Talk:Military camouflage: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:29, 28 September 2012 editThimbleweed (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users732 edits →Planned restructuring ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:47, 6 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,355,107 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(46 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk page header}}
	{{Summaryin\|camouflage}}
			{{Article history\|action1=GAN
	{{WPMILHIST\|class = Start
			\|action1date=08:04, 27 January 2013
			\|action1link=Talk:Military camouflage/GA1
			\|action1result=listed
			\|action1oldid=535128229
			\|currentstatus=GA
			\|topic=war
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class = GA
	<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->		<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
	<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->		<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
	\|B1=no		\|B1=yes
	<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->		<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
	\|B2=yes		\|B2=yes
Line 14:		Line 23:
	\|Science=yes		\|Science=yes
	}}		}}
			}}
			{{summary in\|camouflage}}
			{{British English}}

			== And Now For Something Completely Different (or is it?) ==
	==Archives==

	]

	== Dazzle Camouflage ==

	I was surprised that there was no mention of ] on the page. I don't want to go messing about though and add/link it incorrectly.
	--] (]) 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	==Digital Camouflage (patterns)==

	There's an enormous long list of (most of) the world's armies, prefixed by the sentence:
	"Digital camouflage patterns have been adopted by:" - but the list gives no information about which digital pattern is used by which army, and worse, there are absolutely no citations to prove any of it.
	Question: does this list have any value to readers?
	* Would that value be enhanced by making it, say, a table of (Army, Pattern, Date adopted, supporting documents)?
	* Or is it just ] which ought to be cut from the article?
	] (]) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	::I think it is very low value, not encyclopedic. ] (]) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	::: Right then, I've cut it. The digital section still needs citations but at least it's proportionate in length. ] (]) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

	On a related subject (being in the same section), the picture of desert MARPAT bears no resemblance to the real thing. Should I change this? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:: If you have a better photograph that you own (or is copyright-free), by all means upload it to Wikimedia Commons and then replace the inferior image. Make sure the license is correctly filled in though. ] (]) 07:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	==Main groups of patterns==
	I was considering adding a small list of the main types of camouflage patterns. Something like this:

	Suggestion:

	There are a bewildering number of camouflages used through history. However, most camouflage patterns can be categorized into broad categories. Some of the more common types are:
	]
	* '''Solid drab colour''' was the first type of camouflage for military use, and was introduced in the 18th century. Typical examples are British ], German ] and American ]. Some nations, notably ] and ] continues to use solid colour combat uniforms.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Die Uniform\|url=http://www.bundesheer.at/abzeichen/anzug.shtml\|work=\|publisher=Austrial Army (Bundesheer)\|accessdate=3 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite book
	\| last =Katz
	\| first =Sam
	\| coauthors =Ronald Volstad
	\| title =Israeli Elite Units since 1948
	\| publisher =Osprey Publishing
	\| date =1988
	\| location =United Kingdom
	\| pages =64
	\| isbn =978-0-85045-837-4 }}</ref>
	* ''']''' originated during the First World War, and is characterized by straight lines and sharp angles, creating a disruptive effect. Often associated with Germany, these types of patterns are very commonly used on vehicles by numerous nations.
	* '''Jigsaw patterns''' are more or less blotch-like fields of colours fitting into each other like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, giving more “organic” outlines than the angular splint patterns. It was invented in the Interwar period by the Italians, and has been widely used for uniforms. The various “]”, “water” and “wave” patterns are related types.
	* '''Spotted patterns'''' are composed of small spots superimposed on fields of other colours, blurring the edges of fields by creating both a macro- and micro pattern. The idea was developed in Germany during the Second World War, and developed into the ]s for the ] in the 1970s. Similar patterns are by many nations. The ] pattern is partly based on the same principle.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Making Sense of Digital Camouflage\|url=http://www.strikehold.net/2010/04/04/making-sense-of-digital-camouflage/\|publisher=Strike - Hold\|accessdate=2 September 2012}}</ref>
	* '''Brushstroke patterns''' consist of usually two, sometimes three different colours printed as brushstrokes on a lighter background colour. Where the strokes overlap, the colours blend, making two-stroke patterns effectively four coloured (background + 3 brush colours). It was introduced in the British ] during the Second World War. The British ] and the French ] are derivates, and has been widely copied,<ref>{{cite book\|last=Newman]\|first=] patterns have evolved from the French lizard pattern.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Johnson\|first=Richard Denis\|title=Tiger patterns : a guide to the Vietnam War's tigerstripe combat fatigue patterns and uniforms\|year=1999\|publisher=Schiffer Publ.\|location=Atglen, PA\|isbn=0764307568}}</ref>
	* '''Duck hunter''' patterns are typified by various sizes of irregular splotches of several colours on a solid colour background. The first pattern of this type was the M1942 "frog skin" used by American troops in the Pacific during the Second Wold War, and copied by several nations. The Australian ] follow a similar lay-out.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Brayley\|first=Martin J.\|title=Camouflage uniforms : international combat dress 1940-2010\|year=2009\|publisher=Crowood\|location=Ramsbury\|isbn=1847971377}}</ref>
	* '''Rain patterns''' consists of small vertical line segments on a solid colour background. The German Second World War splint patterns often included such line segments. As a stand-alone form of camouflage the rain pattern was used by many Eastern European countries during the later stage of The Warsaw Pact.
	* '''Digital patterns''' is usually associated with pixelated outlines, though the term in principle covers all computer generated patterns. Pixelated patterns was pioneered by several nations in the 1980s, but did not become popular until the ] camouflage was introduced for American troops early 2010s, and is now widely copied.

	Problem is, where do I place such a list? The current article is somewhat messy, with several overlapping sections. ] (]) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

	:: Interesting. The patterns list article is indeed already long and a bit rambling (not to mention somewhat uncited). The suggestion is for a classification of patterns. I'm not certain it's a strict taxonomy as the categories might possibly overlap (could one have a digital flecktarn, for instance?). Perhaps the suggestion would make a nice introductory table headed "Principle types of camouflage pattern", with a picture of each one, its date, country, name, description, and usage? all the best ] (]) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

	:: NB we absolutely don't want to duplicate ], which is organized by continent and country. That results in much repetition (e.g. ] recurs 49 times). Revamping the article would be a piece of work - ideally the table would be sortable by pattern, type, date and country to keep everyone happy. ] (]) 10:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

	:::You are right that some patterns are mixes. The Wehrmacht ] combine spliter pattern and rain pattern, the 1st Gulf War ] combines a jigsaw pattern with, eh, something, and of course there are patterns that doens't really fall into any of these categories. This list should not be taken as some sort of official classification. We should be carefull using this classification in the ], as it would bring us dangerously close to OR. If we do, we need to be very clear about this being our classification.

	:::I think I'll be able to source some or most of the statements, like the evolution from brushstroke to lizard to tigerstripe. I'm waiting for some reference litterature to help in the rest. I'll also happily help you clean up this article a bit, if you want to have a go at it. ] (]) 12:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

	:::: I'm not available for some weeks now. If you have invented a classification then it's certainly OR. On the other hand, if 7 patterns are all called Flecktarn variants x, y, and z then it's fine to have a section or table heading for Flecktarn, with the named variants beneath it. Organising by date is also fine. You're right, you'll need refs to show evolution if that's your aim: it would be nice to have a diagram showing (with images and arrows from one pattern to the next) showing what gave rise to what. I can prepare such things when I have time. Still not clear which article you mean to develop, however. I am AGAINST adding a list to Military camouflage as there's already a list of patterns article; and Mil cam is certainly not only about patterns. ] (]) 13:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

