Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muybridgehorse

Muybridgehorse
Not for replacement.

The "Animated Horse" image, the cartoon animation representing this photo animation. I nominated for delisting the Animated Horse image, but it was retained. Not only does the Muybridge animation show a real horse and its actual features, these animations actually settled the dispute as to whether all of the horse's hooves leave the ground when galloping. The images were taken in 1904, so I would like to expect no comments on the photo's quality. A series of cameras were set parallel the track with trip wires laid across the track, triggered by the horse's hooves. The image is prominently featured on Eadweard Muybridge's article.




 * Nominate and support. - AJ24 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Was this the image that proved movement could be made by a series of pictures? I thought I remembered hearing something about that... In any case, this is a good example of what Muybridge did, so unless there's an even better one, I'll support this image. As for replacing the Animated Horse image, can you really do that? I thought everything had to be done independantly. Even if it's allowed, I don't support replacing one for the other. I think they should be seen as seperate images, and be delisted accordingly. -- Tewy  20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Concerning replacing images instead of delisting and then nominating, it has been done before. The monopoly board image was nominated for replacement and no complaint arose, so I suppose it is acceptable and time-saving. (Original nominator has been informed). -- AJ24 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense when one image is simply a one-for-one replacement of the previous image - a new photograph or diagram in exactly the same format illustrating exactly the same thing. That's not the case here - you're proposing a sequence of photographs to replace a hand-drawn animation; an entirely different presentation of the subject.  The current Featured Picture illustrates the articles Cartoon, Animated cartoon, Rotoscope and Traditional animation; the proposed image would not be suitable to illustrate any of these.  I can't help feeling that you have missed the point of the original animation, which is not there to illustrate a horse or galloping, but rather to illustrate the concepts of rotoscoping and cartoon animation.  TSP 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support the Edward Muybridgeanimation, but I do NOT support the replacement of the cartoon animation. They are not representing the same thing and are not even in the same articles. You seem commited to having it de-listed and it is bordering on obsession. ;) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Opppose concept The horse failed to be de-listed so now you are trying to replace it? If you hate it that much re-list it for de-listing. Don't try and work around how the system works. I move to have this changed to a pure nomination anyone agree? -Ravedave 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to Concerns. This opposition to replacing images was not shown when the monopoly board image was nominated to be replaced by another. I have tried the delisting process and the animated horse was retained. I do not understand how you would oppose bettering FP. If one image of the same concept is greater than the other, then common sense would dictate to replace it with the better one; is that not applicable? I agree replacing is very rarely done, but it is not erratic or illegal (in FPCriteria). I havent even seen an unwritten rule about replacing images. But, if I were to nominate the two images (for FP status one and delisting the other), do you think that independent concept would work? Because you will always have the voters who automatically support the image just as there are so many supporters of the anime girl. I strongly believe an actual, real-life set of images of highly historic content outweigh an unrealistic cartoon. -- AJ24 00:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I wanted to view these two images independantly was because they're so different from each other. The nomination image is a series of photographs taken decades ago by a famous photographer. The current FP image is an animation made much more recently by a lesser-known creator. The two Monopoly board images are basically just different pictures of the same thing, so that's more of a replacement to achieve a better picture, not subject and picture. (I just noticed what TSP said above under my vote; basically what they said is what I mean). -- Tewy  00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, they are definitely not illustrating the same thing, so there is no need for just one of them to 'represent' a topic. Even if they were of the same topic, it should not replace an existing FP, unless the old FP is deemed unworthy, in which case, it should go through the process as a delisting candidate. Put simply, the approval of one FP should not affect the status of any other FP, no matter whether they're the of the same topic or not. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Muybridge, Nicely historically significant. --Billpg 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * but Abstain de-listing of cartoon. My support for one must not be taken as supporting or opposing the removal of another. --Billpg 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain for all three pics. I'm withdrawing from this one discussion. --Billpg 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support listing of Muybridge, but oppose delisting of the animation. They illustrate two different things. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support new image - notable historical photos skillfully animated by Wikipedians to demonstrate their historical significance; Oppose removal of existing, entirely different, Featured Picture. TSP 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Brian0918 and User:Davepape - this is not in fact the set of images it purports to be. TSP 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose sneaky and insulting circumvention of policy. Furthermore the animation is of low quality with strong Moiree patterns. Historically significant, but for this to be featured the quality of the animation must be improved (to a degree where it isn't a lot worse than the original b/w photos). --Dschwen 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sneaky? One of the first words in bold letters is to Replace. Be civil. I informed the original nominator and did everything with policy in mind. Your comments are some of the most absurd things I have read on FPC. Concerning the quality, the set of photos were taken in 1906, in FPCriteria it is exempt. -- AJ24 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily exempt - merely given less importance. If the quality is due to poor a scan and not poor quality original photographs, then there is no reason why it cannot be improved. As for the sneakiness, you did suggest that the two animations represent the same idea, which is a little misleading to say the least. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: It might also be worth considering the other Muybridge horse animation - though smaller, it is substantially better animated, and is a Wikimedia Commons featured picture. TSP 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Horse in Motion is of higher quality, and a famous set of images, hence its title "The Horse in Motion" (dubbed by Stanford University). -- AJ24 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was hoping a better solution would be reached, but since a complete consensus has been reached concerning replacement, I will nominate the two independently 24 hours from now (giving ample time for a possible counter-solution). However, when I first nominated for delisting the animated horse, the animated horse and Muybridge's photos were being compared to eachother continually. The following is a statement made by User Moondigger on July 21, 2006: "The animation was rotoscoped from Edward Muybridge's galloping horse photos. Those photos were significant in the history of photography and the study of movement; there was disagreement in those days about whether all four of a horse's hooves were ever off the ground at the same time while galloping. His photos relied on what was then cutting-edge photographic technology and solved the mystery. I think this animation would catch less flack if only the horse weren't smiling. I know it works fine as a cartoon to have the horse smiling, but I believe the animation would be taken more seriously if it had a more realistic head/face." -- AJ24 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support a new FAP and Oppose replacement. As Diliff has said cleary: "... they are definitely not illustrating the same thing... even if they were of the same topic, it should not replace an existing FP, unless the old FP is deemed unworthy, in which case, it should go through the process as a delisting candidate."--K.C. Tang 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly support new FPC and Strongly oppose replacement Replacement would be both contrary to the spirit of FPC as the animation has been kept through the delisting process at least once, also they illustrate two entirely different things. Thygard  -  Talk  -  Contribs  -  Email   04:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the cartoon, I have only one comment re. this circus; incredible! You cannot compare apples and oranges: The old photos illustrate the Muybridge article, the cartoon illustrates several articles about animated cartoons, and how they are produced, and the specific process of using reference materials (such as Muybridge's photos) for creating the animation. AJ24, what is your reason for hating the cartoon so much that you try every conceivable way to get it delisted? Please make a better cartoon yourself, and we can start discussing things seriously. And I strongly suggest you read the rotoscope article - it seems you've never done that, despite earlier suggestions. --Janke | Talk 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing: AJ, this discussion makes me wonder if you have even read the Muybridge article carefully - did you notice the "Influences" section, which says: "Animators and artists still use Muybridge's work as a reference". Think about that. --Janke | Talk 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would highly appreciate it, Janke, if you would refrain from poorly guessing what I have and have not read. It is not difficult to entirely read a relatively short article, but you make it sound like it is. I completely understand that your animated horse represents and is used in a different genre of articles, but unless I am mistaken, you traced Muybridge's photos (I may be giving you too much credit) to create them into a cartoon animation. My point is, that the two photos (withouting considering the articles they are in) are two very similar images, one rotoscoped from the other. The cartoon version contains unrealistic features and does not allow you to see where its hooves touch or leave the ground. As for your belief that I "hate" your animation, why would I? If I originally saw your animation on one of the article's it is displayed in, I honestly wouldnt think twice about it either way. But when I noticed it was a Featured Picture, it seemed absent of all of the qualities the remainder of the FPs reveled in. Still to this day I think it unsuitable for FP status, but I do not even dislike the image, I dislike its status. All in all, I am just glad that the Muybridge image is widely accepted, it will further a distinguished quality or significance that the vast majority of FPs contain. -- AJ24 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Strong Support the Muybridge pic being promoted, [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Strongly Oppose the cartoon being delisted, for all the reasons above (especially those given by Diliff, TSP and Tewy). Strongly Suggest that AJ24 be checked into some sort of clinic to deal with his obsession with delisting that bloody cartoon. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with the cartoon - they are not the same subject, so one cannot replace the other. The cartoon demonstrates animation and cartoon, as well as clearly (because it's a line drawing) showing the mechanics of a horse galloping. The Muybridge picture demonstrates early photography, stop motion, and a historical attempt at viewing how a horse runs. They are not in the same league, therefore one is not eligible to replace the other. This conversation over the horse cartoon is becoming such a sham it's not worth the amount of server space it takes up, nor the number of positioned electrons it takes to store it. —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy remove delisting. After all, this isn't a nomination for delisting. There is no such thing as a nomination for replacement. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-09 15:08
 * Both promotion and delisting are both within the scope of this page. Feel free to oppose the replacement, but the mere existence of this page shows there is such thing as a nominiation for replacement. Whether or not one will ever succeed is another matter. ed g2s &bull; talk 13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose both pics due to large moire patterns and skipping in the first, and small size and noise in the 2nd. The originals are on film, so we should be able to get a larger, much clearer version. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-09 15:12
 * Support but not replace -- a classic series of photos --T-rex 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Future votes will solely be for supporting or opposing the Muybridge animation of photos. Thank you. -- AJ24 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not make such statements. If there is a consensus to remove the cartoon, then there's a consesnus, doesn't matter where it is gathered. This page is merely a useful way of organising the process of gathering a consensus. ed g2s &bull; talk 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice. Future replacements discussed on the FPC Discussion page. Please share your thoughts. -- AJ24 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support nomination IF the nominatorr is correct about what this image is, historically. IF this image is not what it is supposed to be I Oppose as there is not much historicle value to overcome the faults. say1988 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support new pic&Strongly oppose replacement when will people understand that most of us like that animation? BTW: what criteria are you using for saying it ilustrates the same thing?Nnfolz 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not Muybridge's 1878 "The Horse in Motion", the first, historic sequence he shot for Stanford; it's "Daisy galloping", from his 1887 collection Animal Locomotion.  It's interesting, but it's just one of hundreds of human and animal studies, some of which are better photos than this.  I also oppose the animated-gif form - the original form is more appropriate for featuring.  (Note: a version of the 1878 "Horse in Motion" is here, which I just updated with a higher-res copy, but I wouldn't recommend it for FPC unless someone were to clean it up a bit.) --Davepape 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many versions of The Horse in Motion, the above is the 1904 series of photos. This is a famous set of images. -- AJ24 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Minor nitpick: the photos are from some time between 1878 and 1887, not 1904. "(d. 1904)" simply means that Muybridge died in 1904.)
