Original -
The Spinning Dancer, is a very bizarre dancer optical illusion. It appears to spin both clockwise and anti-clockwise, depending on how the viewer sees it. It is falsely labeled Right Brain v Left Brain test.
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
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 --
Fir000209:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
Pstuart84Talk17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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. —
BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 16:29Z
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. —
BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 23:58Z
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)reply
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 |
talk06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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
noteworthyOptical Illusion not an illustration for dancing --
Fir000206:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 |
talk06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 |
talk14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
deBivort15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
deBivort17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.</sarcasm>
Samsara (
talk •
contribs)
19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 Bowen01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 |
Talk15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 |
Talk17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Original -
The Spinning Dancer, is a very bizarre dancer optical illusion. It appears to spin both clockwise and anti-clockwise, depending on how the viewer sees it. It is falsely labeled Right Brain v Left Brain test.
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
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 --
Fir000209:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
Pstuart84Talk17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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. —
BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 16:29Z
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. —
BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 23:58Z
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)reply
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 |
talk06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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
noteworthyOptical Illusion not an illustration for dancing --
Fir000206:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 |
talk06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 |
talk14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
deBivort15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
deBivort17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.</sarcasm>
Samsara (
talk •
contribs)
19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 Bowen01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 |
Talk15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 |
Talk17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply