Talk:List of Crayola crayon colors/Archive 1

Historical Colors list?
What happened to the historical list? I see it was removed, but no comment, and by a non-signed in user. Upon further investigation, looks like it was removed by a vandal. I'm reinstating the section. It may need to be checked for accuracy, but it was an interesting look at how the color set we have today evolved.

Burnt Umber
Didn't "Burnt Umber" used to be a color? I see that now there is a Burnt Orange and Raw Umber. This is exactly why it would be good to have Historical Colors. Cranky1000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

--Mraiford (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "BURNT UMBER" and "Burnt Umber" are both noted to exist. source: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/DonnaColorList.xls I can provide a photo of one if you need. Kurt Baty (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

HTML color codes
Where on the crayola site were the hex values taken from? Quiddity 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel like the hex codes are unnecessary and misleading. Crayola never used Hex codes in their design, RGB is a colour space only applicable to light emission. It is not possible to reliably equate a paint to a single RGB code without an ICC or similar profile, and as such the colours produced on different monitors will be different and thus not representative of the crayon. It would be more worthwhile to provide approximate CMYK codes rather than RGB. 18.138.1.34 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They really are inaccurate.71.131.180.3 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If folks wanted to do it right, they'd have Pantone approximations. --70.124.63.225 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Need hex codes
I removed the following text from the Crayola article: including blue gray (needs RGB in color list), raw umber (needs RGB in color list), lemon yellow (needs RGB in color list), and maize (needs RGB in color list). Text like that doesn't belong in the article, it belongs here on the talk page. So here's your notice that these and a few more colors aren't visually represented in the tables. -Freekee 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Has it occured to anyone that hex codes and RGB values for crayons is ridiculous? RGB is an additive colour wheel, that's why it's used to describe digital colours. Last time I checked, crayons don't emit light. It's not even in the same colourspace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.18.131 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Turquoise blue
There has been a rumor online that turquoise blue will soon be renamed. This article says nothing about this. Any discussion about this?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Crayola have a Lapis Lazuli crayon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.207.127 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Crayola had a "Lapis Lazuli" and it's on the page, it's a Gem Tone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Crayola_crayon_colors#Gem_Tones Begs the question of whether there should be a full alphabetical list? Kurt Baty (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of color-name changes
The main text indicates that "torch red" was renamed "scarlet," but the chart indicates that both "torch red" and "brick red" have been changed to "scarlet." If someone can clarify this it would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akylax (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only scarlet I know about is in the Whitman box from the late 1960s. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Crayola crayon torch red.jpgded pic Kurt Baty (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "torch red" was renamed "scarlet" that is correct. source: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/Article-TorchRed.htm however "brick red" is still a current color, and is not the same color as "scarlet" source: http://www.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/history.cfm?id=scarlet&rank=0 and http://www.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/history.cfm?id=brick%20red&rank=0 Kurt Baty (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chartreuse
I have all the colors there were in 1972. Chartreuse is a shade of yellow, not orange. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a shade of green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

