# Talk:The dress

According to the Roman website, the available colours for this dress are Ivory, Scarlet, Pink, and Royal Blue. The article mentions "although available in red and black, pink and black, and white and black versions, a white and gold version does not exist." Since ivory is generally considered a separate colour from white, I edited this to list the "ivory" and black version instead of "white" and black, but I see someone has changed it back. Could that person please explain why? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:31, 28 
February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gonna give The Times any clicks ever since they deadnamed Brianna Ghey, but they reported that the groom behind the dress appeared in court for attempting to murder his wife. Is this WP:DUE at all? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Leave it out. This is about the the dress, not the personal lives of the couple. Meters (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This was added to the "Legacy" section of the article a few days after the above, by user:Popcornfud, and just removed today by user:ZimZalaBim. I agree with the removal. The article should not be used as  a coatrack to include personal information about the lives of the various people. Whether they divorced, or had kids, or committed crimes, or lived happily ever after is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article, and it certainly is not "legacy". Meters (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Added to (and removed from) "Legacy" section again today. Meters (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The dress was used in a campaign against domestic violence (albeit in another country), which would seem to make the case more relevant. --Jameboy (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think one problem here is that the section is called "Legacy",  which is inviting WP:OR about what the Real Meaning of the incident was, such that non-Legacy events can be excluded. This is problematic: for example, in my opinion,  Bleasdale and Paul Jinks expressing frustration does not count as "Legacy". The section should be be called something more general like "Later events"; then any aspect that has been reported in multiple WP:RS is fair game and a one-sentence mention of such is not WP:UNDUE. There are readers who are only interested in, say, the vision-science aspect, who can skip over the Ellen appearance and the assault risk. Other readers may differ.  The only policy reason I can see for possibly not giving the conviction information would be WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which I interpret would have applied while he was charged but not once he pleaded guilty. Milkshake Duck#Notable instances includes somewhat analogous cases where an unflattering follow-up is included in the relevant Wikipedia article. If the negative comes to light to far after the original, it's not so much a widespread backlash, but it's still being linked back to the original by news media. We're not trawling through the Colonsay Newsletter looking for a drunk-and-disorderly conviction; the jail sentence is a story that's been picked up internationally. (Jameboy's point would at present be WP:SYN but some RS may make the same point.) jnestorius(talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Up to you to get consensus to include it. I don't see it. This article is about the dress and the visual phenomenon,  The activities of someone else who attended the wedding are irrelevant. Meters (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I count six users who have interacted on the issue:  Popcornfud and Jnestorius in favour, Meters and ZimZalaBim opposed, LilianaUwU and Jameboy in between. Not much consensus in either direction. jnestorius(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I still think it's fair game and notable for the article subject. Popcornfud (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest adding our review article in the renowned Annual Review of Vision Science as a second review besides Martín-Moro and coleagues [31], as in "There is no consensus on why the dress elicits such discordant perceptions.[31-32]"
The below reference would need to be added as [32]:
Witzel, C., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2018). Color Perception: Objects, Constancy, and Categories. Annual Review of Vision Science, 4(1), 475-499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-091517-034231
Section "3.3 #TheDress" features a representative review of #TheDress ar part of broader section 3 on "Color Constancy". Christophwitzel (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.You posted this link to the talk page two years ago. No-one has chosen to add it since then, so it would appear that there is no consensus to add it. It also appears that you are suggesting that your own paper be used as a reference. If so it would be a good idea for you to actually state that when discussing this. Meters (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Meters. Thank you very much. I admit I am a bit lost about how to contribute to Wikipedia. A colleague of mine suggested in 2022 I should edit this entry as it obviously misses important points from my work, and I have unsuccessfully tried that. A formal problem with this entry is that the scientific section relies on rather confusingly combined temporary opinions (i.e., which have changed over time) of selected scientists instead of representing the state-of-the-art in the scientific literature. An obvious logical problem is that the entry mixes up the question about ambiguity (which is solved with pretty wide consensus across labs, see my review) and the question about individual differences in resolving the ambiguity (which is still open). As this has been the first time to engage with Wikipeedia edits, I felt for a start I could try to refer to a (my) review that clearly makes that point and include my 2020-study that creates new versions of #TheDress based on the underlying principles. I had also started to write something more substantial; but I don't seem able to even contribute minor changes. It seems a bit of a closed-up Wiki-Universe. Should I just stop tying? Christophwitzel (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Christophwitzel -- It's not personally your fault, but people adding their own writings or research to Wikipedia articles often automatically causes a lot of skepticism due to "conflict of interest" policies.  It would actually avoid some difficulties if you could link to a reputable scholar or authority evaluating your work, rather than linking directly to your own papers. AnonMoos (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@AnonMoos@Meters Thanks a lot for the clarifications. I appreciate both of your efforts! Christophwitzel (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Change:
"The phenomenon originated in a photograph of a dress posted on the social networking service Facebook. The dress was black and blue, but the conditions of the photograph caused many to perceive it as white and gold, creating debate. Within a week, more than ten million tweets had mentioned the dress. The retailer of the dress, Roman Originals, reported a surge in sales and produced a one-off version in white and gold sold for charity."
To:
"The phenomenon originated in a photograph of a dress posted on the social networking service Facebook. The dress was black and blue, but the lighting conditions in the photograph make it appear gold and a bright, almost white, blue. Some people's brains automatically adjust the brightness, making the dress appear blue and black, which led to the debate. Within a week, more than ten million tweets had mentioned the dress. The retailer of the dress, Roman Originals, reported a surge in sales and produced a one-off version in white and gold sold for charity."
Description: This change clarifies that the lighting conditions of the photograph make the dress appear gold and a bright (almost white) blue. This can be verified by checking the pixels of the image. No one is technically wrong—it’s just that people who see the dress's real colors (blue and black) are compensating for the excess light that makes the image appear gold and white." SmallShyly (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Not without consensus, and I don't think this is an improvement. Meters (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)