Talk:The dress

Obvious non-scientific explanation

The picture is simply utterly badly shot, the dress is black and blue. Look at the background and you'll see, the "camera" simply messed up color temperature (and ISO, exposure time, aperture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.42.194 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

2017

Neither vox.com nor nytimes.com are scientific journals. There is no scientific explanation in this article, a neurologist's opinion isn't an explanation, neither is an empirical study to gather information about this phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.201.178 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Those messages were posted in the first few days (over two years ago)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would like to add that the white balance is turned WAY up on that photo, intentionally to decieve the eye. See the top right corner with the light brighter than a thousand suns. THis is not an accurate reproduction of 'the dress'. Its blue and black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.115.168 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

No it isn't, the question is not about the dress, it is about in general, it is about this specific photograph of the dress, which anybody can see is objectively gold and blue-grey via the simple act of zooming the browser in until only an isolated patch of one color is visible (you may need to cover a part of it with your thumb depending on how far in your browser can zoom) and then repeating the operation with a patch of the other color. At this point, with all irrelevant confounding cues removed, the true colors can be seen unambiguously.174.198.30.109 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, saying that this picture shows a blue and black dress because the original dress was blue and black is a little bit like saying that Frodo from Lord of the Rings was 5'6" because Elijah Wood, who played him, is 5'6"

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) 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) 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)

What manufactured drama

nonsense/blogging

The images in Wired's article 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) References

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)

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)

i see goldenrod and sky blue 103.217.156.158 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It is weird, the article confidently states black and blue, or gold and white. Yet, someone who's never heard of this before, land on this page, sees brown(ish) and powder blue(ish), and wonders what the hell is going on. -- 08:52, 19 March 2024 Local Potentate

Tattoo is notable?

is the tattoo is notable? thoughts?

some sources:

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/03/02/man-tattoo-the-dress-leg-texas/24266425/
• http://wtvr.com/2015/03/01/the-dress-tattoo/

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

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

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)

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)

The whole thing is notable solely for being a social phenomenon. Singling out any particular aspect as "trivial" is biased. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

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)

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)

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)

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)

Buzzfeed Ad Revenue

This line "Ben Fischer of the New York Business Journal noted that interest in the first BuzzFeed article about the dress exhibited vertical growth instead of the typical bell curve of a viral phenomenon, leading BuzzFeed to assign two editorial teams to generate additional articles about the dress in order to drive ad revenue" slightly mosquotes the linked to article (he states that the editorial teams were to "keep the clicks coming"; whilst that suggests that it was done to drive ad revenue, Buzzfeed's business model is not based on the traditional advertising one of display banners which are charged based on the number of views so this is a misunderstanding of their systems and model.

Source: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/21/how-does-buzzfeed-make-money.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.71.178 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cyan and sepia

Aside from every imaginable online color analysis tool, am I seriously the only person in the world who has always seen the dress as cyan and sepia? I look and I look and I look, but it never turns to either of those other color combinations for me. I would expect some kind of research on this, but, so far, nothing. How is this possible? Am I a robot? Someone please help me out here. Thanks.

Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.17.192 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot closer to what I see than "white and gold" or "blue and black". 2601:40D:4300:6F60:14C2:CC97:A7D2:CE37 (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I added a new topic below to indicate theat the RGB values do indeed use those colours, What needs clarification is that the Question was either "What Colours do you see?" answere being cyan and sepia, OR "What colours do you think the ORIGINAL dress is" answer depending on whether the person noticed the colour burnout or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.42.107 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Change from British to American spelling

"Colour" was changed everywhere to "color", which would seem to be against Wikipedia policies, especially since the topic has a UK origin. See links from WP:MOS... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Letter from mother of the bride and her partner

Below is a letter posted to my Talk page after I reverted an edit made to this article. I realized this letter is from the mother of the bride and her partner, who took the photograph. I have moved this letter here for all to read. As the reliable sources do actually agree with the facts stated in this letter and show that I was wrong to revert, I have ensured the article is as faithful to this letter as possible while still maintaining WP:verifiability to the sources. Prhartcom (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Prhartcom,

My name is Paul Jinks, on the 7th February 2015 Cecilia Bleasdale and myself took a photograph of a dress Cecilia planned to wear to her daughters wedding on the 21st February 2015 on the island of Colonsay.

The problem with this story is the 'reliable sources', the story originates from one person, Caitlin McNeill, who with her bandmates came across the photo at the wedding and saw an opportunity to try and make the image go viral.

