Talk:Thaumatrope

Animation High‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

To the person(s) adding reference to Professor Hoeflich

Hi. Thanks for trying to add to Wikipedia (WP) (e.g. here and here). Unfortunately, what you are adding does not belong in an encyclopedia:

There is no supportable reference that Professor Hoeflich made the comment.
Professor Hoeflich may not want his words made part of WP.
Personal quotations made during lectures of Professor Hoeflich are not relevant to the topic of thaumatropes (in an encyclopedic sense).
The quote itself ("This is real life, people! This is real life") is misleading, and demonstrateably wrong.
If every person who said something about thaumatropes were quoted, the page would begin to grow with "facts" that merely dilute relevant information about the topic.

There are many areas where you can constructively contribute to WP. Why not give it a go?

Persistence of Vision

may not be the primary cause of this effect. I found the following quote at http://everything2.com/title/Thaumatrope . " For nearly 150 years, persistence of vision was held responsible for optical illusions as simple as the one produced by the thaumatrope, and later, as complex as motion pictures. This influential theory was proven false in the 1970s; the thaumatrope actually relies on the brain's inability to correctly process the images, rather than the eye's inability to correctly perceive the images as distinct. However, the inventor of the thaumatrope certainly believed that his device exploited persistence of vision, and so this information is included as a matter of historical context."

I hope that this helps, this is my first Wikipedia activity. Best, Douglas.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.107.120 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting point. I don't mind if a new section is added to the article with the material, although it would be good to include the reference (or references) for material that is at odds with previous information in the article. HWV258 23:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Epilepsy?

I was referred to this page by somebody who'd found it and was very put off by a rapidly flashing and unsignposted gif due to it being a potential epilepsy trigger. While this is a small risk, it seems needless. I can't imagine this is the first time this has happened on Wikipedia however, so I would appreciate it if anybody knows if there is a standard format for this sort of warning. I've removed the gif for the time being but will revert it shortly if I find a standard warning formatting myself. 114.76.84.151 (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's content disclaimer mentions that Wikipedia may contain images that can trigger epileptic seizures. WP:No disclaimers in articles suggests that we probably shouldn't include a warning in the article. That being said, I think an actual photo or video of a thaumatrope might be more useful in the article than the gif that you removed. (But I don't have a strong opinion.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like someone dumped this on the end of a paragraph.

The following "This is partly due to many film historians' belief that the associated theory of persistence of vision explains the physiological basis for movies, although this was disproved in 1912.". I'd rather statements like this were at least sourced and not sounding as though they originate from a person randomly happening to hear or read such a 'factoid' and then toddling over to Wikipedia to edit it. I don't out right disbelieve anything it says, but it inserts itself quite bluntly. Quite a lot of the time, it seems this type of process is how Wikipedia is formed really. Good luck! 82.32.144.215 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I trimmed it and put in a "citation needed" tag. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]