Talk:Ambigram/Archive 1

De Lorean logo

the DMC logo of the Do Lorean Motor Company ain't no Ambigram, as the M isn't symmetrically. --Abdull 11:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went to the company website to check, and the M definitely looks symmetrical to me, which with the other letters would form an ambigram when flipped as a mirror image. DreamGuy 14:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely symmetrical, as can be seen here: [1] --Entirety 15:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

All those logo links

I'm new here. This seems like the place to discuss the article, but the previous discussion, what I see, is not a lot. I take it that the DMC logo question and answer is all there is.

Anyway, it bothers me that there are only a few sentences about what an ambigram is and then 30-some lines of links to corporate ambigram logos. It's a nice collection, very interesting to me, but is it on point? I do think the external links are useful (mine included!) because a subject that is so graphical in nature needs a lot of pictures to help explain it. The logo list, though, seems pretty low bandwidth, providing just one example ambigram per click. I'm not sure all those links really help someone understand quickly and easily what an ambigram is.

Druthers: I'd rather see definitions (or examples along the lines of that explain the differnet classes of ambigrams. (I'd provide the examples, but I don't do all classes. I only do rotationally symmetric ambigrams, and only dabble in a couple of other classes.)

Comments? 01101001 21:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Perhaps a short section at the top describing the general properties of anagrams, and then a subsection for each type, with one picture (animation where needed) and more detailed description of it, and the processes involved in making it. And then at the end of each subsection we could have a list of logos that fall under that catagory (not line-wrapped, with external links only where appropriate (as in, clicking the link will immediately show you a page where an amibgram logo is visible)).

We could start by making a list of subsections (having "mirror" be the first, because it is the simplest and also because the wiki ambigram is somewhat appropriate for the top), and then fill them in. Maybe Robert Mailand could be persuated to contribute to the "How to do it" section of some of the more obscure ambigram classes.

I can think of at least one more ambigram type to add (not on Robert's list), the 3D ambigram, where a mass of shapes or lines in 3d appears as different words from different angles. This can be easy with just two or three words from 90 degree differences; the trick is to do it with only very slight rotations. I don't know of any examples that would work good in 2d, except maybe as complex animated gif. Splarka 22:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather have links to logos that are ambigrams than pages of people making their own. It shows that they are more notable this way. A lot of the external sites with lots and lots of ambigrams are mostly rather poor ones, which show that if you squint really hard and read what the words under the image say you might see some text there that reads the same coming from another direction. I think we should have more examples on the page of the article, logos preferably. And that animated one really has to go, because it's incredibly annoying and demonstrates what should be obvious if you read the description. DreamGuy 23:24, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree entirely. I believe that the whole spirit of an ambigram is a word that doesn't naturally fall into a symmetrical design. Most logos that are ambigrams have been drawn that way by the designer because the word is symmetrical (or almost) - this seems to me to be exactly the opposite of the definition by Douglas Hofstadter. I would like to see a major overhaul of the this page, including the removal of most of the logo links. I'd like to see a few of the external links removed too as there are some with low quality designs that do not illustrate the subject well. Entirety 23:30, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The logo list is once again growing. Too many of them do not illuminate the subject, do not contribute to undertstanding, being either just poor ambigrams or uncreative ones. Here are the ones I'd like to see gone, at a minimum: Opodo - just a name that is rotationally symmetric; xpedx - just a name that is rotationally symmetric; nuxnu - just a name that is rotationally symmetric; CIVIC - poor, it reads 'CIVID'. Does anyone feel strongly that they should be kept? --01101001 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those are poor ones, but when they've all faced the chop the section will be very small. Is this section really necessary now that the entire article is much longer than it was intially? There aren't too many notable ambigram logos out there as a logo needs to be simple and easily readable (neither of which a typical ambigram is). In my opinion, the only truely notable ones are "Sun", "GEB" and "Angels & Demons" (which isn't really a logo at all, it was a book cover that is no longer available). --Entirety 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Trying to revert the vandalism (which removed all the external logos and links) I got a message informing me that one of the sites linked to ( www.01101001.com ) was banned. What to do? demo 11:17, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Hi. 01101001, here. How did I -- or my site -- become banned? Did I do something wrong? How do I find out? Anything I can do about it?

Separately, I think, what is the vandalism about? From comparing versions, it seems like someone removed all the external links, and later Demo tried to replace them. It seems like they still aren't there in the current version, though the history tells me they are. If you can't tell, I am confused. Anyway, Demo, thanks for attempting a repair.

So is the vandalism linked in any way to my banning, or are they just coincidental? Anyone know? --01101001 09:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the vandalism was coincidental, ant the banning of external sites doesn't effect existing pages. Pages are checked against the meta:spam_blacklist when they are saved. The spam blacklist includes regexp (#\.[0-9]+\.com(/|:|$) #domain is only numbers) to catch websites with only numbers in the domain, which seems to be why your site is banned. Check the blacklist talkpage which seems to include request for removal. demo 14:23, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Overzealous spam-blacklisting's got to be it. I'll pursue whitelisting of www.01101001.com, or begging for a change to the regexp. Thanks. By the way, the current article looks good to me; the external links are back; I must have been looking at an old cached version of the current that didn't have the links. I'm relatively happy and much less confused.--01101001 20:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Added Wikipedia ambigram

This is just a sketch, I'll provide a more clean version when I have the time. --DR 12:00, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you're not offended that I've removed the image for the meantime as the sketch does look a little unprofessional. When you have the more clean version uploaded, put the image back into the article. There is already an acceptible rotational ambigram on the page which is quite sufficient for illustrating the point of the article; we doesn't need the sketch in the meantime. --Entirety 18:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A better version has been uploaded. Maybe there's no need for it as there are already many examples of ambigrams in this page; however, I like to think Wikipedia should have its own. ;-) -- DR 14:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is life/death an ambigram or just similar

My opinion is that it must be the same word when rotated/flipped/mirrored, and that the life/death tatto is not an ambigram.

No, it doesn't have to be the same word. See many of the examples on the external links like Kim's or Langdon's; or just read the article. "Douglas R. Hofstadter describes an ambigram as a "calligraphic design that manages to squeeze two different readings into the selfsame set of curves." ... The word spelled out from the alternative direction(s) is often the same, but may be a different word to the initially presented form. ... the spaces between the letters of one word form another word. ... " See also the 3-D picture examples. I'll clarify the mirror section so it doesn't suggest that mirror ambigrams have to read the same both ways: I have one on the glass of my door which reads "Welcome" from outside and "Farewell" from inside :) [2][3] --AlexChurchill 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it done?

Does anyone know how it is done?207.237.119.236 23:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There probably isn't one technique that everyone follows. But I suppose the general idea is to write the beginning of the word, and then tweak it so that when turned upside down it looks like the end of the word. And then carry on until you reach the middle. -- Smjg 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's part skill, part experience, but mostly just "going for it". Here are two tutorials which may give you an insight: [4] [5] --Entirety 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to a tutorial by John Langdon at the bottom of the page. Should we link to other tutorials? Anyone know any good ones?

Re-adding External Link

There has been an external link, repeatedly added by the site author Felvirordinario and other IPs over the last few days. Please do not re-add this link without discussion here. I have removed this several times now as per WP:EL. I also believe that this site is non-notable as the designs are not typographically finished, and there are only a few designs. The site started less than a month ago, and does not appear high in Google [6], nor in the Open Directory Project. I suggest that the latter is the correct location to add your site, not an encyclopedia such as this. --Entirety 08:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dan Brown

Dan Brown's novel Angels and Demons contains examples of Ambigram, which could be used as examples on this page.

Wouldn't they be copyrighted? BlueStarz 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambigrams in space

Because apparent gravity is less in space, it is difficult to tell whether one is "upside down". In fact, the concept of "upside down" is mostly useless in very low gravity. I believe it is for this reason that logos of space ventures (both fictional, such as Futurama's D.O.O.P., and real, such as NASA's GOES) are often rotational ambigrams. Has anyone heard this from a reliable source? -Switch ^t 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there's any sort of link, but it's an interesting concept nonetheless. They just make good logos! --Entirety 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a long example section?

Until I read this article, I wasn't even aware ambigrams existed, and now I'm starting to seem them everywhere. I'm not sure if I agree with this idea myself, but an overwhelming list of examples may demonstrate a valuable point for unaware readers. In addition, the example list naturally wants to grow, because general people who read this article say "Hey, I know an example!" and poof! it makes the list, with no regard for the concerns mentioned above on this discussion page. So why not change the section's name from "Ambigram examples" to "Ambigrams in pop culture" (fixing the problem that the examples don't enhance understanding of what an ambigram is), accept unlimited examples (as long as they're somewhat significant), and stop this endless edit war with the public?

Or maybe a long list of examples would be obnoxious and ineffective. Just thought I'd bring up the other side.

More importantly, I think the article definitely should have prominent external links to Langdon and Kim's webpages on ambigrams. Wikipedia readers who want professional examples and tutorials can find them there. If no one objects, I'll put them in myself. ---Rafi Neal 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave Langdon a second link, I think his tutorial is so worthwhile. Maybe it's not fair to put these two artists' links on Wikipedia and not include others, but in my opinion the work of these two is rises above many of the others in terms of readability and artistic talent. At least keep Langdon's tutorial...

Also, I think the Ambigam.Matic is worthwhile to include. I know we've had bad experiences with overlinking this page, but a handful couldn't hurt! ---Rafi Neal 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing these points. The only one I want to respond to now is the section name change idea, which I think is a bad idea, and contrary to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. More input to follow. Λυδαcιτγ 03:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, nice response. It seems to me that the guideline you referenced discourages "indiscriminate lists" and "dumping grounds" for trivia. My point is that ambigrams seem not-too-uncommon as graphics for book covers, album covers, company logos, etc., and I think the article should express this. If the list is better organized and the section better named, could it ascend the level of trivia? Another advantage, by the way, is that commercial ambigrams must be readable and well-designed or they wouldn't be used. Looking forward to the rest of your input. ---Rafi Neal 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another guideline to consider: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, which suggests that we show, don't tell the importance of ambigrams. But if we can show their importance with good examples, then by all means let's. The GOES logo, for example, is not the greatest ambigram, but it's worthy of inclusion because of its significance.

In terms of the external links, I'm happy with the current ones (Langdon's, Kim's, and Ambigram.Matic). Were you thinking of linking to them in the text itself? Λυδαcιτγ 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad your happy with the current weblinks, I actually just added the ones you mentioned two days ago!

"Show, don't tell" is exactly what I meant by asking to include more examples. (I agree about GOES, by the way.) So what's your conclusion on the example section? I still say as many as possible, and order them by significance within categories. Right now they're categorized by ambigram type; maybe it would be worthwhile to categorize them by book cover, logo, etc, so that it's clear that the point to be illustrated is their use, not their form. ---Rafi Neal 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are getting at. My feeling is that most readers will be more interested in the ambigrams themselves then in their use, though the latter is certainly interesting. How about this: leave the example section as-is, and add a section/paragraph in prose form describing the extent to which ambigrams have been used in well-known books/logos/etc? Λυδαcιτγ 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. How would you describe the extent? "Ambigrams are sometimes used by graphic artists for logo designs, because of their appealing symmetry"? There's not much else new info to add. It would be a good idea to move the article's details on Hofstadter and Langdon from the intro and "types" section to this paragraph, since they also apply more to "usage" than "definition". I still suggest that the example section should be renamed and reorganized to better reflect its "usage"-ness as oppposed to "definition"-ness. If you don't object, I'll be bold and do it. ---Rafi Neal 21:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To avoid weasel words and peacock terms, I'd change it to "Ambigrams are used by graphic artists for their symmetry." Everything else sounds good except for the switch in the example section, but go ahead and make the changes and let's see how it looks. Λυδαcιτγ 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of my logic for the reorder is that the examples are almost all rotational. Arranging them by logo/book etc. divides them more evenly and more clearly.

I included a comment on tattoos, because most ambigrams I have seen on professional ambigammists' sites are commisioned for tattoos. I don't have a specific reference, but hopefully it's indisputable enough to include. ---Rafi Neal 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The introduction to the example section feels disjointed, with the Angels and Demons note kind of plopped in the middle. Not sure what to do about it. The titles of the example categories are also a bit too informal. Otherwise, I'm happy with the current version. Disagree? ---Rafi Neal 02:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with this organization — the images on the right seem to demonstrate the main types of ambigrams well enough. Λυδαcιτγ 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to find more varied examples -- there are no vertical ambigrams or horizontal-to-vertical ambigrams. DMC is the only mirror ambigram. I don't see a problem with lots of examples but they should e organized.