64 Box
The most famous and common set of crayons, of course, is the Crayola box of 64. Something unobtrusive, like an asterisk after the name, should be used to mark each of the colors in the modern 64...--Kaz (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Horrible
The alphabetical list is horrible. It lists colors that are still listed on the crayola site as having been renamed to names that aren't on the crayola site, as well as colors the crayola site doesn't even have. It seems like someone tried to create it from the other list on the page and got confused about which dirrection the changes identified by RN> and RR> occurred. Either way, the charts are so contradictory, confusing, and different from the list on the crayola site, they are virtually unreadable. Someone should redo them from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.26.11 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence of confusion: "Hot Magenta #FF00CC" indicates: 1972 created. 2008 renamed to "Famous". "Famous #E72094" claims to be renamed in 2008, but its color code is referred to as "Purple Pizzaz" which was reportedly created in 1990. This would seem to indicate Famous and Purple Pizzaz are the same color, and that Famous is a new color, not a renamed color. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.169.195.66 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment here, first of all, just because the Crayola site doesn't list a color doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Crayola put those out as general information, not the end all be all of every color they have created and used. In reality, their color history is VERY complex. They have been using alternate names, renaming, discontinuing and changing colors for their entire history. Also, there are three distinct attributes of their crayons that also could be evaluated. The easiest, and by no means THAT easy is the named color. There is also the "apparent" color, the color as you see it on the crayon before using it to color. Finally, there is the "lay down" color, which is the color you see after you apply it to paper. Apparent and Lay Down colors are definitely different on a lot of their crayons and the difficult part about providing a comprehensive and holistic list of Crayola colors is that they would sometimes swap color names or tweak the color itself but keep the name the same. Since I have all but a few specialy-named crayons I've put together a personal timeline of the color names as they've migrated but making sense of the apparent and lay down colors as they relate through time is too difficult for me. Here's an example of complexity: The Flesh color was originaly called Flesh Tint but later changed to Flesh, then to Pink Beige then back to Flesh and finally to Peach. Another example: I have a Light Blue Crayola used in a box sold exclusively at a store around the 1910s era and is clearly the same color as "Blue". The color name wasn't used again until the original 64 box came out and then it was truly a light blue color. That crayon was replaced very quickly. Both Light Blue crayons are entirely different in look and color and both are rare. Ed Welter (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Colors
There are only 133 Crayola Crayon Colors. 13 have been retired, including Thistle (which is not displayed in the picture with the other retired colors). The alphabetical list might be confusing to a novice, as one could easily conclude that there have been 153 colors. I am not certain that the Kids' Choice Color names (Awesome, Giving Tree, Famous, Best Friends, etc.) are permanent, yet this article treats them as such. 69.208.143.223 (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this but it really depends on your definition of color. Clearly one only knowns what one knows and so I'm guessing your basing 133 or 153 on information you know. I happen to have a LOT more colors than that. I have a spreadsheet that identified 297 distinct colors and I stopped keeping that up to date in 2004 so it might be over 300 by now. Having over 1400 different Crayola crayon boxes in my collection obviously helps me validate the colors. For example, many have never heard of Madder Lake or English Vermillion or Fiery Orange. Those colors aren't made anymore but do you see them on your "retired" list? The retired list is just a marketing thing...don't get hung up on that concept. They've dropped a lot of colors that haven't been retired. And as far as unique colors, well, few know that Pink was also called Rose Pink but later got renamed to Carnation Pink and then got renamed back to pink (but without discontinuing the Carnation pink). It is still the same color even though they've also used that color as Hedgehog Pink, Scruffy Pink, Shampoo and Cherry Blossom. Now in terms of color, I count that whole string of history as one single color entry in their palatte even though others might say that if it was named something different, it's different. Want another complex example? Did you know that there was a "Yellow, Medium" color in the original Crayola color line up and that it was also called "Chrome Yellow Medium" but the same color? That color got changed to "Medium Yellow" in 1926 and stayed that way until 1958 when they changed it to "Goldenrod". In 1997 they used this same color in one of their smell-crayon products as "Sharpening Pencils". They again used it in 2002 for their special "Colors of Washington" box as the color "Presidential Gold Seal". Then in 2003 they used it for "Parmesan" in a special set of crayons used in Macaroni Grill restaurants. In 2004 it became "Nebraska Cornhusker Yellow" for the "State Your Color" set. Lots of names and usages but still only one color here. Like I've always stated, Crayola colors is a complex history but an interesting one. Ed Welter (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Retired crayons.jpg
The image Image:Retired crayons.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chromatic Order
I'd attempt this myself, but I'm not really sure how to go about it - hopefully someone else will have a good idea. Do you think it would be possible to make the list able to be resequenced on the fly by some other parameters? Of most interest to me would be listing them chromatically starting at the red end of the spectrum and working down through violet (and I guess add the browns, greys, etc. at the end in their own orders), but there's also parameters like when they were introduced. Anyone think this might be doable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.95.1 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Crayola does list crayons on their site by chromatic family, but nobody I know has done a spectral analysis of the crayons. ;) I think that a few lists could be made. The first one currently on site seems to list the crayons alphabetically by oldest names. Then there is another alphabetical list of all names. This seems redundant and confusing. The top list should be alphabetical of current crayons, with a possible supplement of retired colors. The bottom list could be chronological, arranged 8, 16, etc. This second list would not be strictly alphabetical except within a group (such as 1903 set of 8). The 2008 names should be dropped from the main lists, but could be mentioned in a text section or a small list if there is a source. - ★ Parsa (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A list of what is current would be useful but the problem is that Crayola uses new names for the same color in many different crayon products. We don't have a list of all the alias color names that map to a core set of colors. They seem to have their current core set of colors out there, only the other color names and what they tie back to is missing. As to chronological or alphabetical, there's a LOT of information missing, inaccurate and just plain difficult to document. I did put together a chronological list of colors for my own personal research and came up with 297 distinct colors used by Crayola in their history. There is no magic "original 8 colors" with an easy progression through the years. They used 38 different colors in their original line up. This notion of starting with 8 is urban folklore. I've got all their original boxes so I've validated this. An alphabetical list is useful just as a quick reference if you're looking for history about a color. It would be nice if one could take any color name and quickly know when it originated, what other color names it's been called (and when) and when/if it was discontinued, retired or renamed. A chronological history would be useful. It would tell you what the color offerings were for any given year in their history and what those colors were back then...because things changed around a lot. Ed Welter (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On the 72 Crayon Case box that Crayola sold in the 1980s and early 1990s (cat. no. 7740), they do provide a list of how to arrange the 72 colored crayons in order to make this chromatic rainbow. WikiPro1981X (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

what's the source?
This doesn't match the official color list. I believe the 2008 colors (awesome, super happy, etc.) were just special edition names. Voxii (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Try checking it against this official list: http://www.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/chronology.cfm 79.72.44.211 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks like it lists the same colors as the one I linked to. It doesn't match what we have. Voxii (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I don't see those hex values anywhere on the site at this time. - ★ Parsa (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fluorescent colors
Take a look at this photo. It shows both the old and new fluorescent crayons. I've changed a few of the hex color accordingly. I also corrected the transition of chartreuse to laser lemon and ultra yellow to atomic tangerine, which I suspected before I found this photo. The fluorescent colors and weird names like "Ivory" in the second list need to be altered. I've changed a couple so far. - ★ Parsa (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I changed all fluorescent colors to reflect their closer color (the pastel ones in the second list were really odd). By the way, most of these really are fluorescent under UV, but the blue didn't do anything with my UV light. Perhaps shorter wavelengths would work.... - ★ Parsa (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Start from scratch
I'd say that 75% of this page needs redone. The hex column is a nice idea, but colors like beaver and bear hug (which are the same color!!!!) have different values in the "Colors in Alphabetical Order" section. I am going to redesign the page with an alphabetical list at the top and then sort out the chronological section eventually. I am a Crayola Crayon expert and fanatic, and I believe I can be a big help here. See my flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/

