Jump to content

Talk:Ambigram/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

I have removed the following ambigram as non-notable.

I don't think it's notable and it's not particularly interesting. If you disagree, please make the case here. RoyLeban (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following logo because it is not an ambigram.

  • "Live A Live" the SNES game's logo is a mirror ambigram, actually reading "Live A eviL". (See on Live A Live)

I do not think it is interesting or notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in the Ambigram-like logos section. If you disagree, please make the case here. RoyLeban (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Monkeyshine

  • Restore (would be nice if we could see the ambigram)
why remove? It's topical and interesting and apparently the ambigram (by Langdon) is central to the movie. There are probably links to 10,000 movies on Wikipedia and most of them don't have Wikipedia pages, so that is not a reason to remove. Maybe there should be a page. Movie on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332027 -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, but that alone doesn't disqualify it in this context. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
And who the heck are you to say this? You're a nobody on Wikipedia. Our POLICIES say it can't be here. Follow our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for 8 years and has never been blocked, not even close. Can you say that? I'm somebody who follows the policies and knows that I'm not the sole interpreter. Can you say that? You know as well as I do that these policies are not black and white. The movie may be not notable enough for its own page but notable in the context of ambigrams. That's obviously what other people felt. RoyLeban (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: INCLUDE. 4 in favor, 1 opposed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of an NPL Ambigram

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

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

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

  • Who cares? Examples belong in the NPL article, not here
I find it hard to believe that you are a NPL member (and I can't imagine another member insulting me as you have and acting like you do). Consensus here looks like it should be left out and I'm fine with that. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You may find it hard to believe I am an NPL member, but I just got the member directory in the mail.
Now you've truly shocked me. Surely, we've never met. Maybe you should come to a convention sometime and see how truly friendly most of the members of the NPL are. Or give me a call and we'll chat -- you've got my number. Note here that I voted to restore the example but consensus was to leave it out. Should I call everybody else idiots who don't understand policy and put it back in anyway? Or should I accept the consensus? RoyLeban (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: LEAVE OUT. 1 in favor, 4 opposed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed two links, dubbed as "fan sites":

Ambigramania online community for Ambigram enthusiasts
Flickr Ambigram Pool

CONSENSUS: RESTORE. 3 in favor, 1 opposed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:EL is VERY CLEAR that we DO NOT link to such sites. If you disagree with those rules, try to get WP:EL changed. We most especially do not ignore rules because a couple of anonymous IPs accounts (how do we even know they aren't Roy signed out?) agree with someone with WP:OWNership issues. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems you're the one with ownership issues. I will admit that I care about this article and want to improve and protect it. There's nothing wrong with that. As to WP:EL, you should be familiar with the following:
  • What should be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  • Links to be considered: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
RoyLeban (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NPL use of the word Ambigram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Already made my cas several times. Need some outside third party reliable source making a nontrivial mention of it before it's considered notable by our standards. And the IP in question added a lot of promotional info about NPL, so another clear case of COI. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The IP in question Special:Contributions/71.142.94.121 made exactly two edits, both to this page. How you can jump to COI based on that I have no idea. You may be making your case, but it doesn't look like you're convincing anyone. RoyLeban (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Other names section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, hey, consensus isn't just your opinion, as you keep trying to claim on your edit comments, and especially not when you keep violating Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia policy was bult with site-wise consensus, so it'd take a whole lot of people agreing with you to overrule it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
As you well know, I'm following policy. RoyLeban (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Milestones in the history of ambigrams"

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

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

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

  • Thanks for your opinion. I think we can assume that is a vote to remove the section. My own vote is to keep it. For the benefit of others, I'll explain why I put it in. The "invention" of ambigrams is disputed. Scott Kim, John Langdon, and Robert Petrick all claim some inventorship in various publications. Meanwhile, Doug Hofstadter asserts (in Ambigrammi, page 4) that he and Peter Jones started doing them around 1964. And, as you can see, there were ambigrams much earlier. It's not my role to figure out who's right (and, actually, I think, to some extent, they all are), so I instead put everything on a timeline. I'm open to other formats, but it seemed like the best one. Timelines and list exist in planty of places on Wikipedia. The material in the timeline is not original research or my opinions. It's all sourced, though I did not put citations on every line. DreamGuy seems to have a misconstrued idea of what OR is -- gathering information from a variety of publications is not OR, nor is creating a list of information a synthesis of new information. I made no attempt to answer the question of who invented ambigrams in the timeline. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Before you tell me what is or is not OR, you should actually read the policy. WP:SYNTH, specifically, proves you wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you read WP:SYNTH? In fact did you notice the full title of the section: Synthesis of published material which advances a position? (emphasis mine) The list of milestones does not advance any position. It does not reach any conclusion. It is an enumeration of facts. WP:OR also states The "No original research" rule does not forbid ... restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources. A list of cited facts is not OR or SYNTH.
There are two issues here, which I will split out into the sections below for discussion. As you know, Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus. Other editors have added to the milestones section, so there is already some consensus that it belongs. You (DreamGuy) appear to be the only editor who disagrees. If you wish to remove the section, make your case below and it can be discussed. RoyLeban (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Format of the Milestones section

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

Here are some example lists and timelines elsewhere. It took me about 10 seconds to find these. Searching for "timeline of" finds 8,493 pages on Wikipedia and this doesn't even find timelines inside articles that aren't labeled as such.
List of most expensive paintings, Chronology of works by Caravaggio, Timeline of programming languages, Timeline of architecture, Timeline of historic inventions
RoyLeban (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Content of the Milestones section

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

It helps a hell of a lot though, especially with pop culture material. Take it from me, a hard core inclusionist....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section: Practical uses of ambigrams

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to have a "Practical uses of ambigrams" section. It could have:

  • ambiscript (see above)
  • Trick/Treat cards fit here well (also see above)
  • The up/dn ambigram we've all seen in many places
  • A picture of the Come in/Go away doormat (does anyone have a picture with an appropriate license?)
  • A picture of a Push/Pull or equivalent ambigram on a glass door?
  • I think I might have seen an Open/Closed ambigram somewhere, but I'm not sure.
  • Any others?

Also, to be clear and avoid COI:

  • If my game of WIM is deemed notable enough, it could go here -- someone besides me would have to add it.
  • I have something that I did with a friend that is very practical (I use it almost every day) and we're releasing it under a Creative Commons license so others can use it, so it could be linked in its original format (for now, I'll hold back on what exactly it is because it's better to show it). Here too, somebody else would have to add it to the article.

What do others think?

RoyLeban (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I added this section. Photos of up/dn and Come in/Go away would be nice.
I did not include Push/Pull or Open/Closed as I don't have proof they exist. I did not add a reference to WIM or the other ambigram I mentioned (I currently don't have a copy with a CC license; I'll put it here on the talk page when I do). RoyLeban (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This is all original research and COI. And insisting you have "consensus" based upon you talking to yourself on this page isn't how things work. DreamGuy (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if you have no other argument to make, claim COI. It's hard to defend against. Yes, I must surely be associated with the doormat people and want to promote it for that reason. And the up/dn ambigram, somehow I have a COI there. And maybe I really created Derren Brown's Trick/Treat cards (that are actually by John Landon and I'd never heard about until I read about them in this article). RoyLeban (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I suspect there will be a source for much of this material. Fascinating, something like Cambridge Book of language or something. This shouldn't be too hard to source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Flickr ambigram group

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

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

Thanks for your consideration!

scalpod —Preceding unsigned comment added by scalpod (talk • contribs)

Removed ambigram: Mosuki

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

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

Consensus on items to include in this page

This is a permanent section of the talk page, intended to be a record of items discussed in the past, to prevent revisiting old discussions. For discussions on these items, see below or talk archives (for old items). When adding an item to this list, please use the same format and indicate the vote. For votes open less than two weeks, please also indicate how long the vote was held open. Note, of course, that these are not, strictly speaking, votes -- they are a means of finding consensus.