			The use of camouflage in fashion and art has a section to itself, but might it be worth discussing military camouflage in popular culture more generally? The ']' sketch from ] and at the beginning of ] may be silly, but before devolving into explosions, it illustrates well some important concepts (such as no matter how well-camouflaged you are, you're going to stick out if you're camouflaged as something obvious). I'm sure that there must be other instances outside of fashion and art where camouflage techniques are the main topic of examination. — ] (]) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I'm looking for developing ''this'' article. The list is a list and there's only so much information you can cram in before it becomes unwieldable. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Digital camouflage ==
	:::::The suggestion above is just meant to be descriptive, to offer some overview of the bewildering variety of camouflage patterns. I guess you can think of it more like a key than a classification. There is no such thing as "camouflage classification" anyway, camouflages are manmade constructions, not flowers or chemical elements, and most states or agencies are eager to point out their uniqueness, not how similar they are to other patterns. That hasn’t stopped camouflage aficionados from making their own systems (e.g. see ).

			I came to the page (redirected, actually) looking for information on the so-called digital camouflage patterns that have been in vogue for a while now, and while I assume that the shift to such patterns is done for a good reason, I would like to be informed of what those reasons are, because to my eyes (especially when applied to vehicles in large, blocky patches) they seem to be all the more conspicuous. They say "nature abhors a vacuum", but nature also tends to abhor perfectly straight lines and right angles, at least when it comes to vegetation. I realize, perhaps, that AFV camouflage might not be designed to fool the human eye at all, so that could be at least a partial explanation. Nevertheless, seeing as I was redirected to this article after clicking on a link that explicitly said "digital camouflage", I feel some description of it is warranted. Apologies, though, if I just missed the relevant portions of a rather large article.--] (]) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Since there are no governing body dictating this, there is no right way and accordingly no wrong way. The above suggestion has lumped things together rather than spitting them up for overview rather than presission. Typically the lizard and tigerstripe classes being lumped in with DPM under brushstroke, and the "jigsaw" class as a catch-all for anything with wavy outlines. The latter is probably a bad choice of term, as it often applied to a Belgian type (and derivate). Perhaps “Blotch patterns” would be better.

			:: See ]. It is a bit of a mouthful. ] (]) 11:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Your suggestion for using only the official names wouldn’t work. Most patterns don’t even have names, but serial numbers like "M1985" or "Vz60". If they do have names, they are often non-descriptive, like the ]. Copied usually also have different names, only the 1979 German patters are actually named "Flacktarn". The Chinese "Tibetan" or "Plateau" pattern has another name, despite being a spot-for-spot copy of the German Flecktarn, but with different colours. The Danish Flecktarn again is named M/84, the older Austrian pattern is named K4. Again, this has not stopped commercial producers, collectors and historians from applying the term to all, or to some. Perhaps it would be better to stick to a more descriptive name, like “spotted patterns” or something similar.

			::: The digital camouflage section is quite long, and it is argumentative (reflecting an ongoing argument within camouflage profession). as it os now, I agree with IP above that it is not very informative. It does not discuss the different ways the term is used, and it uses a lot of space on only scratching the surface of the science (or lack thereof) behind it. I suggest the section is cut back to a summary, and a separate article is made. I believe it is a topic of enough interest to warrant an article of its own. ] (]) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Don’t worry about not having time, the article can wait. There’s plenty that do not require more people, like finding references and stuff. ] (]) 10:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

			:::: Yes, it should certainly be a sub-article (and an entry in the navbox). It will need (many) more citations, and should stick closely to the facts. I have created a new article more or less unaltered from here (added a lead); it awaits extension and improvement. ] (]) 04:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	===Planned restructuring===

			== Camouflage face paint ==
	Chiswick Chap, are you back? I have some suggestions if you want to do something to this article. ] (]) 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			Camouflage face paint is, all things considered, rather a minor aspect of camouflage compared, say, to hiding squadrons of main battle tanks. It is probably not worth mentioning in the lead section of the article, whose job is to summarize the main points of the rest of the article, not to introduce new concepts. The topic is in fact already mentioned and suitably referenced to a non-commercial source (a supplier's website is not the sort of site we should normally be linking to, and in general supplier pages change quickly within a few months or years), so there is no obvious need for additional coverage. If anyone wishes to create a new article on the topic, with suitable ], that would be fine, and we could wikilink it from the main article. ] (]) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
	: Yes. My main feeling about this article is (still) that it desperately needs references. People are adding more and more uncited stuff. If I was going to do anything here, it would be to add a column for sources/references/evidence. What did you have in mind? ] (]) 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::Yes, one problem is the lack of references. Unfortunately, there are not all that many good one for this subject. I guess you can see I have annotated the list suggestion above as good as I can, but I don't thing we can do much better than that. The second problem is the structure, with a lot of repetition. I think the article will be better (and shorter) by dropping organizing it by country and in stead organizing it by type (uniform, vehicle, aeroplanes etc) and chronology. ] (]) 08:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::: That would have the advantage of improving readability, reducing length (perhaps), and showing that mil cam is not only about uniforms (the most ]-rich aspect, I suspect). Then we could at least have SOME refs for each section. However it would be a major change. Perhaps you could put a draft of it on your user page? And, by the way, I still think that the same problem is much worse on ], where the same solution is much more necessary. I'd suggest we start there, not here. ] (]) 09:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::::I have tried to brighten up the list with adding some pictures, but it is now getting to the size where it is hard to get it to load. I don't know what to do with it.
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.thezimbabwean.co/news/16077/dj-squilasustained-serious-head-injuries.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123230614/http://www.museomadre.it/opere.cfm?id=471 to http://www.museomadre.it/opere.cfm?id=471
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831104046/http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions/ to http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www3.fitnyc.edu/museum/loveandwar/galliano.htm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::::I'll make a draft in my sandbox as you suggested. ] (]) 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::::: Good. The list surely needs the identical treatment - get rid of the ridiculous ordering by continent and country (what use can that be?) and simply show each pattern just once (OK, that can be grouped by the country that created/first used the pattern), with a list of countries that use it. That would make it a lot shorter, and would remove the repetition of images - after all, the article is a list of patterns not of countries, ain't it. ] (]) 11:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
	::::::Indeed. I'm working on the article in my sandbox, but it is going to take a few days. I'm wondering if the main body of this article (the uniforms) can be moved to a separate article: ]? ] (]) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::::::: Wouldn't that be the same as ]? I'd suggest you feel free to slim down the "Postwar uniforms" section (possibly severely), and similarly slim down or remove most of the by-nation coverage of uniforms/battledress, merging anything not already said in Battledress with that article. While you're about it, I wonder how much overlap there is with ] (another OR cruft-fest)? Perhaps it's mostly a case of merge and redirect, tho' uniform is more than camouflage fatigues as it covers smart mess dress etc. Talking of a mess... ] (]) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	{{outdent}} This article seems to deal only with personal camouflage, perhaps an article rename is more appropriate. Or it needs to deal with the other forms vehicle schemes (Caunter, Mickey-Mouse, Dazzle?. ] (]) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	: Yes indeed, it needs to talk a lot more about vehicle, ship, aircraft, building and firing position camouflage to provide proper balance; I'd envisage a section on each of those, as on battledress, with a Main article link in each section. That implies that the current heavy coverage of battledress be slimmed down, as we were discussing (in shorthand) above. ] (]) 17:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426011729/http://emmalundgren.com/camouflage/ to http://emmalundgren.com/camouflage/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614042717/http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/14/camouflaging-airports-and-plants-during-wwii/ to http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/14/camouflaging-airports-and-plants-during-wwii/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125100420/http://camotest.de/ to http://www.camotest.de/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::I really don't like to remove content from Misplaced Pages, I'd rather move it about. Using ] as dumping ground for the over-detailed uniform stuff from this article is fine with me. I will try to expand the sections on land vehicles, planes and ships (all of which have their own main articles) as well as adding something on buildings/positions. I'm afraid the section on uniforms will still be longer than the other sections, as uniforms, thanks to their printed nature, are more detailed and variable than the others. ] (]) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:::Working on this article in my sandbox, I see my list of pattern (above) is better suited for the ] article. ] (]) 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
	:::: Oh good. Do you see a way to simplify ] while you're looking at Battledress? I suspect the list can be much shorter by listing each pattern once; and it might possibly make sense to use your visual list of pattern types to group those patterns (non-geographically) - do you believe that would work, or are there many patterns that don't fit? ] (]) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

