Talk:Ambigram/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ambigram URL

I have created an ambigrammatic domain name and corresponding URL. To my knowledge the worlds first. See ap.xozzox.de I think the example would make a nice addition to the examples section. I would add it to the entry, if this would be acceptable. Comments? xozzox ,i.e. 87.174.206.223 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The domain has been picked up and discussed by the online Ambigram Magazine - xozzox, i.e. 87.174.226.21 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing non-illustrative Examples by Arif Fachrudin

These examples do not add much in the way of explaining what an ambigram is. They are not particularly notable, and do not show any special types of ambigrams. Additionally, they were added by the author, suggesting that they are really just supposed to be advertisements for his own work, or a way of showcasing some work that he liked. Hence I am removing them from the article. Jesterjester (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Some links to T-shirts with mirror-image antonyms

http://www.moillusions.com/2006/07/love-hate-optical-illusion.html

http://www.moillusions.com/2009/06/cleverest-stupid-girl-arround.html

I have no idea what copyright license if any the images might fall under so i am hesitant to upload them but they are brilliant illustrations of ambigram-style writing.

Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 11:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ЯEDЯUM

Would this qualify as a use of an ambigram in popular culture? (From The Shining, reads as "MURDER" in a mirror.) Lurlock (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixing this page

It's sad. I'm an expert at ambigrams. I know most of the prominent ambigramists personally. I've done them myself for almost ~30 years. I spent tons of time cleaning up this page, adding historical information, including the first ambigrams ever, a timeline and other information, and removing lots of random ambigrams. But, I was chased away by a few griefers who probably spent more time on Wikipedia in a day than I spend in six months. I didn't have the time to fight them. The page is now inaccurate, a mishmash of information, and has a bunch of borderline ambigrams that look like they were added to help promote products. Lots of great information is long gone. To cap it off, somebody took a piece of artwork by Doug Hofstadter, which I had personally obtained permission for it to be on Wikipedia, and replaced it with an SVG replica. It is completely inappropriate to replace original artwork with replicas.

If others are interested in a concerted effort to bring this page's quality back up to where it was during the brief period before the griefers took over, and there are enough people, contact me. Otherwise, this page is going to continue to degrade in quality.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rotational Ambigrams are often called 'flipscript'

  1. http://www.deviantart.com/?q=flipscript
  2. https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=flipscript
  3. http://statigr.am/tag/flipscript
  4. http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/creative-and-cool-ambigram-designs/ ("the flipscript or rotational ambigram...")

External Links for Ambigrams

customambigrams.com by graphic artist Clayton Mabey. Mariericks (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)--Mariericks (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The removal of many of the excellent ambigram site links was a mistaken judgment. Without a link to Scott Kim's Inversions page, for example, this page becomes less useful for my illustrative purposes. 74.77.26.243 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Several definitive ambigram sites were mistakenly removed in that wholesale deletion. The fact that the site of Scott Kim (one of the originators of the ambigram art form) and Ambigram.com (widely considered to be THE definitive ambigram site on the internet) were removed without a reason being provided is a sign that there should have been more consideration afforded with regards to the trimming of the alleged 'link spam'. At the least, both of those sites should be reinstated.Punyam (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


Ambigram Generators

The ambigram generator section had become outdated since the company mentioned (Glyphusion) is out of business and no longer exists. I also updated what had been written about the ambigram generator with more accurate facts. 67.85.133.154 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add this to the page, but it doesn't allow me as one of the sites is blacklisted:

List of ambigram generators

There are currently five online ambigram generators:
[this is incorrect] 67.85.133.154 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

FlipScript Ambigram Generator[1]
WowTattoos Ambigram Generator [This is the ambigram generator licensed from the developer of FlipScript]
Parescientifica Ambigram Generator[2]
TattoFonts' Ambigram Generator [This is also the ambigram generator licensed from the FlipScript developer]
Ambigram.Matic[3]

References

  1. ^ FlipScript Ambigram Generator
  2. ^ [http://parascientifica.com/ambigram.php Parescientifica Ambigram Generator]
  3. ^ Ambigram.Matic
See WP:LINKFARM policy, and the WP:ELMAYBE guideline that proposes alternatives. DMacks (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

FlipScript

This article claimed that another term for ambigrams are FlipScripts. FlipScript is an online ambigram shop, and the term has never been used to replace ambigram. Kaimonington (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ambigram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation not needed

There are a whole bunch of Citation needed claims in the Types section, that I believe aren't needed. For example, a mirror image ambigram is pretty obviously one that can be read as a mirror image. When people put in Citation needed, they are supposed to add to the talk page a discussion on what is needed, unless it is especially obvious. Seems to me that all these are not needed. Gah4 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes, yes, but not always. For example now in the lead section, this quote by Douglas Hofstadter: "calligraphic design that manages to squeeze two different readings into the selfsame set of curves", which book does it come from? Seems valid, but no source. These templates also testify the article is read by someone, and encourage the other contributors to improve, or to be accurate in their inputs. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

How to quote / copyrighted materials / examples without image

I found this example, but I do not know how include it https://www.redmolotov.com/catalogue/tshirts/all/schrodingers-cat-is-alive-dead-tshirt.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrique.garciasimon (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. You shouldn't cite a shirt.
  2. That is not an example of an ambigram.★Trekker (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Some consider this as a "Figure-ground" ambigram, however I don't think this is a successful one. If the copyright is owned, then the picture of the shirt can be uploaded on Commons. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

generators

@Basile Morin: the generator section needs some work. I have an overview of the types of generators and history here, maybe you could take a look and see if it can be used as a source?

I would argue that naming some of the websites and dates makes sense, especially ambimatic and maybe flipscript. The others can just be a reference like they are now. Can put a draft here if you want. Synethos (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Section History

Gustave Verbeek

Interesting paragraph, that should be illustrated with an image. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

I feel like this entire article needs a rewrite. It has become a summation of facts with no clear story. History and popularity can be merged I think and I would also do something about the introduction. I can make an attempt, but I wanted to post this first to make sure that I am not stepping on anyone's toes.--Synethos (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly this article can be improved. However, please start by reading our policies and guidelines, and try to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia in general, first, before moving everything like a hurricane. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
More discussion

@Basile Morin: Ok so clearly I have stepped on some toes since all my revisions are being reverted. Can you please explain how a Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton clinton 'ambigram' is relevant, especially when it is miscategroized? Any why we need a section on other names for ambigrams, where other articles put that in the introduction? e.g. "Ambigram, also known as." I guess that one can discuss about weather or not mentioning an existing font is relevant or not. But why would the French Davalan generator not be relevant while the ambimatic, TrulyScience or flipscript are? You really can't talk about that subject without mentioning the websites at least, especially if there are some up already. Also do we really need a citation needed when stating that there are multiple possibilities to make an ambigram of the same word? I would personally throw that sentence away completely, but if one keeps it, I don't see how it should be cited. --Synethos (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Synethos, your contributions have been reverted numerous times.
1 because the image you tried to publish on the page was not public domain (now deleted on Commons).
2 per Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. A reversible figure is not an ambigram.
3 since this picture illustrates an important point of the article. Quoting Hofstadter: "Sometimes the readings will say identical things, sometimes they will say different things". The fact that it is dated is not an argument to suppress it from the page. Wikipedia is not bound to follow the last fads. And yes, this is an ambigram (not "miscategorized").
4] because you deleted essential external links that are Wikipedia sister projects (Wiktionary, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons).
5 as you deleted important templates indicating the content is not properly sourced. Traditionally, these templates should be removed only once the citation (valid reference) has been provided. See WP:NOR.
6 per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
7 because the external links you inserted did not comply with Wikipedia:External links.
Now, please, slow the contributions down a bit, and be sure to evolve on the right track when doing a modification. This is fastidious for others to fix the issues. I agree this article currently has strong shortcomings, and certainly a lot of irrelevant and inaccurate datas need to be removed. But definitely not added! When the page will be cleaned up, it will be easier to develop it. Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: The fact that you dig up previous edits that I have not mentioned nor tried to defend as an argument to why everything else is wrong is not the best look, nor does it show goodwill. (eg 1,2)

