Talk:Ambigram

Cleanup this page?

This page is pretty messy with old discussions -- can it be cleaned up?

When I have time, I'm planning to do just that, by archiving old discussions and creating a new section at the top specifically for discussion of ambigrams to be included (replacing that big long thing I added at the bottom when somebody killed a bunch of ambigrams off the page). I'm hoping that visitors that come along and see the page won't just jump to add (or delete) a random ambigram if this page is well organized. Any help appreciated!

I'm also hoping to get enough people weighing in on that list at the bottom to fix up the article. So, if you're reading this and you haven't made a comment yet, by all means do so. Even a single comment that says "I'm ok with this" or even "Nuke them all" is valuable.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

To clean up really old discussions (and make it easier for people to see and comment on new discussions), I have added an auto archive to this page. To ensure that any discussions that are even close to active don't get archived, I've set it to only archive discussions that have been inactive for 90 days or more (14 is more usual). RoyLeban (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Proposed Logos

See below or talk archives for discussions on these logos

Love/Hate	NO	3 votes against, none in favor (original poster did not revisit)

Proposed Logos

I (User:Roy Leban) am proposing that we (editors and people interested in the Ambgram page) use this section of the Talk page to discuss logos proposed for inclusion. To start things off, here's a logo that somebody added to the page without any explanation of why they're notable or interesting. Since editors don't necessarily get to this page very often, it may take a while for consensus to be reached on a logo. I am NOT the owner of this page -- nobody is -- but I recently spent time on it and I'm hoping to help it get better. If you disagree, let's discuss. RoyLeban (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that something so graphical in nature should have many examples of the art in use, but no more than one example from each company or person.

However, the examples should be moved to the bottom of the page (or a separate page) so that someone wishing to read ABOUT ambigrams can get the textual content before viewing the examples. I have taken the first step of moving the Examples section to the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech Lovr (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see the Recently Deleted Content section at the bottom for additional items you should vote on.

• Add additional logos here, with why you think it should be added
• Vote YES or NO as to whether an ambigram should be included

lovehate logo

The " Lovehate " logo for the Italian clothes manufacturer http://www.lovehate.it/ proposed by 81.208.60.204

• NO Not a particularly good ambigram and there are plenty of shirts available with better ambigrams, if we wanted to highlight one. It appears this company only sells one thing -- t-shirts with this logo. It doesn't matter to me that it's an Italian company (in fact, it would be great to have some non-English examples). Note also that this IP user has had almost all of their additions to Wikipedia reverted as they all seem to be external links with no extra content (see User_talk:81.208.60.204). RoyLeban (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen variations on this design for several years. I don't believe that this love/hate mirror ambigram is even original. However, it is one of the more clearly useful examples of a mirror image ambigram. Perhaps the design itself could be resized smaller and featured directly on the ambigram page as an example of a mirror image ambigram. 12.29.227.219 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems totally promotional to me

CONSENSUS: NO. Reason: 3 votes against, none in favor (original poster did not revisit) RoyLeban (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I'd like to trim the external links list, as 18 is excessive. Some of the sites in the external links provide better examples than others at illustrating the concept. Also, Wikipedia is not a web directory. The article needs only a handful of links to the best examples that really define the subject. How can we go about deciding which to keep and which to remove? --Entirety 15:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Because of the amount of spam and poor links that have been added, I've been very harsh on removing external links unless they are discussed here first. Most links come from the owners of the websites themselves, and therefore go against Wikipedia policies.

http://www.ambigramartwork.blogspot.com/ was added today, and I think it deserves to be listed here in the external links as it appears to be regularly updated and has interesting commentaries. I deleted the link, so as to be fair, but think it should be here. Any objections to this? If not, I'll re-add the link at the end of the week --Entirety 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Entirety said 'Most links come from the owners of the websites themselves, and therefore go against [[Wikipedia:External links[Wikipedia policies]]', but by sheer coincidence this link [1] also has someone called Entirety who is promoting the website of somebody called Jonathan Gough, who can be found on the Wikipedia/Ambigram/External Links. --Persuedonym 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Pursuedonymn

