![]() | Dazzle camouflage has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 27, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dazzle camouflage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What does this wording mean?
Is alternate wording available?
This phrase is not clear to me, and probably to other readers. "Norman Wilkinson explained in 1919 dazzle was intended more to mislead the enemy as to the correct position to take up than actually to miss his shot when firing"
I checked multiple dictionaries and "take Up" is not clear. Is "take up" as used here a British phrase?
Thank you-- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 01:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
"Norman Wilkinson explained in 1919, that dazzle camouflage, was intended more to mislead the enemy to move to a poor shooting location to fire on a target, than intended for the enemy to actually miss when shooting at a target."
The attribution is good, it is N Wilkinson's wording that is confusing to me, and I think others. I think it helps to reword his intended explanation, and to remove the "take up" phrasing in the lead. -- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"I seriously don't think any of the quotes are now at all hard to understand" I don't suggest they are, as they stand. I do think a quote, any quote, has to be better than any summary or paraphrase: it must say something that cannot be said without quoting. I don't see a value of quotes, even in footnotes (maybe especially not then; the cite should be enough). I have no particular suggestions on better wording, offhand... As for whether dazzle made ships more visible, you've made my argument for me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC) (BTW, Chiswick, "intercutting" replies is frowned on.)
* Come on guys - you've got 20 years and 120,000 edits of experience between you. How about you try to work together to make the page really good rather than bickering? Btljs ( talk) 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
If you were talking about the dazzle schemes in terms of the art movements, I'd agree with you. You're not. You're talking about the artists doing the paintings, & they have their own pages, where their artistic backgrounds & inspirations can be (are, should be) covered--not here. Here, it's OT, because this page isn't about them, it's about the camo scheme. What you're adding isn't about the scheme. And you're not limiting it to "artist", you're adding "artist of this school", which has no merit to the subject. I'm not convinced the country is essential, either, for the same reason. (As for "the writer", if it's a book you're talking about, he'd better be... Unless he's a historiographer or art historian, "writer" adds nothing.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dazzle camouflage. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
Editors' opinions won't solve this. Sources can. Do sources call artwork with this style "dazzle camouflage"? If so, it can go in this article. If not, it doesn't. If only a few do, then it gets only mentioned, per DUE. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 03:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Dazzle camouflage has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 27, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dazzle camouflage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What does this wording mean?
Is alternate wording available?
This phrase is not clear to me, and probably to other readers. "Norman Wilkinson explained in 1919 dazzle was intended more to mislead the enemy as to the correct position to take up than actually to miss his shot when firing"
I checked multiple dictionaries and "take Up" is not clear. Is "take up" as used here a British phrase?
Thank you-- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 01:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
"Norman Wilkinson explained in 1919, that dazzle camouflage, was intended more to mislead the enemy to move to a poor shooting location to fire on a target, than intended for the enemy to actually miss when shooting at a target."
The attribution is good, it is N Wilkinson's wording that is confusing to me, and I think others. I think it helps to reword his intended explanation, and to remove the "take up" phrasing in the lead. -- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"I seriously don't think any of the quotes are now at all hard to understand" I don't suggest they are, as they stand. I do think a quote, any quote, has to be better than any summary or paraphrase: it must say something that cannot be said without quoting. I don't see a value of quotes, even in footnotes (maybe especially not then; the cite should be enough). I have no particular suggestions on better wording, offhand... As for whether dazzle made ships more visible, you've made my argument for me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC) (BTW, Chiswick, "intercutting" replies is frowned on.)
* Come on guys - you've got 20 years and 120,000 edits of experience between you. How about you try to work together to make the page really good rather than bickering? Btljs ( talk) 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
If you were talking about the dazzle schemes in terms of the art movements, I'd agree with you. You're not. You're talking about the artists doing the paintings, & they have their own pages, where their artistic backgrounds & inspirations can be (are, should be) covered--not here. Here, it's OT, because this page isn't about them, it's about the camo scheme. What you're adding isn't about the scheme. And you're not limiting it to "artist", you're adding "artist of this school", which has no merit to the subject. I'm not convinced the country is essential, either, for the same reason. (As for "the writer", if it's a book you're talking about, he'd better be... Unless he's a historiographer or art historian, "writer" adds nothing.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dazzle camouflage. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
Editors' opinions won't solve this. Sources can. Do sources call artwork with this style "dazzle camouflage"? If so, it can go in this article. If not, it doesn't. If only a few do, then it gets only mentioned, per DUE. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 03:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)