Because Caitlin and her bandmates had nothing to do with the image and were not involved at the start of the argument over the colour of the dress and were not the first to post it online, they had to mislead the media over what had happened so they could enjoy the fame and take the credit for what had happened, so therefore reliable sources have become unreliable sources.

The science side of it, I can't argue about why people see black and blue or gold and white because I don't have the knowledge required.

What I do know is what caused it, I have read what scientists have said what may have caused it (sunlight or yellow light from the right of the dress), well they are just guessing so therefore cannot be classed as reliable. To the right of the dress is myself holding the dress and as Cecilia is shorter than me the top of the dress is chest high on me, even if there was sunlight or yellow light to the right of the dress (there wasn't by the way)I would have blocked it, in the uncropped image you can see my arm holding the dress, strange that my arm was cropped out isn't it.

We have in our possession the original image, the actual dress and jacket and the item that caused the illusion.

On this whole planet there are only two people who know exactly what happened, Cecilia Bleasdale who took the photograph and Paul Jinks who accidentally caused the illusion. We have never had the chance to tell the full story of what happened, Cecilia appeared on The Ellen show on 3rd March and told a brief version of the story.

Current Biology did ask Cecilia for permission to study the image, National Geographic show Brain Games have been in touch asking permission to do a piece about the image and to do some kind of promotion in Times Square New York, they have said they will credit both of us for the image.

So therefore the only reliable sources for this still ongoing story are Cecilia Bleasdale and Paul Jinks.

Thank you

Paul Jinks151.226.234.233 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2015

Hello I am new to this. I would like to add a reference at the bottom of this article. See below. Feel free to rearrange and edit to make it fit accepted format.

Page text.Buddhist blogger makes correlation between the Gold and White dress phenomenon and Buddha's teachings on the illusory nature of reality ,

Not done: Thank-you for your request. Although you provided a link to an interesting view (the gist of which is "whether a dress is white and gold or blue and black depends entirely on the mind!"), it is a link to a self-published blog which is not considered a reliable source and as well, you provided only the words "Page text" instead of the text of the edit you believe should be made. Prhartcom (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence at the end about the dress being featured in the shredder show is misleading

"SSI Shredding Systems Inc. based in Wilsonville, Oregon featured the dress in their weekly YouTube series Shred of the Week. 1 April 2015 episode features a woman wearing the blue and black dress, which is shredded and in the process turns white and gold." Makes it sound like the woman was shreded along with the dress, which I assume isn't the case. Can this be reworded? Every time I try it has the same problem for some reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.12.103 (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That section is pointless and should be removed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the dress phenomenon. It's just a company trying to get publicity for itself. If this is allowed, the company can say it shredded anything, then post on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia a serious encyclopaedia or an advertising channel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.175.228.200 (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph shouldn't have been here without a secondary source, otherwise, yes, advertisers could put up anything sourced to their own videos. I've cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The dress (viral phenomenon) → The dress (meme) – I originally moved the article to this title as a more concise, less pretentious alternative to the lengthy current title. For some reason unbeknownst to me, ToonLucas22 considered this title an NPOV violation and reverted. While I don't understand the logic for that in the slightest, this is now considered a "controversial" move and should be put through RM. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose it isn't a meme per se. True, memes have been created out of it, but it's more than the several memes it created. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment this article uses the wrong photo. It should be noted in the infobox that the photo used is not the one causing controversy. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blue and black. ONR (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Average RGB values of the Photo

I took the photo and tested the RGB values of the Photo itself. I think this information is Importiant enough to include in the article.

The lace has an Average RGB value of 95, 81, 46 (5F512E) The main Colour is Average RGB Value of 152,167,197 (98A7C5)

So, I think clarification is recuired by the question given to people about "What colour is the dress?"

Technically, the Photo itself shows brown and Blue/Grey.

However, if the question is "What do you THINK the ORIGINAL dress colour is?" then that is where mistakes can happen. Given this question, people must decide to state the photo colour, OR analise the photo, realise its Burned out and then compensate, this compensation brings all RGB values down and more in-line with Blue & Black.

Please can this be stated on the page to show that people are not actually colour blind, they just cant analise a photo in enopugh detail to "see" the original colour.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.42.107 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2016

Insert the following section at the end of the article:

---

Copyright

As the original author of the photograph which sparked the viral phenemona, Cecilia Bleasdale, and her partner Paul Jinks, later expressed frustration and regret at the lack of control they had over how the story unfolded, how their role in the discovery was omitted, and how the photograph was subsequently used by companies to promote their products. The couple hired a solicitor, and were considering taking action to protect their copyright in the image. In response, Buzzfeed asserted that a reader submitted the photo and that they "take the rights of intellectual property owners very seriously, and if there is any inadvertent issue or misuse, we will work swiftly to correct that."