3 IS miscategorized because it is a symbiotogram, as described in the types and gallery section. So if anything it should say symbiotogram, or mention that the ambigram falls under that category.
4. fair enough, I did not know that this was a sister project.
5. you are waiting for a citation on the fact that different people make ambigrams. (Different ambigram artists (sometimes called ambigramists) may create distinctive ambigrams from the same words, differing in both style and form.[citation needed]) How exactly can this ever be cited? Is it about the word ambigramists? Same for some if these types, as mentioned here btw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ambigram#Citation_not_needed Again, sure, I may be misunderstanding how these things work, so I'll leave this alone.
6/7. You have now removed everything about ambigram generators, how the fonts work, what types there are and the historical content. I honestly do not understand how this is not relevant to the topic of generators.I feel like you are just removing things now to make a point.

You've still ignored:

8: Any why we need a section on other names for ambigrams, where other articles put that in the introduction? e.g. "Ambigram, also known as."
9. But why would the French Davalan generator not be relevant while the ambimatic, TrulyScience or flipscript are?. See 6.7.

Anyway, maybe we should start one of these dispute resolution requests, as I don't think that this is constructive on either sides. --Synethos (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ambigram Please do put down your part of the story, but can we please keep it to the edits done yesterday and the points discussed here? Again I am aware of point 1 and 2 being wrong, and have not tried that again. We're not all wikipedia veterans, but that shouldn't mean that people just can't edit at all. --Synethos (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. First of all, please take into consideration there is a current thread here with a user also called Synethos requesting help for a personal website (cf. Ambigram generator). That may be important as part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
  2. Now also please check the article Ambigram in other languages. Examples: French, German, Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese. The word "symbiotogram" is not employed even once. That may solve the question about the relevance of this term here on this page in English.
  3. If you, Synethos, personally believe the file Trump/Clinton, that has been hosted on this page for years, is "miscategorized", you should have moved it to the right place (where?), instead of suppressing it.
  4. Many names, in this section Types (example "Space filling") are not really widespread and thus not official yet. In an encyclopedia, this is a matter of importance. Please keep in mind the word "ambigram" itself is very recent and not so well-known by most of the dictionaries (Cambridge no entry at this day). Thus it is essential to consider these terms with skepticism. Perhaps listened once or even invented by various contributors. -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You are still cherry picking and dodging questions. Yes makeambigrams is mine, and it is a ambigram generator website, which I thought is relevant. You may have noticed that I also added other generators and general information on the topic. Which I still believe is relevant. I mean feel free to leave it off, but why the rest? Symbiotogram is used by many sources, including John Langdon. I can add sources if you want, but I feel like you do not. I do not know what other languages say. I gave my reasons as to why I removed that image, if people disagree than fine. I feel like I explained this 3x now. The fact that many of these terms seem invented, I agree with fully. Some can be merged, others can be removed. Anyway, it stil does not feel like we are being constructive here. --Synethos (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The very vast majority of ambigrams are type rotational (180 degrees). A few ones are mirror (horizontal or vertical). Other types are very rare. The illustration you refer to is a "rotational ambigram". Some may say it's a "symbiotogram", others will call it "vertical palindrome", "inversion", "close to natural", etc. More sorts also exist (like "totem", not in this page) but none of these terms are official yet, and they're also not really widespread. Your contributions to improve the main article are welcome on this talk page, but please proceed by step. First, make propositions here, and then, if there is no objection, add them to the article. Thank you. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok so you just won't address the questions and 'ban' me from making changes? I really think that we need that arbitration. I get that you mean well, but this is abuse of power and probably the rules. I'm happy to discuss changes, but is there a point if we just don't talk about them? But sure, i'd suggest merging the other names section into the introduction and to bring back the ambigram generator information, turning it into an informative piece, something along the lines of what it was - the link list that I suggested. --Synethos (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
More specific: 'An ambigram is a calligraphic design that has several interpretations as written.' -> 'An ambigram (also known as Palindrome, Anagram, Mirror writing) is a calligraphic design that has several interpretations as written.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synethos (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
No, an ambigram is not an anagram, nor a palindrome. Sorry, Synethos, as a bunch of elements seem to indicate you are highly ignorant about the concept, I would recommend you start by finding some books or some documentation to learn a bit about what we're talking about, or just refrain from editing. Pretending ambigrams are "also called anagrams" is like inventing a plane is a car or a scooter. I'm afraid you can't proceed to this sort of genuine modifications in the introduction without being immediately reverted by someone here (me or others). This is not an "abuse of power" or whatever, that is just the normal way to keep an article safe. You admit you're building an external website called "makeambigrams.com" and you attempted to make the Wikipedia article pointing to it, per WP:NOTPROMOTION this is not allowed. Feel free to develop the personal pages of your domain the way you like, but here this is a collective project where information should be as authentic and accurate as possible. Many readers trust the content and copy-paste it to their blogs and publications. An encyclopedia is not a collection of guesses and fanciful opinions. Please think about it. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I seem to have copied the wrong list. I meant the other names one. 'vertical palindromes, designatures,inversions.', so sorry for that. Is that more acceptable? And again I was talking about the historical info, when they were made, what came when, etc. You really don't think that this is relevant in the least that these generators have been around since '96? You cite the Fyrewater font and john langdon, but there is no information about what this font is or what their generator is based on, what year its from or how its different from other fonts. Even if we don't mention any websites, but just names and types, it would be better than saying that they exist.. Synethos (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
