Talk:Crayola

Crayola Factory

I think the National Canal Museum should be mentioned, at least in passing, because it is in the same builidng (not just same city) and you get access to both when you pay for one. Jonmark22 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than proximity, The National Canal Museum doesn't really have anything to do with Crayola and a mention would be off-topic for this article. Some editors might also view it as advertising. Copana2002 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize they were in the same building when I made the edit, but it is still irrelevant. In an article about some organization in the Empire State Building, we surely wouldn't note all the dozens of other unrelated organizations located in the same building. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm no Crayola expert, so I didn't want to do a change on this one, but the following unsourced statement seems like vandalism to me, given the previous mention of the naming origin: "The company actually takes its name form Creon, the tragic king from the famous play by Sophocles." Is this right? If so, it should be referenced (to be clear, not referenced to Sophocles, but referenced to something showing that is why B&S/Hallmark changed the name.) Quine (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

16 count box

The article covers when all the boxes debuted, except for the 16 count box. When did it start?76.177.174.82 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Redesign

I have deleted around half of this article and replaced it with two tables listing colors historically and alphabetically. I also added a nice photo of the crayons in a 24 pack. User:GPHemsley has noted it and I hope he likes the new content. --George Hernandez 20:42:47, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

I do like the work you've done, but I also have some constructive criticism. You seem to have put a lot of time into what you've done, and I appreciate that, but I wonder if you could change the HTML table code into Wikipedia table code? I know there are some convertors on the Internet, but I don't have any links offhand. Also, I'm wondering if the detail of your table(s) are worth being in separate articles about each specific box/set, with simpler, text-only lists of the current colors and the retired colors. Also, the footnoting (and similar) could use some work. Other than that, I think it's great! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Edited table to show a number (132) that was missing because it had its colour set to white. I'm not sure that the table could be ported to Wiki code, because of the colour information, and because of the rowspan=2 section -- Lardarse 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All of that information about the table can be presented in Wiki code, so I'd say go for it, if you feel like it. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Color of "Dandelion"

I think I recall that "Dandelion" is almost if not exactly the same color as "Orange Yellow". Can anyone confirm this? —Bkell 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they are similar but not the same color. Dandelion is just a bit darker in both it's apparent color (what it looks like before coloring) and it's lay down color (the color it looks like when colored on paper). Dandelion was introduced back in 1990 and in some of the larger 120 or 200ct packages of Crayola, you could actually find both crayons. Though you will not find Orange Yellow these days, it is not a retired color nor has it been renamed either. Ed - 13:37, 11 November 2005

Orange yellow is not the same as Dandelion. It was, however, retired in 1990. And, although Dandelion replaced Maize when the latter was retired that same year, they are not the same color, either. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you are right about Orange Yellow...I was looking at Yellow Orange when I made that comment about not being retired...oops! Maize has been around since 1958 when they renamed "Gold Ochre". Gold Ochre goes clear back to the original 1903/04 lineup. Ed 13:56, 11 November 2005

HEX / RGB values

Would someone care to elaborate on the HEX/RGB values given. I'd like to know how were they arrived at (scanned and colourpicked, or held up to the screen, using a colorometer) what was the process in deciding them etc. ?

• My opinion is that the hex values are bunk, since crayon colors are not meant for screen display. I'm getting rid of them. --Dystopos 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Color Chronology

I'd love to chat with whomever created this color chronology. I think I could probably authenticate much of this and also give you the real story as I have virtually all the crayons going back to 1903. Unfortunately, I'm probably not technical enough to put this out here in the right format. But as to colors, there's a lot missing here. For example, where is "Madder Lake"? It was an original color that survived until 1935 when it changed to "Dark Red" which also seemed to disappear completely by 1958 with the introduction of the 64ct box. The color chronology in this document is just an expanded look of the ones that Binney & Smith provide on their web page. All references listed in this document ultimately trace back to the same source. But, there is actually a much larger, much more complex picture of the history of colors. For example, "Flesh" actually started out as "Flesh Tint" probably as early as 1905 and didn't get changed to "Flesh" until 1949. In 1957 it was changed to "Pink Beige" temporarily. It quickly went back to "Flesh" and then ultimately got changed to "Peach" in 1962. All the while, there is definitely variation to both the apparent and lay down colors for this crayon over the years. Here's another little color trivia: "Goldenrod" started out as "GOLDEN ROD" but the flower it is named after is all one word. They quickly changed the name to a single word and thus made the two word crayon an instant rarity that can be found only in certain boxes. Oh, and by the way, Goldenrod was just a rename of "Medium Yellow" back in 1958 anyway. "Medium Yellow" was sometimes referred to as "Chrome Yellow, Medium" in the early days. The color goes back to the original line from 1903/04. I could go on and on. ed - 13:33 11 November 2005.

