Talk:Pigpen cipher

message: OMFG! I made this article! Look how it's grown!
Sorry, I'll calm down now. --81.187.166.33 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This diagram was used by the famous mystic writer, Dan Brown, on his best selling novel - The Lost Symbol.
Not Diablo 06:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Lost Symbol" 

message: How precisely was the code transmitted to a common use by schoolchildren? I dare not guess, so as not to look foolish. But this is something well worth mentioning in the article, if it can be verified. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By being included in books on codes and ciphers intended for elementary schoolchildren.  That's where I first encountered it... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissemination to the schoolchildren 

message: The article suggests merely that the code has been frequently used by children and freemasons. There is no positive statement about who invented it, or even when precisely it was invented. There is a mention of it being used in the 1700's by freemasons, but the statement does not amount to claiming that the code was invented by them, or for that matter then. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  invention, and precise antiquity of the code? 

message: To the editor of the Pigpen cipher article,
At one point there was a reference to my novel Crown of Serpents listed under the subhead In Popular Culture. It was deleted and I do not understand why. The reference mentioned that the Freemason Cipher was used in the novel and this is true. This is relevant because the novel was published well before Dan Brown's September 2009 novel The Lost Symbol - which is currently listed under that category. My novel was launched in May of 2009 and trumped Brown's usage of the cipher. I would sincerely ask that my novel citation be allowed back in under this category.
contact me at
www.crownofserpents.com
JakeTununda (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jake -- there's not one "editor" of this article, but various people who can choose to take an initiative in editing.  The reference to your book was probably removed because Wikipedia is really not a place for promoting new things, but instead a place for collecting knowledge about things which have already become successful and/or established and/or prevalent and/or of historical interest.  The  pigpen ciphers have been very well-known for over 100 years, so I'm not too sure how your book being published six months before Dan Brown's book means that you were the first to publicize them... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe that I'm probably the editor that is being referred to here. I'm in agreement with AnonMoos assessment of this situation. Promoting your own self published book in Wikipedia would generally be considered a "conflict of interest" by most competent editors in my opinion, see WP:COI for more details. There is also the issue of the general "notability" of this book itself; under most circumstances, before a book would be included in the encyclopedia in this type of context, it would have to be demonstrated that the book itself was notable enough for inclusion under our policies. You may want to have a close read of WP:BK to gain a better understanding of what I'm talking about in this regard. A fairly good 'rule of thumb' in a circumstance like this, is to determine whether or not a book would be regarded as sufficiently "notable" according to our policies to warrant its own separate article; if not, unless there's an exceptional reason, it's probably going to be excluded. Please remember that Wikipedia is not intended to be a tool for promotional purposes.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your courteous response Jake. Good luck in your future writing endeavours. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding my novel under the subhead In Popular Culture 

message: Pigpen is included in many children's books. The problem with listing a specific example is that it give undue WP:WEIGHT to one among many. Sources should also be found. A quick search shows that there are many books titled Mathemagic (I found at least 10 on Amazon), and there's no indication given which one(s) use Pigpen. If there is an article on one of these books being written, we should wait until it is written before linking to it in the article. Otherwise, it's just going to create more confusion than it's going to prevent. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in children's books 

message: The name comes from a fancied resemblance between the grids and enclosures for keeping pigs in on farms.  Not sure how to document this, or where to place it on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious. Would it be WP:OR to put it in unsourced? --Thnidu (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name "pigpen" (from [[Talk:Pigpen cipher/to do]])

message: The Example section read (emphasis added)
:Using the example key above, the message "X MARKS THE SPOT" is rendered in ciphertext as:
:
That's massively misleading. The key immediately above this section is the Templar cipher, which is in place as an example of variants on the Pigpen. The example itself is in the Pigpen cipher, which is not displayed as an example of anything, but as the topic of the article. Changing the wording. --Thnidu (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: It seems to me the picture in this article of the pigpen cipher is missing two horizontal lines.  Is this a variant? It doesn't seem to be, as without the missing horizontal lines, there can be duplicate letters produced by the same symbol (i.e. G and H both represented by a single vertical line).  If it is correct, please educate me! Thetobiasjames (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Picture of Pigpen Cipher 

message: In the Templar cipher   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.105.245 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I and J (and also U and V) were originally the same letter, and weren't split until the 17th century.  Some lingering aftereffects of the letters' pre-split status persisted until the 19th century.  (The early A.D. Roman alphabet was A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z.) AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no "J" character in the last cipher shown ? 

message: I can't find anything online about the "Newark" variant of the cipher, or even a book by the name of the one cited. I'm not doubting the veracity of either, but I would like to be able to see the source and an example of what is being talked about. Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of Newark Cipher? 

message: F.w.i.w.: The Bots and the Bees, around 08:25. Tuvalkin (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the in popular culture section removed?  64gabber (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture: Futurama