These various appellations are anecdotic. Today in 2020, no one refers to ambigrams with the names "designatures" or "vertical palindromes" anymore. Everybody say "ambigram". Thus it is inappropriate in my opinion to clutter up the lead section with such insignificant details. Currently a whole section for them is already excessive in the article. Concerning generators, take a look at Encyclopedic content. -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll just add some small changes here and there, let's try to be constructive about this. For now I won't add sections or move stuff across them. Synethos (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Once again, Synethos adds erroneous content (with wrong reference). "The longest ambigram sentence being 'NOW NO SWIMS ON MON'" is pure nonsense. Reverted. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It very clearly says sensible, you purposefully left that out to make a point. And, you realize that you deleted your own addition right? You added the the part about the fyrewaterfont being added by Langdon and cited that page... then it suddenly didn't classify for wikipedia when I changed a word or two. I'm sorry but I can't believe any more that you are doing this in good faith over 'protecting your article'. So going back to the arbitration. Synethos (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not my article. A lot has been written by others. Unfortunately, not everything is good on this page, currently. WP:VERIFY. Wrong datas shouldn't be tolerated. Normal maintenance. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I still don't feel like you are being open to changes here, especially because you didn't address any of my points again. The dispute resolution got closed due to it being the wrong category apparently, and they suggested that I open an incident report instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ambigram I'd rather not go down that path, so do you think that we can work on edits in a civil manner without you purposefully misinterpreting changes? I mean come on, you turned 'longest sensible English ambigram sentence being' into 'The longest ambigram sentence being' in order to make your point. How can I not interpret that as petty and biased? Perhaps the word 'known' could be added, but other then that it is no different then 'The longest such word is CHECKBOOK.' Which is also not sourced and seemingly perfectly fine to mention. So please just stop it. As for the verbeek comics, here are some redacted images from the artbook. They are copyrighted so I can't upload them. https://imgur.com/a/M66MxtP I know the remake author however, so could ask for permission. Synethos (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Synethos, we could argue and argue endless. So let's be constructive, instead. Your ambigrams by Gustave Verbeek are excellent, and you definitely should upload them on Wikimedia Commons. If the publication date is 1904, then they are now public domain, because the author has died since 1937. See Commons:Help:Public domain. Do you have a scanner, or a good camera? After that you can make your point on the article, by explaining the purpose: with a fair description and a short synthesis, your illustrated content might be very educative. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The article is fascinating, I read Hofstedter a millennium ago (feels like) and the topic deserves coverage. That said, there are plenty of problems with its construction, not least the use of WP:Primary and commercial sources, the presence of unWP:CITEd statements, lack of neutrality, and so on. In short, I concur with the comments above: this article needs work. It would be really helpful if the enthusiasm could be transmuted, by learning about Wikipedia's policies and standards, into a robust and correctly-written article. There is quite a "steep learning curve", as the unlovely jargon has it; but it'll be worth it. Good luck! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Chiswick Chap, I agree with your contribution, and unfortunately had to revert Synethos once again, since the wise recommendations written in your summary have been ignored (or misunderstood). There's obviously a problem of advertising and conflicts of interest here because Synethos owns the personal website makeambigrams.com and would probably like to keep the link visible in the article. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's be completely fair here, this is one of four websites that generates ambigrams in the world. I agreed long ago that linking directly is a bit much, but it makes no sense to not even cite any of them. Links on wiki are no-follow and get 0 weight from google, so honestly there are better ways to get traffic. With all the edits that I am making, is it really that hard to believe that they are in good faith? There is a wealth of information on ambigram generators that is not written down, and frankly it makes no sense to say that generators exist and not talk about any details whatsoever. I can open another dispute if you guys want, as I honestly do not believe that me being connected to one of the sites, is a reason to exclude them all. Synethos (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the clear potential for the appearance of conflict of interest, even assuming complete good faith, the only safe approach will be for you to propose what you think should be done here on the talk page, and to leave it to the community to decide whether it can be implemented in the article. On the "information .. that is not written down", that is a kind offer - it is obvious you have detailed knowledge - but it is strictly forbidden by the WP:OR policy, so we cannot use it under any circumstances. The best I can suggest is that you draft suggested changes here on the talk page, each one cited to reliable, independent sources not connected to any ambigram website, and leave it up to other editors to action. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Nissin

