From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Literature (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old messages (before 2005)[edit]

This is the English language Wikipedia. English translations of the non-English phrases would be very polite.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2002

"fr:Contrepèterie" is not an anagram. At best it is a Spoonerism, though not quite, because Spoonerisms are usually involuntary slips of the tongue, while a contrepeterie is usually deliberate. -- Tarquin 22:36 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Palindromes and logograms are not anagrams. I have removed the following text as it does not belong here:

Another species of anagram, called palindrome (Greek palin, "back", and dromos, "running"), is a word or sentence which may be read backwards as well as forwards, letter by letter, while preserving the same meaning; for example, the words "Anna," "noon," "tenet," or the sentence with which Adam is humorously supposed to have greeted Eve: "Madam, I'm Adam!"
A still more complicated variety is the logogram (Greek logos, "word"), a versified puzzle containing several words derived from recombining the letters of the original word, the difficulty lying in the fact that synonyms of the derived words may be used. Thus, if the original word were "curtain," the word "dog" might be used instead of "cur."

-- Paul G 11:00 Dec 4, 2003

I'm working on disambiguating links, and found that there was a link to Hebrew in this article. I'm not sure how it should be handled in this context—whether the word "Hebrew" should be linked to Hebrews or to Jew (in which case it should just be de-linked, since there is already a link to Jew). See also the Hebrew disambiguation page. Thanks.
--LarryGilbert 04:04, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

The last sample anagram right now, of Abu Ghraib torture, strikes me as more topical than good. Should it really be included?
4pq1injbok 23:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who's Bharat Patel, and is he notable beyond having a particuarily anagrammable name? (Googling turns up a Brtish newscaster and a professor of microbiology, but i don't know if either one is actually notable.)
Pyrop 03:02, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Great article, but I found a few of the anagrams listed a little inappropriate. The Linford Christie one made me smile (well, a little), but is rather lame and unsavoury really. As for the Abu Ghraib one, it looks to me like the punch-line from a pretty tasteless joke. I would seriously consider removing the latter. Faulenzer
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2004

Translation of Latin[edit]

I have flagged this page as needing some translation work done. If anyone can speak Latin, then by all means please provide some translations of the various phrases in the history section. Proto 11:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia[edit]

Here are two fun anagrams of "the free encyclopedia":

a deep info cycle there
race to fence idle hype

Herbee 04:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • And another:
    Hey! credit place - no fee!

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2005
  • Anagrams for WP's slogan amount to SELF, and thus do not belong in the accompanying article. So the discussion of them is off-topic on this talk page, and is struck thru to ameliorate wasting of the time of those reading this talk page for the purposes it is intended for.
    --Jerzyt 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about the NPOV-ness.[edit]

