Talk:Camouflage/Archive 4

Julius Caesar's Venetian Blue
It refers to the Veneti (Gaul). By the way, Britain or Brittany?

History of personal camouflage
You may call me biased, but I was surprised to see no reference to Flecktarn in the second world war history section. In my opinion, this pattern (deployed in 1938) was the first multi-color personal camouflage. Until then, only buildings or ships were camouflaged, and uniforms were basically uni-colored. As Flecktarn was deployed pre-second world war, it precedes the mentioned british camouflage. In my opinion, Flecktarn is the origin of any modern personal camouflage pattern. In the current article, it looks like Flecktarn was invented 1990. Regards, Nils Ole Tippenhauer (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of one article, but a family of articles (see the navbox on the right). For personal camouflage, see Battledress, which does illustrate Flecktarn. A top-level summary article can't say everything, and as you hint, the matter is disputable: hand-crafted multi-colour camouflage was sometimes provided in the First World War, though never as standard issue, and individuals may also have made use of pieces of Telo Mimetico before Flecktarn. To repeat, the argument is quite intricate and this article isn't the place for it, but I'll review what is said here to see if a tweak is necessary. For other articles, you know what to do - edit and cite references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions to "In Zoology"
1. In order to help bring out the importance of camouflage and it's role in evolution in the animal kingdom I would add some history in biology and add how the ability to disguise one's appearance helped Darwin and Wallace illustrate how natural selection and adaptation works in varying species. 2. Camouflage is much more than the actual coloration of the species. I would add information on camouflage role in use of morphological structures or material found in the environment 3. I would add information of different forms of camouflage; dazzle camouflage, distractive markings in camouflage, and disruptive coloration in camouflage. yoho.28 Yoho.28 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As with the previous question, be aware that there is an extensive family of camouflage articles, of which this is the summary, complete with a lot of navigation links and a navigation bar at the end. Evolution is already mentioned, as is the use of materials from the environment by animals as well as humans. There are whole articles in the camouflage family on dazzle camouflage, on eyespot (biology) and on disruptive coloration. There is surely room for improvement in this article and in the associated tree of sub-articles but the wholesale gaps you suggest are already filled. I'll check if we need a few more links on these topics, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Camouflaged oriental garden lizard.jpg
Is there any problem to add this image under Camouflage? Any criteria? -- Anton Talk  12:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The basic criterion is simply need: is there any requirement to fill a gap in the article's coverage by adding something. Here, the matter of changeable skin pattern is already described, referenced and illustrated. You, I hesitate to suggest, are coming to this from the other end of the telescope from the needs of the article for coverage, or the reader's desire for understanding: you are it seems seeking to place a particular image into various articles across Wikipedia, apparently because you took it. You will note that I have not deleted the image from the lizard article, choosing instead to remove six or more repetitively similar images from that article; there is no reason why, in addition to coverage at that place (and on Commons), the article should also be here: and there is clear reason why it should not be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)