Talk:Dazzle camouflage

Taking up a firing position

What does this wording mean?

"correct position to take up"

"than actually to miss his shot when firing

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)

Not clear to me, either, which is why I "clarify" tagged it... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the phrase used by Norman Wilkinson himself, as explained in the "World War I" section of the article, the verb being "to take up a [battle] position" ready to engage the enemy, when explaining what the goals of his dazzle camouflage were: not the ambitious one of causing a gunner to line up his cross-hairs wrongly. He was indeed English. In the circumstances, no other phrase will do, but I'll add a note for transatlantic readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW here's an American taking up a firing position, so the usage is shared on both sides of the pond. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

the drawing helps explain the wording, which I still find confusing..how about this alternate wording? We can paraphrase...

"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."

♠On reflection, I'd say we should just remove it entirely. Dazzle, in ref ships, isn't about firing positions at all, it's about hiding the fact there's even a ship. It may indirectly affect where a hostile ship positions itself, but that's not the main object.

No, dazzle is absolutely not to be confused with hiding: it does the opposite. Dazzle makes ships MORE conspicuous.

Nor should we remove mention of what Wilkinson intended, which is core to the topic. Whereas disruptive coloration hides objects (scientifically, at best), there was no science to dazzle, so Wilkinson's intentions for it are all we have on what it was supposed to achieve and how it was supposed to work. The verdict of hindsight is that it probably didn't work too well, and it may not have helped at all, but the historical record from the First World War is that a great deal of time and artistic skill was expended on dazzle, and the job of the article is to describe that, not to speculate "on reflection ... [that it] isn't about firing positions at all", which is simply wrong historically. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

♠On the proposed wording, if we keep, I'd say change "to move to...target" to "into taking a poor firing position than to cause the enemy to actually miss", preferably with an add about ships (which may necessitate removing the particular attribution). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We can't remove the attribution to Wilkinson because dazzle was his concept, and his intention is the best historical statement of whatever dazzle may have been supposed to do.

I have however reworked the paraphrase to explain in more detail what Wilkinson said, and sharpened the attributions of claims throughout the article. I hope everyone finds this clearer. I'll note in passing that writing about something designed to cause confusion is itself very capable of doing the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How about revising :"Norman Wilkinson explained in 1919 that he had intended dazzle more to mislead the enemy about a ship's course and so to take up a poor firing position, than actually to cause the enemy to miss his shot when firing" to "Norman Wilkinson intended dazzle camouflage to mislead the enemy about a ship's course, so the enemy would then move to a weaker attack location."

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)

Thank you for accepting the attribution. We have to accept Wilkinson's words, easy or not, because that was what dazzle was: it had no scientific basis, unlike Kerr's shortlived attempt. Methinks thou dost protest too much: I do not believe that the revised wording "to take up a poor firing position" will be difficult either to Brits or to Americans, and we now know that the phrase is still in current usage in both Britain and America. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chiswick Chap, thank you for your clarifications and diagrams, they help. Me, I don't think requests and offers to clarify are "protesting too much". Using N Wilkinson's wording is alright, it also helps to explain or paraphrase difficult wording. Again thanks for your updates. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Many thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

♠"dazzle is absolutely not to be confused with hiding: it does the opposite. Dazzle makes ships MORE conspicuous." No, it doesn't. It breaks up the shape of a ship's hull, hiding the fact a ship is present, which is exactly the point. Only at comparatively short ranges are dazzle-painted ships more conspicuous; if they were at longer ranges, dazzle wouldn't work, & indeed would be counterproductive.

On this, Wilkinson himself disagrees: "Indeed, Wilkinson admitted that dazzle painting might make a ship more visible in some circumstances, and hence more vulnerable." (Forbes, p. 91) "Wilkinson could argue, as he did, that his scheme was not designed to make a ship hard to see but hard to hit." (Forbes, p. 96) The contrasting stripes in dazzle (as in disruptive camouflage) MUST be strongly contrasting, which always risks making the target more conspicuous: it succeeds if it delays recognition (as a ship on a certain heading, etc). Wilkinson and the Admiralty were well aware that invisibility (as advocated by Thayer on both sides of the Atlantic, without success) was not an option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

♠"'so the enemy would then move to a weaker attack location'" A poor firing position is both better phrased & technically more accurate.

Agree, I think we've finally laid that ghost. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

♠Having looked at the quotes, I'd far rather they be paraphrased clearly, then cited; I don't see a need for a quote, unless it cannot be said better. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you say. However the current discussions have demonstrated to me, and I think to any impartial observer, that Wilkinson's original words are invaluable, being exactly at the core of the dazzle "philosophy". In the absence of the kind of science (knowledge of disruptive camouflage and countershading) available for other camouflage approaches, dazzle uniquely rests on Wilkinson's thought. I'm inclined to use more quotes, at least in footnotes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

user:TREKphiler, do you have any wording suggestions? I agree with both of you. Original Quotes can be valuable, but if the quote itself is confusing to readers, the quote itself does not meet the objective of conveying knowledge, and a paraphrase(s) or an additional explanation can be added to convey the knowledge. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I seriously don't think any of the quotes are now at all hard to understand, and they are invariably also explained in the text, supported with illustrations and photographs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 8 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.)

There is exactly one thing that cannot be said better, and that is the first-hand testimony of the people who were involved, here, the exact wording of the person who created dazzle, and the striking witness of a U-Boat captain (I have paraphrased many quotes in my time, and I have no doubt whatsoever that any paraphrase of his witness would be a weakening). Quotes are needed in footnotes when there is doubt about what was said or whether interpretations of what was said are correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"There is exactly one thing that cannot be said better, and that is the first-hand testimony of the people who were involved" Wrong. The one thing that can't be paraphrased is something said so well, changing it makes it less effective: Winston's "Fight on the beaches" quote, or Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address". Nothing said here rises to that standard. As for quotes in footnotes, if there's any question, go to the source. That's true for every cite; the reader is obliged to take them on faith, all of them. That's how cites work. I'll agree, clarification, such as the "Venetian blue", is worthwhile, but even then, I'm dubious. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that quotes must be justified, and I absolutely believe the ones here are so justified, or I would not have added them. Your removal of the quotes has badly broken the sense and flow of the article, as well as removing the evidence for several of the claims made, in other words replaced reasoned argument supported by evidence with garble. To avoid an edit-war, which looms large, and only for this reason, I will use paraphrases wherever possible in the text, supporting these wherever they could be challenged with quotes in footnotes. I do hope you will edit with a little more care please in future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

* 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)

Thanks. We're now working on doing just that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory information

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)

Thanks. Kerr was never employed by the Admiralty; his suggestions were rejected in writing in July 1915; his post-war claim was rejected by the committee of 1919 (as he was informed in October 1920); and Wilkinson's claim was accepted, with a £2000 reward in 1922. I've put these dates in the article, with refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Spots and stripes

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)

Fair point. My objection, as noted, is mentioning animals with camo schemes that, in the event, were not followed. That Kerr is relying on Nature is clear; that the zebra scheme worked, also clear, from the examples. Why muddy the waters? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The point is that, before Wilkinson came along with his unconsciously-zebra-patterned designs, Kerr had a go with his highly-conscious giraffe, zebra, jaguar principles, and didn't get very far. We don't know if Wilkinson was telling the truth when he said he hadn't heard of the zoological theories, especially disruptive coloration; we do know that he did not attempt to disrupt outlines into appearing as part of the background, but to create illusion, in particular of a ship's heading: and this Kerr could possibly have done, had he been aware of some of the illusions used by animals, but he certainly did not. So, I'm not muddying the waters, but telling the history of what actually happened, inconvenient though that may be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is examples that proved to have no influence, & that strikes me as adding confusion where there needn't be any. If you're choosing illustrations, I'd say it makes more sense to stick to ones that actually pertain. We don't know what Kerr might have done. We know what didn't happen: giraffe & jag patters weren't used. Neither, AFAIK, do we know why not. It's about leaving out the interesting in the name of clarity. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Vorticism

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)

There is a definite Vorticist connection, given Wadsworth's impeccable pedigree; and in the Forbes book, we have this stated in a reliable independent source. The connection of dazzle to art, given that Wilkinson himself was an artist, though rather less modernist than Wadsworth and Lismer (or indeed Picasso), is also right at the core of the subject. And, as Forbes suggests, perhaps the fact that Wilkinson was an artist not a scientist made his suggestions easier for the Admiralty to accept. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If we were discussing dazzle as an influence on art, yes. The refs to the art movements are connected to the artists, not to the subject of the page. Thus, they are trivial & OT. Notice, in ref to the alleged inspiration from Cubism, which does bear on the subject, I left it in. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The section is explicitly about Dazzle AND art, in which context the similarity of Vorticism and dazzle is a matter of note. Forbes comments "The designs [on the ships] chimed perfectly with the vorticist movement" (p. 100). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It still isn't about the artists. That they should be identified on a page about them, or about the movement, I don't argue; that the movement should be associated with them on a page about neither, I disagree. And the page is titled "Dazzle camouflage" not "Dazzle painting in art", so I'd disagree about the thrust of the page, too. The "Art" section is, AIUI, connected with the ships painted in dazzle, not about the art movement(s) they followed (or inspired), so don't tell me it's about both "dazzle and art". It's not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dazzle is definitely the subject of the article. However the subject of the section on art is indeed about the connection of dazzle with art, argue how you will, and that connection is strong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for removing brief informative glosses on the artists concerned: these are not undue, and it is normal practice on Wikipedia. I have accordingly restored them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"There is no justification for removing brief informative glosses on the artists concerned" I don't have to justify removing it. You want it in, you have to explain why it's so important it has to be kept. Since the artists' pages will contain the same information, anybody who cares can look there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't agree with that at all. You certainly should not remove correct and cited information while a discussion on the subject is ongoing (I had already replied, in my view fully rebutting your criticism). But for what it's worth explaining something for a third time, it is helpful to readers to provide a section on how the world sees a subject. Thus in an article on a book or film, we have a section on its reception, and we provide details of how people found the item. We write "the art critic John Smith" or "film director Jane Doe". That's all I've done here: it makes the article easier to read, and easier to refer to (if, say, a student is writing an essay, they will find brief glosses helpful to grasp the outlines of the topic). I have created a section on the place of dazzle in art (much more could be said on that topic) and have very briefly glossed the people mentioned. Of course interested readers can follow links to find out more, but we should not require them to do so at every place. This is a standard approach to editing, and it is found in many thousands of articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 12 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)

A one- or two-word gloss letting readers know what sort of authority they are dealing with is a small gesture of help for the reader new to a subject (and if they have some sort of handle on the military side, they may have little or none on the artistic side), which really can't be described with any kind of fairness as excessive. The reason why it is relevant to name the school of art, Vorticism in particular and Modernism in general (which includes Vorticism) is the similarity of dazzle to Vorticism, as noted by cited authorities. So in this case there are two good reasons for stating that Wadsworth was a Vorticist. I agree that "writer" could be better, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with including the Art and artist info in the article, plus I found the info helpful and informative.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If all you wanted was "the artist", I'd have no problem with it. (IIRC, there's a previous ref, which is why I took out a 2d.) Getting into what school an artist belongs to on a page not about that school, that artist, or art more broadly, is trivia. It adds nothing. And "partly" from a given school is even less helpful on a page not about that person. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120116125600/http://smmlonline.com:80/articles/kriegsmarinecamo/kreigsmarine.html to http://smmlonline.com/articles/kriegsmarinecamo/kreigsmarine.html

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Other uses

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)

Never heard of it, nor seen such a chimney. Dazzle would of course not work as a camouflage for a static target as a bomb-aimer would hardly be expecting it to move and would not predict a heading for it, so it would have no military value. Perhaps you mean the mild degree of shading in, say, varying degrees of pale blue, sometimes used to make chimneys look less unpleasant? If that's camouflage at all, it would not be dazzle but either disruptive coloration or possibly countershading, but you would need a Reliable Source for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this reply will be seen some 7 years later, but I just encountered this while touring a car manufacturing plant. I was there on unrelated business, but I was told the prototypes have this painted on them to make it difficult to photograph. Whether this is true or not, I’m uncertain as photography was prohibited. I did notice that some vehicles only had this black and white “dazzle camouflage” on some small sections of the vehicle, while others were covered almost entirely. 71.68.7.6 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Bedazzled

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)

The firer ... thanks for letting me know (it's been like that for some years actually, so a good reader is a fine thing). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it really didn't make sense the other way, but...it had just a hint of cool factor that made me think DoD was working on it, just because they can. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

One last thing: is there a lower speed limit for motion dazzle to be at play? A 7% miss at 7km might be absurd, but what about at 70km? (Am I getting into BVR territory, despite telescope spotting?) Or a 1% miss at 7km? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:37 & 06:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053850/http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Illuminating_Engineering_v14_1000185898/421 to http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Illuminating_Engineering_v14_1000185898/421
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207234035/http://usndazzle.com/1Web/Index to http://usndazzle.com/1Web/Index

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) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Blast2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary art

history

• Revision as of 14:34, 10 June 2020 by user:PBS (→‎Arts: The widebeam Growbeautifully painted by the op art artist Felipe Pantone)
• revision as of 14:52, 10 June 2020 by user:Chiswick Chap (rv many thanks, but we have sufficient examples of this minor aside to the actual military camouflage topic - could make an article on Artistic Dazzle Camouflage perhaps)

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)

The topic is camouflage, i.e. actually attempting to hide something. The art things are not in fact trying to hide anything so they are not camouflage. They are just an "in popular culture" sort of application of the topic to things which are not the topic; such an extra section must be brief compared to the rest of the article. As I've already said, there is scope for a Dazzle camouflage patterns in art or something of that kind, which you can make as long as you please, and we can then have a brief summary of it over here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The topic is not about camouflage it is about dazzle camouflage. This issue about art is not about polular culture, as that is not the title of the section. In reply to "As I've ..." please address my point about WP:PRESERVE (and how without such an article as you suggest the section "Arts" is not the place to preserve such information). Also you have not addressed the issue of consensus which I rasied in my second paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Dazzle camouflage, as its name clearly indicates, is a kind of camouflage; it was invented in the First World War as a type of Military camouflage, which is a type of Camouflage. Talking about WP:PRESERVE is also basically nonsense; this is an article on a military topic, and arts are (at most) a side-issue, if not wholly off-topic. Any editor can remove off-topic materials from any article at any time. It would be perfectly in order to create a subsidiary article if you feel the topic of Dazzle in the Arts is noteworthy. As for consensus to turn this article from a military technology article into - what? an arts article? an article with multiple loosely-related subjects? - let's call it a muddle for short, there is surely none, nor could there be because it would not be well-founded (though there might be a disambiguation page or something of that sort). What there has been over the many years this military article has existed is a few scattered attempts to add usually images of arty concepts, without any real encyclopedic sourcing (scholarly textbooks or journal articles), just images and sometimes popular web or news sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 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)