 * Main point reiterated: I think some people are supporting on the belief that this is "the" sequence of photos that Muybridge shot in 1878 to (according to myth) settle a bet by Leland Stanford. Those first photos were more silhouette-like; it required later improvements in film technology to get better photos such as those in the above candidates .  Muybridge shot thousands of photographs at that point; flipping through my books of them, I'd say that there are some cleaner-looking ones than the candidates (though none are exactly perfect).
 * And to expand on my animated-gif complaint - one could argue that the animation represents Muybridge's Zoopraxiscope work, but these aren't exactly the pictures he used in that, and I'm feeling purist. --Davepape 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the photo that settled the bet (myth or not) was not from a continuous series. It was indeed one of the very first shots done in 1873, with a very short exposure time (in the order of a thousandth of a second), but they were random shots from a single camera, not a sequence with a dozen or more cameras. --Janke | Talk 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bother tallying votes. "Nomination for replacement" violates the principle that each image should be judged on its own merits, and also runs counter to the delisting procedure which requires a consensus (or the kind of supermajority we usually end up with) to delist. As for promoting one of the Muybridge animations... taking all the comments into account, it appears it would be best to nominate one of them separately at a time when one with better quality comes available. If somebody would rather nominate one of the current animations now, they are (obviously) free to do so, letting it stand or fall on its own merits. If anybody takes issue with the way this nomination was closed, let's discuss it on the FPC talk page. -- Moondigger 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support replacement. It is up to the closing admin to decide to whether there is a consensus to promote/remove the image. Just because the removal votes are in the "wrong" section does not make the opinions of the voters any less valid. ed g2s &bull; talk 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. This image has been nominated for delisting multiple times before. People shouldn't be allowed to just keep nominating something for removal over and over again without any regard for the time between each vote. That is common sense, something which you ignored when nominating this image to be delisted twice in 10 days (2nd was 3 days after the 1st closed). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-14 15:26
 * There should not be a "replacement" process, because each image should be added/removed on its own merits, and placing two images together for comparison provides too great a temptation for people to vote on one image based on their like/dislike of another image. Someone who really doesn't like the animated horse image may simply vote support for the other image in order to get rid of the animated horse (since such an opportunity to get rid of it is not likely to come up again soon), and not vote for the other image on its own merits.
 * This nomination is a great example of this, as the proposed nomination has numerous avoidable problems, such as noise, blur, and moire patterns--something that can be avoided since these photos are on film. And yet, here we have you, who has nominated the animated horse for delisting twice in a 10-day period, voting support on an extremely poor rendering of a set of old photographs. If we let this "replacement" nonsense continue, there is the possibility that the collection of FPs will become degraded over time.
 * Every image should be considered on its own merits &mdash;  BRIAN  0918 &bull; 2006-08-14 15:32
 * Oppose image and "replacement". The animation is very jerky at the end of the stride, the one that's featured on the commons is much better. I don't like this replacement stuff, but that's not the reason I'm opposing. The cartoon illustrates a cartoon, it doesn't have to be totaly realistic. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Brian0918 -- each image should be judged on its own merits. A so-called 'nomination for replacement' violates that basic principle. That said, I would support making one of Muybridge's galloping horse animations a FP, despite minor quality concerns. (Not necessarily one of these, though I don't think they're all that bad considering the source).  I am going to abstain from voting on this particular nomination, as it's clearly a giant mess that cannot be reasonably resolved. -- Moondigger 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Suspend this nomination of the galloping Muybridge photos. I own the book "Animals in Motion", and I will be doing a scan of the very same series for a Finnish TV documentary, about to be produced this fall. I'm pretty certain I can get a better result than the moireed example that is nominated here. The other one, the Commons FP, suffers from bad compression artifacts (especially noticeable in the larger version). The cartoon has a consensus to be kept as FP (and cannot be replaced by any photos, anyway), so if you can wait a few months, we may have a better version of "Daisy with rider". Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: There is a new version of Annie G. galloping: Picture peer review/Muybridge galloping horse. --Waugsberg 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)