That is correct - no coincidence about it. However, I started editing the article quite a while after the first person linked to my site. I simply care deeply enough about the subject (I wrote most of it) to try to keep the article links as relevant as possible. Given that it is the second highest result in Google for "ambigram", I believe that it provides information (e.g. a tutorial and user gallery) that cannot be accessed elsewhere. If you believe that the site is non-notable then by all means remove it, but only do so with valid reason, not simply because it's my site. Thanks --Entirety 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness and transparency I've trimmed nearly all of the external links. Please (re)add any notable sites to the list if they add to the description in the article. Entirety 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

the ambigramania link redirects to a website that has nothing to do with this topic. please fix this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.6.8 (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem; it leads to the website of an online community of Ambigram enthusiasts.  --Lambiam 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you been to this site? Its basically inactive. Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr ambigram group

Please visit the Flickr ambigram group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/ambigram/.

We're a burgeoning community of artists with a substantial and growing body of work for reference. There are some truly unique and creative designs to be found for the curious.

Thanks for your consideration!

scalpod

Scott Kim and other ambigramists

Since Scott Kim seems to have done these well before the term itself was invented, and since they don't seem to be written up anywhere else (or are they? a crosslink may have been missed by me), would more emphasis on his works, and on the works of John Langdon be appropriate here? ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in particular Scott Kim should get more prominent mention. Perhaps a section "Prominent ambigram designers", where inclusion requires that the person in question has a Wikipedia article and has published a book dedicated to ambigram designs?  --Lambiam 10:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'm not an expert by any means, I just stumbled on to this article as a result of the Signpost and the Wiki-World cartoon. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know about Robert Petricks contributions? It seems he worked with Langdon in the seventies, and had several ambigrams published in '75 and '76, including the ANGEL logo already referenced on this page. This work may predate Scott Kim, and at least is contemporary with it. Nazlfrag (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Petrick is certainly a Langdon contemporary -- they worked together and, yes, their work predates Kim's. I recently created a page for Robert Petrick and people have questioned his notability. I've known about him for about 25 years and he's certainly one of the pioneers. Unlike Kim and Langdon, he didn't publish a book, so he's not as well known, but he's done ambigrams we've all seen, like the Angel logo. RoyLeban (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:DeLorean Motor Company logo.svg

The image File:DeLorean Motor Company logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This logo is the same logon as on the DeLorean Motor Company page, so I don't know why it's getting questioned here. I asked a question about this on the page of the maintainer of the bot. RoyLeban (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FlipScript

An earlier comment has been replaced with an explanation

There was a brief edit war on the term flipscript, which was resolved. Some people were (and are being) introduced to ambigrams through FlipScript and, to those people, a FlipScript is an ambigram. It was agreed that, in common usage, a FlipScript is an ambigram, but (currently) an ambigram is not a flipscript (or a FlipScript). This may change in the future.

Acccordingly, the term flipscript is not used in the opening section, but it is discussed in the Other Names section. FlipScript (the company) is discussed in the Creating Ambigrams section.

The term inversion, introduced by Scott Kim, has some similarity. However, Kim used the term inversion in a variety of publications, including his book, before the term ambigram was coined and many people still think that inversion is the proper name. Therefore, putting that name in the opening section makes sense. 67.160.117.110 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Content

Somebody recently (Jan 2009) removed a whole bunch of content on this page. I disagree with most of these edits. If somebody thinks that we should revisit which ambigrams belong on the page, perhaps we should vote on all of them, rather than having one person go in and remove those that they don't like.

I would like others to weigh in. I've listed all of the removed ambigrams below, along with my vote on each. -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: If you're voting, please sign your name, like this: RoyLeban (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Monkeyshine

• Restore (would be nice if we could see the ambigram)

why remove? It's topical and interesting and apparently the ambigram (by Langdon) is central to the movie. There are probably links to 10,000 movies on Wikipedia and most of them don't have Wikipedia pages, so that is not a reason to remove. Maybe there should be a page. Movie on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332027 -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restore 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• If the movie is about ambigrams or an ambigram is central to the plot, it should be includded
• Quick nod to a new page being created, and linked to. If ambigram is in the title, is should be reproduced here (when available) Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• It was a spam link added by an account whose only edits was to add spam to their own nonnotable projects. So nonnotable, in fact, that al WIkipdia aricles about the films, the company, and the people in it were deleted. Case closed on that one. DreamGuy (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but that alone doesn't disqualify it in this context. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AmbiScript

Image of Ambiscript removed. Image did not have any significant text associated with it, so it wasn't very clear or useful.

