Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spinning Dancer

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


 * Strong Support as nominator Muhammad (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Weak Support Not very encyclopedic, but too cool to not support. Dengero (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I believe it works because the image is a silhouette. Thus when the lifted leg passes the standing leg, it may be passing either in front of or behind the standing leg.  Depending upon which your brain settles on (for want of a better phrase) you will see the woman rotate either clockwise or counterclockwise.  Pstuart84 Talk 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's too vague a description of the mechanism to allow us to produce an improved variant. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to bite. Incidentally, the effect is taking place at the same time in relation to the arms and the pony tail. Pstuart84 Talk 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 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)
 * I find that when I look at it, it gets "stuck" in one direction, either counter or clockwise, but then if I look at it out of the corner of my eye it "switches" to the other direction and then gets stuck in that. Try looking at it, turning away so that it's in your peripheral vision and see if it changes then. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. --Camptown (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose- You canna' change the laws of Physics, Jim! pschemp | talk 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is unlikely to count unless you provide a reason to oppose. de Bivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Any picture that depicts a 3D scene qualifies for your argument no. 3. That includes all images save for a few 2D illustrations, and some artwork scans. For existing 3D animated FPs, see Image:Mug and Torus morph.gif, Image:Villarceau circles.gif, Image:8-cell-simple.gif and Image:Shallow water waves.gif. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That it has 2 3d interpretations (CW and CCW) is what I was referring to. Like a Necker cube. Your examples of depth-conveying images are not considered illusions because they are typically perceived in a single way, rather than in one of two ways. That some people cannot easily switch the perception from the CW mode to the CCW mode does not reduce the extent to which this is a classified as an illusion. de Bivort 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the exact opposite of your earlier comment. Returning to the original issue, it's not a very good illustration, because it seems to spin invariantly clockwise (I assume the reference point is above the figure) for three people here - Pschemp, Darwinek and myself. I'd hope we can produce a better version of it so that it works for everybody. That failing, I have a difficulty with recognising its notability as an optical illusion, or its encyclopaedic value on such a basis. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom de Bivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * support amazing -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting User:Smundra 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.71.15 (talk)
 * Second contribution from this IP. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Smundra has voted I believe. Muhammad (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment and no vote. To me, she always moves clockwise; no illusion.  I've tried the suggestions mentioned above.  I guess my brain is just wired a certain way.  Spikebrennan (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just block out the top part from around the waist and imagine it spinning the other direction. 41.222.30.20 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Like apparently some other people before, I've tried all the various bits of advice and it still turns the same way. This is not a very convincing "illusion". Or perhaps it is just that. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see this as particularly notable or encyclopedic, sorry.  It's popularity on the web seems to be based on the notion that it represents some kind of personality test, which has been conclusively determined to be false (as the article on it says).  As an illustration of optical illusion, it's no better than any of the others in that article. Chick Bowen 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Chick Bowen. And it only spins clockwise for me. CillaИ &diams; XC 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I believe this illusion is not concerned with physics, rather it is supposed to demonstrate the confusion caused by what the eyes see and what the brain perceives. This is exactly what the image does. The mechanism of this illusion is described here. This I know, is not hoax. Those who have opposed because they can not see it spinning 2 ways should kindly read what I have provided. H92110 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of errors in the animation. A rotating wireframe cube gives the same illusion, by the way. --Janke | Talk 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What errors are you referring to? Can you fix those errors please. Muhammad (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you ask: there is a constant left-to-right jiggle, best seen in the "center" leg (very apparent below, with the stationary "R"; also the distracting up-and-down movement. --Janke | Talk 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The images which explain this illusion are uploaded and linked on the image page.Image:Right spinning dancer.gif and Image:Left spinning dancer.gif --Muhammad (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Well executed illusion, fascinating when it works. vlad§inger  tlk  03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ADDITIONAL INFO and help to "reverse" can be found here - this site states it's indeed "difficult" to get reversal. Also, note that the "floating" has been corrected - but in b&w, it doesn't look as good... --Janke | Talk 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Durova Charge! 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Funky! I had to view the image out of the corner of my eye to get it to switch directions.  howcheng  {chat} 08:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm just not seeing the illusion. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Outstanding! This is the coolest image I have seen here all year. Its an excelent find. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't like how she bounces up and down and disobeys the laws of gravity. (Yes, yes, I know the picture is illustrating the illusion and not the laws of physics, but it bothers me nonetheless.) I also don't like the asymmetric background gradient. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Moderate Support I see it now. If you stare at it long enough, it will just change directions. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the article used as the first ref on The Spinning Dancer article, all of those who see it as spinning clockwise have "got excess spleen qi in your left frontal crockus. This means that you’re a vibrant personality whose passions are apparent to everyone around you, but sometimes you are indecisive. If you see her spinning counter-clockwise, the right ascension of your natal chart lies in your sagittal broab and there are Fire humours dribbling out your left nostril. You should see a doctor as soon as possible." LOL -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It's on commons and an FP already, it shouldn't even be here on en.wiki as it's a dupe! It should have an NCD tag. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For those having difficulty seeing the illusion:
Concentrate on the spinning dancer on the left and the one on the right should spin in the same direction

Before Closing Nomination
This message is for the one who closes this nomination. I would like to point out that many people have opposed simply because the illusion "does not obey the laws of physics". This image is demonstrating a biological phenomenon and not something concerned with physics. Others have opposed because they can not see the the 2-way spin. This too, I believe is not a sufficient reason, as it is possible to see it spin both ways with a bit of concentration. Muhammad (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)