses instead of all of the Houses. The plan is for it to happen again next year on its traditional November weekend. Is this worth a mention? -Craig Montuori

131.215.90.179 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There's not a section for campus-wide traditions yet... it would certainly be good to put one in somewhere. Antony-22 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AveryLogo.gif

Image:AveryLogo.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BlackerHovse.jpg

Image:BlackerHovse.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ruddock House Slogan

"Ruddock rhymes with Buttock" isn't a widely used slogan nowadays. "My house will never be as cool as Ruddock House. I wish I were dead." is a more popular quote, though it's not one that Rudds themselves would use, so I'm not sure if it is appropriate for the Slogan category. I just put it in there anyway because it is a more popular quote. Could other Rudds comment or edit for a more appropriate entry? Ctetc2007 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

People certainly use the rhyming to (sportingly, of course) jab at Rudds. OcciMoron 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Avery-Nietsche Speculation

To user DomenicDenicola: per WP:CBALL and WP:FORUM, information like this should be removed when unsourced, and often when sourced, as well. While many other statements in this article are unsourced, none of them speculate as to the reasonings employed by other human beings. Additionally, this piece does not adhere to WP:UNDUE as it provides two opinions about the reasoning behind something without showing for certain that it has accurately displayed all notable schools of thought on the subject. Please listen to WP:3RR before again reverting this article and instead constructively discuss how to improve this article.OcciMoron 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You say no other unsourced things are on motivations of other human beings: "Pains are taken to maintain a certain level of mystery. This secrecy is often due to the frank—and sometimes personally uncomplimentary—discussions within the House selection committees, which are sometimes divided into factions. Also, the selection process is constrained: there are only a limited number of openings in each House, and it is impossible to simultaneouly meet the preferences of all of the Freshmen and Houses. Although typically the Houses try to make new members feel welcome as a part of the community" ... "In a defiant response to the prohibition" ... "the acronym DEI has come to be a badge of pride for Darbs" ... "This emphasis on athletics is explicitly a part of Fleming's self-conscious rejection of the nerd stereotype that developed at Caltech after the elimination of its dress code in 1968" ... "due to a play on the similarity of the name Ricketts to the disease rickets and the fact that scurvy is another vitamin deficiency disease" [EXTREMELY analogous] ... "In response to other houses quixotically claiming certain items to be off limits in regard to pranks (rendering them Non-RF-able), the Page House president at the time named that The President be unprankable as well. Not getting the joke, the Interhouse committee allowed it" ... need I continue? I haven't even gotten to the Avery section.

The point is that this whole page is drawn from campus anecdotes and other unsourced material. As a Slave myself, I have heard this rational several times during my stays in the South Hovses. I do not see how you can call this either unverifiable speculation or some type of forum posting. WP:UNDUE is, I would argue, complete inapplicable here: the criteria given cannot apply to a large portion of this article, which is about half viewpoint at the moment. Perhaps this article should be completely overhauled to include facts only, but until that time it seems like you are simply excluding this because you haven't heard of it before, or perhaps because it doesn't appeal to you (but, I admit that speculating on your motives is pointless).

Regarding 3RR, I can only assume that you are not the mysterious "131.215.159.106," otherwise you would be guilty of violating that rule yourself. I will be reverting the article when the 24-hour window passes. I think it might be most fair to constructively let me handle the Avery section of the article, as I live there while still having a decent amount of interaction outside the House and thus am able to gauge others' attitudes and be aware of the origins of terms such as the designation Slavery or attitudes toward Avery's changing status. Domenic Denicola 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point is that other examples of policy violations exist in the article. How about, instead of continuing to argue for making wikipedia less factual, you make it more factual by sourcing the material you seek to include. Additionally, why not make an effort to source the other material you just cited, or, in accordance with wikipedia guidelines, remove it? I don't see how the argument "this article has countless policy violations and unencyclopedic elements" justifies including more elements of just that type. One is not supposed to answer challenges based on WP:CBALL, WP:FORUM, WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE by citing other examples of flaws in the article. The way to answer this is to bring the article into line with those standards.

Additionally, you claim that Since you "live there while still having a decent amount of interaction outside the House," you should be allowed to include content that would be quickly removed on any other article. I remind you of WP:NOR, which clearly indicates that what you are doing is nonstandard for this encyclopedia. I recommend that instead of providing original research, you source the statements that you edit into this encyclopedia and avoid both original research and wild speculation. Also, your threats to continue reverting this article make me suggest you do a thorough reading of WP:EW and WP:EQ, especially as regards "work toward agreement." This encyclopedia is collaborative, and you should work with other editors, not against them. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal research.

OcciMoron 05:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really think that adhering to the policies is wise, we can certainly gut this article. Hey, we could make it a collaborative project! You want to be my article-destroying buddy?

This article, in its current form, contains useful and accurate information. Perhaps it does not meet encyclopedic standards for maybe 50% of the information therein, because of the basic nature of the (non-historical) subject matter not being something that can be found in an official source. Does this mean that information should be left out? Or only the information that you personally don't like?

Give the word, and I'm happy to start neutering the article to history/facts-only. That seems to be what you're advocating. Whereas I'm saying that all these Wikipedia policies just might not be 100% applicable to every article, especially one of this type of subject matter. If you disagree and think that we should always blindly apply these policies, then hey, let's be article-neutering buddies! I'm up for it :). After all, policy supports! Domenic Denicola 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You have obviously misinterpreted what I was saying. What you should be doing, and what I will be doing with this article, is providing sources for all of the material in it. If you can't find sources, then don't include something. I agree that WP:IAR holds in this case as it would require gutting the article. However, it would be better if you chose to source statements that are under dispute first, then came to the less-disputed items later. Please try to be cooperative instead of incendiary. OcciMoron 01:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mein Gott kids give it a rest... you're turning Wikipedia into the sextrailer. Go write an arteicle for the Tech, put it online somewhere and then cite that. And no, I don't know or really care that much if that's legal by Wikipedia standards Sherpajack:68.190.216.13 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The sextrailer still exists?Ctetc2007 (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PageCrest.jpg

Image:PageCrest.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 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ruddock house crest.jpg

Image:Ruddock house crest.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 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dabney mottos

I'm a bit concerned that the changeable Dabney mottoes can't be attributed to reliable, third-party, published sources and thus are not verifiable, besides probably being unencyclopedic. Thoughts? Antony-22 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are all good points, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. The whole thing is illustrative of the unique nature of the student life experience at Caltech. We're certainly going to make sure that the entries are accurate and reliable, because it is in our interest to do so. It is my opinion that removing this information would needlessly remove important and useful information from the page.

Dobenshain (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not quite convinced. If this were a tradition that had been going on for twenty years, or even five years, then I believe it would be encyclopedic in the context of this article. As something that just started, it really does strike me as exactly what WP:NFT is talking about. Things like the Pumpkin Drop, or even the three rules of Dabney House, are good things to include since they've been around for a while and are (probably) verifiable through the Tech or the Big T. If we were to include every new tradition that may or may not last, this article would seem very flippant very quickly. Antony-22 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)