Talk:Dazzle camouflage

message: The section on 'Intended Purposes' states that Kerr's approach was rejected by the admiralty, but the 'World War 1' section states that it was (briefly) applied. A clear chronology is needed, re. Kerr's camouflage, Wilkinson's camouflage, dropping dazzle for grey. So maybe stop arguing over how many quotes can dance on the head of a pin and actually read the page? :-) Btljs (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Kerr was never employed by the Admiralty; his suggestions were rejected in writing in July 1915; his post-war claim was rejected by the committee of 1919 (as he was informed in October 1920); and Wilkinson's claim was accepted, with a £2000 reward in 1922. I've put these dates in the article, with refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information 

message: The point on the land animals is that Kerr mentioned these (in 1915 and onwards) BEFORE dazzle existed; so any preference for the zebra (because 1917 and 1918 ships were zebra-striped) is post hoc rationalization. Kerr was advocating countershading and disruptive coloration. He was not advocating the use of distraction as in false eyespots on a fish's tail to give misleading ideas about an animal's or a ship's direction: a pity, no doubt, that might have worked a whole lot better, but it was the non-zoologist Wilkinson who effectively came up with that idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. My objection, as noted, is mentioning animals with camo schemes that, in the event, were not followed. That Kerr is relying on Nature is clear; that the zebra scheme worked, also clear, from the examples. Why muddy the waters?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. The point is that, before Wilkinson came along with his unconsciously-zebra-patterned designs, Kerr had a go with his highly-conscious giraffe, zebra, jaguar principles, and didn't get very far. We don't know if Wilkinson was telling the truth when he said he hadn't heard of the zoological theories, especially disruptive coloration; we do know that he did not attempt to disrupt outlines into appearing as part of the background, but to create illusion, in particular of a ship's heading: and this Kerr could possibly have done, had he been aware of some of the illusions used by animals, but he certainly did not. So, I'm not muddying the waters, but telling the history of what actually happened, inconvenient though that may be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm seeing is examples that proved to have no influence, & that strikes me as adding confusion where there needn't be any. If you're choosing illustrations, I'd say it makes more sense to stick to ones that actually pertain. We don't know what Kerr might have done. We know what didn't happen: giraffe & jag patters weren't used. Neither, AFAIK, do we know why not. It's about leaving out the interesting in the name of clarity.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Spots and stripes

message: So along comes an interested person looking at Dazzle Camouflage on Wikipedia; "oh that looks like art" they think; they read on; "ah there are some artists mentioned and some styles of art"; they look at the links; "ah cubism"; "ah vorticism"; "now I know the name of the type of art I was thinking of, that's interesting". Kind of how Wikipedia works. Btljs (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a definite Vorticist connection, given Wadsworth's impeccable pedigree; and in the Forbes book, we have this stated in a reliable independent source. The connection of dazzle to art, given that Wilkinson himself was an artist, though rather less modernist than Wadsworth and Lismer (or indeed Picasso), is also right at the core of the subject. And, as Forbes suggests, perhaps the fact that Wilkinson was an artist not a scientist made his suggestions easier for the Admiralty to accept. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were discussing dazzle as an influence on art, yes. The refs to the art movements are connected to the artists, not to the subject of the page. Thus, they are trivial & OT. Notice, in ref to the alleged inspiration from Cubism, which does bear on the subject, I left it in.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section is explicitly about Dazzle AND art, in which context the similarity of Vorticism and dazzle is a matter of note. Forbes comments "The designs [on the ships] chimed perfectly with the vorticist movement" (p. 100). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It still isn't about the artists. That they should be identified on a page about them, or about the movement, I don't argue; that the movement should be associated with them on a page about neither, I disagree. And the page is titled "Dazzle camouflage" not "Dazzle painting in art", so I'd disagree about the thrust of the page, too. The "Art" section is, AIUI, connected with the ships painted in dazzle, not about the art movement(s) they followed (or inspired), so don't tell me it's about both "dazzle and art". It's not.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dazzle is definitely the subject of the article. However the subject of the section on art is indeed about the connection of dazzle with art, argue how you will, and that connection is strong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no justification for removing brief informative glosses on the artists concerned: these are not undue, and it is normal practice on Wikipedia. I have accordingly restored them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "There is no justification for removing brief informative glosses on the artists concerned" I don't have to justify removing it. You want it in, you have to explain why it's so important it has to be kept. Since the artists' pages will contain the same information, anybody who cares can look there.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry but I don't agree with that at all. You certainly should not remove correct and cited information while a discussion on the subject is ongoing (I had already replied, in my view fully rebutting your criticism). But for what it's worth explaining something for a third time, it is helpful to readers to provide a section on how the world sees a subject. Thus in an article on a book or film, we have a section on its reception, and we provide details of how people found the item. We write "the art critic John Smith" or "film director Jane Doe". That's all I've done here: it makes the article easier to read, and easier to refer to (if, say, a student is writing an essay, they will find brief glosses helpful to grasp the outlines of the topic). I have created a section on the place of dazzle in art (much more could be said on that topic) and have very briefly glossed the people mentioned. Of course interested readers can follow links to find out more, but we should not require them to do so at every place. This is a standard approach to editing, and it is found in many thousands of articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

