Talk:Ambigram

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Ambigram of_the_word_ambigram_-_rotation_animation.gif, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 1, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-08-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"New Man" logo
Hello, thank you for pointing out that the "New Man" logo was already used in the article. Sorry I missed that! (I was quite surprised that I didn't see it, hence the hasty mistake: Measure once, cut twice; Measure twice, cut once.) There is another of the logo on commons, if there's any point in showing both the static artwork and the animated gif file (e.g., the animation in the section where I inadvertently placed it, and the artwork in the "Logos" section where the animation is now). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cl3phact0, for your contribution. Personally I think that two illustrations of the same logo would constitute redundancy. Some famous ambigrams such as SUNS, DMC or SONOS are not even on the page, to avoid image overload. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Carry on then. It's a very informative and enjoyable article. Glad that it was featured on the Main Page. I've always been intrigued by this particular type of palindromic symmetry, and was very happy to see so many excellent examples in one place! Thanks for putting in the time to make is so image-rich. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * so much for your enthusiastic feedback and encouragement! -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Too many examples?
This point is brought up in Talk:Ambigram above, but I'm not so much concerned about OR as much as the sheer volume of images in the article. In principle, I don't think having more than a handful of examples for each specific "type" of ambigram is needed, especially when we multiply method, media, and purpose.

Consider that we have the following and more:


 * Symmetry type
 * Vertical
 * Horizontal
 * Rotational
 * Three-dimensional
 * Tessellation
 * Media type
 * Digital
 * Print
 * Consumer products
 * Tattoos
 * Sculptures/objects
 * Purpose
 * Art
 * Personal expression (i.e. tattoos)
 * Political expression
 * Religious expression

A distinct combination of each would be 100 images, and sure enough I count over 100 images in this article. Moreover, for the specific combination of "rotational, digital, art" I count roughly a dozen, even excluding some which arguably fall under another purpose e.g. political/commercial messaging. I don't think an encyclopedic article about ambigrams actually benefits from such an excess of examples -- surely someone will have a firm grasp of the concept of a "rotational ambigram" after just two or three examples?

It seems to me that even though there is no "gallery" per se, it's as though a "former" or "potential" gallery has been broken up across the whole article to avoid falling under WP:GALLERY. There is a whole lot of sandwiching going on which makes the article a chore to read even at full-width. Corporal (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've reduced the number of images. Although "a picture is worth a thousand words", this modification may lighten the layout -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC) updated comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My belief is that in articles about visual, spatial, graphic, or artistic ideas or works, it's better to err on the side of more (high-quality, for sure) images to best illustrate these concepts. Some readers are naturally inclined towards visual learning, which is certainly something I have tried to be mindful of in the work I've done here. As mentioned above, the image-rich quality of this article was a real pleasure for this reader. As for layout (gallery/no gallery): de gustibus non est disputandum to a degree, and of course within accepted MOS practice (and other wiki-norms, to the extent that such things exist). It's a whole lot more work to do a tidy layout that incorporates the imagery into the body of an article in an aesthetically pleasing, balanced, and technically adept manner than it is to drop everything in a gallery section – however, sometimes the results justify the effort. I would say this article is such a case. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cl3phact0, thanks for your comment. Do you think the previous version should be restored? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't studied all of the most recent changes in minute detail – but as a matter of personal preference, I liked the more image-rich format, yes. (That said, I am loath to step on any toes and have had some frustrating experiences related to the question of article imagery.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the recent reduction of images. I object.  This article is about a remarkable visual thing, and the images in an article like this are especially important.  It is a strength of Wikipedia that it can be generous with visual images.  This article before the edit that removed images I thought looked good.


 * The change was made, according to editor Basile Morin, after a request by editor Corporal (above in this section). That’s not accurate:  Corporal did not request the change, but instead was discussing possible changes.  Now it is difficult for any editor to see the points Corporal was making — because they’re gone from the article.  Basile Morin has sabotaged Corporal’s intention to have Corporal’s points considered.


