I don't know. This one became an FP back in 2004, possibly because it might have been one of the first animations on Wikipedia. Sadly, this just looks inadequate to me by today's standards. The animation is choppy and it's not that well drawn to begin with.
Keep enc value. Choppy animation is not a limitation of the artist, but a technical limitation of gif format from getting too big (although it is slowly fading currenlty). --antilivedT | C | G08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless prettified. OK, I haven't worked with animated gifs since 1996 but I don't see what the limitations are to make this less choppy. The image is 240K, so size can't be the problem, neither can it be the 256 color limit. This is still a moderately fun animation, but it's no longer FP quality. ~ trialsanderrors19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeptrialsanderrors raises a good point about file size. This image is actually only 87kb, and we have FPs over 1MB all the time. We could have 10x the framerate and still come in under a meg. The limitations of animated gifs are mainly in color and filesize, not smoothness. If this were coming up for FP today, it would not pass, but I don't think it's so shabby as to warrant delisting. Also here is the original nomination. Has anyone tried contacting the creator to see if they can make a smoother version? --Dgies08:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Historical value alone should not be used as an excuse to keep an inadequate image however the quality of this animation in addition to it's historical and informational aspects are enough to warrant keeping it around... though by all means someone should endeavor to create an updated version if possible. Cat-five - talk09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. I'd like to see a higher quality version or a redrawn version, but until then, I don't feel there is enough reason to delist.--Andrew c02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(User • Talk)