The current section began an on-topic thread in the first contrib, and elicited in the second contrib both a response to that thread, and the start of an off-topic thread whose interpersed responses guaranteed a chaotic discussion. The material clearly belong to the off-topic thread has been struck thru, and contribs repositioned as necessary to provide normal WP continuity among the on-topic portions -- perhaps at the cost of leaving the off-topic thread as confusing as the off-topic made the on-topic thread, but omelets should outrank eggshells.Jerzyt 09:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will have a nice feast on the random sprawling in-joke cuteness of this groaning list of barf. sorry. some of them are funny. torch this jonk.
--Ish (fake science alert) 03:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Several thoughts. First, NPOV is somewhat of a non-issue with the anagrams themselves, as they are not intended to actually assert anything factual. This article needs to be neutral; the anagrams need not be. (I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at with your section heading, however.)
"Barf," on the other hand, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. As mere jokes, many of these anagrams leave something to be desired, I'll grant you. What makes an anagram notable, however, is a sort of "wow" factor in the relation of coincidence in letter arrangements and the resulting meaning. Coming up with a new anagram that will really impress experienced anagrams takes work, skill, patience, and a ton of pure luck. What an anagrammist aims for is something that will "wow" even the most experienced of his peers. Anagrammists are usually extremely clever, verbally and otherwise.
Not sure whether it's on the list (I'll add it if it isn't), but here is a quite remarkable anagram:
Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one
What makes it notable is its simplicity, and the fact that it is mathematically true (11 + 2 = 13; 12 + 1 = 13). It is verbally and mathematically anagrammatic.
Allow me to present you with a challenge: Make an anagram of the phrase "fake science alert". Aim for 1] all English words, the larger, the better; 2] a perfect anagram, using each letter once and only once; and 3] a meaning that comments on the original phrase in a clever, descriptive, ironic, or humorous way -- and without having to be explained to be understood and appreciated. Use a computer if you have to. Leave your result here and see how our results compare. Time is a factor here.
--paul klenk talk 00:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Fake science alert = Seance? A trick. Flee!
--paul klenk talk 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Fake science alert = Seek fact, reliance.
--paul klenk talk 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the NPOV from the article and posted here, while the discussion continues over whether or not this is an issue.
--Ian Cairns 11:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't care a whole hella. fake science alert = eeck! fecal arte sin. There should be an article about annagrammery. what annagrammists seek to do and what they appreciate should be covered. that's important. but there are a lot of examples here. some are so corny and out-dated. some have such a caustic tone. I don't think an encyclopedia should inculde something that reads like junk email that's been forwarded around the office or whatnot. that's what I think. nice job with mytag, klenk. word, son. I liked that math one too.
--Ish (shoot some) 07:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Ish, glad you liked my anagrams. I do believe some on the page are corny, and your observation about junk e-mail is quite valid, and should be addressed carefully. So let's do this. This will be a challenge -- we can't just remove anagrams that offend our own sensibilities about humor, politics, and whatnot. That would be POV. I will try to find the "anagrammy scale" which helps evaluate the quality of anagrams; you will find it interesting. Perhaps we can also copy the anagrams here (not remove them) and we can make comments next to those nominated for deletion. Please tell me, too: did you intend your remark as a serious dispute of the NPOV of the article, or was it closer to an offhand remark? Read my comments to Ian if it was the former.
--paul klenk talk 13:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, Ian, surely you cannot believe that these anagrams need to be removed?! By their very nature anagrams express opinions, humor, irony, etc. They must be included, merely as examples, and treated like quotations. Do we delete quotations because they express a POV? Of course not. No reasonable user is going to say, "Gee, I think this article is slanted." I am reverting the page; (Sorry, thought you actually removed the anagrams, not the tag...! --paul klenk talk 13:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)) if you would like to include a "neutrality disputed" tag in the article (where they belong -- not on a talk page), go ahead and place one there so people are directed to this discussion. Okay, one person made a comment, after they have been here for ages now. I don't think the comment should be construed as a serious dispute. (By the way, you should never "remove NPOV" from an article; what you should remove is POV.)
--paul klenk talk 13:17 & :21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Ian, I apologize for the ranting above! I sort of freaked out when I came here and found the remarks; I know we can work this out. I do believe in my arguments as stated; I'm laughing now because they seem a bit hostile, which is not what I meant...!
--paul klenk talk 14:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The content of the following box was added inside the signed 2nd (00:12, 30 September) contrib, immediately following the 'graph beginning "Several thoughts." and ending "however.)"

indeed the examples don't assert facts, but I think they're screaming POVness could be a little toned down in places.
--Ish (shoot some) 07:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I tackle fear scene.
--WɔlkUnseen 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

First attempt at clean up[edit]

Okay, I've started with minor cleanups, focusing on:

  • Consistency of form, punctuation, capitalization and italization
  • Removing extremely obscure anagrams which are not at all notable or understandable without an explanation, or which have no explanation (non sequiturs)
  • Adding a section for celebrities and other persons -- more will be added
  • Removing extraneous text
  • Replacing a couple of equal signs (=) with tildes (~) for anagrams which form a complete sentence

I will look at others, but I truly do not see many more that are egregiously non-notable. For the sake of brevity, however, perhaps a few could be trimmed.

paul klenk talk 14:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What is notable?[edit]

There doesn't appear to be much enforced criteria for distinguishing between the basic list and the "notable anagrams"; some anagrams even appear in both. Why is it that the five-letter lemon/melon is more notable than some with several dozen letters? There needs to be more clarity in there; and on a side note, it wouldn't hurt to cut some of the shorter and meaningless examples from the list either. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallmarks of a Good Anagram, from[edit]

