Original - Animation of a "glider" (a pattern in Conway's Game of Life). The "game" consists of creating an initial configuration by filling certain cells on an infinite grid of square cells, then observing how the configuration evolves under the game's rules. The "glider" is an example of a "spaceship": a configuration that translates iself across the grid. One depiction of the glider has been proposed as a hacker emblem.Alt1
Reason
Very simple, but illustrates one of the best-known Conway's Game of Life patterns. Apologies to jjron, who observed on my PPR nomination of this image that it's only 84 by 84 pixels. But the concept that it illustrates is so simple that, in my view, a larger image is not necessary. (See here for a different sort of Game of Life animation.
support - great! my favorite animation in a while! - these things can be used to encode bits in game of life turing machines too.... so cool. deBivort 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite size, though a little bigger would be much better.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great illustration and very encyclopedic. Small size isn't that important, IMO, as it conveys the idea very well. Kaldari (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know we do not have a minimum size requirement for animations but this just too small and it would not be very difficult to create a larger version. Muhammad(talk) 10:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very easily replicable animation. I see no reason why the small size should be ignored. Capital photographer (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But does a bigger image mean higher enc? FWIW this animation can be represented in a 5x5 square, anything more is just pure eye-candy. --antilivedT | C | G 12:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, but it does make it more usable. At fullsize this is tiny. Your arguments could be used completely validly for photographs, but everyone feels perfectly at rights to jump on anything less than the 1000px limit. I'm not saying this needs to be 1000px, but as I suggested at PPR, I'd reckon about 250px would make it more usable. Personally I'd prefer a stationary board with the 'glider' moving across it, more like the existing FP I guess (though I'm no real fan of that to be honest), rather than panning with the glider. Though it's a personal preference, that would easily account for the extra size. And if this is featured, then surely every variant image of the same quality is also feature-worthy, such as this: . --jjron (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be 1000px, but I see no reason why it is so small. It could/should be larger. Capital photographer (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's representing a data structure which at its largest is 3x3 binary "pixels" in size. How big do you want it? —Pengo 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why would this need a larger version? Some Wikipedians are way too obsessed with the rules. To the point that they blindly follow them forgetting their original intent. --Calibas (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules have nothing to do with it, after all this is animation that at present, has no size requirements. I do believe any image should however be seen easily by a majority of Wikipedia users. I fear those with more mature eyes may not see this easily at such a small size. 200x200 would be fine.
Comment: As it's made up of squares and lines, couldn't it be arbitrarily expanded to any desired size anyway, without the need to make a new file? By the nature of this animation, it's at unlimited resolution, like an SVG. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your answer may lie in that 400px version that someone has foolishly dumped below; it's awful to look at and contains odd pixelations. That is, 'no', GIFs (animated or not) are not infinitely scalable like SVGs are. GIF is just a type of bitmap image format. --jjron (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. —Pengo 06:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose despite having provided the larger version. I'd hate to see this die on a technicality, but on grounds of it's subject matter it isn't anything special and the aesthetics aren't a selling point. Emergent behaviour from a few simple rules? See Fractal for the same concept in a much more attractive package. Mathematical significance beyond existing chaos and complexity theory? Doubtful. Hacker emblem? That's a long shot - it was proposed, no more. Other historical significance? Hmmm. Aesthetic appeal? At large sizes this gives me a headache. Dhatfield (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Janke. While the animation here nominated is more aesthetically pleasing, the existing FP shows the generator in addition to the gliders, making it far more relevant to the biological analogy. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dhatfield. Clegs (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator - I don't think the small size is a problem for the purpose of the image, and moreover, the larger alternative image shown here is a simple rescaled version, which is not good, because it kills the smooth movement of the original animation. I can make another alternative, large AND smooth, and place it here, if required. RodrigoCamargo (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that one of the alternate animation proposals that Jjron proposed would be to show a stationary grid, with the glider "crawling" out of the side of the picture. As a counterpoint to that proposal, I want to observe that the glider is a mathematical construct on a (theoretically) infinite plane, so in a sense the nominated image, which in essence pans over the glider as it continues its infinite journey, is a more accurate representation. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. --jjron (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why would this need a larger version? Some Wikipedians are way too obsessed with the rules. To the point that they blindly follow them forgetting their original intent. --Calibas (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