I will try to add more info, but I won't be able to do it easily when playing by wikipedia's rules. Because it means I'll have to scour the internet for info written by some non-crayon-expert journalist that jives with what I already know to be true. I'll try to avoid getting the "original research" tag slapped on the page. Anyway, whatever I do can't be any worse than what's up now. Oh, and here are four tildes, I guess: Crayonsman (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I redid the "colors in alphabetical order" page. I removed the somewhat irrelevant info about the temporary nicknames of a handful of colors from the 2004 State-Your-Color Contest. I also removed the details beside retired colors such as Blue Gray... The page HAD indicated that Blue Gray was replaced by Royal Purple. In reality, eight colors replaced eight other colors in 1990. No specific color replaced any other specific color. This is one of the flaws of the "Colors in Historical Order" section. It indicates that certain colors were replaced by other colors. Only time that actually ever happened is when Indigo replaced Thistle. I'll keep working. It might be nice to merge the historical order section with the list of colors in ABC order. On the header rows, I see there are little sorting boxes you can click. If we make a separate column for when a color was introduced and one for those that were retired, users can toggle the order the colors appear. Seems much easier than the confusing chart we have there. Also, RGB values for Blush and Pink Sherbet are incorrect. Anyone wanna fix? I'll keep working... Crayonsman (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ABC order chart done. I will tackle the rest of the page tomorrow. Crayonsman (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion for removal of "factual accuracy disputed" label
The article has been vastly improved, and citations have been added. I think we can remove the label at the top disputing factual accuracy. I will continue to make improvements to the page and possibly upload a few appropriate & relevant images.Crayonsman (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still very inaccurate. The claim that 133 is the correct total! Very incorrect. What is in the number of names of "Standard Colors"? Do you count "Green", "GREEN", and "green" as one or three names? Even if you count that as only one name, the number of total names is ~200. Example, where are many of the names of a "Stardard" 48 count box from 1949? Names like "AZURE BLUE, BLUE-GREEN, BLUE-VIOLET, BRILLIANT ROSE, CARMINE RED, CERULEAN BLUE, COBALT BLUE, DARK GREEN, DARK-RED, GOLD OCHRE, LIGHT GREEN, LIGHT MAGENTA, LIGHT YELLOW, MED. RED VIOLET, MEDIUM BLUE, MEDIUM ORANGE, MEDIUM ROSE, MEDIUM VIOLET, MEDIUM YELLOW, MIDDLE BLUE-GREEN, NEUTRAL GRAY, RED-ORANGE, RED-VIOLET, ROSE-PINK, TURQUOISE BLUE, VIOLET, YELLOW-GREEN, YELLOW-ORANGE"? Does a picture of everyone one of these have to be unloaded to prove their reality? Kurt Baty (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensive
I've been working on this article for nearly two weeks, and my goal now is to make this the go-to list for Crayola crayon colors. When someone is curious and wonders if Crayola used to make a certain color, I want this article to be the comprehensive, most trusted source for those sort of inquiries. I want to make sure all the reference/citations are complete, and I would like to finish approximating the color values for the color cells on every table. If anyone has the crayons whose color values are still unentered, please share, photograph, and approximate for us. If anyone wants to clean up the references (I did a little earlier today), be my guest. :-) Crayonsman (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a Comprehensive list what is desired? If it is, I would reorganize this page.Kurt Baty (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gold Ochre, etc.
This is a copy of a message I left on the discussion page of User talk:203.87.194.142. The info is relevant to this Wiki page.

-/-/-/-

Hi,

In regards to List of Crayola crayon colors

I have long suspected that Gold Ochre turned into Maize. I haven't been able to find any solid proof of this... no images of the crayon or samples of Gold Ochre VS. Maize on paper. That's why I have hesitated to put it in the article. I'm not sure we should change the If you have some photos or official documentation from Crayola or a Crayola employee, that would be great.

That said, there IS proof on Crayola's site that Gold Ochre is/was a real color. Look here: http://www.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/history.cfm?id=gold%20ochre

Pink Beige, however, does not register and should be reverted. And I'm not sure temporary re-naming of crayons should be listed here... it could get too confusing with the State crayons, the Discovery tins, etc. http://www.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/history.cfm?id=pink%20beige - page not found

Modify the end of the URL to check for other old renamed colors. (use %20 instead of spacebar).

I'm not sure if the website you're citing as a reference is a reliable source (it would be if it had pictures), though I have enjoyed reading it: http://maxpages.com/lostcrayolas/

Thanks for cleaning up the references, too! Have a great evening.

-/-/-/-

Crayonsman (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Crayola crayon PINK BEIGE.jpg Uploaded pic of the crayola crayon named "PINK BEIGE" it really did exist. Note that this is one of the RAREST named crayola crayons it was only made for a few months in 1957, only known to be found in 48 count boxes (I and others have checked).

"...box D introduced... ...change 4: FLESH temporarily renamed PINK BEIGE..." source: http://maxpages.com/lostcrayolas/48_turns_to_64 Kurt Baty (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pacific blue/green
I notice that Pacific blue and blue-green have the same hex code (and colour), but different numbers. Does that mean a full set of colours comes with 2 identical crayons, or is one of the codes wrong? Where do the hex codes come from? Simply taken from the images given on the official site? (So it could be a Cryola website error). Also, the date of intro for blue green disagrees with the official site - where did these dates come from? YobMod 09:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can answer your "where did these dates come from" question easily: http://www.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/chronology.cfm I used this wording in the article to try and avoid confusion and complication (I know the Crayola site contradicts itself a little): According to its chronology page, Crayola considers each "core color" to have been introduced in a specific year[1]. Such dates are reflected in the table below.

And now a THANK YOU! for discovering an error in the RGB & Hex columns of Pacific Blue. On this page: http://www.crayolastore.com/creator.asp (where the Hex codes must have originally been derived from), the Hex code for Pacific Blue is listed incorrectly as the same as Blue Green's.  I took an eyedropper sample from the center of the mid-upper right section (where the airbrush effects do not affect/lighten the color) of Pacific Blue from here: http://www.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/current_120_colors.cfm and found it to be different from that of Blue Green. (I took an eyedropper sample of Blue Green and found the RGB to be precisely what's already on this page.) All fixed!! Crayonsman (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do the hex codes seem not right to you?
They just don't match the colors in the box...usually couple shades too light. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Computer monitors vary. It's already impossible to get 100% accurate hex codes, especially on neon colors. Crayonsman (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Crayola crayon colors
The colors now in the Crayola article are direct from the company itself. Unless you can find a source for color values better than Crayola's website, please do not change them. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are patently NOT the colors that appear in a box of crayons. If you look at an actual crayon against the display on the web, as I have, you will notice that many of the colors on the website are too pastel.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, these colors aren't of the crayon itself but the color of the mark it makes on paper. These values from the website seem to be the only of the color information available. Just coming up with numbers you think look more like the crayon is original research and not acceptable by Wikipedia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll get a source. But please, take a look at the purple mark on paper...you'll find that the website's colors are way off, and therefore shouldn't be used (not to mention the credibility issues it raises by using a site promoting a product).  BTW, is it just me or do the values based on the screen actually come from another approximation?  I know the ones on List of Crayola crayon colors do. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The values of the colors from List of Crayola crayon colors were determined by getting the RGB value from the images of the color swath of each color on that linked website page in Photoshop. I didn't come up with them myself, but I checked a good sample of them and came up with the exact same numbers on that page. I don't have a box of Crayola crayons on hand, but maybe I'll buy one and see what values I get if I try to scan in similar marks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page) Your values are still there in the history. I'll try to get some other opinions on how these colors should be determined. Perhaps, it might be best just to not have this chart of colors since it really is impossible to accurately show what a crayon color mark is in the RGB space. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to confine this discussion to ONE talk page Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep it here. - Dougie WII (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I picked up a 64-pack of Crayola crayons, I'll be taking some pictures of them first for the article then try to get color samples and see how they compare to what's on the list page over the next couple of days. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * :-D
 * The colors produced by these crayons are so variegated, it's impossible to say one digital color value is correct. I'll try to just make a self-made table graphic with the real crayon marks scanned in themselves to replace this table. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I replaced the colors with actual self-made images of marks from the crayons that I scanned in. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coo coo. You can see what I mean about the colors being somewhat different. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This would have been a great discussion to have on the List of Crayola crayon colors discussion board. Crayonsman (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to transcribe it there, I'm perfectly fine with that Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion copied to discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Crayola_crayon_colors  Crayonsman (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Using values obtained by sampling regardless of it being from crayon marks or the Crayola website is original research. Seems to me to be wrong to present hex codes and RGB numbers, unless they were explicitly given. PaleAqua (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The hex values for the 133 standard colors have been well-documented here: http://www.crayolastore.com/creator.asp I believe that mousing over rounded squares is all that's been done here. No original research. I'll adjust the wording, and if that's not enough, we might have to decide whether to omit the RGB/hex columns. Common sense suggests leaving the approximated colors within the boxes. Color approximation is rampant on Wikipedia... just look at articles about sports teams. No Crayola webpage exists for with hex values for specialty crayons, and that's why hex & RGB values are not listed for them. Crayonsman (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with leaving the background colors for the boxes. And yes poorly sourced color coordinates have been a problem for other articles and one of the things that WP:WikiProject Color has been trying to fix. Using RGB values for almost anything but the computer graphic space is an approximation. The store link though is at least better than the source that used to be used if I recall []. One of the side effects with using RGB numbers here is they are have then been incorrectly used by other articles on colors as if they were the official RGB coordinates for such a color instead of representation of the color a Crayola crayon makes on white paper. PaleAqua (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone here has a perfect-condition box for the Crayola #7740 72 Crayon Case with the listing of colors to arrange for a rainbow, please add that here in the future. WikiPro1981X (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Protect
A lot of pointless vandalism lately. Do we need to protect this page? Crayonsman (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pure Advertising: It's a Commercial for Crayola
I just googled "crayola." The first eight websites are for the corporation, and then #9, 10, 11, and 12 are for this and related Wikipedia articles. Don't be too pleased yet -- answer a question: Did they pay you to put up a pure advertisement on Wikipedia?

All but three citations are from Crayola's own websites. These citations, IMO, violate NPOV and reliability requirements. You need NEUTRAL third party sources.

No notability is shown. It is not obvious that Crayola colors have any importance to anyone at all other than the corporation itself.

You need to compare crayola colors with colors produced by other manufacturers of crayons and paints. Otherwise the whole article is completely one-sided.

No chemical or manufacturing data are provided for the dyes used when creating the colors listed. In specific, no toxicity data are provided. What happens if a child eats one of the colored crayons listed in this article?

No names of people are provided who worked on these colors.

Do not try to avoid these criticisms by saying "It's just a list!" It is a COMMERCIAL list, identical to what an article listing all the flavors of Lipton Tea -- and (incidentally) just happening to omit all other manufacturers of tea bags.

This article does not belong on Wikipedia in its present form. It is pure advertising. It should be deleted as unencyclopedic and non-notable commercial cruft.

Timothy Perper (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kinda agree, have listed the article for discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fantastic list and article. It is exactly what Wikipedia does best. Everyone has heard that at some point Crayola changed the name from flesh to peach... where else would you look up that information besides WP? Please, go read WP:CS again... "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires attribution for direct quotes and for material that is likely to be challenged." What are you challenging here? The controversial date that the color thistle was introduced? --Knulclunk (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm challenging most of the color identifications, names, dates, and other information. NO SOURCES are cited for any of these in any detail. Where do the color swatches come from? Who testifies to their accuracy? If these swatches come DIRECTLY from various Crayola websites, then they may well be copyright violation. If they come from the author of the article itself, then the article contains original research.
 * For example, take the large table with
 * My apologies: I lost the connection somewhere in there!
 * For example, take the first table, the large one with all the colors. The section containing the table cites two sources, but neither provides color swatches, hex numbers or other codes. What is the origin of these identifications? Nor are any references given to supposed dates of name change. Sources MUST be cited for all these data -- that's not optional on Wikipedia.
 * Problems -- all serious -- therefore include: possible NPOV violation; reliability and comprehensiveness issues; possible COI problems; lack of citations for material presented in the article leading to questions about original research; possible copyright violations. It is not my job to PROVE that these are problems; the author and editors must provide evidence that they have met the basic requirements of a Wikipedia entry -- and at the moment, that evidence does not exist.
 * Timothy Perper (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd go even further and argue that having RGB hex triplets is in itself misleading. They can never be more then approximations. Crayons are subtractive, while RGB colors are additive. In addition, the WikiProject Color has been following the principle of excluding extensively copying proprietary color spaces. You can see more of the concerns at the linked page, and the project talk page archives. I see fully listing Crayola colors as no different then listing out Prismacolor, Shermin William Paints or Pantone colors. PaleAqua (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I sure can't disagree with that, PaleAqua! I did an experiment, since I was wondering where the hex triplets came from (they're not included the sources cited, a fact that has been noted before my comments). Now, I use a MacBook Pro, and it has a built in Digital Color Meter (very useful contraption). I went through the color swatches in the first (large) table, and measured the RGB values, and, lo and behold, they all matched perfectly. Well, that's good, one might say, but my experience with colors on my monitor is that colors are often inaccurate in the third place (124, 209, 83) and (123, 208, 84). So I wonder if someone didn't just simply go through all the swatches and measure them the way I did, and then recorded those values. No, that's NOT dishonest -- not at all. It just makes all the hex triplets original research. Great, I say -- publish it somewhere and expand the paper into a nice little note somewhere about Crayola -- but not here on Wiki. Here on Wikipedia, I challenge the idea that we need a complete (and seemingly self-measured) list of all the color crayons Crayola ever came up with. Next, all the tables have the same problem -- no references, and no indication of where the RGB triplets come from. If one removed them all (as original research) there wouldn't be much left of the article. It could then be boiled down to a paragraph, observing -- IF THERE ARE RELIABLE SOURCES -- that "flesh" became "peach" in response to the US Civil Rights Movement, and so on. That'd be a paragraph that could easily be merged with the Crayola Crayon article. (Parenthetically, I also think the Crayola article needs a LOT of work, but one thing at a time, OK?) Anyway, I think there is a lot to be said for deleting this article, removing all the excessive details that violate the WikiProject Color Principles described by PaleAqua, and fixing up the Crayola article itself. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You clearly missed the entire point of this. The colours you measures are from a photo, displayed on a screen. Your Mac will have done some adjustments to that image, and the camera that took them would have done so too. They are not real world conversions, and never can be. Crayons do not fit into any logical subtractive to additive colour conversion.
 * Of note too, that the third number in the triplet represents the amount of blue in a colour 175.36.151.86 (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Perper wrote: "Did they pay you to put up a pure advertisement on Wikipedia?" "Do not try to avoid"
 * Who are you addressing this message to?
 * If editors wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns. Although bad conduct may be apparently due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives (which mention would tend to exacerbate resentments all around).
 * "So I wonder if someone didn't just simply go through all the swatches and measure them the way I did, and then recorded those values." Specific evidence?
 * "In specific, no toxicity data are provided. What happens if a child eats one of the colored crayons listed in this article?" What are you trying to say here? That wikipedia can be held liable for not listing toxicity data?
 * I know I am going to regret posting here, but I bit. Someone with a different viewpoint has now responded. Ikip (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why regret posting? Glad to hear your opinion. But I think you're missing my point. Not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does so in a selfless spirit of building an encyclopedia or in the hope that we can all together provide reliable and trustworthy information to readers. Sometimes, contributors have agendas, including commercial agendas. No, I don't need evidence for that observation; it comes with experience and knowledge of Wiki. About toxicity: dyes are not always harmless (and if you don't believe that people would actually use toxic dyes in foods, look up the history of a dye called "butter yellow" in the late 19th-early 20th century). So liability has nothing to do with it: what DOES have everything to do with it is the assertion (if backed up by reliable sources) that the Crayola Company goes out of its way to make sure that the dyes in all those crayons are completely harmless if a 5 year-old child gobbles up a whole crayon. I mean, we want to assume that they're harmless, don't we? We want to assume that Crayola does extensive toxicology testing on the dyes, don't we? Yes, I think we all want that -- and someone needs to dig up some reliable data saying that Crayola does exactly that. That is the kind of information this article needs to discuss: not a company catalogue of the groovy colors you can buy from Crayola but solid information about the chemicals used to make and colorize the crayons. That is partly what I meant by NPOV, although I see now that that was probably an inaccurate choice of term: I want to see this article move away from the advertising/catalogue tone towards some serious, real, facts about the colors and dyes used in Crayola crayons. Moreover, I want to see the article broaden its scope from merely the Crayola company to include crayons manufactured by other companies as well. I don't know if you have children; if you do, you might find it reassuring if, someday, you read a reliably sourced statement on Wiki (like this article when it gets there) saying that your six-year old daughter is probably OK even though she just ate an entire "silver thistle" crayon, or whatever it's called. This article has to go beyond mere fannish enthusiasm for pretty colors. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid trying to focus on the faith wikipedians by the way, in either direction? Don't see much value in that. In my opinion better to talk about issues not motives. PaleAqua (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Hit an edit conflict so trying again.) What to be sorry about? Other viewpoints are good. It's one of the reasons I decided to list the article will not completely agreeing with Timothy Perper, I've had several concerns about this article for a long time for slightly tangental reasons as mentioned above. The toxicity issue I don't think is one that belongs in this article at all, if there is a concern there it would belong back in the main Crayola article. Only exception I could see to that is if for example, some particular color because of the dyes used was notable as being toxic compared to other crayons. As for using a digital color meter or not, the question is if the values can be cited, and if the complete collection of them is a violation of database copyrights, not how the were obtained. As an aside, I've updated my comment at the deletion review page to recommend speedy keep. PaleAqua (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a baffling suprise PaleAqua, that peaceful gesture earned you a barnstar, enjoy ;-) Ikip (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep it is
OK, we have consensus. Now, what do we do with the article? It still has all the problems outlined by PaleAqua and by me. Taking one of these, lack of notability: people have said, "Whoa, dude, Crayolas are EXTREMELY notable!" To be sure, they are. But this isn't the Crayolaarticle. It's an article/list solely of Crayola colors. Why is such a list notable? The images are pretty, I agree, but the tables have no references to the sources used to make them, nor to the hex or RGB color codes. So far as I can see, it's Original Research. Important topics are omitted in fannish enthusiasm for pretty colors -- like toxicity -- and, moving along, I agree with PaleAqua that toxicity now needs to be addressed in the main Crayola article. But some real changes have to be made in the present article too. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So the hex numbers DO come from crayola sourced here, but the numbers themselves are not a copyright violation. The colors are VERY helpful in the association with names.
 * If you think it would be helpful for Wikipedia to have a similar article for other brand crayons, well make it, I guess. Do you think that Barbie (film series) is negligent for not including mention of the Disney "Princesses" line? Or that Coca-Cola does not mention other companies soda products on its page?
 * Really, I think none of your arguments hold any water. Obviously, if there is sourced information about toxic dyes used in Crayola crayons, it should be included. I anyone denying this?--Knulclunk (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I didn't say toxicity needs to be addressed, I said if toxicity needs to be addressed this is probably not the article. PaleAqua (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Knulclunk, toxicity can be addressed in the main article, and linked here. Mr. Perper, if you have external links from news sources, provide them, and I will support their inclusion.
 * Adding sources from the company itself is the absolute norm on wikipedia. Go to any big company site, and guaranteed their will be company external links. I can give examples, if necessary.
 * I know people say this all the time in discussions, but reread WP:NPOV I just did, and I came away with some really good suggestions about how to address this article:
 * "Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence."
 * Crayola company is a relevant side. If Mr. Perper or anyone else has another side, present it. Do the reasearch, and I will help you add the links to the article. Ikip (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(From TP) Of course using company links is the norm. But, IMO, referencing can't stop there. That's where I felt there was something amiss here about NPOV -- which I seem to have been misunderstanding. Unbalance is maybe better.