At the beginning of the Response section:

---

Replace

"Later in the day, the image went viral worldwide across social media, including on Twitter, where"

with:

Later in the day, the dispute over the colour of the dress in the image became a viral phenomena after Buzzfeed wrote a story based on the Tumblr post, including the original photograph. The story generated 39 million hits. On Twitter, TD 678 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies that this has taken so long. It appears that this request has been Partly done: if there are other edits you would like to add or subtract, please initiate another request below. There is still quite a backlog, so thank you for being patient.  Be prosperous! Paine  19:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Credit the photographer in the photo caption?

Inasmuch as we are currently identifying the designer of the dress in the infobox photo caption, would it be reasonable to identify the photographer there, as well? I make no claim to a true policy hook for doing so as she is identified at the image file, but at the risk of making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, we do currently provide this caption courtesy to the photographer at tank man. This possibility occurred to me after participating at the recent image discussion at WP:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_1#File:The_Dress_.28viral_phenomenon.29.png which closed as Keep. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't credit anyone in any photo caption. Credits are in the file description. Prhartcom (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

But see, tank man, as per my example above. A weak otherstuff argument, yes, but a counter-example, nonetheless. And, I'm not saying it's a good idea to do so, it really just occurred to me because of that example. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

RGB Values again

Goldenrod
Color coordinates
Hex triplet	#DAA520
sRGBB (r, g, b)	(218, 165, 32)
HSV (h, s, v)	(43°, 85%, 85%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)	(71, 83, 58°)
Source	X11
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Light Steel Blue
Color coordinates
Hex triplet	#B0C4DE
sRGBB (r, g, b)	(176, 196, 222)
HSV (h, s, v)	(214°, 21%, 87%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)	(78, 26, 243°)
Source	X11
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Is there really no reliable source for the RGB values?? Quoting this student project: "The pixels in the image are yellow/brown (some areas are darker than others) and bluish grey. The color names that come closest are goldenrod and light steel blue." This is a fact that anyone with photo-editing software can verify. The question is how some people can subconsciously fix the white balance and overexposure to see the real colors, but nobody can argue that these are not the pixel values in the image. Vesal (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think RGB values should be added if possible. How do we know that the "confirmation" itself isn't wrong? I doubt the retailer has approached this matter scientifically. Xcalibur (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

RGB colors are inherently device-dependent. If the cloth manufacturer or dress-maker use a color system at all, it will be a device-independent one, such as Pantone. AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. But there's a complication, which is that the lighting in the image may have changed the appearance of the dress. In that case, there could be multiple right answers for what color it is, depending on how it looks in the image vs base colors. For example, let's suppose I took a white sheet of paper, shone a red light on it, then took and uploaded a picture of it. What would its color be? It would clearly be red from the red light, but it's a white sheet of paper (hopefully you follow what I'm saying). Assuming that's the case with the dress, it would've contributed to the difficult nature of this controversy. The article mentions overexposure and poor white balance -- maybe it could expand on the qualities of the photograph vs the actual garment, if there are sources. Xcalibur (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't matter what color the physical dress at the wedding was because IN THE PHOTOGRAPH it is objectively goldenrod and light steel blue174.198.30.109 (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

---

This is a constructed event by a media company. If the dress was shown under normal light 99.999% of individual would identify it as the same colors. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There were various people helping it to achieve greater prominence at various points, but there's no evidence that it was originally "manufactured". Anyone capable of "manufacturing" an image with this particular kind of ambiguity knew more about color science than color scientists themselves did at the time. AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this is an article on Wikipedia

This is a news/meem and has minimal encyclopedic value and only seeks to lower the precieved value of our other articles. This article should be proposed for deletion. Wikipedia does not index meems. Shame on every editor that added to this article. This event has clearly been manufactured as click bait to increase advertising. The dress was taken in two different photos under different light to appear as different colors. Wikipedia should not be reporting on attention seeking media constructs. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

We operate under the rule of notability. The topic received non-trivial coverage by a large number of reliable sources, which means that, not withstanding arguments by other users, it is appropriate subject matter for Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

See my comment of "12:25, 21 August 2016" above... AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The dress (viral phenomenon) → The dress – per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The internet phenomenon is simply The dress (lowercase d) while the movies are titled The Dress (capital d), so per small details, Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings. Also, the internet phenomenon has 3,032 views per day, the 1961 film has 1 per day, and the 1996 film has 4 per day, with the disambiguation page having 5 views per day. The internet phenomenon is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A hatnote should solve confusion. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 03:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just redirect "The dress" to this page, and add hatnote to disambig page on this page? AnonMoos (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – AnonMoos, I would support a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT as an alternative option :) ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 16:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support a la iron maiden. Unreal7 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Normally I'd be concerned that we would be inconveniencing people looking for "The Dress" (with capitals) by doing this, but there's no other contender for "the dress", caps or not, that readers are going to want to find anyway. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT setup, not the title change. — JFG ^talk 23:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? What's accomplished by pointing The dress to The dress (viral phenomenon) instead of moving it? It's the same thing, since you're acknowledging there's a primary topic, but you want a disambiguator in the title? Nohomersryan (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Because this may be the most prominent entity named "the dress"/"The Dress", but when you hear the phrase "the dress" you don't necessarily automatically think of this... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Isn't that what a primary topic is, though? I can't think of any times there's been a primary undisambiguated redirect to a primary topic that's still disambiguated. It just seems counterintuitive. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at Thriller album or Twilight (novel). — JFG ^talk 07:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seriously?

Why the hell is there an entire article this detailed and spelt out just for some fad-of-the-week thing that people are barely going to remember 20 years from now? This is honestly really unnecessary, and I get that I'm being crude about this but I really mean this as a legitimate criticism. Jpmcruiser (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the photograph "revealed differences in human colour perception which have been the subject of ongoing scientific investigation in neuroscience and vision science, with a number of papers published in peer-reviewed science journals". The different reactions to this photograph were a popular demonstration of a 'serious' psychological phenomenon. (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It achieved at least as much publicity as Hampster Dance or Mahir Çagri, and has far more scientific relevance... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Jpmcruiser, please read WP:N and WP:RS. Someone who has been around as long as you should have read these policies by now. When a topic has received this much coverage in reliable sources, it meets the General Notability Guideline and it belongs in the encyclopedia, no matter what your personal opinion is. —Prhartcom♥ 17:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand the nature of how what I'm saying comes across as but I really feel like an overabundance of detail in articles such as these can be something that would lead to the triviality of information as a whole in the long run, and therefore this website too. For example, if one without any context of this event discovered this article in the future, the amount of significance it had on our world could easily be misperceived. Many years from now when things such as this exist it could potentially leave a faulty document on the current time. I'm not asking or expecting anything to be changed (as there is obviously nothing wrong with this by the site's standards) but I really feel that things such as this are not beneficial to our world in the long run. Also Blurryman I definitely get that, and you are correct, that is enough relevance for sure, though I still believe that this article is excessively detailed.

All of this said, though, what I am saying with this is in itself trivial (at least with this context) and so I hope that this doesn't get perceived as something that I am taking to an extreme degree, I really am only saying anything at all since I have the ability to say something.Jpmcruiser (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You are still stating your personal opinion. Your opinion does not matter. Neither does mine, nor anyone else's who contributes. It's a difficult lesson for some to grasp. All that matters is policy. Try volunteering for awhile at WP:AFD and you'll better understand what belongs and what does not belong in the encyclopedia. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 14:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the page "List of individual dresses", the first one that came to mind was this one. SO still a thing after 8 years. Local Potentate (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

UK College of Optometrists lead the simple but scientifically correct explanation of the dress

Associated press globally reported the scientific explanation of the UK College of Optometrists, the explanation written by their scientific adviser Daniel Hardiman-McCartney was published in over 20 countries and in numerous languages including Arabic, Chinese, French, Greek, Russian and Spanish and became the most widely reported scientific explanation released on the 27th February. The explanation was given by the College of optometrists on BBC news 24 and BBC world service. The explanation can be read at http://www.college-optometrists.org/en/college/blogs.cfm/id/4A03FA60-5553-4ED3-9574B94CFA7432B7

Some of the associated news reports from the associated press global news wire: http://www.canadianinquirer.net/2015/03/02/eye-of-the-beholder-in-rare-photo-some-see-dress-as-black-and-blue-others-as-gold-and-white/ http://www.chinanews.com/gj/2015/02-28/7088010.shtml http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/378535.htm http://www.thehindu.com/trending/debate-rages-over-colour-of-dress-photographed-in-rare-light/article6944225.ece http://www.seattletimes.com/news/debate-rages-over-dress-photographed-in-rare-light/ http://newsrack.royalgazette.com/doc/newspaper/2b631e015d/?type=royal_gazette http://www.lacapital.com.ar/un-vestido-bicolor-causo-un-debate-global-las-redes-sociales-n487682.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.232.58 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2015/02/27/worldwide-cry-goes-up-over-dress-hues.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2972466/Debates-rage-color-dress-photographed-rare-light.html https://themuslimtimes.info/2015/03/02/the-world-is-on-fire-who-cares-its-the-dress-color-that-matters/ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/thedress-debate-rages-over-color-of-dress-photographed-in-rare-light/articleshow/46404527.cms http://ktla.com/2015/02/27/blue-and-black-or-white-and-gold-the-science-behind-internet-dress-debate-explained/ http://frontend-eldia.testing.unlp.edu.ar/informacion-general/el-vestido-que-divide-al-mundo-y-revoluciona-las-redes-sociales-39315 http://www.thehindu.com/trending/debate-rages-over-colour-of-dress-photographed-in-rare-light/article6944225.ece http://www.breitbart.com/news/debate-rages-over-color-of-dress-photographed-in-rare-light/ http://saintpetersblog.com/tag/apolitical/page/4/ http://www.pressreader.com/kuwait/kuwait-times/20150301/281526519511359 https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/105901/just-when-you-thought-you-were-sick-of-that-dress/ http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2015/02/27/worldwide-cry-goes-up-over-dress-hues.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.232.58 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Illustration of the effect

Because there's been some back and forth regarding the illustration created by Jahobr (edits 779275962, 780025729, 780090520, 781987638, and 782151540), I thought it would be useful to mention this in the talk page, as well as the brief discussion at User talk:Godsy#The dress. Hopefully the matter is settled for now. --Waldir ^talk 14:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The dress. 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/20150509045154/http://www.visionscience.com/pipermail/visionlist/2015/008364.html to http://www.visionscience.com/pipermail/visionlist/2015/008364.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The dress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

1a "Color" is used here and there in an article otherwise written in British English. Per WP:LQ, place punctuation outside of quotes. 1b Some repetition in lede. In first sentence, a "photo" becomes a "picture"- why not a "photograph" becomes a "meme"? The black-blue vs. white-gold explanation is repeated in first and second paras.

• Done

Verifiable with no original research

2a Thoroughly referenced, to generally fine sources. 2b No mention of a US Senator Christopher Murphy in cited MTV ref. The sentence about Knox and its reference in Scientific explanations should be moved after Conway and Neitz analysis, because the Knox reference doesn't support the first sentence of Scientific explanations section.

• Found sources for Chris Murphy's tweet, but removed per WP:DUE.

2c. Surprisingly free of OR 2d. Checks free of copyvios.

Broad in its coverage:

3a. Fairly broad coverage. Covers the history/meme/science aspects. 3b. Llamas seem a bit off-topic at first, but they're explained more later

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. I'm a little peeved the intro declares it's black and blue when clearly there's no black in that dress ;) But, whatever. Perhaps add "humorously" to the existential crisis bit in the Initial spread section. In Overnight popularity, it should also be noted the "Politicians, government agencies" comments were tongue-in-cheek. The beamled ref in Scientific explanations is a store's promotional website, and the point it's supporting isn't entirely relevant, so you can just delete that.

• Done

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

5. Aside from anon incompetence/petty vandalism, no edit wars affecting stability.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Images are free, with one attributed fair use. @Ribbet32: issues addressed. feminist 10:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your quick response. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reason for removal

[1] Poorly sourced trivia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong values in the Current Biology citation

Here are the values listed by the actual reference given to Current Biology: "Overall, 57% of subjects described the dress as blue/black (B/K); 30% as white/gold (W/G); 11% as blue/ brown (B/B); and 2% as something else." Source : https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00535-7.pdf

The values given in the article (Quote : "The study, which involved 1,400 respondents, found that 57% saw the dress as blue and black; 30% saw it as white and gold; 10% saw it as blue and brown; and 10% could switch between any of the colour combinations") add up to 107%, which makes no sense and is at odds with the scientific reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonsieurD (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Article needs correction, but is locked down.

