Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muybridge horse gallop (animated multiframe)

Muybridge Horse Gallop (animated multiframe)

This is a striking and historically significant picture that is enhanced by the work in animation that the Wikipedian responsible spent on it.

Nominate and support. - Primalchaos 03:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Currently not included in any article. Glaurung 06:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: pretty sure we already have a different version of this same horse as an FP. And it was on the front page not that long ago. Stevage 07:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I was wrong. But the version at Muybridge is more attractive than this version IMHO. Stevage 07:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one isn't all the frames made into one frame (like the link that Stevage gives above) so, sorry, I oppose - Adrian Pingstone 08:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why are all the frames all animated? That just looks odd. howch e ng {chat} 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Howcheng. I don't understand what it's meant to show. chowells 22:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

These two make sense, the norminated one doesn't.--K.C. Tang 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above. It's confusing. --jjron 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with K.C. Mikeo 20:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I just wanted to say that, as the creator of the image, I didn't really intend for it to show anything. I used to have the non-animated one on my user page, then I thought it would be fun to try and animate it. I prefer the "multi-frame" animation to the "single frame" one, but it is for purely aesthetic reasons. For those who are confused by it -- it was meant to be historically subversive; it is animated but it retains the frames of pre-animation (aren't I clever). Anyway, just thought I would explain -- I'm really just amused it was nominated. --Fastfission 01:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animated stuff tends to be nominated alot. :) --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was confusing, but actually agree with you Fastfission, it is clever, and interesting; however for encyclopaedic value and as a FP, it would be confusing for users. The other two make much more sense in that context. --jjron 14:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I not really confused by it, in fact I thought it was kind of neat how it was done, but I think that the single frame would be more encyclopedic in most situations. --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted