Talk:Crayon

Old/done

there is an error on the page: "both are popular media for sexual pleasure" but — Preceding unsigned comment made by 94.159.237.232 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Done Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no place named Butenseken in Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriusv (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Correct pronunciation is "Cray-On."

I fixed the pronunciation.

If you changed it to what it currently is, "ˈkɹei.ən," then you did not fix it. It's "CRAY-on." "On" is pronounced like the word "on." Not a schwa. 128.211.198.168 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoever changed the pronunciation to have one syllable is handicapped. The origin of the word is french for "pencil", and they use TWO syllables. Listen: http://french.about.com/library/media/wavs/crayon.wav amaaaazing... or click the magic "speaker" button here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crayon .. whoa.. there is sound on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.245.30 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguing about pronunciation is a bit foolish, since pronunciation of many words varies from country to country, even from region to region. I have hard this word pronounced both as the traditional two syllable "CRAY-ON", and sometimes the one syllable "CRAN". four tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.26 (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

photo

The photo of the little girl doesn't actually add ANY information about crayons. she's not even holding one in her hand (which would at least show how people draw with them), and we can't see her paper. Better photo anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.242.101 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can blow you away with photos if I knew how to add them (help?). I can provide whatever photos you want; I have many of the original boxes and crayons from a multitude of crayon manufacturers going back to the late 1800s. I agree; let's get some better pictures on here. Ed Welter (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Ed Welter

Check out Help:Contents/Images and media for a bunch of topics on how to upload and insert images into articles. Note that the biggest thing to be careful of is making sure images you upload are tagged properly or it's likely someone will request that they be deleted. If the images are in the public domain (which I imagine might be true of really old box artwork), you might want to consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used outside of wikipedia. PaleAqua (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Boogers removed

I have just removed and fixed the following extra information:

sticking in your nose to get out boogers,
is actually found to be made out of people and
, elephants, fairy princesses, and X-men.
a nickel

What would Wikipedia be without a little fun =) .. I haven't checked the factual accuracy of the rest of the article though. --=8)-DX (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was once hospitalised for sticking a crayon so far up my nose it ruptured my septum. Unfortunately I was twenty-three, and the hospital staff didn't call what came out 'boogers'. They should come with a safety warning. I'm a professional artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahou (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Room for improvement

This article is way too short. It should include more about the histories of dyes, multiple manufacturers of crayons, as well as the toxicity of crayons. Start listing your ideas on how to expand this article in this section of the discussion page. Crayonsman (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Crayonsman. I thought you had quit editing Wikipedia -- I guess you changed your mind. Since you're the expert on crayons, why don't YOU start listing your ideas about the article rather than seeming to pass the buck to other people? Timothy Perper (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no further interest in *editing* Wikipedia. Crayonsman (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice start on what to work on. I took an initial stab at the toxicity though I added it to the history section instead of a new toxicity section since all the sources seemed to indicate it as a non issue, and any changes were just to be safe. What about famous paintings done in crayon, and influences on our culture like crayon physics, or the tendency for some TV shows, movies and comics to use sequences in crayon to indicate childhood flash backs? I'll try to do some digging when I have the time. (note I'm a bit of a sloth so don't expect me to be fast.) PaleAqua (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Crayon safety

Moved discussion from "Keep it is" thread at Talk:List of Crayola crayon colors that probably applies more to this page that that one about the potential toxicity of crayons. This source ""CPSC Staff Report on Asbestos Fibers in Children's Crayons" (PDF). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. August 2000. Retrieved 2009-11-18." seems to indicate that while fibers have been found they are of little risk. The original of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article mentioned in the thread can be found at [1]. More CPSC reports can be found at [2], but did not see any follow ups beyond the August 2000 one where they labeled the risk as insignificant. There were also the concerns in around 1994-1995 of some crayons imported into the U.S. containing lead, see [3] for example. PaleAqua (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up these files. The CPSC report concluded (p.8) that risk to a child by inhalation or ingestion was very low -- meaning while the kid is drawing. Even so, the CPSC report recommended (p. 8) that all asbestos be removed from crayons. On p. 8, the report also says their staff asked Binney & Smith, the mfrs of Crayolas, and Ticonderoga Dixon, another crayon mfr, to remove the asbestos, and both companies agreed. Has there been nothing after the year 2000 on the removal of asbestos? I'm concerned here that we, meaning us editors on Wikipedia, appear to be giving advice -- "These crayons are OK, folks" or "Deadly dangerous, folks" -- rather than reporting what was found. CPSC didn't discuss what happens to these low (per crayon) levels if the crayons all burn in a house fire or in an incinerator (e.g., in an apartment building or a city dump). That, presumably, is another federal agency, the EPA, I imagine, but we need to find out. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(From TP): I just googled "EPA crayons asbestos" and got 91,000 hits. In 2005, the whole issue reached the rumor-tracking site Snopes.com <http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/crayons.asp>, which concluded that it is FALSE to say that crayons contain toxic amounts of asbestos. Once again, they seem to be referring to danger to children while they draw with crayons, and not to what happens if the crayons are dumped and/or burned. My point is that we (us editors, I mean) should be digging up a range of conclusions and data. To the parents who might read Snopes, the conclusion is reassuring -- a good thing, without doubt -- but it isn't the end of the whole story. In fact, someone called the whole Crayola-asbestos issue a "firestorm." We still need more research. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(Also from TP): BTW, you might want to read the article Bindeez, which were toy beads that turned out to be contaminated during manufacture. I contributed a bit to that article, and everyone did a really good job, I think, in digging up information. I'm NOT saying the risks are compatible between Bindeez and Crayolas -- they aren't -- but that the way people worked together on the Bindeez article proved very fruitful. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(Also from TP): Here's a website from the state government of Maine (the US state) that seems to be designed to calm fears about asbestos in crayons <http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/asbestos/crayons.htm>. But it contains a quote from an EPA spokesperson that they haven't run any tests. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You all realize that asbestos needs to be inhaled into the lungs to do it's nefarious work, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is incorrect

