Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cartoon horse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cartoon_horse

This is a good depiction of a horse in full trot, but the shape, figure, and details of the horse are of the quality of a Scooby Doo cartoon at best (especially the head). Poor depiction and quality. This should never have been on FP.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This one has been nominated for delisting in the recent past... see Animated Horse nomination for delisting. Animations are judged by different criteria than still photos. I'm undecided on this particular image. -- moondigger 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The horse is galloping, not troting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that very needed information. -- AJ24 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if the italics are meant to indicate sarcasm; if so, (a) please be civil and (b) because the animation is rotoscoped from Muybridge's famous photos of a galloping horse, it is entirely relevant that it's galloping; any editors unaware of the fact may not have grasped the point of the animation. If the italics were merely for emphasis, I apologise, but the online medium makes misunderstandings very easy. TSP 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist--Vircabutar 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's an illustration of cartoon animation; being cartoony is perfectly fine for that. --Davepape 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - from talk pages & contribution histories, I see no evidence of the image contributors being notified of these many recent delist proposals. Glaurung recently highlighted the instructions in this section, but apparently to no avail. Not informing the contributors is impolite, and in some cases below, where the main complaints are "too small / jpeg artifacts", the person may very well have a better copy available. --Davepape 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a very good animation, and since it illustrates cartoon, that makes it more suitable for FP. The illustrators who created Scooby Doo get paid a good amount, and the fact that we have someone who created this commercial quality animation (as Scooby is extremely succesful commerically) for free illustrates Wikipedia's best work perfectly. --liquidGhoul 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As the creator of this cartoon (yes, I make my living as an animator), I recuse myself from the voting, but I want to thank LiquidGhould for those thoughtful comments. Making an animated cartoon - even as short and simple as this one - takes many hours of work. Of course, to illustrate animated cartoon, you do need something goofy looking! Due to copyright constraints, you cannot illustrate any animation article with commercial characters. Please also note that all articles about animation were totally devoid of moving examples before I uploaded this (oh, except for a bouncing ball... ;-) Greetings, --Janke | Talk 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Fir0002 07:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Excellent animation based on Eadweard Muybridge's pictures --Glaurung 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cartoons should not be judged on detail and quality. This illustrates cartoon animation very well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This image was already nominated for delisting recently. You can't just keep nominating it for delisting until you get your way. It illustrates the subject well, and is user-created, which we encourage. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:20
• Keep. I'm drawn to the motion of the horse's legs, which was the whole point, after all. Any chance a slow-motion version could be made available? -- moondigger 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't think they were going for realism on this one. gren グレン 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's supposed to be cartoony. It shows the motion of galloping excellently. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This one has been done to death. Regardless of what anyone else might wish, this image is staying featured, check it's track-record. Also, I think we need to institute some sort of policy on how often a given image can be nominated for delisting. I would suggest a maximum of once every 6 months. Someone care to take point on making a policy? I suggest we take it to a talk page somewhere... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a need for policy. It's common sense. Feel free to quash any obviously early renominations. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 20:55
    • There is a current discussion about this topic (minimum time before a relist) on the FPC talk page under "Mass Delisting." -- moondigger 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is this photo a cultural icon that I dont know about? and I dont mean that sarcastically. The outcry to keep the animation is very astonishing. -- AJ24 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • TSP explained why it's significant near the top of this subpage. 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. -- Moondigger 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You explained its significance, but due to the smile and large protruding eyes, is it really the best representation of Muybridge's work, or was it only accepted because it is the closest representation to his work? Thanks. -- AJ24 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is accepted because it is an illustration of cartoon. Even though a cartoon can look goofy, it is still very accurate in movement so as to have a resemblence to whatever it is representing. --liquidGhoul 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• AJ24 - have you looked at the Eadweard Muybridge article at all? There, you'll see the original photos in motion. This isn't about that at all, it's about animated cartoons and rotoscoping, a method of making animated characters - yes, even goofy ones - using real photos/films as a reference... --Janke | Talk 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the cartoonishness is, IMO, part of the point. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --- Gnangarra 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dr.Keep, or how I learned to love the animated horse. -Ravedave 07:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, illustrates its articles very well. --Dschwen 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kept - 2 Delist, 15 Keep --Fir0002 10:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)