This list is excellent, and will help you understand what a quality anagram is. It is a good crash course in evaluating anagrams, and will actually help you appreciate anagrams more. Complete explanations of these hallmarks, with both positive and negative examples thereof, are in their full form here:
  1. Aptness
  2. Directness
  3. Grammatical correctness
  4. Avoidance of incorrect spelling
  5. Clever use of punctuation
  6. Minimal use of interjections
  7. Brevity
  8. Careful use of non-keywords
  9. Well-mixed letters
  10. Avoidance of contrived subject texts
  11. Self-sufficiency
  12. Humour

paul klenk talk 14:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am Voldemort[edit]

The I am Lord Voldemort anagram is out of place here. AFAIK the name was specifically designed to be an anagram of something. JIP | Talk 11:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Many literary names are designed to be anagrams. Anagrams are not necessarily accidental. If it's an anagram, it's an anagram. Now, I'm not saying this particular anagram is notable, nor deserving of mention on Wikipedia. Only that I do not agree with the thinking behind this opinion. paul klenk talk 09:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Lord Voldemort turns into Tom Marvolo Riddle -- 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving list of anagrams[edit]

Since the anagram list has become rather long, and filled with random original research, I've moved it to a separate article, which should be cleaned up and only include notable anagrams that have been used in literature or other reliable, verifiable sources. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-3 04:03

  • That article has now been deleted. Mglovesfun 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ars magna": an urban myth?[edit]

Call me sceptical if u like, but it strikes me as just too coincidental that the Romans called the art of finding anagrams ars magna, which just happens to be an anagram of "anagrams". It really sounds like an urban myth to me (but a very good one, admittedly). Is there any documentary evidence of this? JackofOz 09:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not likely. In this hilariously scathing review of The Da Vinci Code, Michael Browning of the Palm Beach (FL) Post quotes Alan Cameron, a professor of Latin at Columbia University. "...Romans do not, in fact, seem to have liked anagrams. I can't say that I conducted a protracted search, but I couldn't find what we would nowadays call a true anagram..." Browning notes that Cameron published an article on ancient anagrams in the American Journal of Philology (Fall 1995; Vol. 116; No. 3). — 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again I forgot to check whether I was signed in -- that's me ( above. —OtherDave 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orchestra ----- Carthorse[edit]

How many nine letter words can you make out of the word Orchestra? I've found one: Carthorse If you can find any more, I'd like to know.

-- Jesusfreak 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A program I wrote doesn't find any more. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This discussion may interest you. Oops, I now see you were involved in it, but maybe others would get a giggle. JackofOz 07:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Word with the most single-word anagrams[edit]

What is the English word with the most single-word anagrams? Where would one go to find this information? JackofOz 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it is, but I could determine it. But that would not be permitted to be in the article because it would be original research. Bubba73 (talk), 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in knowing anyway, even if it never makes it into the article. What's your methodology? JackofOz 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
TRACES has sevem anagrams including itself (CARETS, CASTER, CATERS, CRATES, RECAST, REACTS, TRACES). There are probably better candidates out there. For the moment this is all I could come up with.Sluzzelin 14:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In SOWPODS AEINRST produces 11 words, I can't remember what they all are. There must be a Scrabble player around somewhere? I'm not sure that that's the record for a word of any length though. Mglovesfun 19:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

synonymic anagrams[edit]

i didn't see any reference here with regard to 'synonymic anagrams'. to my knowledge this phrase was originally coined by Barclay Mitchell, songwriter (guitarist/vocalist) for the punk rock/hardcore band 'Man Without Plan' off the track "To Whom You Must Pay the Toll" from there 2nd full length CD "I Feel Badly" (2000) (i don't have it in front of me but i'm mostly certain it was on the Creep Records label.) the excerpted lyric is as follows "You and I are synonymic anagrams like 'notes' & 'tones', same letters and meanings but inside-out we both know..." that phrasing and terminology has always intrigued but i've ne'er come across another outside of 'notes' and 'tones'. all thoughts and input are greatly welcomed. driprock August 1st, 2006


In the following box's content, the bullet points are emphasis with the results of the 2 timestamped edits of one user.
  • In "Anagrammatic" an online interactive game provided by Miniclip, worldwide players follow the rules of "Countdown" (above) where they are given 30 seconds to form the longest word out of nine letters. After four rounds they are asked to form a nine letter word. Points are awarded and subtracted accordingly. Players enthusiastically converse on the game's forum using a variety of graphics, mostly thanking each other for games but also complaining bitterly about the words which are rejected by the ruling dictionary. Players use pseudonyms (Little Brat, Little Taz, Tori Amos, Spellerbee etc)and have created a hierarchy based on the awarded points which progress from light pink stars to black stars. Once a player's points reach 20,000 the game automatically resets a player back down to zero. A variety of cheats have emerged on the game - players using internet anagram solvers etc, hackers creating new points - but invariably the game is played by the rules. The frustration of the players regarding the dictionary results in creative use of language since cussing is automatically censored in the forum.

