This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impossible trident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could an image be included of the elephant legs? Simply south ( talk) 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Does the NPR link actually have anything to do with this article? Rsduhamel ( talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
According to a couple of sites the MicroSoft O was known as the Blibbet, not the blivet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Logos_and_slogans http://www.geeknews.net/2007/01/09/word-of-the-day-blibbet http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/07/14/438777.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.97.86 ( talk) 06:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any reference connecting the three-pronged gadget to the word "blivet". In fact, there seem to be no references for any definition presented in the article. One is tempted to think of the whole article as a blivet, in the (claimed but unreferenced) military sense. Those with knowledge of the subject should fix all this. -- Lou Sander ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Since a lot of the article doesn't have many cited resources, we really need to add some cited resources to make sure most of the information on this article is correct and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch exe inc ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
here is a new source: http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/blivet.html 69.168.144.139 ( talk) 12:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, a rationle move is difficult without sources in the article. Fix the article. Mike Cline ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Blivet →
Devil's pitchfork – As per the discussion on talk page, Blivet was a placeholder name, that got associated with this object. I propose Renaming the first half of this article to a more scientific name befitting this mathematical object and leaving the less professional second half here, since the second half is only about the name itself, for future wikipedians to decide the fate of.
69.168.144.136 (
talk) 15:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The Wiktionary blivet entry gives this:
No mention of tridents, devils, illusions, etc. This seems a bit general to be used here, in the lede, without some kind of source? In fact, the primary meaning there, of "over=full", seems wholly inappropriate. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
A next best ref is from The Hacker's Dictionary: "Blivet" <...> It has also been used to describe an amusing trick-the-eye drawing resembling a three-pronged fork that appears to depict a three-dimensional object until one realizes that the part fit together in an impossible way.. It will do for now, because THD certainly influenced the knowledhe of computer geeks, However I would rather find a more authoritative (domain-specific) ref. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have undid Nick Moyes removal of an art work by a recognised artist that is a valid contribution to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I remember reading long ago that this image makes some people uncomfortable. I wonder if something akin to trypophobia is at play here, and it may even be trypophobia itself, but I suspect it's distinct. Because no real-world object corresponds to this image, there may never be a named phobia for it, but I would like to mention the study that found people uncomfortable if I can find it. — Soap — 06:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I wasnt able to come up with anything. Re, searching on optical illusions, ... the thing is, this isnt actually an optical illusion. Everyone who looks at this knows what theyre seeing and sees it precisely as it really is ... it just happens to be an impossible object. I suspect that any feelings of discomfort triggered by classical optical illusions would be unrelated to whatever happens when people look at this image. e.g. the classic Müller-Lyer illusion does not present us with two contradictory images, it presents us with a single very deceptive image. But anyway, I will have to add this to the already long list of things Ive abandoned because I wasnt able to find what I originally read, let alone a scientific study that mentioned the phenomenon. Thank you all for your suggestions even so. — Soap — 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impossible trident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could an image be included of the elephant legs? Simply south ( talk) 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Does the NPR link actually have anything to do with this article? Rsduhamel ( talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
According to a couple of sites the MicroSoft O was known as the Blibbet, not the blivet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Logos_and_slogans http://www.geeknews.net/2007/01/09/word-of-the-day-blibbet http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/07/14/438777.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.97.86 ( talk) 06:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any reference connecting the three-pronged gadget to the word "blivet". In fact, there seem to be no references for any definition presented in the article. One is tempted to think of the whole article as a blivet, in the (claimed but unreferenced) military sense. Those with knowledge of the subject should fix all this. -- Lou Sander ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Since a lot of the article doesn't have many cited resources, we really need to add some cited resources to make sure most of the information on this article is correct and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch exe inc ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
here is a new source: http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/blivet.html 69.168.144.139 ( talk) 12:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, a rationle move is difficult without sources in the article. Fix the article. Mike Cline ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Blivet →
Devil's pitchfork – As per the discussion on talk page, Blivet was a placeholder name, that got associated with this object. I propose Renaming the first half of this article to a more scientific name befitting this mathematical object and leaving the less professional second half here, since the second half is only about the name itself, for future wikipedians to decide the fate of.
69.168.144.136 (
talk) 15:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The Wiktionary blivet entry gives this:
No mention of tridents, devils, illusions, etc. This seems a bit general to be used here, in the lede, without some kind of source? In fact, the primary meaning there, of "over=full", seems wholly inappropriate. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
A next best ref is from The Hacker's Dictionary: "Blivet" <...> It has also been used to describe an amusing trick-the-eye drawing resembling a three-pronged fork that appears to depict a three-dimensional object until one realizes that the part fit together in an impossible way.. It will do for now, because THD certainly influenced the knowledhe of computer geeks, However I would rather find a more authoritative (domain-specific) ref. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have undid Nick Moyes removal of an art work by a recognised artist that is a valid contribution to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I remember reading long ago that this image makes some people uncomfortable. I wonder if something akin to trypophobia is at play here, and it may even be trypophobia itself, but I suspect it's distinct. Because no real-world object corresponds to this image, there may never be a named phobia for it, but I would like to mention the study that found people uncomfortable if I can find it. — Soap — 06:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I wasnt able to come up with anything. Re, searching on optical illusions, ... the thing is, this isnt actually an optical illusion. Everyone who looks at this knows what theyre seeing and sees it precisely as it really is ... it just happens to be an impossible object. I suspect that any feelings of discomfort triggered by classical optical illusions would be unrelated to whatever happens when people look at this image. e.g. the classic Müller-Lyer illusion does not present us with two contradictory images, it presents us with a single very deceptive image. But anyway, I will have to add this to the already long list of things Ive abandoned because I wasnt able to find what I originally read, let alone a scientific study that mentioned the phenomenon. Thank you all for your suggestions even so. — Soap — 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)