Talk:Pigpen cipher

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests [Watch this list] Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply

]

Fair enough. I read the notability article and as of yet my novel doesn't meet the criteria. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers!JakeTununda (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous response Jake. Good luck in your future writing endeavours. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pigpen is included in many children's books. The problem with listing a specific example is that it give undue

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)[reply]

It's pretty obvious. Would it be

WP:OR to put it in unsourced? --Thnidu (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

ᐝᐥᐭᐌᐌᐌᐌᐌᐓรหม — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.81.113 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the Templar cipher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.105.245 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.105.245 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

F.w.i.w.: The Bots and the Bees, around 08:25. Tuvalkin (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the in popular culture section removed? 64gabber (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]