In the introductory paragraph, it states the dress is white and blue, however the articles it cites confirm the dress was black and blue. This needs to be corrected, however this seems like a semi-protected page and I cannot.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplySage (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Computer Monitor Color, Brightness and Contrast Calibration

I believe it is in principle possible to create a viral non-convergence of opinion on the color of the dress solely on the basis that the majority of the population is more willing to value sharing their opinion than to value calibrating their monitors and the illumination conditions in the environment where these monitors are being used. The arguments go on endlessly because there is no guarantee that any pair of opinion sharers are looking at the same set of colors on their uncalibrated monitors. Yet both assume they are looking at exactly the same thing.

Hopefully this is listed as a possible confounding effect in the various scientific explanations that have been offered. I have not followed up on any of these.

I think that the general lack of monitor calibration discipline should be mentioned alongside the scientific explanations both as a possible primary effect and as a possible confounding effect with some or all of the scientific explanations.

One talk commenter suggested that pixel level inspection of the RGB values in the photograph would allow the arguments to converge. Aside from the minority that would be psychologically prone to use their slow "System 2" processes and take the trouble to extract this data which will manifestly not suffer from lack of calibration bias, unfortunately this could serve more to reveal this issue than to solve it. Revealing it would be an important first step in this minority population. However, how to leverage that to the point where can play a role in converging on a narrower color range remains challenging.

I was surprised to find that this was missing.

Since the article represents a controversial topic, rather than attempting to add it myself, I thought I would ask first.

What's the best way to proceed? MarkFrautschi (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The way to test if this is important would be to see if people looking at the same monitor can have different perceptions. However, if no one has done this, then it would be "original research" to include it on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

No citation for one off white and gold

There is a para that states the original manufacturer produced a one off in white and gold but there is no citation. Since the article is locked, could someone with write access please add a citation needed tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.214.15.31 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

CN added by the same IP on 16 May, and sourced by user:Aegiscake70a on 22 May Meters (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I already did add a citation for the one off white and gold dress https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/the-dress-special-edition-made-in-gold-for-comic-relief-charity-auction-10085484.html Aegiscake70a (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Science?

I am confused as to the science here. Why is it I see the colours wrong on this dress only, but I see them right on everything else?188.172.108.164 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Read the section "Scientific explanations" Meters (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead image file

@Explicit: Can you help me understand why you reverted the JPG to the previous PNG image? The JPG is better because:

1. The image is photographic in nature. Per WP:PIFU, such images should be uploaded as JPG. It was in JPG when originally uploaded to Tumblr as well.
2. The PNG version is cropped at the bottom. This was done in the name of WP:NFCCP, but with the subject here being the photograph itself, presenting a modified version would be disingenuous (and could potentially impact the illusion). There is no precedent to do this. Copyrighted fine art (e.g. Number 17A, Interchange (de Kooning), Drowning Girl, etc.) is not cropped.

TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Language

Please Translate this page to persian 188.212.235.173 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. We don't translate articles to other languages. You can probably ask for atranslation on the Persian Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

States origin was a Roman Originals dress in designer outlet in Cheshire Oaks - this is an error. It was the Roman Originals shop in the Designer Outlet the Freeport in Fleetwood - now known as Affinity Lancashire Outlet. 2A00:23C6:F38F:3101:74D9:BC93:DCE2:A9EA (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Synthetic Equivalents of #TheDress

I guess the statement "No synthetic stimuli have been constructed that are able to replicate the effect as clearly as the original image." might not correct anymore after we provided an algorithm to create such synthetic stimuli: Witzel, C., & Toscani, M. (2020). How to make a #theDress. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 37(4), A202-A211. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.381311

And by the way, you may find a rather exhaustive, yet succinct review on the explanation of #TheDress in: Witzel, C., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2018). Color Perception: Objects, Constancy, and Categories. Annual Review of Vision Science, 4(1), 475-499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-091517-034231 Christophwitzel (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Citations

I'm concerned that this article doesn't cite any sources. I'll try to add some but at the moment I don't have time. WiinterU (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There are 54 sources currently cited. What are you referring to? MartinezMD (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

lead

Seems a little weird that we don't state the actual, verified colour of the dress – royal blue – in the article's lead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

"The researchers further found that if the dress was shown in artificial yellow-coloured lighting almost all respondents saw the dress as black and blue, while they saw it as white and gold if the simulated lighting had a blue bias"

This line, read in the context of whole paragraph, is inferred to be sourced from 1 singular study, when many individual studies were conducted and published together.

This line is directly sourcing "Winkler, Alissa D.; Spillmann, Lothar; Werner, John S.; Webster, Michael A. (29 June 2015). "Asymmetries in blue–yellow colour perception and in the colour of 'the dress'". Current Biology. 25 (13): R547–R548. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.004. PMC 4489998. PMID 25981792."

Other citations are mentioned for the same line, but this sentence is taken directly from the study above. Other studies cited on this line have no mention of "blue bias," that is specific to the study above.

Please remove extraneous citations for this line specifically, and keep the one above remaining.

Please restructure paragraph for clarity on the individual studies. Emzra (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Article download properties

Is there a reason that the pdf download capability is not offered fro theis article? 2600:1004:B0C1:C35B:9958:F6C3:7766:C29B (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

did anybody try to measure the dress using any objective tools?

it seems like, if we are going to consider this a scientific issue (and not just something 14 scientists jumped on to ride it's popularity) we should know some of the most basic facts about it, like the results of any measurements. the fact that some people said "oh its gold" only shows that either it is in that wavelength, or not. when you put it on a computer screen, the computer KNOWS which combination of lights are being activated in which proportions. 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:DCB8:E504:3EF3:EFC2 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

this is just downright misleading, at best. i could ask millions of people questions about the tide but that doesnt mean ive studied the tides, especially if i cannot even be bothered to TAKE ANY MEASUREMENTS OF THE TIDE 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:DCB8:E504:3EF3:EFC2 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually read the article. There is no issue with the actual colour of the dress. This is about "human colour perception" when viewing images of the dress. Meters (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

where does it say "actual colour of the dress" in the article? Or anything like that? 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:FDA7:A8AB:8AA3:3AA6 (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Human color vision is strongly based on contexts and contrasts, as has been known for many decades, ever since Edwin Land's "retinex" research. An RGB color on a computer screen (note, the RGB color system is not even "device-independent") could correspond to various colors as perceived by humans. AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

So we should totally ignore the objective evidence we do have because people view it subjectively...? 208.98.223.82 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Read the article. Again, This is about "human colour perception" when viewing images of the dress. People interpret the colour of the image differently. Meters (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And it's not about the objective colour of the image, it's about what people perceive. Meters (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The groom tried to murder his wife?

I'm not gonna give The Times any clicks ever since they deadnamed Brianna Ghey, but they reported that the groom behind the dress appeared in court for attempting to murder his wife. Is this WP:DUE at all? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Leave it out. This is about the the dress, not the personal lives of the couple. Meters (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This was added to the "Legacy" section of the article a few days after the above, by user:Popcornfud, and just removed today by user:ZimZalaBim. I agree with the removal. The article should not be used as a coatrack to include personal information about the lives of the various people. Whether they divorced, or had kids, or committed crimes, or lived happily ever after is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article, and it certainly is not "legacy". Meters (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Added to (and removed from) "Legacy" section again today. Meters (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The dress was used in a campaign against domestic violence (albeit in another country), which would seem to make the case more relevant. --Jameboy (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think one problem here is that the section is called "Legacy", which is inviting WP:OR about what the Real Meaning of the incident was, such that non-Legacy events can be excluded. This is problematic: for example, in my opinion, Bleasdale and Paul Jinks expressing frustration does not count as "Legacy". The section should be be called something more general like "Later events"; then any aspect that has been reported in multiple WP:RS is fair game and a one-sentence mention of such is not WP:UNDUE. There are readers who are only interested in, say, the vision-science aspect, who can skip over the Ellen appearance and the assault risk. Other readers may differ. The only policy reason I can see for possibly not giving the conviction information would be WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which I interpret would have applied while he was charged but not once he pleaded guilty. Milkshake Duck#Notable instances includes somewhat analogous cases where an unflattering follow-up is included in the relevant Wikipedia article. If the negative comes to light to far after the original, it's not so much a widespread backlash, but it's still being linked back to the original by news media. We're not trawling through the Colonsay Newsletter looking for a drunk-and-disorderly conviction; the jail sentence is a story that's been picked up internationally. (Jameboy's point would at present be WP:SYN but some RS may make the same point.) jnestorius^(talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Up to you to get consensus to include it. I don't see it. This article is about the dress and the visual phenomenon, The activities of someone else who attended the wedding are irrelevant. Meters (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I count six users who have interacted on the issue: Popcornfud and Jnestorius in favour, Meters and ZimZalaBim opposed, LilianaUwU and Jameboy in between. Not much consensus in either direction. jnestorius^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I still think it's fair game and notable for the article subject. Popcornfud (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

italic title?

should we? 48JCL TALK 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? It's not a book title, or anything similar. AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible source

Adam Rogers, briefly mentioned in the article, wrote a book "Full Spectrum: How the Science of Color Made Us Modern" with a chapter and a half on the results of Dress-related research down to 2020 or early 2021... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2024

I also suggest adding our review article in the renowned Annual Review of Vision Science as a second review besides Martín-Moro and coleagues [31], as in "There is no consensus on why the dress elicits such discordant perceptions.[31-32]"

The below reference would need to be added as [32]: Witzel, C., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2018). Color Perception: Objects, Constancy, and Categories. Annual Review of Vision Science, 4(1), 475-499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-091517-034231

Section "3.3 #TheDress" features a representative review of #TheDress ar part of broader section 3 on "Color Constancy". Christophwitzel (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.You posted this link to the talk page two years ago. No-one has chosen to add it since then, so it would appear that there is no consensus to add it. It also appears that you are suggesting that your own paper be used as a reference. If so it would be a good idea for you to actually state that when discussing this. Meters (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Meters. Thank you very much. I admit I am a bit lost about how to contribute to Wikipedia. A colleague of mine suggested in 2022 I should edit this entry as it obviously misses important points from my work, and I have unsuccessfully tried that. A formal problem with this entry is that the scientific section relies on rather confusingly combined temporary opinions (i.e., which have changed over time) of selected scientists instead of representing the state-of-the-art in the scientific literature. An obvious logical problem is that the entry mixes up the question about ambiguity (which is solved with pretty wide consensus across labs, see my review) and the question about individual differences in resolving the ambiguity (which is still open). As this has been the first time to engage with Wikipeedia edits, I felt for a start I could try to refer to a (my) review that clearly makes that point and include my 2020-study that creates new versions of #TheDress based on the underlying principles. I had also started to write something more substantial; but I don't seem able to even contribute minor changes. It seems a bit of a closed-up Wiki-Universe. Should I just stop tying? Christophwitzel (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Christophwitzel -- It's not personally your fault, but people adding their own writings or research to Wikipedia articles often automatically causes a lot of skepticism due to "conflict of interest" policies. It would actually avoid some difficulties if you could link to a reputable scholar or authority evaluating your work, rather than linking directly to your own papers. AnonMoos (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@AnonMoos@Meters Thanks a lot for the clarifications. I appreciate both of your efforts! Christophwitzel (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

---

The dress → The Dress (meme) – The idea that this article was moved to the current place per WP:DIFFCAPS is flummoxing to me, since media call it both "The dress" and "The Dress" (even numerous sources used in this article), and there is no clear distinction that would allow for it to be a primary topic. The dress should simply be redirected to The Dress. As the article says, "The image became a worldwide Internet meme across social media", so I think (meme) is a valid disambiguation given that the entire phenomenon is centered around the optical illusion created by the image itself. However, I can also support (viral phenomenon) or (Internet phenomenon). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Whether capitalized or not, this is the overwhelming primary topic with well over 99% of pageviews, several thousand per day. Station1 (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Station1 that this is a case of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Meters (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment In the event that this move fails, I'd argue that The Dress should point here, as I also don't see a good DIFFCAPS argument. 162 etc. (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Station1. I'm not super satisfied with the current title but I can't think of a better one, and I don't think adding (meme) or (viral phenomenon) would help disambiguate. 〜 Askarion ✉ 00:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

Change: "The phenomenon originated in a photograph of a dress posted on the social networking service Facebook. The dress was black and blue, but the conditions of the photograph caused many to perceive it as white and gold, creating debate. Within a week, more than ten million tweets had mentioned the dress. The retailer of the dress, Roman Originals, reported a surge in sales and produced a one-off version in white and gold sold for charity."

To: "The phenomenon originated in a photograph of a dress posted on the social networking service Facebook. The dress was black and blue, but the lighting conditions in the photograph make it appear gold and a bright, almost white, blue. Some people's brains automatically adjust the brightness, making the dress appear blue and black, which led to the debate. Within a week, more than ten million tweets had mentioned the dress. The retailer of the dress, Roman Originals, reported a surge in sales and produced a one-off version in white and gold sold for charity."

Description: This change clarifies that the lighting conditions of the photograph make the dress appear gold and a bright (almost white) blue. This can be verified by checking the pixels of the image. No one is technically wrong—it’s just that people who see the dress's real colors (blue and black) are compensating for the excess light that makes the image appear gold and white." SmallShyly (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Not without consensus, and I don't think this is an improvement. Meters (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)