text:  A one- or two-word gloss letting readers know what sort of authority they are dealing with is a small gesture of help for the reader new to a subject (and if they have some sort of handle on the military side, they may have little or none on the artistic side), which really can't be described with any kind of fairness as excessive. The reason why it is relevant to name the school of art, Vorticism in particular and Modernism in general (which includes Vorticism) is the similarity of dazzle to Vorticism, as noted by cited authorities. So in this case there are two good reasons for stating that Wadsworth was a Vorticist. I agree that "writer" could be better, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with including the Art and artist info in the article, plus I found the info helpful and informative.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If all you wanted was "the artist", I'd have no problem with it. (IIRC, there's a previous ref, which is why I took out a 2d.) Getting into what school an artist belongs to on a page not about that school, that artist, or art more broadly, is trivia. It adds nothing. And "partly" from a given school is even less helpful on a page not about that person.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vorticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dazzle camouflage. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120116125600/http://smmlonline.com:80/articles/kriegsmarinecamo/kreigsmarine.html to http://smmlonline.com/articles/kriegsmarinecamo/kreigsmarine.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does dazzle paint have a different name when used on things like factory chimneys? I was curious as I have seen local photographs with dazzle camouflage on factories but this article doesn't seem to make any mention of this use (unless I've missed a section). Beeurd (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never heard of it, nor seen such a chimney. Dazzle would of course not work as a camouflage for a static target as a bomb-aimer would hardly be expecting it to move and would not predict a heading for it, so it would have no military value. Perhaps you mean the mild degree of shading in, say, varying degrees of pale blue, sometimes used to make chimneys look less unpleasant? If that's camouflage at all, it would not be dazzle but either disruptive coloration or possibly countershading, but you would need a Reliable Source for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Not sure if this reply will be seen some 7 years later, but I just encountered this while touring a car manufacturing plant. I was there on unrelated business, but I was told the prototypes have this painted on them to make it difficult to photograph. Whether this is true or not, I’m uncertain as photography was prohibited. I did notice that some vehicles only had this black and white “dazzle camouflage” on some small sections of the vehicle, while others were covered almost entirely. 71.68.7.6 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses 

message: Maybe it's me, but...I'm missing something about the RPG & the Land Rover. Is the dazzle on the Land Rover meant to distract the firer of the RPG? Or is the dazzle supposed to confuse the Land Rover driver? As written, it has me thinking it's the fired grenade that's camo'd....  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The firer ... thanks for letting me know (it's been like that for some years actually, so a good reader is a fine thing). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it really didn't make sense the other way, but...it had just a hint of cool factor that made me think DoD was working on it, just because they can.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: One last thing: is there a lower speed limit for motion dazzle to be at play? A 7% miss at 7km might be absurd, but what about at 70km? (Am I getting into BVR territory, despite telescope spotting?) Or a 1% miss at 7km?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:37 & 06:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bedazzled 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dazzle camouflage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053850/http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Illuminating_Engineering_v14_1000185898/421 to http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Illuminating_Engineering_v14_1000185898/421
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207234035/http://usndazzle.com/1Web/Index to http://usndazzle.com/1Web/Index
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: history
* Revision as of 14:34, 10 June 2020 by user:PBS (→‎Arts: The widebeam Growbeautifully painted by the op art artist Felipe Pantone) 
*revision as of 14:52, 10 June 2020 by user:Chiswick Chap (rv many thanks, but we have sufficient examples of this minor aside to the actual military camouflage topic - could make an article on Artistic Dazzle Camouflage perhaps)
The article is currently about 45K in size, So there is no need to exclude the edit on a size issue (WP:SIZERULE). As the section "Art" exists in this article and as yet there is no article called "Artistic Dazzle Camouflage", then I think that the edit I added is relevent, particularly as it is only the second example of a contemporary boat with such patterning in this article. As the widebeam Growbeautifully may be viewed in and around London, it is quite possible that people will come to this page looking for information about it, therefore untill a more suitable article exists I think a brief mention of it ought to be WP:PRESERVED.
I also notice that you have made a lot of edits to this page since 2011 and that you have reverted similar edits by other editors with a similar comment eg Revision as of 18:35, 6 July 2018 by user:Jersey92 "Thanks but tangential to topic and modern aspect already adequately treated". Clearly at least two editors dissagree with you, so are you sure that you have a consensus to make such reverts? -- PBS (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The topic is camouflage, i.e. actually attempting to hide something. The art things are not in fact trying to hide anything so they are not camouflage. They are just an "in popular culture" sort of application of the topic to things which are not the topic; such an extra section must be brief compared to the rest of the article. As I've already said, there is scope for a Dazzle camouflage patterns in art or something of that kind, which you can make as long as you please, and we can then have a brief summary of it over here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is not about camouflage it is about dazzle camouflage. This issue about art is not about polular culture, as that is not the title of the section. In reply to "As I've ..." please address my point about WP:PRESERVE (and how without such an article as you suggest the section "Arts" is not the place to preserve such information). Also you have not addressed the issue of consensus which I rasied in my second paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense. Dazzle camouflage, as its name clearly indicates, is a kind of camouflage; it was invented in the First World War as a type of Military camouflage, which is a type of Camouflage. Talking about WP:PRESERVE is also basically nonsense; this is an article on a military topic, and arts are (at most) a side-issue, if not wholly off-topic. Any editor can remove off-topic materials from any article at any time. It would be perfectly in order to create a subsidiary article if you feel the topic of Dazzle in the Arts is noteworthy. As for consensus to turn this article from a military technology article into - what? an arts article? an article with multiple loosely-related subjects? - let's call it a muddle for short, there is surely none, nor could there be because it would not be well-founded (though there might be a disambiguation page or something of that sort). What there has been over the many years this military article has existed is a few scattered attempts to add usually images of arty concepts, without any real encyclopedic sourcing (scholarly textbooks or journal articles), just images and sometimes popular web or news sources.  Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary art