Talk:Origami/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note: This archive contains resolved issues that have been left here for future refrence. Discussions that have not been resolved belong on the regular talk page, not here. Thanks! Ahudson 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Origami techniques

I have begun an origami tech tree, explaining how the folding techniques are related.Jasper 20:35 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Due to lack of quality, the Origami tech tree page has been rewritten and expanded. If those of you who know a lot about origami could flesh out the needed links and add some pictures, that would be great. In addition, the page has been moved to Origami Techniques to maximize convenience. Ahudson Dec 2, 2005

I moved this to Origami techniques per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Michael Slone (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Haiku

I agree, that's a really long haiku -- surely something's wrong here? The Anome

No - it's a translation from the Japanese - I don't think it's too long at all. Remember Japanese is a calligraphic language with a heck of a lot of symbolism and embedded meanings in it. When you translate from one language to another it never keeps the same form because they're all so different. ~KJ

As an entire haiku, yes: I was questioning that something of that length could be only part of a haiku. Thanks for clarifying. Vicki Rosenzweig

Sadako Sasaki

The number about Sadako Sasaki is wrong. If you look at her specific page, you'll find she folded over 1,300 cranes, not ~600. 209.33.36.146 23:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that the information on Sadako should be updated to reflect that she infact folded more than 1,000 cranes before dying; unlike the popular story of her dying before completing the goal. Her wiki entry, and the organization founded to honor her (www.sadako.org) after her death both support her having folded more than 1,000. Phresno 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Kami

The word kami is used several times in this article. By context, I assume it means origami paper, but this is never stated. Also the entry for Kami is a disambiguation, which does not mention origami. Perhaps someone who knows more than I could clarify this, and/or create an appropriate article. 12.65.0.28 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The word kami in Japanese is generic for paper (as well as other meanings based on context), and should not be used to imply it is a term specific to origami. Phresno 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Gilad's Page doesn't look like there is anything wrong with it being there... It may not be the most useful page to everyone, but it is packed full of opinions, facts, and ideas. Zelaforever (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm going to go for wikibooks, witha link, because having them here would be slightly off topic (getting into the specifics of individual models) and just take up more space. using wikibooks would make the diagrams easily accesible to those who want them, but not in the way of those who don't.

                             Zelaforever (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think it would be origamist because "ist" means "one who practices". "ian" implies something like a country. Zelaforever (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found that the term "paperfolder" seems to avoid the U.S. v. U.K. battle, and it's widely used enough at this point to be understood. Ahudson (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

No merge with article chinese paper folding

I am against merger between this article and the article about chinese paper folding. Even if the roots of origami is chinese, the influences is from 600 a.c. Let the separate east asian countries have their own separate culture. contrary to some popular beliefs - it is not all the same over there. lenakiamstockholm 19.29 SET, November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenakimstockholm (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with you on both counts, (that we shouldn't merge and that not all Asian countries are the same :)). According to the articles, Chinese Paper Folding is the predecessor of Origami, with a separate name (Zhezhi) and a notable history of its own; merging will likely cause confusion. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

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

Restructuring Proposal

As there are hundreds of origami authors out there, and more every year, I think it would be wisest to move the "Origami Authors" section into its own article, or delete it entirely. ([1] lists 2683 seperate origami publications, and there are plenty of books hat haven't been entered yet) Origamidesigner (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, the same holds true for the "Further Reading" section... Origamidesigner (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article seems quite out of date and not in the best condition... I'm going to begin a major rewrite of the article, which can be found at User:Cremepuff222/Origami. Comments are quite welcome! --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit. I'll prolly be expanding the article from time to time in the future. --cremepuff222 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why so much of what was there was just thrown away. A rewrite should try refactoring what was there before as well. I'll reinstate a few bits. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am uing the version [2] as the basis before the rewrite. Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to the "better" revision. --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I'm concerned that some of the text put in recently may follow Rick Beech's Handbook too closely. I haven't his Handbook but I do have his Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Origami and I was looking uop the history there and found the firstsentence there was identical to the first statement here "Paperfolding originated in China around the 1st or 2nd century AD, and reached Japan in the 6th century". I'm afraid to look further. I'm considering whether to revert the whole recent rewrite to avoid any such problems but hope the twxt can be fixed up properly. Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it has been reverted to the version before all the changes. I better study the changes as there probably was some good stuff there and it would show bits that need fixing as the article certainly could do with a bit of work.Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In general I wouldn't trust Rick Beech's research on this matter-- he's been accused of plagiarism several times, and admitted to it at least once. We should find another source if we want to keep this in the article. Origamidesigner (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't actually been complaining about Rick Beech as a reliable source, it's just that another editor copied big chunks out verbatim rather than using their own words. The stuff that was inserted was removed but may have put some other stuff in based on him. If Rick Beech also plagiarizes it would be better to use where he got it from. I don't know if there is a wikipedia policy on that but he could be considered a third hand source. Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Rain