• Ed. If you can provide this story with reference to specific packages and dates, then I'd be happy to incorporate it into the article. Without the references, it fails to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and we'd need to rely on some other source, such as a published chronology. For what it's worth, if you developed your research into a general interest article, I bet you wouldn't have a hard time getting it published. --Dystopos 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can put together an article. My references would be a mix of actual physical boxes, archive material from the National Archives (there is a large Binney & Smith collection of documents there), catalogs, price lists, dated magazine advertisements. Documenting the true chronology of their colors through time is a large and difficult task and even though I can piece together that chronology through these reference materials, some of the chronology is only as accurate as the material and logical deduction can make it. For example, I may show longer timelines for a particular color because nothing is available between the years of say 1911 and 1917 to validate a shorter timeline. I'll start some work on this article. ed - 20:14 3 May 2006

• Ed, I would love to see your color chronology be put up here in the near future. I am now thinking of seeing it here.

WikiPro81 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merges

Merge Crayola 64 because it contains no information not already in this article.

weak merge Magic Scents Crayons. --Quiddity 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline: Packaging founded on Gold Medal from 1900 or 1904?

The 1904 entry says that their chalk won a Gold Medal at the 1904 St. Louis Worlds Fair. It goes on to say that this Medal was the foundation for their Gold Medal packaging.

However, the 1900 entry states that their carbon black won a Gold Medal at the Paris Exposition.

Could it be that the 1900 Medal was the foundation for their packaging, and that the packaging does indeed date back to 1903? If not, is there any record of the original packaging? It'd be nice to resolve the contradiction noted in the 1904 entry.

--David Laurence Emerson, 28 March 2006

Actually, this can be resolved easily. Look closely at the medal on any vintage Crayola box. It has 1904 in roman numerals right on the medal. There are historical websites out there that have a picture of the gold medal too. Also, each gold medal they won (yes, they won more than those two) were photo'd and featured on the inside cover of many of their price lists and catalogs. The Smithsonian has many of these available for research at the National Archives. And finally, each medal is unique; containing different designs on it. Only the St. Louis Worlds Fair Gold Medal has an Eagle on one side and the two greek looking people on the other.

--User:Ed Welter, 3 May 2006

Crayons vs. Markers

Anyone able to expand this article so that it includes marker-related info as well?? Georgia guy 17:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine Art from Crayon

We might be able to aded this to the article: apparently there is an artist from Minnesota who makes fine art landscapes, and portraits entirely from crayola crayons from a techinque he designed. His works are amazing considering the medium. Don Marco's website Zidel333 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an artist from Canada who makes fine art entirely with Crayola crayons. I recently had one of my pieces showing in the Canadian emabassy and just finished an art exhibit in a fine art gallery. Could my work perhaps be considered for use in this article? Here is a link to my work and the show that happened in the gallery. http://asaisart.com/Alan/alan_neufeld.htm Alan Neufeld 22:42 Jan 13/2007

Colors

Can someone please add more colors to that visual color chart? Bold text

Article scope

Crayola makes a lot more than just crayons (and markers). I guess it's still fairly new, but Crayola is selling some stuff they call Model Magic (circle R), modeling material. I'd like to find out what part of it's composition causes the curiously unique consistency (clay and play-dough like, but different), but I wouldn't be surprised to find it's an industry secret. Xaxafrad 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Made Timeline section into Seperate Article

FYI, I felt the Timeline section, while extensive, was too large to still be in the main article, considering the history section is so thorough. So, I moved the Timeline to its own seperate article Timeline of Crayola. It is linked in the main article, but it needs a lead, and the Timeline itself needs sources. Any help is appreciated. Zidel333 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What do the brackets mean?

From the article:

In general, though, the most common packages are multiples of eight: 8, 16, 24, 32, (40), 48, (56), 64, 72, 80, (88), 96, (104), (112), and 120 packs.