• Add a sentence somewhere Not sure where it should go, but I think it's relevant. The picture was not only unnecessary but did not provide any reason why it was of interest. RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of the few actually USEFUL examples of ambigram-like designs, I strongly vote for a 'restore' on this deletion. To think that DNA and gene sequencing notation could standardize on ambiguous rotatable symbols (instead of GATC) should be a feather in the cap of the ambigram article and should not only be restored, but possibly even more prominantly featured. It takes ambigram designs out of the world of "interesting" and moves them closer to "life altering". :-) 12.29.227.219 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow is all I have to say. Clearly an unbiased opinion there. DreamGuy (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Don't understand relevance - it's just a bunch of symbols. If it's here, it needs to be explained

• Restore - Cool! Useful ambigram-like symbolsTech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You realize that this site is an encyclopedia, right? Useful? What? DreamGuy (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are your comments sarcasm? Hard to tell. Consensus is mixed here, but it looks like a lean to putting it back without the image. A straightforward opinion on value, instead of ridiculing the commenters would be much more useful. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FlipScript

Two statements removed:

1. "Nonetheless, it is a significant advance in automated creation of ambigrams."
2. Under Other Names: "More recently, the FlipScript web service has promoted the trademarked term flipscript to refer to their own ambigram products."

• Restore (both statement are accurate and relevant, but I agree they're not essential)

I wrote statement 1. Many other pages on Wikipedia can be found that say things that are equivalent. -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lean toward restore just learned about this and it's interesting

Vote for 'restore' of the first line only, but presented in a less promotional way. 12.29.227.219 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• first line makes sense and is consistent with NPOV. a quick google shows that flipscript is all over the web, so something from the second line should be included

• Vote for restore of first line only.Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that we have an anon user (whose only edits EVER were to vote here and to support FlipScript in a deletion request), someone who didn't sign anything, etc. are voting and trying to set consensus. Brand new users are basically indistingushable from sock/meat puppets or people wih COI problems. I don't really see any notability established for any mention at all, but certainly not the marketing claims. "Significant advance"? Says who? The people behind it? Reliable sources? Any reason anyone should care? Not really. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of an NPL Ambigram

Following example removed: "For example, ANN COULTER rearranged to UNCLEAN ROT is an ambigram, though some could argue that Coulter's self-described polemicizing makes it an anagram."

• Restore (or provide alternate example)

An example makes it clearer. Is there some Wikipedia guideline I don't know about against providing examples? -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote for retaining deletion. This isn't an article about anagrams. Additional examples should be put on the anagram page. 12.29.227.219 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Who cares? Examples belong in the NPL article, not here

• Delete. Irrelevant here.Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Irrelevant everywhere, even on an NPL mailing list these days. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you are a NPL member (and I can't imagine another member insulting me as you have and acting like you do). Consensus here looks like it should be left out and I'm fine with that. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Life/Death tattoo

Statement that Life/Death is the most popular ambigram tattoo. Also links to rate my tattoo and wowtattoos.com

• Unsure If it's a true statement, then it should be in the article. Can anyone verify?

Whoever put it in the first place obviously thought it was true. This page http://www.wowtattoos.com/populartattoodesigns.html says Life/Death is one of their most popular. Searching for ("life death" tattoo) gets an astonishing 55,100 pages. ("life death" ambigram tattoo) gets 1,220. I don't know if Mark Palmer is, in fact, the leading ambigram tattoo artist, but nobody else is claiming that :-). Again, if it's true, might be worth mentioning. Anybody know anything about tattoos? -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restore if citation can be found -- interesting 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to definitely verify if the Life/Death ambigram tattoo is "THE most popular" without some sort of tattoo census.

However, it is most definitely a fact that Mark Palmer is the world's most tattooed ambigram artist. In fact, he is widely considered to be the most tattooed artist. Period. Ambigram or otherwise. His designs can be found on tens of thousands of people. At CES 2009 (January, 09), actor Levar Burton revealed his new ambigram tattoo (Levar/Kunta) to a fair amount of coverage in the media. The artist was revealed to be Mark Palmer. 12.29.227.219 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Got a reliable source to back it up? Per WIkipedia reliable sources rules, I mean, not just because you say so. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vote for restore. Seems fairly notable, and interesting trivia.Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not notable, no reliable sources, mere trivia -- it's just ridiculously inappropriate for WIkipedia every which way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're half-right here. It's not ridiculously inappropriate, but it's not something we can put in without a reliable source, which nobody has presented. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed ambigram: Justin Thyme

Justin Thyme http://www.justinthyme.info/page114.html

• Restore no apparent reason to remove. Page is not a page to sell the book, though there is a link to buy it on Amazon. -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Restore 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Put it back

Removed ambigram: Mosuki

Removed: "Mosuki, the logo for the online calendar sharing site"

• No opinion don't know how long this link has been there or anything about the site.

Removed ambigram: WIM

Removed: "The WIM game logo, made out of letters from the ambigram-like game."

• No vote (COI). This is my game, so I should not vote

It is not an ambigram game, but it is ambigram-like/ambigram-inspired and is notable as the first such game. The page http://www.puzzazz.com/wim is an informational page, not a selling page, and is the only place that I know of where the logo is currently visible. -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting - maybe in same section as ambiscript for other uses of ambigrams
• Vote for restore. Seems notable as the first ambigram game (that I'm aware of)Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed ambigram: Trick/Treat cards

Removed: The "Trick/Treat" cards used in Derren Brown's "Trick or Treat" TV series.

• Restore The image does not exist -- was it deleted? Derren Brown is certainly notable, but, since I can't see the cards, I don't know if they're relevant. -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Trick or Treat (TV series), these cards were only used in the first season. They sound interesting, though, and I thing an ambigram that was a significant part of a TV series is certainly notable. Changing vote to Restore, if image can be found. RoyLeban (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restore 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Restore
• Restore if not a violation of copyright Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed ambigram: dollop

Removed: "dollop, a hair styling pomade made in New Zealand [2] <!-- Note: dollop logo is used only on product, not on web site -->

• Restore Can we find a page where the logo is used that is not a selling page? -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• This is a natural and uintersting ambigram. Leave out.
• Delete. Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented out ambigram: Civic

Removed: "The Honda Civic logo - also not a readable logo (says CIVID)"

• Delete Not readable, not in use (was it ever?) -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yuck
• Retain deletion Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented out ambigram: РИa

Removed: "РИa, the logo for Novosti, the Russian News and Information Agency"

• Lean toward restore Looks like the ambigram logo is only used on the English page http://en.rian.ru/. Not the best ambigram but interesting as an example of a non-English ambigram. Does anybody have a better example available? Would be nice to have one of David Moser's English/Chinese ambigrams. -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Lean toward leaving out ugly -- have to be better intl examples 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• unintersting
• Delete Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented out ambigram: Slackware

Removed: "A logo for Slackware logo"

• Lean toward restore (if current usage can be established) -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep out not good not interesting 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• where is it?
• The Slackware developers themselves decided against the use of this logo after a series of complaints from their user base. Definitely leave out. Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Removed two links, dubbed as "fan sites":

Ambigramania online community for Ambigram enthusiasts

Flickr Ambigram Pool

• Restore They are useful and nothing in WP:EL says these sites can't be linked to. The first is a community specifically for ambigrammists; the second is a link to a single pool on Flickr, not Flickr itself. Neither of these could be considered to be a link to a "social networking site". RoyLeban (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Restore both useful 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• put back -- this is hardly making WIkipedia into a web catalog by including these
• Delete both. Neither has any advantages over a simple Google Image search. Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ABBA Logo?

Somebody pointed out to me that the ABBA logo is not an ambigram. Neither is the one for Nine Inch Nails, so I removed them. Any objection?

• , the logo for the band ABBA.
• , the logo for the band Nine Inch Nails.

Should there be a small section on things like ABBA, NIN, and CIVIC (CIVID) -- pseudo-ambigrams, essentially? RoyLeban (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The word ambigram is not really defined in many reputable dictionaries, but one definition is: An ambigram is a word that can be read from different angles, like or MOW or NOON that can be turned through 180 degrees and still be read as the same words. According to this definition, ABBA certainly is not an ambigram, but the NIN logo fits this definition of Ambigram. It just seems like you are trying to narrow the definition here. I agree that readers will tend to want to add to the list because they suddenly recognize the concept, but we should all be able to agree that the band Nine Inch Nails were a bit ahead of their time with their image. So removing NIN because it doesn't fit a narrow definition of ambigram, seems like the wrong reason. Removing it for copyright violations is the right reason. And I agree that there could be way too many examples added, but NIN just seems like a terrific example. --Graydoncarter (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Let me add that I ultimately defer to you RoyLeban because this is your area of focus, I'm just a reader and puzzle solver. It also occurs to me that professional tattoo artists are very invested in this area, perhaps more than other graphic artists (because their media will often be inverted) so the definition will be apt to focus on a very specific concept, as will happen. --Graydoncarter (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second N in NIN is backwards, like the first B in ABBA, so I think they're not ambigrams. I don't know what to call them other than interesting ambigram-like / ambigram-inspired logos (similarly, my game of WIM is ambigram-like / ambigram-inspired, but it is not an ambigram game). But, I lean toward including them in a section of their own because I think the existence of these logos helps popularize ambigrams. RoyLeban (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Retain - Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record on alternate names

DreamGuy accuses me of adding alternate names to simply add a name I made up myself. This is false. In fact, Hofstadter made up the name twinonym and gave it to me. I didn't even like it at the beginning and didn't use it very much. Hofstadter refers to it on page 6 of Ambigrammi (English translation): "I call mine ambigrams exclusively, of course. Greg Huber invented the droll term 'iffyglyph' for what he creates, while Roy Leban (twin brother of Bruce) draws exclusively 'twinonyms.' ...." He goes on to discuss Petrick and Lopez and other potential names. The discussion of alternate names existed earlier, in the intro section. I moved it and added to it.

For the record, Doug is a friend of mine. I have known him since the early '80s and I was one of his graduate students at the University of Michigan. I also know Kim, Langdon, Petrick, Huber, Moser, etc. I've been creating ambigrams for more than 30 years and am an expert on them. None of this invalidates me from editing this article. In fact, editing by experts on Wikipedia is a good thing. Everything in the article is sourced and I added references to the sources I used, such as Ambigrammi, Polster's book, Borgmann's book, U&lc, The Strand, etc. I uploaded images of The Strand from 1906 (images of others are not possible because they're still under copyright). It is not my fault that some of these are rare items that most people do not have access to.

RoyLeban (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read our WP:COI policy? You probably shouldn't be editing this article at all, since you are so caught up in the promotion of various companies and individuals involved. DreamGuy (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read WP:COI. Editing by experts on Wikipedia is encouraged and everything I've added has been sourced, whether you like it or not. I have no desire to promote anything. I have no relationship with the FlipScript company. Yes, I have exchanged email with Mark Hunter of FlipScript, but I've never met him, and know nothing about him or his company other than what I've found online. (Sure, I wish him luck, but I wish that of pretty much any small business owner.)

Note that my reversion did not restore the apparent COI edits by somebody associated with FlipScript and/or WowTattoos.

The purpose of Wikipedia policies is to improve Wikipedia, not to have them be used as a bludgeon for people you disagree with.

RoyLeban (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Milestones in the history of ambigrams"

No. Sorry. The whole section is nothing more than original research -- things the editor involved declared o be milestones. We'd need reliable sources to declare that, and from multiple sources at that so it wouldn't just be "so-and-so's opinions of the important ambigrams."

Wikipedia as a whole also frowns on items written in list format anyway.

Between those two the whole section is simply unsalvageable. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion. I think we can assume that is a vote to remove the section. My own vote is to keep it. For the benefit of others, I'll explain why I put it in. The "invention" of ambigrams is disputed. Scott Kim, John Langdon, and Robert Petrick all claim some inventorship in various publications. Meanwhile, Doug Hofstadter asserts (in Ambigrammi, page 4) that he and Peter Jones started doing them around 1964. And, as you can see, there were ambigrams much earlier. It's not my role to figure out whose right (and, actually, I think, to some extent, they all are), so I instead put everything on a timeline. I'm open to other formats, but it seemed like the best one and timelines and list exist in planty of places on Wikipedia. The material in the timeline is not original research or my opinions. It's all sourced, though I did not put citations on every line. DreamGuy seems to have a misconstrued idea of what OR is -- gathering information from a variety of publications is not OR, nor is creating a list of information a synthesis of new information. I made no attempt to answer the question of who invented ambigrams in the timeline. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Before you tell me what is or is not OR, you should actually read the policy. WP:SYNTH, specifically, proves you wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SYNTH? In fact did you notice the full title of the section: Synthesis of published material which advances a position? (emphasis mine) The list of milestones does not advance any position. It does not reach any conclusion. It is an enumeration of facts. WP:OR also states The "No original research" rule does not forbid ... restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources. A list of cited facts is not OR or SYNTH.