Nissin is a mere imperfect ambigram, isn’t it? -- Gohnarch░ 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. This Nissin is more symmetrical. See also Sonos, VIA, VOA, Handy, Opodo, Oxo... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Article reorganization

Hello,

To improve the structure of the article, I propose the reorganization below.

Headings and sections (expand)

Short description

Etymology

History

Characteristics

  • Natural ambigrams
  • Single words or several words
  • Single word ambigrams (examples)
  • Several words (2 words, more words)

Types

Symbols

Fields

  • Ambigrams in art
  • Ambigrams in literature
  • Clothing and fashion (shirts, socks, towels, hats)
  • Accessories (CD covers, reversible doormats, shot glasses, fancy phone cases, keychains, book covers, sport accessories)

Creating ambigrams

  • Handmade designs
  • Ambigram generators
  • Ambigram artists

The section Popularity might be kept or divided. Of course, this suggestion is totally open to improvements. If it suits everyone, I'll proceed to the modification the next days, with expanded text and relevant citations. Hopefully it will help everyone to develop a specific part, and / or to navigate through the content. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done I think 6 days were enough to consider the change. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Please no major changes without prior discussion

Hello,

Per WP:CAUTIOUS, please don't change everything without prior consensus.

Illustrations organized in matching sections are more useful than isolated in bulk in an overloaded gallery. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ambigram/Archive_5&oldid=1168316258"