			== External links modified (January 2018) ==
	:::::It might simplify things a bit, but it would create other problems. My list is just a simplye key to the most common classes, not to specific patterns. There are some patterns that are used by a lot of nations (DPM, M81 Woodland, French Lizard pattern), but there are (my estimate) something like 300 or thereabouts unique patterns out there, many of which have very little documentation. The latter is because much of these are to some extent military secrets. These days the digital patterns are all the rage, and there will possibly be another 100 unique (and likely shortlived) patterns out by the next few years. I really don't know how to attack the list. ] (]) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:::::: On your first point: it's a matter of grouping by class, not of listing and illustrating everything. If by-class is not preferred, we can simply list alphabetically by name of pattern, or alphabetically by name of country of origin (no duplication, therefore). Either way, each pattern could have a list of user countries (names as abbreviations, maybe) - if there is proof: right now, 99% of the claims about use are pure WP:OR.
	:::::: On your second point: Wikipedians could argue that probably short-lived and uncitable patterns are non-notable, in which case the answer is simple: we don't list them unless someone finds decent references for them. Would support you in that. ] (]) 05:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	{{outdent}} As I read the list, it is supposed to be a comprehensive list of all patterns. Grouping it by main patterns and delete all the "minor" patterns would defy its original purpose. On the other hand the current list is a mess, so we should try to come up with ''something''. As for sources, Camopedia is a place to start. It is a wiki, but it is not open and edited by just two persons as far as I can tell. Would it be usable as a source? ] (]) 07:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426011721/http://www.thisgreedypig.com/art/the-re-appropriation-of-camouflage-from-military-use-into-civilian-clothing/ to http://www.thisgreedypig.com/art/the-re-appropriation-of-camouflage-from-military-use-into-civilian-clothing/
	: OK, so we don't try grouping the list by type; in that case I propose grouping Alphabetically by Country of Origin.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126055931/http://www.veruschka.net/ to http://www.veruschka.net/
	: I share your feelings of caution about Camopedia; it is certainly a source, but its reliability is doubtful. It would be fine to use it for images (we write a Non-Free Usage Rationale), and it can guide our search, but it needs corroboration. ] (]) 07:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130142620/http://www.strikehold.net/2010/04/04/making-sense-of-digital-camouflage/ to http://www.strikehold.net/2010/04/04/making-sense-of-digital-camouflage/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125100420/http://camotest.de/ to http://www.camotest.de/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::Right, I've been working on the article in my sandbox a bit, and here's what I suggest: The article is split into three main sections, Principles of military camouflage (including how it differ from other forms of camouflage), History, and Application. Application should contain the present chapter of aeroplanes, ships etc, + a new section on uniforms, condensed out of the current cruft-ridden text. I've got the two first main sections fairly under control, and if you agree this is a good layout, I'll start to put it in, section by section. It's all sourced, though some of the sources are less than ideal (but better than no sources I suppose). ] (]) 15:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::: Gosh, there's a lot here. Firstly, you've been hard at work, and there are some excellent ideas here - certainly, having Principles, then History, then Applications (not sure about this 3rd heading, but it'll do for now) is an improvement. Secondly, the de-crufting should be helpful. I'm not completely sure that the actual principles are fully worked-out yet; it would probably be best to refer to ] for principles, which has been worked out in detail. In fact <nowiki>{{main\|Camouflage}}</nowiki> would do for that section. Thirdly, the History section seems to work really well up to and including the USSR section, tho' you're right, the section remains light on references. The 'Military camouflage patterns' uses some terms like 'solid' and 'digital' which nobody will object to; but do we have sources for the other type names? Even 'splint' pattern, which has an unsourced article, is going to be hard enough to source. Fourthly, not sure the subsections of 'In fashion and art' really add much (and wasn't there only one Dazzle Ball?) - certainly, much of the Dazzle Balls section is not about the Ball at all. Finally, the reorg is going to need a rewrite of the Lead section too.
	::: Where does that leave us. Hmm. I think, go right ahead and reorg the History, and by all means wrap the Applications materials in that heading. Probably we need to go over the rest again. All the best ] (]) 19:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}It's a bit of work, granted. If you want to see what I've got so far, take a look ]. I consider myself done with the principles bit, but need some more on history. The history bit is a bit longish, perhaps most of it really belongs under ], and only a summary of the evolution of camo uniforms belong in this article. I'll need to fill out the Great War and further development. I have mostly sourced the application sections, but need to write one for buildings and positions, and to condense the main body of the existing article into a "camouflage uniforms" section.

			== Assessment ==
	I'm no Shakespear and could use some input. We (if you want to go through it) could do it all in one go in my sandbox and simply replace this article, or transfer bits from there to here when we are pleased with them. ] (]) 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

			This article contains at least one <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> tag. It, therefore, does not meet the criteria for B1 (referencing). That would make it a C Class, rather than a Good article. I'll leave to someone more qualified in the area to find an appropriate reference or reassess the article. ] (]) 20:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
	==References==
	{{Reflist}}

Latest revision as of 05:47, 6 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military camouflage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Military 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 27, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

A summary of this article appears in camouflage.

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.

And Now For Something Completely Different (or is it?)

The use of camouflage in fashion and art has a section to itself, but might it be worth discussing military camouflage in popular culture more generally? The 'How Not to Be Seen' sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus and at the beginning of And Now for Something Completely Different may be silly, but before devolving into explosions, it illustrates well some important concepts (such as no matter how well-camouflaged you are, you're going to stick out if you're camouflaged as something obvious). I'm sure that there must be other instances outside of fashion and art where camouflage techniques are the main topic of examination. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Digital camouflage

I came to the page (redirected, actually) looking for information on the so-called digital camouflage patterns that have been in vogue for a while now, and while I assume that the shift to such patterns is done for a good reason, I would like to be informed of what those reasons are, because to my eyes (especially when applied to vehicles in large, blocky patches) they seem to be all the more conspicuous. They say "nature abhors a vacuum", but nature also tends to abhor perfectly straight lines and right angles, at least when it comes to vegetation. I realize, perhaps, that AFV camouflage might not be designed to fool the human eye at all, so that could be at least a partial explanation. Nevertheless, seeing as I was redirected to this article after clicking on a link that explicitly said "digital camouflage", I feel some description of it is warranted. Apologies, though, if I just missed the relevant portions of a rather large article.--172.129.55.131 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See Military camouflage#Pattern scale and digitization. It is a bit of a mouthful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The digital camouflage section is quite long, and it is argumentative (reflecting an ongoing argument within camouflage profession). as it os now, I agree with IP above that it is not very informative. It does not discuss the different ways the term is used, and it uses a lot of space on only scratching the surface of the science (or lack thereof) behind it. I suggest the section is cut back to a summary, and a separate article is made. I believe it is a topic of enough interest to warrant an article of its own. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should certainly be a sub-article (and an entry in the navbox). It will need (many) more citations, and should stick closely to the facts. I have created a new article more or less unaltered from here (added a lead); it awaits extension and improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Camouflage face paint

Camouflage face paint is, all things considered, rather a minor aspect of camouflage compared, say, to hiding squadrons of main battle tanks. It is probably not worth mentioning in the lead section of the article, whose job is to summarize the main points of the rest of the article, not to introduce new concepts. The topic is in fact already mentioned and suitably referenced to a non-commercial source (a supplier's website is not the sort of site we should normally be linking to, and in general supplier pages change quickly within a few months or years), so there is no obvious need for additional coverage. If anyone wishes to create a new article on the topic, with suitable reliable sources, that would be fine, and we could wikilink it from the main article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military 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.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military 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.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment

This article contains at least one {{citation needed}} tag. It, therefore, does not meet the criteria for B1 (referencing). That would make it a C Class, rather than a Good article. I'll leave to someone more qualified in the area to find an appropriate reference or reassess the article. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Categories: