Talk:The dress

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The dress 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Fashion Start‑class Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Template:Copied-multi

A fact from The dress appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 March 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that "the dress" actually was blue and black?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/whiteandgold.

Wikipedia

Decent scientific explanation

I thought this article was pretty good - http://www.vox.com/2015/2/27/8119901/explain-color-dress . It invokes the concept of color constancy. Superg2000 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good one - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dress.html Superg2000 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Personally, I'd move the current Whiteandgold article (disclosure: this was the one I had made) and bring it over to this title, mainly because I think it's written better and has a lot more detail. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion.Superg2000 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected that article to this page. Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I said I wanted that article moved over here. You just erased it in favor of your version without a full discussion.~~ ViperSnake151 Talk 22:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just noticed that most of the stuff I wrote actually got copied over. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Why is the photo in this article cropped slightly at the bottom? The context of this photograph makes it unusually important that it should be reproduced exactly as originally seen, because colour perception depends on the viewer's interpretation of the entire photograph including all the background which provides clues as to the lighting conditions involved. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC. Tutelary (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how cropping a little bit off the bottom makes it more compliant: this modification is, however, hugely detrimental to the photo's encyclopedic value. Has anyone attempted to contact its author to seek licence for its use? This would surely be a more acceptable alternative. I've edited the photo caption to make it clear that it's not a completely unmodified reproduction of the original: however I do feel that in this case only the whole photo will really do. It would perhaps be better to remove it altogether and provide a link than to use a cropped version. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that is if you use the full size image, you are eliminating 'minimum use' and 'commercial opportunities' as Wikipedia would be distributing the full size image and would not qualify under the standards of WP:NFCC, which is required for images like this. And Wikipedia generally doesn't like to link to copyrighted material purely for the reader to click. The image is fine as it is. Tutelary (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The Fair Use rationale provided for this image does not even mention the cropping: it looks like an incomplete version has been erroneously copied from the wrong part of the news report, which (in common with many other sources all of which presumably consider such usage perfectly acceptable under the relevant Fair Use clauses of copyright legislation) also reproduced the entire image. WP:NFCC clearly states "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)." "If" a portion will suffice: in this case it obviously will not, since colour perception is likely to vary depending on what portion of the image is viewed. Cropping negates the entire point of using the image. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the image is to illustrate the color ambiguity, and this version of the picture clearly displays that. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other colours available

According to the Roman website, the available colours for this dress are Ivory, Scarlet, Pink, and Royal Blue. The article mentions "although available in red and black, pink and black, and white and black versions, a white and gold version does not exist." Since ivory is generally considered a separate colour from white, I edited this to list the "ivory" and black version instead of "white" and black, but I see someone has changed it back. Could that person please explain why? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

I saw that the dress had also had a negative effect on people due to its popularity in newspapers and such. Should that be added here? King Cobra (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got sources? Tutelary (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed? i think not

Just because someone *claimed* that the dress is blue and black is not evidence that it actually is. This dress might exist in various color schemes. That should be obvious... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:2A1F:5B01:CC4F:5B7A:350F:828B (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC News website claims so, here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-31656935 Best Regards: 92.52.229.238 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dress is available in other colours, none of which feature gold lace (as noted above) but the particular dress in question has been confirmed by various reliable sources to be blue and black: the original uploader of the photo on Tumblr has confirmed that this is the case after seeing the actual dress at the wedding for which it was purchased. A photo has been published of the actual dress at the wedding, looking unmistakably blue. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's obvious is that you're attacking a strawman and committing fallacy ad ignorantiam. There already was plenty of confirming evidence when you posted that. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are blue and gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.96.98.67 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant what the color is *in reality*? It's never relevant to the viewer in movies, where color grading is applied throughout to achieve visual and artistic consistency. The question is never "what is the color of this dress *in reality*", it's "what do you see?"! In movies we see what they intended us to see in post-processing. Here we see what the unintentional color grading (due to exposure/lighting) made the image into. If this section must be kept it should be dealt with more carefully, in this current state it adds to the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.140.152 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of what the color is in reality is self-evident. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense prevails by the power of Occam's razor.

nonsense/blogging

> Although it was confirmed that the dress actually was blue and black

This statement, currently contained in the article, is not possible, because black is not a colour, but the total lack of light reflection. If the dress actually had black stripes applied onto blue fabric as claimed, the digital camera sensor of the smartphone would have recorded an (almost) total lack of signal for those stripe lines, no matter what the colour temperature kelvin balance was in the environment at the time. That's because black fabric does not reflect.