Just wondering if the article shouldnt mention Heavy Rain like a "in popular culture" section. There has been an increase interest in Origami thanks to the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.254.85 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Has it had any measurable effect on interest in origami? Dmcq (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess its still a little early to be 100% sure. But in a week or two there should be some info on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.27.111 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ball so we have to wait first. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Origami Video

I've uploaded two videos of the origami crane being folded, I hope they are usefull

the folding of an origami paper crane

the folding of an origami paper crane

--Tavin (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Make sure that they have an appropriate fair use rationale.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reuse Resource: Trash Origami: 25 Paper Folding Projects Reusing Everyday Materials ISBN 978-0804841351 by Richard L. Alexander and Michael G. LaFosse ?

Reuse Resource: Trash Origami: 25 Paper Folding Projects Reusing Everyday Materials ISBN 978-0804841351 by Richard L. Alexander and Michael G. LaFosse ? Waste hierarchy: 3R Concepts includes Waste minimisation and Recycling too. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Hercules beetle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hercules beetle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Hercules beetle.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Rosa de papel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rosa de papel.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rosa de papel.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Cisne de Yoshizawa.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cisne de Yoshizawa.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Cisne de Yoshizawa.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dollar Bill Elephant

This is not an origami. It is a photograph of a real elephant in South Africa. Check the photo credits and the source photo on Flickr. I don't know if this was something someone added years ago as a joke that somehow has been overlooked? I don't know if I should simply delete it from the page or if there is a process to go through, though. --H-ko (Talk) 09:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

An eejit recently went and moved the original picture in Commons and substituted the picture of a real elephant without bothering to go round and fixing the separate wikipedias which were using the file. Unfortunately this sort of thing doesn't show up in the watchlist for an article. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide popularity

There should be a reference to Robert Harbin. It was he who introduced the West to origami, and gave us the name.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the top level article and he is mentioned in history of origami, you might also find [3] interesting. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

External video

I see no reason to stick the external video by Robert Lang into the main body of the text so I moved it to the externals at the end. I think such things should normally be in the citations or externals. Just being a good video is not enough, it should be important to the development of the body. I'll remove it again, if put back we'll need more discussion here by others or an RfC probably. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no problem with using an external video in the body of the text via the external media template. Please see where this is mentioned in WP:EL and in the template documentation itself. The only question is whether we want it in the body of the text - and I think the answer is clearly yes. The video gives a very good introduction to mathematical origami, what it's all about, what you can do with it, basic principles ... roughly about 10 times the material presented in the text of the section. A question was raised about the image associated with it - the same or very similar image (with the same colors) is included in the video to illustrate a basic mathematical principle "two colorability" and we have the same image on commons. In short this is a reliable source giving good information on the topic of the section and there is no reason not to put it there. If you think there is a rule against this, please read WP:EL or check with WP:SPAM, and I'm sure they will tell you there is no such rule. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not my reading of WP:EL: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." and "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." The template is as far as I can see for stuff which it is expected one should be able to replace by free content. My reading of the talk page there indicates other people are worried by that template too and think it should just be a way of structuring the externals section. I can see that there can be a use for it in the main body where an article would otherwise be deficient, but this article is about origami in general and not the mathematics of origami which is another article. I really don't see that we should just be sticking them in without very strong reasons. I had a look up a few and the very first one was a totally unnecessary link to the Khan academy. However I did see one showing the reaction of metals with water which might I guess be considered as reasonable as it complimented and filled in on what was in the article beside it. Most seemed to be in the external section as sort of featuring particular sources for further exploration. Dmcq (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See the footnote on the sentence you quoted above:

"1. Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.

As far as discusions on WT:EL - I couldn't find any - could you provide a link? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about discussions at Template_talk:External_media. Just because one uses a template doesn't mean that the guideline does not apply. It is not a general exception, it is an exception for specific uses which still have to fall within the guideline. You seem to be taking that statement as saying because that particular template is mentioned that anything it references is an exception to the general guideline. I shall set up an RfC if you are still confident in your reading. Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact thinking about it the WT:EL is probably the best place for a discussion if you wish to pursue this. Or WP:ELN. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There's not much discussion at Template_talk:External_media about banning the use of the template in the body of the text: just one short one in 2008 and one in 2010? It didn't seem to me that the "banners" had a consensus in any case - which is obvious when you consider that the template is used in 2500+ articles. So I don't understand what you consider to be against the rules here. Can you state specifically what you think is wrong and cite the appropriate text? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This disagreement is not going to be solved between the two of us so I have raised the question at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Use_of_external_media_in_origami_article. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the history