(1) Here's the first example:

"Coca-cola (TM) is a major beverage in the United States, with sales in the multi-million dollar range (here we add some references)."

"Coca-cola (TM) is a major cola beverage in the United States, together with Pepsi-cola (TM) and RC Cola (TM) (add references here). Coca-cola has sales in the multi-million dollar range (here we add more references)."

Which is more informative? Choosing one or the other is in part a matter of taste, but the second, though longer, certainly sounds less like an advertisement than the first.

Just because other Wikipedia articles do X, Y, and Z doesn't mean that that is the best way to do things.

(2) Here's the second example:

When I was a kid, an elementary school teacher told us we'd all die if we ate the crayons. It was her way -- I realized this MUCH later -- of getting us not to chew up the crayons and then puke all over the classroom, like one crazy kid used to do. I think it'd be useful if the article pointed out that these dyes are not lethal. But everyone seems to be saying that product safety is irrelevant to an article on Wikipedia about crayons. Maybe you folks should try to find some sources saying that Crayola crayons won't make you all die if you eat them -- and believe me, consumer product companies get real worked up about toxicity issues.

Like this one.
 * 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.

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.

Now, with all due politeness and respect, may I suggest that some of the people here who simply dismissed my concerns about the balance and coverage of this article maybe should RETHINK their opinions?

No, I am NOT going to do the research here. Google "Crayon" and "toxicity" and wade through the 207,000 hits I got. Then you can add the references.

Look, at the moment, this article isn't even good college-level journalism -- since it omits so much. And it CERTAINLY isn't encyclopedic.

BTW, if that crazy kid had gobbled up 30 of his crayolas, how much asbestos would he have eaten? How close to EPA hazard levels is that? And if a fire had burned up his entire box of 64 crayolas, how much asbestos would be released into the smoke?

I think, with all due respect, that some of you might want to ponder a bit more deeply about the questions this article raises.

Timothy Perper (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS -- added later. I just googled "eating crayons." Got 45,200 hits. Apparently it's very common. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crayon
 * The amount of info on the Crayon page is pitifully small. List of Crayola crayon colors should be one of many secondary articles branching off from Crayon.  Right now Crayon is a stub with a single branch.  Rather than trashing the current quality of the branch article, let's pile on to the trash-heap that is Crayon.  That is definitely where toxicity info belongs.  Or on this (currently) nonexistent page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crayola_crayons
 * Let's move the discussion where it belongs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crayon
 * Crayonsman (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, because the newspaper article I cited about asbestos in Crayolas specifically mentions Crayola crayons, not crayons in general. If the discussion belongs elsewhere, it'd be with the general Crayola article, though that article includes more than merely their crayons. Quoting myself from above "I agree with PaleAqua that toxicity now needs to be addressed in the main Crayola article." BTW, in the interests of full disclosure and so forth, I don't work for any crayon company and never have -- specifically, not Crayola nor any of their competitors.