There is no explanation as to why some of the numbers are in brackets. Someone who knows, please provide one. (If it's because those number packs don't exist, then remove the numbers from the list entirely.) Loganberry (Talk) 19:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. It appears they might just be holes in the "multiple of eight" scheme, in which case they should be removed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed all numbers that I couldn't find a link to buy it. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is incorrect

Crayon says what Crayola's own website says, which is that Crayola crayons are made of paraffin wax and pigment. But this article implies they are made from chalk unlike "the crayons that had existed previously [which] were made from wax". CGameProgrammer (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article

I've been working on this page a lot recently, and would like to nominate for Good Article status. If anyone else who follows this sees this, please let me know if you see any problems or fix them yourself. There is an open issue with the image of the US stamp, so I'd like to wait until that's resolved, but either way I think we might have a chance. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, i"ve reading about this and it sounds like it might be a protracted process, so I'm going to go ahead and nominate now. -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many edits?

No offense, but it seems like this article is edited too many times and too often by the same person. He now has almost all the edits on the first history page. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? So now actively working on an article in the context of trying to get it promoted to a good or featured article is now frowned upon? -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actively, and intensively working on an article is admirable, the comment by Purplebackpack89, is uncalled for and close to contravening WP:Civility. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it is edited over and over every day...50+ in the last few days...if I remember right, isn't there a couple of rules that say you shouldn't edit the same article many times within the same day? I'm okay with the article being intensely changed, just would rather it all be in one fell swoop, so that we are able to easily access versions of the article by other users Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no such rule. Are you confusing this with WP:3RR? This article is currently a FAC and many edits in a short time is common for candidates. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When I work on an article I do prefer to make more major edits than lots of little ones, but Dougie has done a fantastic job on the article so far! You're on your way to FA/GA, and here's a tip: rather than having Timeline of Crayola as a separate article, you should convert it into paragraph form and merge it back into the main article in the History section. Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Asbestos in Crayolas?

The following is currently on the discussion page of List of Crayola crayon colors article.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/052300-02.htm

Published on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Major Brands of Kids' Crayons Contain Asbestos, Tests Show

by Andrew Schneider and Carol Smith

Three major brands of crayons -- scribbled with and nibbled on by millions of children worldwide -- contain asbestos, tests conducted for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer show.

Eight brands were examined -- four domestic and four manufactured overseas. Analysis of three brands -- Crayola, Prang and Rose Art -- by two government-certified laboratories repeatedly showed the crayons contained asbestos.

Of the 40 crayons tested from the brands that had asbestos, 80 percent of them were contaminated above the trace level.

See also

http://www.crayola.com/safety/faq.cfm

Which contains Crayola's quite concerned admission that Yes, crayolas have asbestos in them -- but it's 30 time less than the EPA standards for asbestos hazard.

As background, that seems to mean that if a box of 64 crayolas burns in a fire, then the smoke will release 64 x 1/30 = 2.1 times the hazardous amount of asbestos. Now, we can't include that in the article, since it's Original Research, but it gives an idea of the magnitude of possible risk.

Can someone find out if the Crayola corporation has announced publicly -- that is, in a source that has Wiki reliability -- that it has REMOVED the asbestos?

Timothy Perper (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more discussion at Talk: Crayon of this issue. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lee's Art Store

...should not be mentioned in a caption. It's essentially an advertisement. Full stop. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not an advertisement, just a description of the image. I took the image myself and am not affiliated with that store in any way, I've only been there twice, once to get this photo. I'm going to revert then put in a request for comments to get a consensus. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Crayola products caption

Is placing a photo of Crayola products displayed in a retail store (with a mention of where it was taken) in Crayola#Other_products an advertisement under WP:ADVERT policy? I took this photo myself, am not affiliated with the store and think the caption is appropriate as it describes the photograph shown. There are no links or spam to the store. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The photo seems nice, only problem I see is the caption. I've edited it so that the caption doesn't name the shop. PaleAqua (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The photo's OK, but regardless of whether or not you intended to promote, the store name needs to be omitted because it reads like an advertisement if it's there Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How can I make a "zoom in" to a jeg a reference?

I would like to make a reference link to a "zoom in" of the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1913_Crayola_Price_List.jpg so that the prices of the Crayola crayon boxes can be seen. Kurt Baty (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)