In the history they should have mentioned about that Origami was not infact made in japan it was actchilly made in CA China then after Japan found out about it they basically toke that over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChippyGirl102 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable written source that says that? As far as I know there is not good evidence where it was made first. Dmcq (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation help

For this graphic, I created for the german Origami article, I still looking for a good translation (esp. 4 - 6). I'm not sure, whether terms like "duo patternd paper" are a good english. You can write your ideas directly in the wikimedia page. And maybe it's useful for the english article as well. Thanks and Greetings! --CellarDoor85 (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul

Finally getting around to revising this article, at long last. I've redone the introduction, history, technical origami, and ethics sections so far. But also, I've got some proposed structural changes that I'd like feedback on:

1. The gallery section is unnecessary. I'd like to move the images to other points in the article, so they're not all in one place (and maybe replace some of these with images that serve the text better)
2. I'd like to redo the "Types of Origami" and "Mathematics and Technical Origami" so that instead, we have one section on styles and techniques, and one section on math/science applications. In general I think there's too much information about the techniques here, and I'd like to migrate most of the text into their own articles (looks like someone else already started this process)
3. I think we should add some information about the use of origami in education. Not sure yet whether this will be its own section, or be part of the math/science section.
4. I'm really not sure we need a "further reading section". IMHO we should try to use these as inline references, rather than arbitrarily making a list of books we think are good.
5. I'm worried that the "history" section is too long for most readers.

Thoughts? Origamidesigner (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely take out the "Further Reading". It seems a bit spammy to me. I like the idea of a "use in education" section, but I think the history section is okay as is. I have no opinion on the gallery. Would you like me to open a request for comment, and get experienced editors from around the wiki as well? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never been involved in an RFC before. If you think this might be a good time to have one, go ahead! My goal is to get to the point where I could take this into the good-article nomination process with a reasonable chance of passing, and the sooner I get feedback with respect to wiki norms & expectations, the sooner I can make that happen. Origamidesigner (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither have I; looks like a peer review would be better. However, I'm going to be away from the wiki over the weekend, so if you want to do it it'd be great. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a definite problem with the gallery in that it tends to accumulate peoples stuff rather than being small and purposeful but at least it hadn't grown quite as bad as the links and reading. Thanks for chopping those down. If the gallery can be removed by integrating what it is trying to do into the text that would be better, I see them as an extension of the 'types of origami' section.

Agree about cutting down on techniques. I think the technical bit is probably a bit long too. Is there much to say about education over and above the snippet in the history section? Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Blade Runner reference missing from "Popular Culture" section

I noticed that the section of this article labeled "in popular culture" mentions appearance of origami in House of Cards - and that's it. There is no mention of the multiple origami references in the movie Blade Runner.

I would have added this reference myself, but I do not have permission to do so.

As for the presence of these references -- if you doubt that, watch the movie. The character known as "Gaff" makes multiple origami figures during the course of the movie.

As for notability --- well, I think we all know Blade Runner is a cult classic. And the origami is a noticeable theme in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiashapira (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Is that what you wanted? I've never seen the movie (I read the book), but I did read the cited interview. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 04:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Funeral Paper Burning

"Traditional Chinese funeral practices were banned during the Cultural Revolution, so most of what we know about Chinese paperfolding comes from the modern-day continuation of these practices in Taiwan."

This is blatantly incorrect. I have lived in China for 4 years and been to graveyards on several occasions during the Qingming Festival, and there was paper money burned on a few of them. I don't know if it may have been banned at some point, but there is no source provided for the claim either. It has begun to fade out of practice, though, due to environmental consciousness.

Leon1122334455 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The book cited in that paragraph talked about such funeral practices being heavily discouraged in favor of cremation during the Cultural Revolution and the practice only surviving in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Were you actually in mainland China? Dmcq (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

History

I use the machine translation. Origami is the name of the specific art of Japan. This is not a common name of a shaped product made ​​of paper. Why do you mention in detail the history of the sculptures of Chinese paper that is different from the Origami? . Also, write the underlined is very unnatural.--121.113.194.81 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the un-sourced addition of the Chinese origin claim. 42.60.119.86 added un-sourced claims to other articles Mochi and Shiatsu. They were reverted by other editors.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

See Chinese paper folding for the Chinese version. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Plus there is no evidence for paper folding anywhere before the fifteenth century never mind the first century AD. Most of the stuff burn at funerals is papier-mâché rather than folded paper. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In the USA (and in many other countries), the word "origami" is generally used for most folded designs, regardless of their culture of origin. Origamidesigner (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

How do you mean generally? I am in USA and as far as I can tell, it generally refers to something specific. Maybe that sentence should be removed. Wikipedia articles don't need to define what the word means today for select group of people. Itchyjunk (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Origami as a Fine Art

The distinction of "fine art" and "craft" is an odious one and counter to the spirt of paperfolding. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.113.186 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylanlee2xs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)