This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
False animation, rotates 360*....plus it is an army camera, the animation/edit isn't necessarily from an army employee...not sure if that is a good reason too Ctjf83 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the animated rotation of the bridge is incorrect then I don't think it would be to hard to upload a still version of the same photo. The photo was put together as a brief illustration of how a swing bridge works. The photo is a good illustration of the bridge and probably one of the best photos available for the infobox. I also notice that the article once had a good historical photo in the info box that was also removed and replaced by the current photo. This photo should also be reinstated. The photo that you added is okay but was not taken from the best viewpoint. Would it be possible to take it from the same place as the animated gif. Adam.J.W.C. 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Well that is an aerial view from the W:Rock Island Arsenal, so not sure how I would get up that high. Being a military base, access is extremely limited. Actually, the animation is ok for describing a swing bridge...but since it falsely animates how the Arsenal Bridge rotates, thats more where I have a problem of it being displayed. Also, I'm not sure if the article is properly tagged....unless the uploader is a military employee? Ctjf83 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
False animation, you say? False!? I challenge you, sir, to a duel at 10 paces with wet Nerf balls for impunging my honor so!
Seriously, though, it's been a long while since I created that animation, so I can't say for certain that it always rotates a full 360° in the same direction; I could swear that I've seen it go both ways, but I won't as I'm not a swearing man. I have, however, initated a fresh capture of images every minute for the next 48 hours to see what action it captures. With those frames I can create a fresh animation — I've always thought it would be better to show it in motion with a vessel actually using the locks. A new animation could be created as a video file, now that Wikimedia accepts those, Wikipedias use those, and I can create those (exempli gratia), though the slow frame rate of the original may argue yet for an animated GIF as the best medium. Tomorrow is supposed to be a beautiful day in flyover land, so maybe I'll get something worthwile. And if the pd-mil tag is inappropriate, then I as false animator can add an appropriate license or dedicate it to the public domain as needs be. Kbh3rd (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's also the matter that this image is employed in the archives of Portal:Trans and Picture peer review on the English Wikipedia. To the degree that those archives should not be diminished by its disappearance, this specific image should be retained even if removed from regular articles. I do not know what that degree is. Certainly there is some educational value in retaining it alongside the valid critiques of the peer review project. Kbh3rd (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the night of October 29-30, 2010, I captured successive frames from the Corps' webcam which irrefutably illustrate that the bridge is sometimes operated by opening it 90° in one direction and subsequently closed by swinging it 90° back in the opposite direction; sometimes it is opened and closed by swinging 180° in one direction; and at other times it is operated 180° in the other. The animation can be viewed here on my personal website. Quod erat demonstrandum. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case then the image should be allowed back into the article and into the info box. The historical image and other photo can also stay in the article. It might also be a good idea to place the link you provided as evidence in the photos description page or I will do this. Adam.J.W.C. 07:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is no reason reason to yield to deletionist demands for this image regardless of whether it is included in one or another article, especially given all the other b.s. that is archived here. This animation accurately depicts the action of the bridge, even if the second half is a reversal of the frames that compose the first. Nonetheless, I will create a new animated GIF from successive frames that include transit of the locks by a vessel. Additionally I will create a video animation covering a longer timespan that captures more of the action of the bridge, the locks, and the traffic that taverses both. I would like to include the image of a clock face in the corner to record the speed at which the motion occurs; the Corps' webcam only clicks once per minute. It may be a little while before I have time to do all this in the manner I would like. Kbh3rd (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to insult (if I did) you can end this deletion discussion. I was just going by this. I honestly can't remember if it is only 180 or 360, because when I get stopped by it, I'm usually too pissed off to pay full attention, LOL. Ctjf83 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The animation shows a legitimate aspect of the bridge's operation and, as it happens, the actual operation of most swing bridges, which tylically roatat only 90 degrees. Per the discussion above, this is a keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
