Battle of Round Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Good articleMilitary 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
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2013Good article nomineeListed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_camouflage