Talk:Origami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. Talk:Origami/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Time for a wikiproject?

The origami topic has plenty of articles, and certainly needs expansion. is there anybody else that would e intrested in forming a wikiproject for origami? list yourselves below:

  • I think this category needs some organization, so I'm going to try and form a wikiproject for it. Ahudson 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose this message is something like 6 months too late, but I am totally in favor of forming an origami wikiproject. --Wayne Miller 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I have started an archive for the Origami talk page. There hasn't been too much argument and discussion, but I figured we should probably start archiving before it reaches that point. When an issue gets resolved, please put it into the archive after a few weeks. Thanks! --Ahudson 18:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

A link to a website by Rick Nordal has been added to, and removed from, this article multiple times. The website presents a "Snowflake" game based on origami. The game involves pre-creasing, box pleating, and pinwheel bases. Despite the game's name, it does not have any 6-fold symmetry snowflakes. The website also has detailed directions for the waterbomb. The website uses very few standard origami terms.

Should the origami article have a link to this website?

Should a related article (perhaps one that discusses box pleating) have a link to this website?

I pose the questions in hopes that this mini-edit war can be resolved. I do not presume to answer these questions, because I have a conflict of interest. (One of the external links is to my website.) -- Jasper 18:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll say it's a vanity link, judging by the Wiki guidelines: "In most cases a vanity intent of the writer can be fairly easily deduced from the general tone or content of the article or information." --202.156.6.54 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah, you're probably right. I'm working on cutting down on the number of links by going to all of them and taking out the unnecessary and repetitious ones (although I haven't actually started yet). I still think this is a great list of links, but its far too long to be part of an encyclopedia entry. should I just delete them, or could you put a page on your website with a list of them? we can't post another article on wikipedia with ONLY links on it, so i don't know what to do... i'm going to save a copy of the original list just in case, if someone doesn't like the changes then please tell me or else I'll keep maintaining the list I made. Ahudson 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put back the link to the Origami Database on the basis that the site is unique in the origami world, and a useful resource in general.--202.156.6.54 15:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OrigamiDatabase may be unique, but it does not offer any info to someone who is new to origami. It has no diagrams, and no info on origami history or math. It may be a useful resource to those who have been doing origami for years and have money to spend on building their origami libraries, but the average person will almost never use it. I therefore propose that we should delete it. Ahudson 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What data have you got to back up your statements? That seems rather like a personal opinion rather than a hard fact. Until you can show that, I propose that should be on the list. For example, let's say someone's doing a school project on origami and is trying to find out how many traditional models exist, or how many variants of the traditional crane there are. As far as I know, there are practically no websites that can tell you that. The Origami Database will at least give you an estimate.137.132.3.11 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't need data for this sort of thing; the Origami database just doesn't provide further information for the layman on the topic of origami. This sort of link might be a good thing on an article about origami diagrams or models, but it doesn't seem to provide any information on origami itself. see WP:EL. Ahudson 16:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
By that reasoning, neither does Gilad's Origami Page, and yet it's on the list. Basically, I take issue with the fact that you seem to have unilaterally decided what goes onto the list and what doesn't. I'd like to hear more opinions, so I propose we do an RfC.137.132.3.11 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm fine with that. I haven't looked that closely at Gilad's site, maybe it shouldn't be there either... but I'll wait until the RfC to do anything more. Ahudson 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure it does. About the most common question asked by newbies on origami mailing lists and forums is 'Where can I find the diagrams for model X?'--137.132.3.12 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Another Question: should I leave a website on the list only for the reason that it is not in english? Ahudson 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sadako Sasaki and the bomb

I reverted this edit because I don't think it's disputed that Sadako Sasaki was born in 1943. Is it? Michael Slone (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most Origami Cranes Made

I was wondering if anyone knew what is the record for most origami cranes made by one person?

I don't think anybody keeps track of that; however, I'm sure it's somewhere in the tens of thousands. Ahudson 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I have just thinned down the external links in this article as per WP:EL. I would like to remind any of you that might be upset of a couple of things:

  • External links are meant to extend the content of an article. This means that websites like the Origami Database, while they are useful to those who practice origami, are not included because they do not give further information on the art of origami as a whole and are not useful unless a particular model is required.
  • Also, I found that it saved a lot of space to link to a separate page with a set of links on it, rather than leave several links to other origami organizations and related pages.

I would like to note that I am open to any discussion, I just thought that there were far too many links for anybody to reasonably work with the article. Any comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! Ahudson 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just repeated this process. I found that many of the links that I had previously deleted were simply added again; everybody please read WP:EL before posting links! They will most likely be deleted, unless they fit the criteria outlined there. Ahudson 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the origami video tutorials website for the following reasons: it uses non-standard diagrams; it has a lot of very high-bandwidth content that is therefore inacessible for many readers; it has almost no original information; and it uses scissors and other objects of origami-heresy. Ahudson 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read the WP:EL, I do not know whether linking to the Origami Forum would still contravine best practice guidelines. Although I believe linking to the forum would be beneficial, I must state there is a conflict of interest as I administrate the forum. Any advice appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snkhan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article needs citations to many unsourced statements of fact. While they all sound right to me, sourcing them will help this article gain status within wikipedia. +Fenevad 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments in code

I have placed a couple of HTML comments in the code (in the technical folding and external links sections) for the article to warn Rick Nordal to stop link spamming. These comments are not visible unless someone edits the pages. Rick was blocked from editing Wikipedia last week because of his consistent linkspamming, but apparently the block was never made effective, even though an admin posted that it was going to take place. The comments are there to try to bring Rick into discussion about the article rather than constant addition of his link. I think he could probably contribute a lot to this article if he would enter discussion. Therefore, please leave the comments in place until the end of the month (January 2007). --Fenevad 15:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the block was implemented, but it was only for 24 hours (that is pretty standard for a first time block of an IP). I have submitted 24.85.248.99 (talk · contribs) to WP:AIV again for another block request. -- Satori Son 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I submitted both the user name and the IP. The IP was blocked for 24 hours, as you note, and the username (RIckNordal) was listed as being given an indefinite block, but for whatever reason that block didn't seem to be actually implemented. Sorry I wasn't clear. --Fenevad 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like the indef block on Ricknordal (talk • contribs • logs) did go through as well. Don't forget, a blocked user is always able to edit their own user page (so they can appeal the block, if desired). Anyway, the underlying sockpuppet IP has now been blocked again, so I'll see you here in a couple days. ;-)  Satori Son 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How odd. When I examine the block logs for Ricknordal, I don't see anything listed at all, but if you say it's been made, that's good enough for me. --Fenevad 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I see above you have expressed a desire to discuss this with him. It looks like he has made some comments to that effect on his user talk page, so you may wish to engage him there. You're right, he might be a great contributor if we can turn him around, but this constant edit warring and ignoring consensus is obviously unacceptable behavior. -- Satori Son 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the code comments. They don't seem to be needed anymore. -Fenevad 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

After some months Rick Nordal resurfaced and inserted links to his site this morning. I've deleted them, but I hope we're not back to another round of add-n-deletes. -Fenevad 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we are, and now he is making bolder claims. Next thing you know, his site will butter your bread too. -Fenevad (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Extension

I know this sort of thing would generally want to be avoided, but would it be a ppropriate for this article to make a list of diagrams available online? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of diagrams that are available; we could maybe select a hundred or so that are exemplary, fold them and upload pictures, and make an article. But would it be appropriate here, or on wikibooks, with a link to there from this article? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! Ahudson 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial Origami

I know origami is the anchient art of paper folding and I love origami but to what extent is origami because ori means fold and gami means paper so paper folding but is say folding a paper in half considered origami please answer my question. [This question was posted by 70.180.133.92 at 15:29 on 4 April 2007.]

The answer is yes, if you are creative enough about naming the model. One could argue that there are two origami models even simpler than "folding a paper in half":

  • The simplest origami model is a tie between The Emperor's New Clothesand the Level -1 Menger Sponge.
  • The second simplest model is an unfolded sheet of paper; it can be a flying carpet, or an abstract representation of a leaf.
  • "Folding a paper in half" can produce a one-fold stegosaurus, an abstract representation of a bird, or an A-frame house, depending on where the crease is made.

--Jasper


Origami is an art form and it should be regarded as an art form and not simply folding paper in half. Sure, there are pureland origami models such as the one-fold stegosaurus, but here the paper has a purpose to represent (abstractly) a stegosaurus. Merely folding the paper in half with no intentions is just a crease, but with an active imagination the crease arguably becomes "art". --Origamikid 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just going through previous comments, and I noticed this discussion. I would simply point out that there is a significant group of people who do origami who do not particularly consider it an art. For them it is a craft. Whether we like that or not, origami is as much theirs as it is anyone else’s, so saying it should be regarded as an art form is not as easy a statement as it might sound. Perhaps more germane to the point however, is that there are those who are interested in the philosophy of origami, and who take the question of a single fold model seriously (e.g., Peter Engel), and those who are interested in stochastic art or serialism would strongly object to the idea that a random fold couldn’t be art. Anyway, interesting questions. -Fenevad (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether origami is an art or a craft varies from folder to folder. I myself consider it an art, and once can certainly consider it "paper sculpture", and sculpture is generally classified as art. Sure, some folders merely fold for fun, as a craft. Whichever it is, I think this topic is too overanalyzed! --Origamikid (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

  • I just removed a refrence to a guy named Norio Torimoto on the assumption that it was a vanity post-- I've never heard of the guy, and a google search turns up very little-- but I may be mistaken, so please corrct me if I am! Ahudson 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animated origami

I just included a small section on animated origami. The British Origami Society also have a link to the animation on their home page. I hope the article and external link are okay? I am new to editing Wikipedia and welcome any feedback as appropriate. Thanks...Derek Stancombe

Update: Please refer to my article on animated origami on BBC's H2G2 site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A25909905. If the relevant peers think it would be suitable, I would be happy to provide a similar article for Wikipedia. Such an article could cover:

1. The historical development of animated origami 2. How to animate origami models and diagrams 3. Using animation to showcase models. 4. Animated origami in digital media (e.g. film) 81.174.162.108 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Action Origami

There needs to be a section somewhere on wikipedia on action origami; I don't know if this is what Derek is referring to as "animated origami", but there is little reference to the sort of "action" in Robert J. Lang's book Origami In Action. Origami doesn't fully comprise just still-lifes...--Origamikid 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Never mind, I took care of it 9 months ago. --Origamikid (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origami Tessellation

This genre of origami is growing in popularity. Does it deserve a section? Alexbateman (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For a separate article, no. For a small section under origami or modular origami, possibly. Much of origami tesselations fall under the "modular origami" category. Making small origami units and piecing them together geometrically can form tesselations; however this type of modular origami is much more common with 3-D polyhedra. As is is still relatively uncommon, I doubt much should be said about it. --Origamikid (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a thriving practice of making tessellations that are non-modular surface tilings, i.e., made from a single sheet. I think they may be more common than you think and have played an important role in some well-known designs like Lang's koi and a pangolin I've seen. This practice tends to be more common in the technical origami circles, and this article would be the place to mention it, not modular origami. I think, but am not sure, that most people talking about tessellations are referring to this construction, not something pieced together, and that people into tessellations would object to modular stuff being called tessellations. But I have no real broad evidence for this, just what I've seen. -Fenevad (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you define "origami tesellation" as. Lang's Koi is described as "Tiling" in his book Origami Design Secrets. I am familiar with Chris Palmer's works, of which is one piece of paper, which can only truly be considered "tesselations". Lang's Koi is merely only an application of overlapping scales, as is with Eric Joisel's pangolin. Nick Robinson has a modular "arrow" tesselation and is an example of a modular tesselation.

I think that the mathematical concept is crucial to the construction of origami, so it would be suited for the category "Mathematics of Origami." Anyways, so much info about mathematical concepts has been made thru origami like the Haga theorem such that it may very well need its own article, if it doesn't already.--Origamikid (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just a PS, but I just read the "mathematics of origami" article and it really needs some expansion. We could really use an expansion of that article, and it would be a suitable place to put the topic of "origami tesselations." --Origamikid (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STICK TO THE TRUE PURIST FOLDING PLEASE!!!

I would like to make it abundantly clear that "origamians" who frequently cut/paste paper and label themselves as "origamians" should not be labeled as such on Wikipedia. This includes Duy Nguyen especially.

Strictly speaking to purist folders such as myself, origami is the art of paper folding; this doesn't include cutting, taping or otherwise abusing the wholeness of the paper.

If this sort of paper sculpture needs a category please categorize it under kirigami or another, but not as origami.--Origamikid (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Hmm. That's definitely POV in a much broader debate over what counts as origami. Let's just say that while many (perhaps most) folders would agree with you, there is ample historical evidence in Japan for cutting (at least). Kirigami is described in the article you link to as a kind of origami, and I think for many folders it would be a border area. Some have no problems with it, others do, but talk about "purity" is almost always a way to claim the moral high ground in a debate (if someone makes cuts, are they engaged in "impure” [i.e., bad] origami?). The article’s two lead paragraphs acknowledge there is an issue of debate here, and that is the best way to handle this issue, IMHO.
This same argument could be extended: should we only allow discussion of folding from rectangles, from squares? What about pandan-knot style origami made from strips? Does it count? It's not cut and is only folded, but has more in common with knot work than with “normal” origami. What about tea-bag origami? (I personally think it's silly, but others disagree.) What about origami with curved folds (my speciality, but one that some people think isn't proper)? Or should we go all the way and exclude origami which has been folded against a hard surface rather than entirely in one's hands (which some schools in Japan consider improper)? I hope my point is clear: there are different notions of what is right and wrong and it would be inappropriate in a Wikipedia article to enforce one of those views in an informative article. By all means, the article should talk about the different ideals and the controversies, but it should not take a stand on them. That would violate Wikipedia policy.
-Fenevad (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now added Duy Nguyen back in twice after OrigamiKid removed him. I see a potential edit war in the brewing, which does no good to anyone. I'd like to gain consensus on whether Duy Nguyen should be included in this article. You can see my rationale in my comment above. I really don't feel that Wikipedia should be for making an ideological statement about what origami should be, but rather a description of what it in fact is (whether we like it or not). An article that tries to take multiple viewpoints into account and discuss controversy is much more informative and useful to readers (who are perfectly capable of deciding whether something meets whatever standard they find the most useful) than excising things that individuals don't agree with.
If other active editors (although everyone who used to be active here seems to have disappeared lately) agree that Nguyen should go, then we have consensus and I would reluctantly agree to removing him, otherwise we have only OrigamiKid's obvious desire to consign what Nguyen does to some circle of outer darkness not part of origami. Note that I have added a note to the reference about his practice of cutting being controversial, so I am trying to accommodate OrigamiKid's strong feelings here without violating NPOV.
Fenevad (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am all for neutrality in Wikipedia articles. However, the nature of origami has changed significantly in only the past 50 years. I agree that cutting was more prevalent to folding in ancient Japan, but it is now more common, more encouraged, more of a challenge, more "artistically correct" to fold paper without cuts or gluing. The US organization OrigamiUSA does not recognize cutting in paperfolding. This concept is further described in the introduction of Jeremy Shafer's book Origami to Astonish and Amuse. The "rules" for what is "considered origami" have become stricter, but the semantics of "what is" and "what is not" origami are still vague.
I am less concerned about whether the paper is a square or not as most folding groups still accept nonsquare starting papers even if they are uncommon.
Fenevad, I'm fine with providing the multiple viewpoints to create a nonbiased article, but I am still adamant about the "rules of origami." I am fine with addressing Nguyen as a paperfolder, but not a purist. Thus I am willing to let him be addressed on Wikipedia, but in a different, non-purist category possibly.
I would also like to note that all the other origamians are strictly "purists" (my definition is without cutting and gluing). Lang uses nonsquare papers often, and on rare occasions, Kunihiko Kasahara advises to glue certain tabs to keep models together. Sadly Nguyen is in his own class as his work frequently demands cutting and gluing. Thus, in today's terminology many enthusiasts will disregard him as a true origamian.
Still, the usage of cutting/gluing/nonsquare paper is up to the folder. --Origamikid (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origamist or Origamian?

What would be best for Wikipedia articles: the American term "origamist" or the chiefly British term "origamian"?

Should one term be used universally for all origami-related articles, or

should "origamist" be used for American folders and "origamian" be used for international folders?--Origamikid (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference on this at all, although folder is probably more common in the circles I’ve been in than either of those terms and might be preferable as a non-region-specific term. Whatever is chosen should be used consistently and, at the first usage, should have a note explaining other terms. Something like “origamians (also known as origamists or folders)” I note that you use “origamian” yourself and since you seem to be about the only active editor now, feel free to put a stake in the sand and set which term you think it should be and update the article. My vote would be for folder, but I certainly wouldn't object to either one of the others. -Fenevad (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's delete Norio Torimoto

This article on Torimoto seems to be a vanity article and has little competition towards notable folders like Robert J. Lang and John Montroll. Like Ahudson, it's been a year now since the article was posted, so it would be advisable to delete it.--Origamikid (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Anything that smacks of a vanity article, unless there is something really notable in it that adds materially to this article should be taken out. Sort of like Rick Nordal's website link has been repeatedly pulled as a promo thing. Did you already remove it? I can't find the link under that name, so if it's still hiding in the article somewhere, go ahead and delete it.

-Fenevad (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of Nordal's link being a problem of late. But I posted a tag for quick deletion on the Torimoto article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Origamikid (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply misread the comment and thought you were talking about a link to an external article from this one. Regarding Nordal, he was last here in November. Every few months he reappears and puts his links back in thinking, I believe, that something will have changed and that everyone here will now think his Einstein's origami thing is OK. I've been pretty diligent about removing it. I really tried to engage him and get him to contribute to this article and justify linking to his site, but it didn't do any good... -Fenevad (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Translator

I'd like to write an informative article on Issei Yoshino and Fumiaki Kawahata, skilled origami folders, but their published books I want to use as a source are purely in Japanese. I can't read Japanese but I still want to write about them. Anyone want to help? --Origamikid (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Rofl. 1 Pic. Rofl. Nice Gallery. Rofl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.70.181 (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)