Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Spinning Dancer.gif

Image:Spinning Dancer.gif, not featured

•  Info created by Nobuyuki Kayahara - uploaded and nominated by Muhammad--Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis 12:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Image license should be made verifiable in the OTRS. Image is cut out irregularly from the original, therefore the shades are asymmetrical. The shades serve no purpose and could easily be removed. – Ilse@ 13:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I will do the OTRS thing as soon as I get time. If you feel the image is badly cut out, would you kindly help out? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Can you please point me to the optical illusion? I don't get it. --norro 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The illusion lies in the fact that some people will see it going clockwise whilst others will see it moving counter clockwise. Check out the article at wikipedia. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Support It's a quality illustration and a nice optical illusion. -- Ram-Man 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support If nothing else, than nice girl. --Karelj 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche 04:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Well, it is no nice to oppose, but at second view it is no animation of a real motion. How can the dancer move up and down if only the heel hits the bottom? There is some room for the creator to make it even more realistic. Andreas Tille 06:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Funny animation but far to have a movement as smooth as this one. The picture also isn't categorized. Sting 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Seems too stiff. I also don't get the optical illusion, and it would be good to link to the article where it's used or at least explain something in the description. P.S. Anyone see it as CCW? --Dori - Talk 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposing by the fact that you can not see it moving the other direction is not right. I have seen it moving both directions and so have many others. I have linked the article to the description, however, the reasons behind the 2 directions will need more than a mere stub from wikipedia. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If you paid attention to the first thing I mentioned, you'll see that that was not why I opposed. --Dori - Talk 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry for that. Can you please explain how it is stiff? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It's like a statue, not a fluid motion of a live dancer. And also, I don't like the up and down motion. I don't know if the illusion would work without these elements, but I just don't like the animation as it is. --Dori - Talk 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per my own, Darwinek's and spikebrennan's comments on the English Wikipedia. At best, this illusion doesn't work very well. At worst, it might be considered a make-believe or even hoax. Samsara 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A hoax? I am sorry, but several reliable users including me can tell you that it is *not* a hoax. Have the patience to watch the animation for a while, and you will see the illusion eventually. --Aqwis 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I already tried that. I don't have more than 15 minutes available for experiments like this, and am unconvinced that this will ever work for me. If you believe (!) it genuinely works for you, I direct you to the alternative I have already provided, this illusion doesn't work very well, and wish you a good day. Samsara 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone has a brain that works the same, but I can assure you that this is no hoax (which is laughable!) -- Ram-Man 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Check out this site and see how it works. Definitely not a hoax. Reflection of Perfection 06:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So how about someone upload those explanatory pictures? Given that this is licensed as ShareAlike, they're fair game. Samsara 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'm on it. What then after uploading? What about the explanations themselves? And sorry to ask, what about your vote:) ?Muhammad Mahdi Karim 14:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The two images which explain this motion have been uploaded and added to the spinning dancer image page. Image:Right spinning dancer.gif and Image:Left spinning dancer.gif --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose. If only because it is not animation, and image. Канопус Киля 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 07:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose unnatural movement of the body. --Diligent 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah come on, its just an illusion. And it works well.Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think, this animation can easily be done with the appropriate software. Given this, the way it is done is not convincing: 1. The movement is too uniform and unnatural (ack Dori) 2. The up-and-down movement is disturbing and shouldn't be necessary for this illusion 3. The shading in the background is disturbing and I'm not sure if the reflection is necessary 4. The woman is slightly leaning outwards so she would suddenly fall given real-life physics. IMHO too many technical flaws to get featured. --norro 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack Norro. --MichaelMaggs 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose"Valuable" means in Wiki context valuable for an illustrative purpose. What is/are the purpose/s of this image? It's mislabelled as 'dancer', since the movements have very little to do with dancers' movements in turns. If its function is cognitive psychological, suggest substitution of different silhouette for that of young woman, which is misleading regarding physical action, probably of Tufte's class, "chart junk". Alethe 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC) voting is closed Lycaon 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)