In the fascinating world of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ambigram rotating.gif, there are endless aspects that deserve to be explored and analyzed. Whether on a personal, professional or academic level, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ambigram rotating.gif exerts a significant influence that directly impacts our lives. In this article, we will delve into the depths of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ambigram rotating.gif to unravel its mysteries and discover what makes it so relevant in today's society. Through detailed and comprehensive analysis, we will seek to understand the importance and impact that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ambigram rotating.gif has in different contexts, as well as examine its evolution over time. Additionally, we will explore the implications that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ambigram rotating.gif has for the future and how it may influence the course of events to come. Get ready to embark on a journey of discovery and knowledge about Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ambigram rotating.gif!
A good example of the subject ambigram is this image itself, with bonus animation to good effect. - Bevo 19:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nominate and support. - Bevo 19:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support, Interesting Electricmoose- Electrifying 19:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, this animation seems a bit obnoxious and rather uninteresting. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Not particularly interesting. -- AllyUnion(talk) 06:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, the font is too difficult to read. --SilversmithHewwo 09:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You do know what an ambigram is..... right? --brian0918™ 18:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, no need to be sarky. I just found when I tried to confirm that each letter was there, it was difficult due to the font and the fact that it moves too frequently. I also have the pic of the day on my userpage, and would find such a frequently moving image highly annoying. --SilversmithHewwo 19:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it probably would work better if it sat there for a while before rotating. --brian0918™ 03:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've slowed it down from 2 to 4 seconds. Still too fast? Splarka 04:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that speed is much better. Changing to Neutral. --SilversmithHewwo 09:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - beautifully drawn and very interesting (the same idea works if you handwrite "chump" in a certain way) - Adrian Pingstone 12:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support, clearly shows what an ambigram is. Animation is a nice plus. Mgm|(talk) 16:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. In fact, I have a bias against animated pictures in general. I find it annoying to have something move when I did not ask it. Also, but perhaps I'm asking too much, an antialiased image would be better. --Bernard Helmstetter 18:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I created it (and the larger version) in 2 colors to keep the file size down. I believe wikipedia antialiases it when you resize it, so one could use the larger one shrunk to the size of the smaller one and get an antialiasing: ]. However, I agree that animated gifs are obnoxious in improper contexts. Splarka 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral Demonstrates concept well, but the font combined with the animation actually makes it more dificult to read. --CVaneg 19:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see your point about the animation obscuring the illustration, without a static reference to freely study. Perhaps there needs to be two pictures in place in the article ambigram. One static, the other the same image, but animated. - Bevo 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Author here. I've seen ambigrams of the word 'ambigram' online before, but none were free-use, so I slapped this one together in a few hours for the article. Sidenote: I originally had a {{pd}} tag on it but at one point the tag said "you can't release things to the public domain, change to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}" so I did, but now I see the policy has changed again, so I changed it back to public domain. The neutral vote is because I am not sure if it is feature quality. I'll let others decide. Splarka 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The policy never changed. It was just someone who didn't agree with the PD terms. Mgm|(talk) 23:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)