Villarceau circles

This image was created by User:Kieff, and illustrates in a very succint way the concept of Villarceau circles. It is simple and elegant.

• Nominate and support! - HappyCamper 03:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old version

• The comments below were towards the old revision of this image.
  • Weak support, it's an excellent illustration of the concept, but the shading of the shadows in a few cases is very confusing and distracting from the actual shapes involved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite watching the animation many times I still can't understand the creation of the circles so, for me, it's too confusing and doesn't add value to the article - Adrian Pingstone 14:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe so, but the average person would be viewing this alongside of the article, and would most likely understand it. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I AM an average person! - Adrian Pingstone 18:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Debivort 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Maybe it is the article going over my head, but I have the same problem as above. I took a long time see the circles. I would suggest highlighting the circles when the animation is frozen at the end. I would support then. say1988 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the per the reasons above. Part of the problem is that I have trouble following the movement of the torus. I think the object needs more texture to aid in this. As it is, as it slides around, I have trouble visualising the movement in three dimensions so when it finally stops, I'm a bit puzzed by the angle I'm viewing, and what its significance is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's good to hear opinions about the animation coming from people not familiar with this sort of thing, because that's exactly the kind of people the animation should be helping. You guys made good points, though. The animation needs better reference points and the lighting is creating confusing shadow patterns. I'm working on an improved version that should fix these issues :) Just give me a few mins. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Say1988. The red highlights show very poorly against the gray, it took me several times watching to even notice that they were there. I would suggest a shade of bright green like chartreuse against that particular shade of gray. Making each highlighted circle a different colour (aqua or bright yellow would be my suggestion for second colour) would be would make the circle pattern easier to notice. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version

• Comment and self-support. Alright, I improved the animation, so purge your caches. It now shows how the cut is done and highlights the circles pretty well. The checkered pattern should help users to discern the shape, and it's also more colorful and has a smaller file! I don't think it can get any better than this. :) ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new version it fixes the flaws and illustrates the concept well. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new. Good job! --Janke | Talk 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. This is in a whole new league compared to the old version. say1988 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very interesting and illustrative. --BRIAN0918 03:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. Please, please, please add the source, budding Pov-rayers like me need all the source we can get. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Very classily done, earns its place on Wikipedia. - Vague | Rant 05:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the version currently presented. RFerreira 06:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's much much clearer - Adrian Pingstone 07:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Fir0002 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Absolutely perfect. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Mcuh improved. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ooo! Now I understand! --Bridgecross 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yippee! Wikipedia is on its way towards having another featured picture that's math related!! --HappyCamper 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Yay for collaboration and constructive criticism. This is far superior to the original and very feature-worthy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but (not that it's pertinent to this nomination) I'd really like to know if there's some sort of practical application to Villarceau circles, or what exactly is important about these. howcheng {chat} 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, no, they don't have much practical use. They are merely a curious and somewhat unexpected characteristic of the torus. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great. HighInBC 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Multiple details are handled well. (1) The plane slices in from the side so that the tangency is apparent. (2) The cut-away reveals the cross-section clearly. (3) The rotation brings the plane perpendicular to the viewing direction so that the circles project as circles, not ellipses. (4) The choices of colors, textures, and proportions are both visually pleasing and easy to “read”. We get 3D rendering, animation, mathematics, and art — all in one. Well done. --KSmrq^T 01:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Villarceau circles.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]