 * The edit was large, it’s controversial, not everyone agrees with it, and it’s inappropriately based, as I said, on something that’s not accurate. The edit prevents discussion.  It should be undone — and then discussed.  Åüñîçńøł (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Something that I truly wish I had written: This article is about a remarkable visual thing, and the images in an article like this are especially important. It is a strength of Wikipedia that it can be generous with visual images. Thank you, for making your point so clearly. I agree: this is not a "less, but better" (Weniger, aber besser) article; it is a more is more article – if ever there was one. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article. Thanks Cl3phact0 Åüñîçńøł (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Not too many? Hi everyone, a majority wants to keep these examples in the article? Excellent. Glad you enjoy them, really! Åüñîçńøł, you cancelled the modification after I proposed to revert it by myself. Proof that I am quite inclined to argue and accept opposing arguments here. But Corporal suggested such "improvement" or transformation. Hence the modification. However, "A picture is worth a thousand words", several of us share this idea. I also agree with Cl3phact0 that "Some readers are naturally inclined towards visual learning". Especially in a field dealing with ambiguous visual objects. To finish, I appreciate Åüñîçńøł's statement: "This article is about a remarkable visual thing, and the images in an article like this are especially important. It is a strength of Wikipedia that it can be generous with visual images." For the record here's the current version (restored). Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The article’s first sentence
I think the article’s first sentence needs to be reconsidered. Here are four reasons that I say that — followed by my suggestion:

1) The first sentence says: “An ambigram is a calligraphic or typographic design with multiple interpretations as written words.” The first illustration in the article (the animation of the word “ambigram”) has only one interpretation, but it gets repeated. (As opposed to the example further down in the article that, when rotated, says “Fake” and then “Real”.)  The first sentence is wrong as it excludes the article’s first example.

2) the first sentence is not clear when it says: An ambigram is a design with “interpretations as written words.”  A word can’t possibly include an interpretation of itself.  The interpretation is for the reader not the word itself.

3) The first sentence refers to “calligraphic or typographic design” — calligraphic or typographic distinguishes between words that are written and those that are printed. But then at the end, the sentence changes its mind (so to speak) and excludes printed words by only mentioning “written words”.

4) The first sentence is based on a quote by Douglas R. Hofstadter. The source quote begins: “An ambigram is a visual pun”, then Hofstadter goes on to qualify that phrase.  The article leaves out the beginning of Hofstadter’s definition, and only includes the qualifying part.  That  misrepresents the source.

There are a lot of definitions available, most don’t use the word “interpretation”. The word’s definition is complicated, and is best understood by example. Based on what I’ve read, I’ll suggest a possible first sentence that I think might be better:

“An ambigram is a calligraphic or typographic design, usually of a word or phrase, which becomes a kind of visual pun when the the word or phrase is turned upside down, flipped sideways, or given some other change to the reader’s orientation.” GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your proposal. Concerning point 3, I agree. But I think the word "typographic" (added last month) should be removed, because typographic or natural ambigrams are relatively rare. Like "chain ambigrams", typographic ambigrams don't represent the essence of what we're talking about. "Calligraphic" is much more adapted.
 * The full sentence by Douglas Hofstadter (translated from Italian) is: "An ambigram is a visual pun of a special kind: a calligraphic design having two or more (clear) interpretations as written words. One can voluntarily jump back and forth between the rival readings usually by shifting one's physical point of view (moving the design in some way) but sometimes by simply altering one's perceptual bias towards a design (clicking an internal mental switch, so to speak). Sometimes the readings will say identical things, sometimes they will say different things."
 * Currently the first sentence of the article is a condensed version of this text, synthesized by mathematician Burkard Polster, and slightly altered by Wikipedia contributors.
 * Concerning point 2, I understand the rigorous clarification that you're highlighting, however, the shortcut is to be understood as "allowing multiple interpretations". Like in the sentences "a country has several languages", or "a word has several etymologies" (strictly speaking, a word can't have several etymologies, unless you consider that the homograph has different meanings, or that several hypotheses exist in relation to the etymology). Personally, I'm not really bothered by this intuitive formulation.
 * About point 1, I think the main illustration (the word "ambigram") is showing well the two interpretations through the half turn rotation. One interpretation is way up, the second is way down. The word contains two halves, one reading "amb(i)" and the other "(i)gram". The letter B itself offers two clear interpretations: second letter of the alphabet right side up, and seventh letter upside down. By the way, in his definition, Hofstadter writes: "Sometimes the readings will say identical things, sometimes they will say different things".
 * Point 4, "visual pun", yes. I agree it is a fairly consistent feature of all ambigrams. But the central part of Hofstadter's quote is the second sentence, in my opinion (i.e. "a calligraphic design having two or more (clear) interpretations as written words.") And this is also what Polster retains.
 * I'm not opposed to modify the article's first sentence, but based on the above remarks, and given that the word "calligraphic" implicitly refers to the "words or phrases", here's my alternative:
 * "An ambigram is a calligraphic design offering multiple interpretations when its graphical representation is turned upside down, flipped sideways, or given some other change to the reader’s orientation, like a visual pun." -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Any objections? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Basile Morin, I think you are on the right track. But the word "calligraphic" is wedded to the idea of writing with pen-and-ink, and typographic indicates ambigrams that are printed -- like most or all of the examples in the article.  The first sentence should be inclusive, I think.  GümsGrammatiçus


 * Thanks, GümsGrammatiçus. Calligraphy is "handwriting" or "lettering", while typography refers to "letterpress printing". Composing sticks or normalized typefacess don't allow much freedom for ambigrams, whose glyphs usually need to be heavily deformed. Almost all the examples in the article are handmade, then vectorized on computer. Calligraphic work, the "upside down" shown above is handmade, for example. Hofstadter and Polster use the word "calligraphic". The word "typographic" doesn't appear in the source. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * A person can look around at various dictionaries and eke out at least some degree of support for both words (calligraphy & typography), but I think there’s a problem with both — calligraphy is wedded to handwriting, the same way typography is wedded to letterpress. An ambigram is certainly some kind of a “design” — a basic one-word description.  Or a “visual design”.


 * Perhaps: ”An ambigram is a visual design that offers multiple interpretations when its graphic representation is turned upside down, is flipped sideways, or provides some other change to the reader’s orientation. The effect of an ambigram is a visual pun.” GümsGrammatiçus


 * It may be the case that "visual design" distils the sentence beyond what is meant. If we drop both "calligraphic" and "typographic", then are we still referring to a visual design composed of letters and words? Also, notwithstanding Hofstadter et al., strictly speaking, are Ambigrams puns or palindromes? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ambigrams are mostly words. I think the term "lettering" (i.e. "the art of drawing letters") is adequate. But "calligraphy" referring to "handwriting" is fine too, in my opinion. A clear example is the ambigram "LOVE / FEAR" created by famous calligrapher Niels Shoe Meulman (personal website Calligraffiti.nl). Or the beautiful rainbow colors designed by Hofstadter, 100% calligraphic / handwritten. Moreover, modern calligraphy is large. Nowadays, many calligraphers use graphics tablets to create their "handwritten" letters on computer.
 * True also ambigrams are visual palindromes., how would you write this first introductory sentence, if it had to be changed? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Two possible versions:
 * "An ambigram is a kind of symmetrical calligraphic or typographic palindrome that can yield different meanings depending on the orientation of observation. Some ambigrams can be described as visual puns."
 * Alt:
 * "An ambigram is a composition of letters and words that can yield different meanings depending on the orientation of observation. Most ambigrams are palindromes that rely on some kind of symmetry, and they can often be interpreted as visual puns."
 * [NB: It is actually a very difficult concept to describe succinctly and without ambiguity. Not sure that my attempts are any better than yours.]
 * -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would opt for the second version, slightly modified, with the term "calligraphic" included. Otherwise, it's a safe bet that the reader mentally visualizes upturned scrabble letters, without imagining any form of drawing, which nevertheless constitutes the essence. Also specifying "visual palindromes", more than just ordinary letter palindromes, seems important to me. Suppressing the repetition of "can" may improve the style.
 * => "An ambigram is a calligraphic design that can yield different meanings depending on the orientation of observation. Most ambigrams are visual palindromes that rely on some kind of symmetry, and they are often interpreted as visual puns." -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic about this and probably wouldn't have jumped in had you not asked. Agree with some of observations, and do think that just "calligraphic" is too specific (as many of the examples are typographic or simply logos – i.e., logotypes). My second suggestion above tries to steer clear of this conundrum by blurring the distinction with "a composition of letters and words". It is indeed a tricky puzzle to get the syntax just right here. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the word “calligraphy”. The first sentence shouldn’t exclude any examples.  For example, you can create an ambigram with a typewriter if you type the word "bud", "bid", or “mom”.  A typewriter doesn’t involve calligraphy, so that should rule out the claim that ambigrams are defined as calligraphy.  I don’t think calligraphy is needed, since the more general term “design” is fine.  Calligraphy is commonly understood to be an art form that involves handwriting.


 * Regarding the word “palindrome": Palindrome has a very specific meaning that excludes ambigrams that when flipped reveal a completely different word.  I think the first sentence should be as simple and accurate as possible.


 * Regarding the word “pun”: It seems to me that all ambigram has a “wow” factor, or an “ah-ha” factor that the word “pun” indicates — an element of surprise, humor or trickery.  That element should be part of a definition.  An ambigram is not merely “composition of letters and words”.


 * Regarding “Numbers and other symbols”: Since the article says that ambigrams can be constructed of numbers and other symbols.  So the definition probably shouldn’t exclude by saying an ambigram is “a composition of letters and words”. GümsGrammatiçus

+ Trebor]], for example).
 * Design is very broad. "Calligraphic design" seems more accurate to me.
 * Many ambigrams can refer to the notion of "visual palindromes", even those giving another reading when flipped, because the two merged parts form a whole. Same as anadromes (like [[Robert Trebor|Robert
 * Letters / Numbers / other symbols are glyphs in ambigrams.
 * Yes, calligraphy is "handwriting" / "lettering" => totally compatible with the idea of ambigrams, in my opinion. Logos are unique creations mostly drawn by hand, at the beginning. The words "bud", "bid" and “mom” are "natural ambigrams" that can be drawn by hand, also. And reciprocally, a typographic "bud" may not be exactly symmetrical with a standard typeface.
 * Hofstadter defines ambigrams as "calligraphic designs that manage to squeeze in two different readings".
 * This is just the first sentence. The idea of "palindrome" is already expressed further in the text ("Most often, ambigrams appear as visually symmetrical words.") The notion of "visual pun" can be discussed in another sentence, I think. Hence this compromise:
 * "An ambigram is a calligraphic design that remains the same or that yields different meanings when its graphical representation is turned upside down, flipped sideways, or given some other change to the reader’s orientation" -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think Hofstadter’s word “pun” is essential — it suggests the element of surprise or fun at the heart of an anagram. I think Cl3phact0’s suggestion is sharp and clear and reads well:


 * "An ambigram is a composition of letters and words that can yield different meanings depending on the orientation of observation. Most ambigrams are palindromes that rely on some kind of symmetry, and they can often be interpreted as visual puns.” GümsGrammatiçus


 * It could still possibly be slightly improved: "... composition of letters, numbers, symbols, or words that can yield..." (which covers the other eventualities). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I should post this version, and then of course Basile Morin, Cl3phact0, myself and anyone can edit freely and continue the discussion. talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by GümsGrammatiçus (talk • contribs)
 * Good idea (but "ambigram", not ). -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apropos of nothing: this is one of my favourite articles in this encyclopaedia., thanks for putting in the effort! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Thanks for your help! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting our first sentence after some time away from the question, my view is that it has again become too larded with extra words and wikilinks (see KISS principle). This version (again, in my view) was better: An ambigram is a composition of letters, numbers, symbols or other shapes that can yield different meanings depending on the orientation of observation. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"NOON" is always "NOON" claim
Only if rotated 180°. If rotated 90° it becomes "2002" (with slight typographic licence), or "ZOOZ" (if also reflected using horizontal mirror symmetry). If simply reflected (per previous), the "N" becomes "ᴎ" [NB: Unicode Character (U+1D0E)]. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see also Nexus in the same style, with 5 different letters -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we agree that "NOON" is not always "NOON"? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, yes. I have changed this part. Examples come below in the article -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Unicode supports a number of rotated letters. There might actually be an interesting short addition to our article in all of this. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)