Talk:Military camouflage/Archive 3

Some comments
Some suggestions/proposals for the lead:

1. The 1st 2 sentences of the lead don't clearly define the subject - is it just visual or does it include radar, IR etc ? The lead sentence should have a link to Camouflage. Maybe something more like "Military camouflage is the use of camouflage by a military force to conceal personnel and equipment from visual observation by enemy forces..." Done.

2. Would a lead pic with some background be better (e.g. File:Arw4.jpg) ? Good idea, done.

3. I think the lead is still a bit too long (for the size of the article). For example the "previously known as" bit, which is specific to (British?) English probably shouldn't be in the lead (especially if it's not elsewhere in the article) - maybe a separate Etymology section. Shortened, removed the prev. bit.

4. "camouflage" is in italics which means I'd expect it to be linked to an article about the word camouflage (e.g. on wiktionary). Yes, done.

5. "military camouflage was first practised in the mid 18th century" ... "Camouflage was developed for military use ... in 1915" is contradictory. Thanks, clarified first baby steps, extensive development. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

DexDor (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) --- Thanks, very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments:

1.a) Would it be better to put the Fashion&Art section into separate article(s) ? Advantages include avoiding duplication with the Camouflage article and that the article(s) could be in fashion/art categories/templates.
 * --- Camouflage is basically the parent article, meant to have a summary of mil cam but not to replace it, so some overlap is correct; if anything, we should therefore have more here, not less, though I think there's basically enough to serve here. Since the fashion and art are specifically in reaction to mil cam, they properly belong here, and even if (looking down now, not up) they are split off as sub-articles one day, we'll still want about this much here to show how the sub-articles fit in.

b) To me the 1919 pic looks out of place on this article.
 * --- Clarified the caption to show the connection; and if the text is right, so is the image.

c) The "within three weeks" bit is uncited. Removed.

d) The bit about Barbados etc begs the question "is this still the case?" - it needs a date. Done, though inclusion is quite borderline.

2. is "authorlink=Jon Latimer" supposed to be visible ? A | added.

3. There's an unusual example of camouflage at File:A-7D Corsairs 354th TFW at Korat 1972.JPG, not sure if it could be used here or the A.C. article. Why not.

4. The article says "auditory ... camouflage is rare", but if "camouflage" includes minimising noise then it's common - e.g. subs, helos, AFVs, clothing - even the swimming style troops are encouraged to use. Thanks, clarified - examples were already present, contradicting the claim.

DexDor (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on digital camouflage:

A sentence now reads: "Like Germany, the Soviet Union experimented with camouflage patterns, such as "TTsMKK" developed in early 1945, that are thought to be forerunners of modern digital textile patterns.[17]" The source, camouflage.net claim no such thing. It would be impossible anyway, since the pattern predates computers and pixelation with a good margin. I suggest either a better source or a rewording to something like "Pixelated shapes predate computer, already being used ..." or something to similar effect. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good idea, para reworded and pattern described too. Not that being a non-computer forerunner is impossible, far from it, as this example proves! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you define "digital" I suppose. This article says digital camo is made with a computer, pixelated or not, so the TTsMKK very obviously can't bee seen as a digital camouflage. Then again, neither can O'Neill's camo. As it stands now, the two examples very nicely describe the root of modern pixelated designs, a major improvement over my original text! Thimbleweed (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think the key word is forerunner, but no, digital doesn't imply computers. See Jacquard loom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)