There are two issues here, which I will split out into the sections below for discussion. As you know, Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus. Other editors have added to the milestones section, so there is already some consensus that it belongs. You (DreamGuy) appear to be the only editor who disagrees. If you wish to remove the section, make your case below and it can be discussed. RoyLeban (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Format of the Milestones section

Wikipedia has lists elsewhere, in plenty of places (e.g., click on almost any date). There is no rule that information cannot be presented in a list like this. I put the information in a list because I thought it was a good, condensed format to present this historical information. I feel it is easier to read than a long list of prose. I am open to other formats. RoyLeban (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Content of the Milestones section

Each item in the milestones section is independent. All of the items I added were sourced independently, at the time they were added. I added the items I added because I felt they were notable. I'm using the same rules for sourcing and notability that is used everywhere on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure the same is true of items added by other people. If you believe a particular item is unsourced or not notable, please make an appropriate statement. Note that Wikipedia does not require that every line in every article have a footnote indicating the source or justifying its notability. RoyLeban (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NPL use of the word Ambigram

User:DreamGuy has repeatedly removed this information, most recently with the untrue claim that it was "nonnotable trivia/promotion for a club editor who put it here is a member of)". From the looks of it (and previous history), I think he is referring to me.

First off, this material was added in September 2008 by User:71.142.94.121. I don't know who this editor is, but it wasn't me. Later the text in the heading was shortened and a new section created at the bottom of the article. Multiple editors have supported the current version, most recently User:Nightscream. Since the NPL has no members in Union City, NJ (where Nightscream says he is from), I do not think he is a member.

Second, DreamGuy claims that it is non-notable trivia. It is not. The National Puzzlers' League is the world's oldest organization of puzzlers and is quite notable. Most of the who's who of professional puzzle constructor are members. In addition to internal activities, the league generally promotes puzzling. Elsewhere, DreamGuy claims he is a member of the NPL (though his statement here belies that). If he is a member, he should know that it's not a club and that it is certainly notable.

I do not think much attention should be paid to this subject. But, the alternate use of the term, which I think predates Hofstadter's coinage, is notable for this article. Moving the additional detail to the end of the article is appropriate. Having more in the intro overstates its importance.

As to the WP:COI claim that DreamGuy will make of me: Yes, I'm a member of the NPL. I did not add the information to this article. In fact, I completely support moving the information to the end with only the short sentence in the intro. I believe it is appropriate and notable and so do other editors who are not NPL members. I will support whatever the consensus is. So far, it looks like the consensus is to include it, so I have undone DreamGuy's revert.

DreamGuy, if you believe this information is inappropriate, make your case here.

RoyLeban (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Other names section

Although I'm restoring a bunch of text that was deleted from the article, to avoid any appearance of WP:COI, I am not restoring the following text which happens to include my name.

Names coined by Hofstadter and others he worked with at the time included ambigram, iffyglyph (Greg Huber), twinonym (Roy Leban), symmetrick (Robert Petrick), abrapalabra (Alejandro López), spinonym, rotoglyph, twirlogram, polygrok, and sinosign.

The source for this is the English version of Hofstadter's Ambigrammi, page 6. The following is earlier on this page but I'm copying it here for clarity:

Hofstadter made up the name twinonym and gave it to me. I didn't even like it at the beginning and didn't use it very much. Hofstadter refers to it on page 6 of Ambigrammi (English translation): "I call mine ambigrams exclusively, of course. Greg Huber invented the droll term 'iffyglyph' for what he creates, while Roy Leban (twin brother of Bruce) draws exclusively 'twinonyms.' ...." He goes on to discuss Petrick and Lopez and other potential names.

Given the fact that the term ambigram was coined recently and its coinage is discussed, I think the list of alternate names is interesting and notable. I also think it would be weird to put that list in the article and omit my own name, so I will not do that edit. I would appreciate it if consensus could be reached on whether this information should be included. Thanks.

And, yes, DreamGuy, I mean consensus, not just your opinion.

RoyLeban (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)