Timothy Perper (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PaleAqua moved the discussion to Talk:Crayon. More details over there. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

With which of the following part(s) of my statement do you disagree, Timothy Perper? Is it just statements (5) and (6)? (1) The amount of info on the Crayon page is pitifully small. (2) List of Crayola crayon colors should be one of many secondary articles branching off from Crayon. (3) Right now Crayon is a stub with a single branch. (4) Rather than trashing the current quality of the branch article, let's pile on to the trash-heap that is Crayon. (5) That (Crayon) is definitely where toxicity info belongs. (6) If toxicity info does not belong on Crayon, then it should belong on this page, which doesn't currently exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crayola_crayons (7) Let's move the discussion where it belongs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crayon Crayonsman (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These don't seem like fruitful questions because they don't seem to have anything to do with the articles we're trying to improve. So I'll skip trying to answer. Timothy Perper (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Statements 1-7 are my analysis of the current state of these articles. You use the blanket "I don't agree" statement, but you justify your dissent by talking solely about toxicity.  A better comment might have been "i don't agree with your assessment of where the topic of toxicity belongs, because..."  Crayonsman (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lower-case letters, color name
When I was in first grade, starting in 1972, I noticed a subtle change in how Crayola Crayons were labelled. Not the box, but the paper around the crayon itself. Before that year, all crayons that I encountered had the color name in smaller capital letters, and it was printed near the middle of the crayon. But starting with that school year, they started using the larger capital letters justified to the bottom of the crayon, much like we have today. (Actually, at least one kid was issued a box of Crayolas that year that still had the capital letters, so maybe they had to exhaust their stock.) Another difference: the black crayon had a wrapper that was... black, as opposed to the grayish wrapper they began using at the same time as the lower-case letters. The color name was hard to read, since the text was black as well. TheSquirrel (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are more right than you know. There has been many crayola crayon wrapper changes over the years. Check out this source: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/BinneyCrayons.htm look at the section called "Wrappers" Kurt Baty (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This page
This page is one of the most useful EVER for web designers. :-) 74.233.164.197 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hot Magenta & Purple Pizzaz - Not the Same Color
Both a Hot Magenta and a Purple Pizzaz Crayola crayon are on my desk right now. They are clearly not the same color. When I write with them on paper, I can again see that the two colors are not the same. It appears that Crayola has modified the page since my last visit. Perhaps Crayola has made a mistake? I know that the values that were on the page before the edit were correct. I feel bad leaving inaccurate information up on the page, but it looks like that's what's going to have to happen until I take the time to write to Crayola and make them aware of it... Crayonsman (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that both colors are different, made a similar point on my talk page. Just because the RGB representation match don't mean they are the same color. It's one of the side effect of assuming that RGB is a perfect match for real world colors. Note there are a few other crayon colors that Crayola's store also has the same RGB numbers that likewise are not the same. For example they show both laser lemon and unmellow yellow as #FDFC74. Also see pacific blue vs blue green. PaleAqua (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Crayola's Law??!!
Crayola's Law is blatantly wrong. And doesn't belong on this page. Proof: Easy, for instance just look at what crayola sold in 1903: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/PL-1903.htm and 1939: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/PL-1939.htm

Note the 24 count box in 1903 and 52 count box added in 1939

Who am I and why would I know anything about crayola crayon color names? I am a founding member of the Crayon Collectors Club http://www.crayoncollecting.com/ccc.htm I am the Kurt talked about on this page: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/BinneyCrayons.htm I have been collecting crayola crayons for 50 years!

I am not now nor have I ever been an employee of Binney & Smith

I have started a thread on our club list about this page.

A key question is what is the right type and amount of information to have here?

But what ever information is here shouldn't be wrong!

kurt Kurt Baty (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, doesn't belong, and the sources cited were cyclic as they ultimately refer back to this very page as their sources. PaleAqua (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I looked over your club's site briefly and it looks like a interesting resource and is already cited as an external link for the Crayola page, and considering that this page mostly only uses first party sources I added it in the external links section. Not sure exactly what the right balance of the amount of information should be, but it should be enough to be a good starting point, before readers go off to the original sources if necessary. And yes the information that is here should be cited properly and verifiable. PaleAqua (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Another point of view on why this article is fine and needed
First of all, if people have a problem with the article not including other crayon companies, then simply rename the article to "List of crayon colors" and include a column for manufacturer. How to organize that I don't know, but please don't make a separate page for each crayon manufacturer. Just make a sortable table, so people can sort by name or by manufacturer.

As for including Hex values ... it has to do with the use of the information -- if an article is not used, then what is the point of writing it? CSS3 includes a whole new set of color names from X11. Eventually, the UA's are going to just create a generic reference to a database of color names and corresponding Hex values, because non-technical people think in terms of names, not Hex numbers. It is at that point when you will see just how valuable the work on this article is.

As for seeing the swatches with the Hex number ... for those of us who are not Art people, it is nice to be able to look at a color, see its Hex number and use it. Unless you use a JPG for every color, the color has to be created somehow in order to display it. Why make the end reader view the source to see the info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to see a listing of ALL crayons colors, not just Crayola, I've got one already published here: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/Colorlist.htm There are over 1600 colors on there...all taken from physical crayons and crayon manufacturer catalogs. It doesn't distinguish minor name variations on the labels though (such as Ult. Blue vs Ultramarine Blue). Ed Welter (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other Specialty Crayons
They also have the Construction Paper Crayons which are made to show up on construction paper... would those count as special colors or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.67.4 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Peach/Flesh Inconsistency
Color #79 in this page is currently labeled as "Flesh", saying that it was renamed from "Peach" in 1962, but Peach (color) says that it's the other way around: "Peach" replaced "Flesh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.141.2 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have also just noticed this... 178.78.91.28 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Crayola 72 Crayon Case Box (Pre-1990)
Hi,

For all those of you out there who still have an old Crayola "72 Crayon Case" box (from before 1990) (cat. no. 7740), on the top side of the box, there actually is a list of colors to arrange so as to make a rainbow. I wonder if such a picture of the list of colors on the box could be presented here for our convenience? Furthermore, I wonder if you could folks include that list here in this article? WikiPro1981X (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? I have two Crayola 72 crayon sets, the "Big Set" from 1958, and the "Drawing Set" from 1964, and both come in a large flat box, maybe 15" x 7" and about 3/4" thick.  There is no list of colors or rainbow-arrangement on either of these.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the actual purpose of this list article
This article is a mess. What is the purpose? Is it intended to be a current list of Crayola crayons? Crayola has that so what does this add? Is it supposed to be a compilation of all the Crayola colors? If so it doesn't even come close. The dates are inaccurate on many colors. There are breakouts of specialty crayons but not all of them are even there for that (where's Color 'n Smell)? I was going to fix all of this but realized that to do so would be a lot of original research and wikipedia is not about original research so I did it on my own site and have listed the work under a 40 part history. You can find the link in the "See Also" section. I chronicle, picture, color swatch and compare 745 named colors using over 300 true colors. It is the only true accurate reference out there. Ed Welter (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should propose blowing up the article by nominating it for deletion, owing to the massive factual inaccuracies you point out. Your argument would lead me to support deletion  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You should leave a note on user:crayonsman's page. I believe he did much of it. –jacobolus (t) 08:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to be destructive. I'd be happy to work on correcting it now that I've already done the original research but I don't know what to do with the colors portion because when I do a physical color swatch and then scan that in there are a multitude of pixilated colors within it.  Which one is the correct RGB/Hex to use?  As Kurt told me once, there are people that use those mappings of their colors as reference for real things they are doing with color and there is nowhere else to find that information. Ed Welter (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take the comment that "this article is a mess." Go back and see what it looked like before I started editing it.  When I first worked on the article, all 133 current crayon colors' graphical representations were on crayola.com. They are not all present now (and yes, I say 133 current and not 120 current because Crayola still manufactures the "retired" 13 standard colors in large batches for retro throwback 64-packs every so often...)   If I read your site correctly, the Extreme Twistables Colors, as well as the Heads 'n' Tails crayons' names are merely aliases and do not deserve a spot on the page.  I still believe that True to Life and Color Mix-Up crayons deserve to be there, as they are official amalgamations.  I believe the crayons containing glitter and the scented crayons are truly unique because of the scent additives that they contain.  I think the goal of this page should be to not include any crayons that are merely aliases... something Crayola concocted as a "Hey look!  Here's the *exact* same crayon only with a different name and we've also given it a plastic holder!" type of thing.  If we could shrink the font, it might be possible to include prominent aliases of crayons, but for basic colors like red or black, that could take a lot of room.  It appears that we will need to include the "One for Fun" crayon somehow on the page.  Up until now, I was unaware of it.  As for the 330 "true colors" on your personal site... you are most likely correct on this, and I have previously cited this page on my flickr site:   http://www.flickr.com/photos/crayonsman/2863985616  It seems that this Wikipedia page would be accurate, save the "introduced" column, if Crayola would have started crayon-producing operations in, say, the mid-1980s.  The evidence of light blue as a color and carnation pink's identity crisis are frustrating.  Crayola offers little explanation and blurs their own history by not elaborating on it.  I honestly don't know what to do... my plan of action would be to keep the standard colors list as it is, modify the "specialty crayons" section ("specialty crayons generally defined as crayons not in the standard labels... yes i know it doesn't work for the crayons w/ glitter) by removing the crayons that are not unique and adding Color 'n' Smell and any other crayons that are either unique in color, crayon content, or both), and perhaps add a third section to the list of colors to discuss & list light blue and all the other "cover-up" colors that are missing from Crayola's history.  I suspect we may differ on exactly how to classify the crayons, but I think our goal should be to make this page thorough yet succinct.  Finally, will nominating a page for deletion for the second time in the past few years really solve things?  This page is consistently held in high regard, and I would especially caution against confusing the casual visitor.  Also, Purplebackpack89, massive factual inaccuracies, my foot. Crayonsman (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is a useful resource that has informed and delighted many people. We don't delete encyclopedia articles because they are not perfect -- if we did, Wikipedia would be very very very tiny .   Sharktopus  talk  02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Table Placement Messed Up
The main list of colors should be under standard colors, and the list of triangle colors should be under triangle crayons. It looks this way in the source, but is not showing up that way. Not sure why... 205.156.36.1 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

References section consists of many broken links
All - the References section contains largely broken links. Crayola still has a Chronology page, which could be used to cite dates in which colors were introduced or deleted (http://www2.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/chronology.cfm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threecardhighlow (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone want to help me?
I'm going to start cleaning up this Wikipedia page. It is awful. All the links are dead and it seems this page could be trimmed down by half, I mean do we really need a colored chart showing each color when we have a pic of the crayons themselves? The colors on the chart are never going to be the colors of the crayons. --BeckiGreen (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. (And sometimes the best quality-control tool is an axe). bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I may start chopping things away tomorrow, feel free to jump in and help me--98.87.129.28 (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

96 box vs 120
"Inchworm", "wild blue yonder", and "jazzberry jam" are listed as part of the 120 box. These three colors are in my 96 box. (Box purchased in Canada, ~2 yrs ago. Only crayons I own.  No "doubles", so probably not switched by some little brat out for extra favorite colors.)

I'm assuming that "pack added" means "smallest box found in". Rereading, it might mean "these colors were introduced when this box size was", but it's ambiguous. I'll let the person who knows what "pack added" means change that, if he/she is so inclined. XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.108.165 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

white, yellow green, yellow orange are in 16 box
White, Yellow Green and Yellow Orange should be in 16 box (see picture in main crayola article).

Without these colors the 8 plus those identified as 16 only amount to 13 colors and the 24 box adds more than 8 colors.

99.188.89.40 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Crayola Telescoping 150-count Crayon Tower with Built-In Sharpener
I bought the 150 Tower last night and wanted to let you all know that the 150 has 118 classic colors, 16 metallic colors and 16 glitter colors.

The 118 colors are the same as the 120 box less the "Blue Bell" and "Piggy Pink" colors. njpatches 4/25/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njpatches (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)