New items should go the end of the appropriate subsection. If you are the person assessing consenus, sign the entry with four tildes, which will add your name and the date (note that early entries in this table do not include a date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyLeban (talk • contribs) ([1] 05:53, 24 February 2009 onwards)

Result/What Consensus summary Consensus Assessor

Examples of Ambigrams

Love/Hate 3 votes against, none in favor (original editor did not revisit) RoyLeban (talk)
Justin Thyme 3 in favor, none opposed RoyLeban (talk)
Trick/Treat cards 4 in favor, none opposed RoyLeban (talk)
dollop 2 opposed, 1 in favor RoyLeban (talk)
Honda Civic 3 opposed, none in favor RoyLeban (talk)
РИa logo for Novosti 2 opposed, 2 leans RoyLeban (talk)
Slackware (old logo) 4 opposed, none in favor RoyLeban (talk)
US Civil Defense (old logo) 2 opposed, none in favor (original editor did not revisit) RoyLeban (talk)

Other items

Monkeyshine movie 4 in favor, 2 opposed (later 4 in favor, 3 opposed) RoyLeban (talk)
Ambiscript 4 in favor, 1 opposed (minor mention, no image) RoyLeban (talk)
Example of an NPL ambigram 4 opposed, 1 in favor RoyLeban (talk)
Link to Ambigramania 3 in favor, 1 opposed RoyLeban (talk)
Link to Flickr pool 3 in favor, 1 opposed RoyLeban (talk)
It should be noted that this is NOT how consensus works... Consensus can and does change, and keeping a running total of what every account Roy has managed to get to show up -- including anon IPs and other WP:SPA accounts, -- is not about consensus at all, it's about carefully trying to control things so he essentially WP:OWNs the page. Consensus is not about voting. This section is not to be taken as gospel. DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks or baseless accusations. RoyLeban (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Consensus is not in numbers. Wikipedia functions through discussion, and not straw polling. Old discussions in the archive are welcome to be cited as valid reasons and addressed if an edit to this page is disputed. (Chronological order restored, and unsigned posts tagged. Per WP:TALK laybour and good practices.) Ian¹³/t 21:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ABBA Logo?

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

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

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

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

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

    • It is true that the backwards B / N in ABBA / NIN are significantly different in form from the canonical forms of the respective letters. However, the same can certainly be said of the letters in most ambigrams, which are far more distorted and less recognisable in isolation than are letters which are merely backwards. Therefore creating a separate category is original research. jnestorius(talk) 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
These are both examples of mirror-image ambigrams then, and saying they are NOT ambigrams while claiming that the DeLorean logo (with its undertext which is not ambigramatic at all) is, is simply confusing. I recommend either deleting this section, or at least moving the DeLorean logo down to it. Gushi (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree. 1) The first B in ABBA is backwards. It was not distorted to make the word readable -- it was distorted to make it a mirror image. This is opposite of what an ambigram is about. 2) NIN, by itself, is a natural 180-degree ambigram. Flipping the N, like flipping the B in ABBA, makes it less readable, not more readable. I don't think this comes close to OR. They are not ambigrams but people keep thinking they are (e.g., look at the CD logo that was also added). Having a section which says that there are things that are similar to ambigrams which are not ambigrams is appropriate and helps the article.
DMC is not a natural ambigram. D's are not normally drawn without a vertical stroke on the left. The designer made the decision on shape to make it into an ambigram. It is the case that it is a trivial ambigram, but it is also a very well known one. Also, the text below the ambigram does not make the logo not be an ambigram. That said, I do agree that the text below the DMC logo is distracting and doesn't help. How about swapping the logo for a picture of the front end of an actual DeLorean showing the logo on a car?
RoyLeban (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you RoyLeban, in a sense. NIN is not a true 180, as it goes from the first letter being distorted to the last letter being distorted. Less readable, not more, as above, but no less readable than the original.
However, my argument was not to claim that these things ARE or ARE NOT ambigrams. It's to claim that we are calling one an ambigram and two not-an-ambigram, and that whatever they are, they should be in the same section. Is there some way that ABBA differs from DMC? If so, how is it clear to the reader? Both have modified letterforms (either a B being Backwards, or a backwards C being a "D") that make them less readable and make them either "pseudo ambigrams" or "mirror image ambigrams" (or simply "symmetric words"). Gushi (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me be slightly clearer. NIN, those literal letters, is a natural 180-degree ambigram. Had Nine Inch Nails simply used those letters as their logo, they would have had an amibgram logo. The real Nine Inch Nails logo (N-I-backwards-N) is a mirror-image (not 180) logo, but it is not an ambigram. The Nine Inch Nails logo and the ABBA logo are thus similar. Rather than draw, reshape, or distort a letter to create a readable word, they have taken a readable word and distorted (reversed) a letter to create a graphical effect (the mirror image). That does not an ambigram make.
In contrast DMC is not a natural ambigram. If it were reversed, it would read non-letter,M,D. The designer modified the D so that it matched the reversed C, creating a mirror-image ambigram which reads DMC both ways.
I have made an attempt to modify the section to clarify this, but I would not be surprised if people consider it OR. Please feel free to reword if you think you can say it better.
RoyLeban (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
So I understand this, what you are saying is that a backwards C counts as a letter D (even with no vertical stroke), and thus the DMC logo is an ambigram. But a backwards B does not count as a B (even if it matches no other letterform and is easily recognizable as such), thus ABBA is not, and that is why they are different? Gushi (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically. The point of ambigrams is to create things that are readable as the same thing in more than one way. The ABBA and NIN logos are not trying to do that, nor are they accomplishing it. BTW, not all C's look like D's backwards (for example, a cursive or black letter C wouldn't pass). The designer used letters in which it worked. Also, this is not a comment on whether the ABBA and NIN logos are good logos (I actually like both of them) -- just on whether or not they are ambigrams. RoyLeban (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Determinations about what the ABBA or DMC logos are "trying" or "succeeding" to do is original research, unless you've got some sort of evidence or quote from the original logo designer(s) Whether they are symmetric along the X-axis, however, is a matter of simple measurement, similar to determining if a word is a palindrome (NB: I am not implying all palindromes are ambigrams). Whether symmetry along the X-axis qualifies it as an ambigram, (i.e. a "mirror image ambigram") then please find an example of that definition and let's rate things consistently. Qualifying one as, and one not based on your above criteria constitute original research based on your own opinions. "Citation Needed." Gushi (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdenting for readaibility

I reverted the change that said the DMC logo is an ambigram-like logo. This is just wrong. It's a logo, it says DMC, it's readable both ways, it's a mirror-image. There's no question about it. We can argue about whether it's a good logo, a good ambigram, or even a good example, but not whether it's an ambigram. You could even argue that it is a natural ambigram (like MOM and MOW) which didn't take much design effort, but that doesn't mean that it's not an ambigram. The reason I think the DMC logo is worth being in the article (and I didn't originally put it there) is that it is one of the ambigrams that has been seen by the most people. I agreed with the point that the text below the logo was distracting (and made the whole image not a logo). I have uploaded a photo of the front grille of a DeLorean, which I think is a better image and doesn't have the extra text problem.

On the ABBA and NIN logos, I understand your argument about original research, but I disagree. If I go out to my garden and take a picture of a flower and then put it in the Flower article and say it's a flower, it's not OR. It's simple observation. Similarly, if I upload a picture of a bag of flour to the same article, it is easy to see that it is not a flower. Also not OR. Yes, the ABBA and NIN logos are symmetric. They are mirror-image logos. But any type of symmetry, whether mirror-image or rotational, does not make something an ambigram unless it meets the other parts of the definition, and these don't. A backwards B is not a B or an almost-B or something that could be read as a B, as you might see in an ambigram. It's a backwards B, no question about it. Similarly, a backwards N is not an N. None of this is OR. They're simply not ambigrams by the definition of an ambigram (which is not that broadly-defined). It's simple observation. The extra irony, as noted earlier, is that NIN, unchanged, is a natural ambigram.

I do see how my comments on "trying" and "succeeding" make it seem like OR. I was trying to explain the process and why it's easy for people who don't know much about ambigrams to think that they are ambigrams and why this section exists in the first place. In some sense, the section should be titled "Logos that people want in this article that aren't ambigrams". If anything is OR, it's the phrase "ambigram-like", but I think that is descriptive. Clearly, I don't think it is a matter of opinion as to whether the ABBA and NIN logos are ambigrams, so I removed the comment you made. When I made my earlier edit, I considered adding "Some people think these are ambigrams," but I knew that would be considered OR. Who are some people? Where is the article that said this? Etc.

I would actually have no problem removing the ambigram-like section entirely (the Flower article doesn't have a section on "Things that aren't flowers"), but I suspect that it won't be long before someone adds one of those logos back to the article. Thus, it's a useful section.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your defense of the DMC logo is "It's a logo, it says DMC, it's readable both ways, it's a mirror-image. There's no question about it."
Which of those is untrue for NIИ or ABBA? (Sadly there's no cyrillic font that lets me do the same thing for ABBA there). This is my point. You are applying simple definitions for what an ambigram is, and you are refuting other things on the same logic. Whatever is true of these things, it is the same thing. Your determinations of what is and what is not are the original research. What I think does not constitute original research is that, as you've stated, there is no really good defining criteria for what am ambigram is. There's no "Ambigram Standards Board" or keeper of a definitive list like the Scrabble Dictionary or whatnot to make a ruling on this, and putting in a section of what are "possible ambigrams" (depending on broadly defined criteria) and noting that there's no real standard is definitely good to mention in the main article (it's somewhat like defining "art", or for that matter "pornography" (and the overlap between)), but your arguments as to what are and what are not simply are not consistent.
You absolutely think ABBA is not an ambigram, and you absolutely do think DMC is, based on criteria that are not documented anywhere, except by you here. Please cite your sources. If the definition is strict, then state that (and cite where it's strict in the article), and apply the definition consistently across your examples. If it's subjective, then saying the definition is subjective does NOT count as original research.
Earlier in the history of this article, people pointed out ABBA and NIИ are not ambigrams, based on the more-specifically defined criteria of rotational ambigrams (which none of these are), which is what started this whole thing. I wonder how many other mirror-image ambigrams were defined in the article at that time.
(I would also feel it prudent to mention that NIN (no backwards N) *is* a true rotational ambigram in the main article as you've done here, as it adds clarity to what is and is not.) Gushi (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Every definition on Wikipedia, including the one in Flower, which I picked as a random example, is subjective. Let's take that one for fun: "A flower, sometimes known as a bloom or blossom, is the reproductive structure found in flowering plants...." What is "reproductive"? What is a "structure"? The petals of a flower do not have any reproductive purpose, so they are clearly not part of the flower by this definition. For the most part, the petals also aren't structure -- the petals don't hold a flower together, they just make it look pretty and more likely to be eaten (thus spreading the seeds over a wider area). This is shocking news!
What's OR? Practically everything on Wikipedia, if you want to rule out things we can observe. Don't get me started on that, there are huge articles that are almost all OR, but we're not talking about that here. Take this sentence that I added in the first graph: "Different ambigramists may create completely different ambigrams from the same word or words, differing in both style and form." Is that OR? Well, you can look at the example ambigrams and it is blatently obvious to anybody. But, I didn't cite a source. A lot of Doug's book discusses the topic, of course, but I don't think a reference is needed for something that is so obvious. Can I prove that the picture of a DeLorean grille I uploaded really is a DeLorean? Where's my source on that? The Leaning Tower of Pisa is tilted (prove it!).
We are intelligent people. We can look at something and tell if it is a flower or ambigram. It's not rocket science and it's not original research. The definition of ambigram in the article, which is not in dispute, says "An ambigram, also sometimes known as an inversion, is a typographical design or artform that may be read as one or more words not only in its form as presented, but also from another viewpoint, direction or orientation". You can argue that NIИ can be read as NIN, but that is only true if you accept the fact that the N is backwards. People read mispelled wrds and things that are just not w#rds all the time. That doesn't make them words. If you were to take a survey of 100 people and asked them what English letter И was, all 100 would say it was a backwards N, not an N. Simple observation tells you that. The prohibition on OR doesn't say we have to stop observing the obvious.
ABBA and NIИ don't follow the basic rules of ambigrams. They (the logos) are not attempting to be readable. They're attempting the reverse. This isn't subjective. What is subjective in ambigrams is quality, and you're free to argue that DMC is a bad ambigram. You could argue that the D in DMC is a bad D, but you can't argue that the И is a bad N. It's obviously a backwards N, not a bad N. Sorry if earlier editors rejected ABBA and NIИ on the basis of the (bogus) claim that ambigrams had to be rotational. I've been creating ambigrams for >30 years, so I certainly wouldn't have said that.
As I said, I'd be happy to nuke the section. I'm just afraid that the issue will come up again if we do. I did add a note on NIN being a natural ambigram. Good suggestion. I'm also happy to have more in the section, but I don't really feel like looking through one of the published books to find references for something which is a minor point (and which we're wasting time on!). Of course, I don't own the article -- just trying to keep it accurate.
P.S. Thanks for thinking of the cyrillic И. Makes it much clearer!
RoyLeban (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. Gushi (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The United States Civil Defense "CD" logo was recently added to the ambigram-like logos section of the article. I do not think it is a good example and am proposing it be removed. Please vote below.

  • Remove. I do not think it is well-known enough and it is no longer in use. Since it's only two letters long and a natural non-ambigram, it is not a good example of an ambigram-like logo. Unlike the ABBA and NIN logos, it's not clear if the designer had any intent to make it ambigram-like. And, not surprisingly, this particular letter combination can be found in many logos, drawn in a similar way. A quick search (for "CD logo") turned up: Crocket Design, Super Audio CD, Coredeluxe, Christian Doppler, etc. RoyLeban (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove I'm not certain its current usage is pertinent. However, it fails as a good example of a perhaps unintentional ambigram-like logo and only serves to make the article less clear. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed this logo and am archiving it here. RoyLeban (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Saint/Sinner

I removed the Saint/Sinner logo mention -- this is a brand new product with a logo which is nothing special -- it's a lot like many other logos. I do not think it is worthy of mention at this time.

"Saint/Sinner," the logo for Australian Gold's new bottle of indoor tanning lotion, designed by Mark Palmer

If you disagree, discuss it here. RoyLeban (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark Palmer mentions

I do not have proof, but it seems to me that these are COI edits and I have removed them. Mark Palmer is a tattoo artist known for ambigrams. I know nothing about tattoos, so I cannot judge if he is notable in that area. However, right now, there is no Wikipedia article on him and I do not see what differentiates him from the thousands of other people who create ambigrams and the many tattoo artists who do ambigram tattoos. If he is "the world's most tattooed ambigrammist," as has been asserted, and a reference for that can be found, I would have no problem adding it.

Also, I thought there should be an article on FlipScript, the maker of ambigram products (I still do and someday I will recreate it). Some of the information that has been put here (e.g., the mention of WowTattoos) belongs in that article, not this one.

That said, another possibility is an "Ambigrams in Tattoos" section. It seems that ambigrams are used more in tattoos than just about anywhere else and ambigram tattoos contribute significantly to public awareness of ambigrams, so such a section might be appropriate. If such a section existed, and if the assertion about Mark Palmer is verifiable, it would certainly be appropriate in that section. However, this is not a section that I could/would write.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambigramania and Ambigram.com

When I saw this edit [2] (Swapped the inactive ambigrammia with the highly active ambigram.com) my first thought was to revert it. After all, this isn't a competition between sites. But, looking at as two independent edits, I reached a different conclusion.

1) Ambigramania.com - there are apparently no changes on this site in almost a year and there isn't that much content there in the first place. Unless the site becomes active again, I see no reason for it to be listed anymore.

2) Ambigram.com ("Ambigram Magazine"). Yes, it's commercial with advertising, but no more commercial than any other magazine. It does appear that the ads are all from FlipScript and related companies, so it looks like more of a sponsorship than straight advertising, but, still, they're ads and the magazine has useful content. So, I think it's worth listing. I did however replace this text "Ambigram Magazine filled with articles, news, tips and designs" with the less-promotional "Ambigram Magazine"

RoyLeban (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rotating ambigram?

I'm wondering what other people think of the rotating ambigram on the page. I recently added two additional examples of ambigrams of the word "ambigram" -- I think the variety helps people understand that it's an artform and the fact that the artwork uses different transformations is interesting.

I find the rotating ambigram really distracting, and it doesn't help that it is a less interesting/less elegant ambigram than either of the other two. Personally, I don't think the rotation contributes to the understanding. I would like to either switch it to be non-rotating or remove it. If it were non-rotating, we could make it roughly the same size as the other two and put them in a row rather than have them on the right side like they are now.

What do other people think? RoyLeban (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think pretty much the same and it should be made non-rotating. Also, the middle one isn't right -- it says "ambigam" with no R. 91.107.163.34 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I'll probably remove the rotation at some point. On the middle ambigram, the "r" is certainly there, but it is subtle. I'll admit I didn't even notice how subtle it was until you pointed it out, as I had absolutely no problem reading it. The reason that I went and found two additional "ambigram" ambigrams (and got the appropriate licenses) was precisely to let people see very different ways of making the same ambigram, including widely different letter forms. RoyLeban (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ambigram/Archive_2&oldid=390229422"