"We also need a new mirror amb example!"

Yes, we do. Maybe one of the authors of the current examples could make another?

I'm tempted to say that the need for an example overrides the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references guideline, as the word "Wiki" is a borderline case, and we really do need some non-rational ones. Λυδαcιτγ 04:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%. As long as we're discussing images, the margin is extremely crowded with them, at least on my browser. The biggest problem is that huge sidebar template, which doesn't seem so relevant to ambigrams anyway, and is also quite unattractive. I hesitate to request its removal, however; templates have an untouchable aura. Can we narrow it maybe? Shrink the other images? Any other ideas?  —Rafi Neal |T/C 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I readded the image. I'd like to shrink the template, but I can't figure out how. I'll ask someone who's good with CSS. Λυδαcιτγ 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be good with CSS, but I figured it out by adding width: 130px; to style="font-size: 95%;" on the top line. I also reduced the font size and inkblot image size. I further assumed that the width should be expressed in pixels. Please feel free to adjust the numbers; the text looks a bit small, I was trying to keep entries on the same line.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, maybe we should shrink the images too. The margin is kind of awkward when the images are wider than the template. The images should also be near their respective explanations in the article, but I can't find an organization that works. We can move the template down, but shouldn't it be near the top of the page?  —Rafi Neal |T/C 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd probably be better near the top, but if moving it down helps the layout I don't think it's a big deal. The margin thing doesn't bother me, but shrinking the images is another possibility in terms of organization. Λυδαcιτγ 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How about freezing that Vegas gif as a png? It's kind of distracting and would take up less space if it didn't rotate. The turning "ambigram" gif at the top explains the concept well enough.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Λυδαcιτγ 00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

DMC is a mirror example that's already in the aritcle

Grateful Dead

The cover of the Grateful Dead album American Beauty features a famous though minor example of an ambigram. As the "History" section of that article currently states, the title, "American Beauty", can be read as "American Reality" as well. Seems to be intentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.180.130 (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

I am changing the sections below to top-level sections so that they will get auto-archived properly.

NOTE: If you're voting, please sign your name, like this: RoyLeban (talk) 06:55, 25 January 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 [7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CONSENSUS: INCLUDE IN MINOR WAY. 3 in favor, 2 opposed RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 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)

CONSENSUS: None, given that there is no reliable source. If a reliable source can be found, this issue should be brought up again. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 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

CONSENSUS: RESTORE. 3 in favor, none opposed RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 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)

CONSENSUS: RESTORE. 4 in favor, none opposed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed ambigram: dollop

Removed: "dollop, a hair styling pomade made in New Zealand [8] <!-- 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)

CONSENSUS: LEAVE OUT: 2 opposed, 1 in favor. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 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)

CONSENSUS: LEAVE OUT: 3 opposed, none in favor RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 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)

CONSENSUS: LEAVE OUT: 2 opposed, 2 leans. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented out ambigram: Slackware

Removed: "A logo for Slackware logo"

• Leave out Lean toward restore (if current usage can be established) -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote changed given it was rejected. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 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)

CONSENSUS: LEAVE OUT: 4 opposed, none in favor RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of DMC logo?

The date of the DMC logo has been questioned. It is believed that it was first used on the prototype car in 1975. This site [9] has document and article scans, some of which show it in use in 1976. Some of the articles talk about the 1975 prototype but it's not clear if the article pictures show that car. The earliest article I saw that has a definitive date is [10] from Nov 1, 1977, which very clearly shows the logo in use on the prototype vehicle (which has to be the 1975 prototype), but it is possible the logo was added between 1975 and 1977.

We could say 1976 as that is shown from documents, or 1977, from the photo of the car, but that's putting something in that is believed to be misinformation. I'd rather leave it as 1975 and have a note that says "reportedly" or something like that.

What do people think?

RoyLeban (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)