The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nomination reopened

• Comment, votes from previous nomination carry forward (+10/-5), as I see no good reason to discard them, so if you voted the first time, there is no need to vote again. ed g2s • talk 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. ed g2s • talk 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per reasons stated below. The animation is distinctive and contributes substantially to a number of articles. Since it's an example of a cartoon, and it is labeled as such, I don't object to the childishness. -- bcasterline • talk 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. What in the world is wrong with a 10 to 5 majority? Am I missing something? - Mstroeck 17:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Since consensus is the ideal, 66% is a little low. But personally I don't think it's illegitimate. -- bcasterline • talk 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. While I'm at it, I also don't get what's inconclusive about a "4-1 against" vote on delisting... Citing ignore all rules is no excuse for wasting everybody's time… - Mstroeck 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If you read the comments - its not as straightforward as that. ed g2s • talk 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support just as I supported last time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As stated before, votes from the last nomination are carrying forward. ed g2s • talk 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose - good animation, but if this becomes a FP, our standards are slipping. Only the cream of the crop should be distinguished as a FP. This animation is just too plain. -- P199 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ummm... it already is an FP. And, it succeeded in not being delisted when it was nominated for delisting (by ed g2s) below. Now he has decided to treat it as if the previous FPC and delisting request never happened. So, I would have to say speedy keep as both the previous FPC and the attempted delisting have shown it should be kept, and ed g2s's actions do not follow any known guidelines. This would be like restoring a deleted article because you feel that the closer incorrectly closed the AFD. There is a process that should be followed, just as there is in this case. In the request for delisting, everyone but ed g2s voted to keep it a FP, though they could have easily voted to delist, claiming that the closer screwed up. They didn't. Even if the delisting nomination was inconclusive (which it wasn't), then we do nothing (ie, no consensus). We do not follow through on the delisting. In other words, it should remain a FP. If ed g2s would like to renominate it for delisting, again, feel free. But until then, it remains a FP. -- BRIAN 0918 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have closed this faulty nomination. The channel to delist a FP has been gone through just a few days ago with a default decision to keep it listed. If you would like to try to have it delisted again, please do so. This process doesn't make sense as is. Sorry. -- Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

As I stated at the top, the delisting process is not suitable for the grievance I had with this promotion, as it requires a majority to have it delisted, as opposed to the minority oppose that is required to prevent it from being listed in the first place. I am not trying to set a precedent for changing the delist process, but this image was promoted on a borderline majority, and it can surely do no harm to collect another weeks worth of votes. I understand the process fully, but it is not suited to handling this exceptional case. We can use common sense sometimes... ed g2s • talk 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

No... we do not just keep relisting things until we get our own desired outcome. Common sense says it didn't have enough support to delist it just a few days ago, therefore it should not be delisted. Closed again. -- Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is one of the few animations on Wikipedia. It appears in Animated cartoon and a couple of other articles.

• Self-nom and support. - Janke | Talk 10:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. This is a great addition to the article in which it is attached and breaks the monotony of 'the usual' static images. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Would illustrate rotoscoping better with the original photographs being played next to it. I don't think it is a particularly good image for the persistance of vision article either. ~ MDD 46 96 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I nominated it for its appearance in the animated cartoon article, the caption (with links) is was from there, now changed on this page, see additional comment below. It is of secondary importance in the articles you comment about. -- Janke | Talk 07:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - it looks very childish, it's too fast, and original photos are better to illustrate the article. Renata3 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Change to Neutral per below. Renata3 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• ( − ) Oppose Nothing special. Agree with Renata3 and add that on frame eight (last frame), two black lines appear at the bottom, and the legs on the horse in frame 7 look a bit strange. -- Fir0002 06:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment again Re Renata3: Original photos? In the animated cartoon article? You must be thinking Muybridge or rotoscoping... I've changed the caption so as to prevent this kind of misunderstanding again. -- Janke | Talk 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, ok. Yea, I was thinking about Muybridge... Then it is not that bad that it looks childish. But somehow I still don't feel it is up to the featured standard. But I change it to neutral. Renata3 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support, nice work! -- Dschwen 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Cool image. ( Ibaranoff24 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
• Comment. Ignoring the stylised horse, how accurate are the movements of the legs? Would this stand up to being placed onto a horse-related page to illustrate how horses gallop? enochlau ( talk) 11:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply: The leg movements are copied, frame by frame, by rotoscoping, from Eadweard Muybridges pioneering 19th century photos, so they should be pretty accurate - within the limitations of tracing from rather small images. I was surprised to find that someone has already added this animation to this Commons category, despite the "goofy", cartoonish look of the horse's head... Feel free to add it to any article you think would benefit. -- Janke | Talk 13:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

In that case, support, since I'm assured that it is not misleading in any way. Demonstrates concepts in pages where it is used well. enochlau ( talk) 05:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support - I like it. It's too fast to show horse's movement, but as an animated cartoon - it's fine. Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support, a very good example of an animated cartoon. Thryduulf 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Neutral for now - There seems to be some sort of (I hope) "mistake" in the image. It looks as if on the last frame there are two lines at the back of the horse's legs. It is already been discussed above. If it's removed, I will most gladly change my vote. -- Kilo-Lima 12:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support - Since the minor glitch has been removed. -- Kilo-Lima 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Fixed, I erased those lines in frame 8, and also fixed the shape of the right front leg slightly in frame 4. If the new version doesn't display, you may have to clear your browser cache. -- Janke | Talk 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose I think it's good, but not brilliant. Doesn't really do the full illustration of Animatied cartoon that I'd like either (thinking about how frames add to animation, and specifics about how frames are overlaid to draw the next etc etc.) ❝Sverdrup❞ 01:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: Such an image does exist, in the Traditional animation article. This is perhaps the only moving animated cartoon on Wikipedia - I have found some other animations, but they're eiter technical, or "doodles". -- Janke | Talk 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support How can you oppose a galloping horse?! DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 04:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Nothing about this animated GIF that makes it stand out against others like it. Junes 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support - Bevo 20:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - agree with Junes; I don't find this too striking - an infinite number of animated images can be created; what makes this one special? Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - agree with Junes. Eyesclosed 20:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  New user. Only edits are on FPC.

Promoted Image:Animhorse.gif Raven4x4x 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Nominating for delisting. Original vote was only +10/-6, so it really shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. ed g2s • talk 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delist. ed g2s • talk 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It makes a valuable contribution to a number of articles, and the arguments in favor of promotion below still stand. I agree that its original candidacy could have gone another way, but, now that it's a featured picture, I don't really see a compelling reason to delist it. bcasterline t 13:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  It should be delisted and renominated simply because the original promotion was not valid. If it is a worthy FP - it will be promoted properly the second time. ed g2s • talk 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Disregarding the new user (whose vote was his 20th edit or so), the vote was +10/-5. That can go either way. I don't think this image's promotion was so severe a violation of the rules that it needs to be delisted and resubmitted. bcasterline t 14:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• I still stand with my support, but e2gs is right. If the promotion is invalid it should be renominated. What's the difference to putting a completely failed nom on FP or putting up an image without nominating at all? -- Dschwen 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  I don't think its promotion was invalid. Numbers upwards of 60% are usually considered a supermajority, and both +10/-6 and +10/-5 fall within that range, albeit at the lower end. I'd say the decision was at the promoter's discretion, and, again, I don't personally see a compelling reason to challenge him. Is there a specific "support" percentage necessary for FPCs that I'm unaware of? bcasterline t 14:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is essentially an affirmation of my support for the image in the first place, but I agree that if it were to be considered invalidly promoted, the simplest way to resolve the issue would simply be to re-nominate it and let the chips fall where they may. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It was +10/-5, and I trust Raven4x4x's ability to make such judgments. -- BRIAN 0918 14:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and relist should be renommed where it can be definitively promoted or not. Pegasus1138 ^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and I don't think there is a need to renominate. This was not an invalid promotion! 10/5 at FPC will always need a judgment call from the closer, and a glitch that had been cited in earlier opposes was fixed during the nomination, but not all votes were updated — I expect I'd have given them slightly less weight too ~ Veledan • Talk 10:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Whether or not you think 66% is enough (I personally think it should be much higher), I don't think anyone could disagree that it is a borderline case. The best thing to do here would be to relist it. It would certainly do no harm. ed g2s • talk 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It needs to be delisted before being relisted. Simply relisting it bypasses the previous vote and closing decision. It would be like putting a Featured Article up on FAC in order to remove its featured status. -- BRIAN 0918 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Except this is a special case, as the original nomination was not an obvious promotion. The delisting process is flawed in this instance (a clear majority is needed to delist, when only a significant minority is needed to prevent listing in the first place), so the only sensible thing to do is to just re-open the nomination. A bit of common sense is needed here, instead of just doing everything by the book. ed g2s • talk 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

7-day mark - This listing has now had its seven days, but the question whether people think the original promotion was valid or not is still not entirely clear. I see 3 people think it was valid (bcasterline, brian0918 & I), 1 or 2 invalid (ed_g2s & possibly Pegasus1138), and 2 have used neutral wording on that particular point (Dscwhen & Diliff). I recuse myself from closing the debate, although the consensus for keeping the image unless the nomination is judged invalid seems clear. ~ Veledan • Talk 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.