A few points

  • Non-notable, there are thousands of internet games that use anagrams, this article is not intended to be a list of all of them, especially is this game is basically a copy of Countdown (which itself has been shown on British TV for 21 consecutive years). In fact this sounds like the same game as "anagramania".
  • Useless information such as 'variety of cheats and hackers' 'frustration of the players' 'creative use of language since cussing is automatically censored'

Forgot the best one : "Players enthusiastically converse on the game's forum using a variety of graphics, mostly thanking each other for games but also complaining bitterly about the words which are rejected by the ruling dictionary".

  • Under the same lines, we could put all the Scrabble variants like literati, clabbers, upwords and whatever in the article, but this article is not intended to be a definitive list of them.

Mglovesfun 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC) second edit 19:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with the deletion. It would be niced to see a well-referenced article on Countdown, though, so that this page could provide a see-also link to it; any TV show that's been around that long deserves an article.
  • P.S. Yay! Found it -- at Countdown (game show)! I'll add it... (EDIT: I see that you left in the reference to Countdown. I approve of that, too).
    --M@rēino 21:23, :24 & :25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Stressed= Desserts :)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2007

(Personal name)[edit]

My name is an anagram. Shoeshirt 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Lives[edit]

Does anyone think elvis-lives should be up there? It is a very well known anagram.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2007


marriage-----a grim era
public relations----crap built on lies
television----tv is one lie
the assassination of abraham lincoln----a pistol in a rebel actors hands a fine man shot
supreme court----corrupt? sue me
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss[edit]

Didn't Dr. Seuss use Theo. LeSieg (Dr. Seuss backwards) on some of his books? It might be signifigant enough to mention. Also, some of the anagram examples are a little inappropriate, such as the anagram of Spiro Agnew. These are simply used as examples, and therefore have no need to be explicit or sexual. - Wiggystud 11:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


I have tried several dictionaries and cannot find anagrammist. Why is this word used instead of anagrammatist? It seems an anagrammist would be one who "anagrams" while an anagrammatist would be one that creates anagrams.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2008


This article is kind of swamped with examples. I suggest moving the bulk of them to a new article Anagram examples (or similar). On the other hand, since that article will no doubt then be nominated for deletion, and subsequently deleted, should we just delete them now and be done with it? Matt 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)~.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2008

  • There was a page List of anagrams which was deleted because it was unencyclopedic. I'd recommend just removing that list of anagrams, it's also unencyclopedic.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglovesfun (talkcontribs) 22:33, 5 June 2008
  • What does unencyclopedic mean? If the goal of the article is to explain what an anagram is, then having a diverse set of examples is illuminating.
    -- (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Unencyclopedic" means unwanted by WP. I would expect the grounds for not wanting it would primarily focus on the list in question having to many examples to infer what the diversity amounts to, and lists of them being more suitable to specialized sites than to a work that thrives on integrating a wide variety of diverse topics.
    You're bound to learn something, tho, by perusing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anagrams.
    --Jerzyt 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article[edit]

I have noticed that various things fall short of being properly referenced: the "summary anagram" isn't well attested as a genre, and the "Anagrammy" site needs third-party support to appear here. The point about no trivia lists should be well taken. In general, content policies should be applied to give a better article here. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have taken those two sections out - I don't see the independent references needed to establish why they are here. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
After some further cleanup, I have ventured to take down the "original research" tag. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What becomes criteria for entering anagrams into the article? I thought up several from being in traffic behind various vehicle models (Silverado->Dora lives->Loves raid) and such, but that stuff is original research and I don't want to add it anyway. When would Alec Guinness or Gregory House be removed from the list in preference for other entries? Generally, I'm against putting in anagrams related to people/television_shows/movies past or present, because it invites fan cruft. Just like my example only works as long as that model of vehicle is in production. MJ56003 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about anagrams, not a repository for anagrams people come up with (which is anyway a foolish idea, really). Additions made that have no particular point will be removed eventually, as part of ongoing cleanup. The topic is clearly not "all anagrams ever in English". Charles Matthews (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
But that the nature of my question. "Additions made that have no particular point will be removed..." What criteria warrants addition or removal, or worthiness of being in the article? MJ56003 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Two-word anagrams[edit]

I asked a question recently at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Letters of a word rearranged to make two words about the word that can be rearranged into the highest number of two-word anagrams. The best we've come up with so far is "impersonated/predominates", which produces 495 using Wordsmith. An anon editor has suggested a different search engine would produce even more, but hasn't come back to give the details.

Does anyone know of a word that produces more than 495 two-word anagrams? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Call me old fashioned, but I always believed that an Anagram had to be both a re-arrangement of the original letters, and had to have the same (or at least a related) meaning as the original. For example, a couple of the anagrams cited in the opening paragraph ("A decimal point = I'm a dot in place" and "Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one") are true anagrams.

A mere re-arrangement of letters (eg., "orchestra = carthorse") is, I believe, an Aramsnag (which is, self-referentially enough, an aramsnag of anagrams). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

re-arrangement of letters = anagram[edit]

I'm afraid you're just ignorant (not meant as an insult, but a statement of fact), not old-fashioned. From the Oxford English Dictionary, "anagram":
  < French anagramme, or < modern Latin anagramma (16th cent.), < Greek ἀναγράϕειν, to write up, write back or anew. Ἀνάγραμμα was not in Greek, though the grammarians had ἀναγραμματίζειν to transpose the letters of a word, and ἀναγραμματισμός transposition of letters.
A transposition of the letters of a word, name, or phrase, whereby a new word or phrase is formed.
  • 1589   G. Puttenham Arte Eng. Poesie ii. xi. sig. iijv,   Of the Anagrame, or posie transposed.
  • 1616   B. Jonson Epicoene iv. iii. 48 in Wks. I,   Who will..Make anagrammes of our names.
  • 1645   J. Howell Epistolæ Ho-elianæ vi. vi. 185   This Gustavus (whose Anagram is Augustus) was a great Captain.
  •  ?1706   E. Hickeringill Priest-craft. 2nd Pt. iii. 36   The true Anagram of Jesuita, is Sevitia, Cruelty.
  • 1858   T. Carlyle Hist. Friedrich II of Prussia II. vi. ii. 14   Arouet Junior (‘le Jeune, or l. j.’), who,—by an ingenious anagram..writes himself Voltaire ever since.
The last three quotations -- all the actual examples in the OED -- use the fact that Latin did not distinguish I from J or U from V ("IVLIVS CÆSAR"). So
--Thnidu (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one" is not an anagram[edit]

From the article: All the letters in an anagram must repeat exactly once.

There is no "V" in "Twelve plus one", so I'm taking it out of the examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a perfect anagram (there is a V in TwelVe). Erector Euphonious (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow.. just.. oh wow. Skootles (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Margaret Thatcher = that great charmer Alec Guinness = genuine class Vin Diesel = I end lives Steve Martin = I'm star event Clint Eastwood = Old West action Sean Connery = on any screen Lady Gaga = a glad gay Oprah Winfrey = Hype worn fair Tom Marvolo Riddle = I Am Lord Voldemort Axl Rose = Oral Sex Elvis Aaron Presley = Seen alive? Sorry, pal! or more succinctly: Elvis = lives.[25]

From "Perfect anagram games and puzzles".

Aren't these a bit Biased? Most of the anagrams on this page are either about a famous person's sexual orientation:

Madonna Louise Ciccone = Occasional nude income

or they're in latin:

"Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum" ... into "Virgo serena, pia, munda et immaculata"

Can we please have some less biased anagrams? How about "Anagram maker" = "Karma Manager"? Thank you. --David Gardner —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the topic "anagram", not a catalogue of anagrams. All content should be illustrating some point. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Osama bin Laden can also be found as... Abandon Emails; An Islam, Bad one!; Old man in a base

JJTsai (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

List of anagrams?[edit]

Should there be a list of anagrams? There used to be a number of anagrams of famous people(i.e." Clint Eastwood" is turned into "Old West action") and some stories of anagramic scams. I think they should be preserved somewhere in Wikipedia. JJTsai (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


I have brought back the Latin letter values, since it is necessary information for understanding historical anagrams, even in English.