However, many people see a silverly dress with golden stripings in the photo. If the camera recorded (almost) NIL signal for the stripes, as in black lace, than the brains of those people must have created a significant colour channel signal out of thin air, entirely nothing, to fill in the the place of black stripes. This is against Occam's razor, thus cannot be accepted as scientific fact!

Therefore, it is logically necessary that people who interpret the photo to show black stripes on a blue dress, are incorrect and the dress was objectively gold-on-white. Their brains drop an existing (gold) colour signal entirely and changes another colour channel (silver) into blue, for yet unknown psycho-physical reasons. This is possible, because loss or alteration of information in not against Shannon's theorem, but the creation of colour channel information out of black-body nothingness, is against Occam's law! QED.

At let me put the IQ 75 common sense part here: have you ever seen a dark blue with black lace themed wedding dress? Would the priest let the couple into the chapel on sight of such outfit? No and no, as it's more fitting for a funeral. On the other hand, wedding gown with white to silver base colour and with silver or gold coloured gaudy decorations is totally the norm in the western / european-rooted / graeco-roman-christian cultural tradition. Thus Occam's razor once again impresses the dress was not dark coloured!

Therefore, nothing requires Wikipedia to carry factually and theoretically impossible statements, even if they are referenced from the BBC website or a bull from Rome. 92.52.229.238 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the article or any of the sources? The dress was worn by the mother of the bride, not the bride herself, who did indeed wear a traditional style wedding gown. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does indeed look like the product of a 75 IQ. While most people will readily see the many mistakes, they may miss that this rant is completely mistaken about Occam's Razor, which is not a "law" and cannot alone rule anything out ... all it says is that, when the available evidence doesn't favor either of two theories, the one that is "simplest" in a particular sense (it has the fewest unexplained components) should be preferred. In this case, however, the available evidence strongly supports the view that this dress is black (a vernacular term which, for fabric coloring, refers to a very dark, usually bluish, dye) and blue. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What manufactured drama

nonsense/blogging

The images in Wired's article^[1] make it clear. Don't people realize these can be "photoshopped" to make them look different. I swear NBC showed me both the "black/blue" and "white/gold" images in the same news story (but not together at the same time) to try to trick me into thinking my eyes were tricking me. Of course the lighting conditions under which a photo is taken matter. Duh! Wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Science of Why No One Agrees on the Color of This Dress". Wired. Retrieved 27 February 2015.

Why only two options, blue and black, or white and gold?

To me, the picture in this article looks blue and gold. How come that isn't an option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.96.98.67 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there seems to be a minority who sees periwinkle and brown, it should be mentioned too! --94.223.127.116 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tattoo is notable?

is the tattoo is notable? thoughts?

some sources:

--Jeremyb (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I would say so, looking at the sources it's been covered in. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity camps

"The dress attracted the attention of celebrities; Taylor Swift, Jaden Smith, Frankie Muniz, Demi Lovato, Mindy Kaling, and Justin Bieber announced that they see the dress as blue and black, while Anna Kendrick, B.J. Novak, Senator Christopher Murphy, Julianne Moore, and Sarah Hyland saw it as white and gold. Kim Kardashian tweeted that she sees it as white and gold, while her husband Kanye West sees it as blue and black. Lucy Hale, Phoebe Tonkin, and Katie Nolan saw different colour schemes at different times. Lady Gaga described the dress as "periwinkle and sand," while David Duchovny called it teal. Other celebrities, including Ellen DeGeneres and Ariana Grande, mentioned the dress on social media without assigning it a colour."

This is trivia. Are these lists of celebrities thinking the dress was white/gold or blue/black really worthy of inclusion? (Does anyone care who thought what?) — Paul G (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping tabs on who saw what for its own sake isn't necessarily worthy of inclusion, but mentioning the involvement of famous individuals to exemplify how prominent the whole thing became would seem to be OK... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

This edit request to The dress (viral phenomenon) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Origin of the photograph: The photograph was taken by the Mother of the bride Cecilia Bleasdale and her partner Paul Jinks in a branch of Roman Originals at the retail park Cheshire Oaks.151.225.61.230 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a lot of duplicates

..."One theory focuses on the naming of colours as a possible explanation. The eye can differentiate between over 3 million colours but we only have names for 20 to 30 of them"... Hmmm. How did my crayon box ever get 72 of them?Gimelgort (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors:_A%E2%80%93F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7600:76:F483:7A98:E5AE:2EAB (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[wired-science-1] "The Science of Why No One Agrees on the Color of This Dress". Wired. Retrieved 27 February 2015.

[1]