Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spinning Dancer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:20, 13 February 2008

Spinning Dancer

Reason: This image is very popular around the net and I was surprised not to see it on wikipedia. Thus I uploaded the image and thought it be good if it was a FP because it is a great optical illusion. It is also doing well at commons FPC
Articles this image appears in: The Spinning Dancer, Optical Illusion
Creator: Nobuyuki Kayahara

Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is one of the coolest things I've seen in a while - you keep staring at it and then it'll suddenly change direction --Fir0002 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not very encyclopedic, but too cool to not support. Dengero (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This may seem petty to some people, but I'm fairly certain that to anyone who has ever actually had to execute spins in dancing, the fact that this lady is really badly off balance will be such a major distraction as to nullify any other interest the image may have. Let me put that in plain language: if you applied gravity to her, she would fall over. I'm sure she could be animated to in balance without disrupting the illusion. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look where the image is used--two optical illusion articles. Who knows if it would even work if the dancer were on balance? gren グレン 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled that nobody seems to know how it works, and about 1/3 of people cannot make it work. I'm beginning to doubt that this is a proper optical illusion at all, and I certainly doubt our ability to write a coherent article about it. Most crucially, if we can't have a discussion about whether it is possible to create an alternative image that addresses certain criticisms brought up in this discussion, then we should not promote it at all. Additionally, show me how an image that you don't understand can be encyclopaedic. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm finding that the only way I can get it to spin the other way is to cover up everything but to the lowest foot, then get it to rotate the other way, then uncover everything. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 16:29Z
Comment That's just sick, mostly spins counterclockwise for me but if I look away it can change. --Krm500 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I probably am not normal. I stared at it several minutes and for me she just keeps spinning clockwise. -- Darwinek (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try doing what I suggested above. The key is to cover everything up except the bottom foot, and then imagine that rotating the other way. The rest will "magically" accommodate this new direction. I'm at the point now where I can get it to switch back and forth at will. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 23:58Z

Huh, I do it by accident when I read a comment and look back at the picture. vlad§inger ^tlk 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Camptown (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- You canna' change the laws of Physics, Jim! pschemp | talk 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is unlikely to count unless you provide a reason to oppose. de Bivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a reason. It isn't encyclopedic because it is breaking the laws of physics...gravity being the major thing here. A real person doing this would fall down. Just because its "cool" dosn't mean its FP material, especially since it isn't scientifically accurate. It also isn't the best example of an optical illusion since not everyone can see the direction change. pschemp | talk 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd - this isn't a scientifically accurate image on the far simpler grounds that it's bobbing up and down without any upward movement/thrust. But it's not illustrating anything scientific and therefore doesn't need to be scientifically accurate any more than this does. It's an illustration for a noteworthy Optical Illusion not an illustration for dancing --Fir0002 06:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a crappy optical illusion, much better ones exist that illustrate the concept. It is extremely important that it doesn't work for everyone, that reduces its encyclopedic value down to zero when we are talking about the concept of an optical illusion. The title is the spinning dancer, yet doesn't show an accurate spinning dancer, since that movement isn't possible in life so even the name is misleading. Also, just because it illustrates an article about itself, doesn't mean it FP worthy either. It is nothing special, misleading and a poor example of an illusion. People who vote for it because it is "cool" or "amazing" are the absurd ones. Find a real reason - one supported by FP standards. pschemp | talk 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its status as an important optical illusion is an issue to be discussed in the optical illusion article or in an AfD for The Spinning Dancer. But it is quite relevant in its own article. Being nothing special is another story. gren グレン 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every picture in every article is "relevant". That doesn't make every picture on WP FP worthy. This is simply not an example of Wikipedia's best owrk and no one so far has supported it for any reason related to FP standards. pschemp | talk 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, it does make them worthy, provided they meet the FP standards. We aren't here to judge article notability. 2) Your assertion that people haven't supported it for FP standards violates the Good Faith assumption. 3) You see the figure as rotating in three dimensions right? That's part of the illusion whether you can switch directions or not - after all, there is no depth info here. 4) I suggest you take a breather and reconsider your whole approach to this nomination. de Bivort 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom de Bivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support amazing -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting User:Smundra 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.71.15 (talk) [reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 :::::*Well, its status as an important optical illusion is an issue to be discussed in the optical illusion article or in an AfD for [[The Spinning Dancer]].  But it is quite relevant in its own article.  Being nothing special is another story. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::*Every picture in every article is "relevant".  That doesn't make every picture on WP FP worthy. This is simply not an example of Wikipedia's best owrk and no one so far has supported it for any reason related to FP standards. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::* 1) Yes, it does make them worthy, provided they meet the FP standards. We aren't here to judge article notability. 2) Your assertion that people haven't supported it for FP standards violates the Good Faith assumption. 3) You see the figure as rotating in three dimensions right? That's part of the illusion whether you can switch directions or not - after all, there is no depth info here. 4) I suggest you take a breather and reconsider your whole approach to this nomination. [[User:Debivort|de]] [[User Talk:Debivort|Bivort]] 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Support''' per nom [[User:Debivort|de]] [[User Talk:Debivort|Bivort]] 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 *'''support''' amazing -[[User:Fcb981|Fcb981]]<small>([[User_talk:Fcb981|talk]]:[[Special:Contributions/Fcb981|contribs]])</small> 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)