Also, I'm not convinced that merging "perfect anagram" and "imperfect anagram" games is helpful. For example Scrabble is more like an imperfect anagram game with some letters in fixed positions. Being great at perfect anagrams is not the key skill, it seems to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Juat changed the page from four edits on 21 August 2010 which appear to be vandalism. The fact that these edits were preceded by four other edits which also appeared to be vandalism and were also reverted seems suspicious. Apologies if it is not vandalism, but that doens't strike me as likely. PowerToast (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anagram just for words that are already words?[edit]

Are jumbled letter such as ogd for dog or chosol for school still anagrams even though they aren't actual words or just things like god to dog or whatever. If jumbled words are not anagrams this should be include in the main article clearly. Thanks. Please respond. Aidan Greenhalgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Greenhalgh (talkcontribs) 07:51, 10 December 2010

No, the rearrangement has to yield a real word, name, or phrase. See the definition from OED above, in re-arrangement of letters = anagram (emphasis added): A transposition of the letters of a word, name, or phrase, whereby a new word or phrase is formed. --Thnidu (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wording in opening[edit]

"However, the goal of serious or skilled anagrammatists is to produce anagrams that in some way reflect or comment on the subject."

I disagree. Yes, anagrammatists always like to find these, but I hardly think it's a "goal".--Pittsburghmuggle (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Mistake in article. "Ardue main d'Hercule" / "Armand de Richelieu"[edit]

"Ardue main d'Hercule" (2 u's and 1 i) is not an anagram of "Armand de Richelieu" (1u and 2i's) as the article states. Is there a spelling error?

Bmedwar (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Brian Edwards bmedwar

A (PBS) Youtube vid of interest[edit]

"Ars Magna," a short documentary film about the obsessive and fascinating world of anagrams --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Subliminal anagrams?! =[edit]

Hi, forgive me for doing this, sub-newbie user afraid to step on toes by editing. But doesn't that line about "subliminal anagrams" sound awfully dodgy to you? It's unsourced, and the main Google result for it is... this article. Most other results are very weak, and the relevant uses of the phrase are all recent enough that they could have been incited by this article. I would love to see a source on this term, if any such thing exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok I removed that sentence. Some people use the expression "partial anagram" for this. -- (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

'Madam' Curie[edit]

This is a most unfortunate example, since Marie Curie's French title was not 'Madam' but 'Madame', so the anagram doesn't work! If 'Madame' is used in English as a title for women, then always in the French form - 'Madam' is used as a form of address ('Certainly, madam'), but never with the woman's name, so 'Madam Curie' doesn't exist. (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Not "Hamlet"[edit]

I've removed the example

Though it's an anagram, that's purely coincidental; Shakespeare didn't invent it, and neither did anyone else. It's widely accepted to be simply a descendant of the older name or one of its variants, like Edward from Anglo-Saxon Éadweard. See Amleth § Name, and

It is well-known that Hamlet is related to Amlethus, found in Gesta Danorum, by Saxo Grammaticus."[2]

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Lundin, Leigh (2009-11-29). "Anagrams". Word Play. Criminal Brief. 
  2. ^ Fraser, Lisa. "A new etymology for Hamlet? The names Admlithi, Amlethus, and Amlóði". Oxford Journals : The Review of English Studies. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 19 September 2016. 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

reflect or comment[edit]

The end of the lede section and the beginning of the first titled section:

the goal of serious or skilled anagrammatists is to produce anagrams that in some way reflect or comment on the subject.
Such an anagram may be a synonym or antonym of its subject, a parody, a criticism, or praise.

In editing and in mobile view, the reference in "such an anagram" is clear, but in the default desktop view the table of contents intervenes:

Any word or phrase that exactly reproduces the letters in another order is an anagram. However, the goal of serious or skilled anagrammatists is to produce anagrams that in some way reflect or comment on the subject.


    1 Examples
    2 History
        2.1 Influence of Latin
        2.2 Early modern period
        2.3 Modern period
    3 Applications
        3.1 Establishment of priority
        3.2 Pseudonyms
        3.3 Titles
        3.4 Coincidences
        3.5 Games and puzzles
        3.6 Ciphers
    4 Methods of construction
    5 See also
    6 References
    7 Further reading

Such an anagram may be a synonym or antonym of its subject, a parody, a criticism, or praise.

So I'm inserting a short parenthetical explanation, with a hidden comment asking editors to please not delete it, and pointing to this talk section.

--Thnidu (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)