Saying that Crayola invented the crayon is exactly what's wrong with the internet...perpetuated inaccurate information! Let's set the records straight once and for all.

1. Crayola didn't invent the coloring crayon. Charles A. Bowley of somewhere near Danvers, MA claims to be the first to have made wax crayons for toy and school use; putting them in attractive boxes as early as the late 1880s. (1) 2. The American Crayon Company had a full product line of wax crayons from 1902; a full year before Crayola even developed and began to sell their own wax crayon products. (2) 3. The Prang Educational Company sold watercolor crayons in the 1890s that were clearly predecessors to the paraffin wax crayons being developed (3)

(1) From "The Best of It's Kind" by Brenda J. Elliott, 1996. Subreferenced from "Everyday Art; James C. Judson to Lee P. Spore, re: "Crayon History" by Binney & Smith speaker, C.O. McFadden, 23 Dec 1964, DCTA; Saunders (2) I have a physical copy of the 1902 price list from the American Crayon Company and a copy of one of the pages is referenced in this article: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/Article-Where.htm (all of the pages could be uploaded if I knew how to do that here). In addition, I have several physcial boxes from the price list which could also be photographed and put up here but are referenced in a photo here: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/Other/AMCPhoto001-018.htm (AMC0010 and AMC0009 are from the 1902 crayon catalog. (3) Physical boxes I have in my collection and photograph references located here: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/Other/PEPhoto.htm

Ed Welter (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Ed Welter

Sounds like great information to add. Be bold, go ahead and update the article. If you have any questions on how to just ask. PaleAqua (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have an entire piece ready to add. I even tried adding some of it but I don't understand all the coding format involved with references and so I've pulled out the first part of what I tried to update. I guess I'm looking for some easy way to understand the sytax of adding references; the majority are internet links. Until that time, I can either add the material in without the references or wait. Ed Welter (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Ed Welter

Saw your changes, looked good. I tried re-adding the first of your paragraphs using the {{Cite book}}. The extra returns I put inside the template are not necessary just did it to make the fields more visible. References as you can probably see are added by using <ref name="someuniqueid">details</ref> where someuniqueid is a unique label that allows the reference to be reused elsewhere in the article in the format <ref name="someuniqueid"/>. Normally the details are in the form of one of the cite templates, like the cite book, {{cite web}} or the more general {{cite}}. If you are going to be citing books try to include the isbn number if possible. PaleAqua (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

See also Help:Footnotes. PaleAqua (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what...I'll get the words in first (this week) and then work on the references. Ed Welter (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Ed Welter

Awesome. I can also help with formatting the references if you wish to just put rough details between <ref> and </ref> tags. PaleAqua (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the references. I'm getting them in there. I'd like to add pictures next when I'm done with all the references. Any tips on doing that? Ed Welter (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Ed Welter

See Help:Files for information on how to upload pictures. Linked from there is Wikipedia:Picture tutorial which has many examples of the markup for putting images on a page. See also Wikipedia:Images. Depending on the copyright status of the picture you are using you might need to include a fair use tag Wikipedia:Non-free content. If the image is public domain or you can release it into public domain it's probably better to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Help:Files goes into much more details about all of this and the image upload form has fields that helps filling in the details if I recall. As a bit of a heads up, don't be surprised or offended if someone puts any of the images you upload for review, there are many editors that wish to ensure that as any images use are free to use and will tag unfree images for deletion. Oh and one other thing when you sign talk page messages with ~~~~ you don't need to put your name after the tildas as it is automatically added in. It's why your name is appearing twice in the comments above. PaleAqua (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Ed, you're doing a great job so far. Keep it up! Definitely do add whatever references you can. I wonder whether the company-by-company approach is the best organization of a description of crayon history? Is it clearer than a chronological ordering would be? Cheers. jacobolus (t) 10:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I considered the company/chonological idea. Actually, the company organization is by chronological order with known earliest wax crayon production dates driving that. I felt that if I merely portrayed the history by date I'd be jumping all over the place between unrelated companies and what they had done or were doing. I chose to place each company in the order that they were first known to have introduced wax crayons and then simply carried their stories forward by company. I want to expand this article with a running list of known crayon colors next (after I figure out how to add pictures). There is another Crayola crayon color list article on Wikipedia but that is only a subset of this information out there. As color is as important to the history of the crayon, I feel it's a useful reference to people that want research on known colors used in the industry. People have long been fascinated with the choice of color names.Ed Welter (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My great-grandfather John Bennett of Rossarden invented some of the colours for Crayola. Not the silly metallic ones, they're stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahou (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And Yet More Inaccuracies

Focusing on Crayola for this article shows the lack of research and knowledge on the subject of crayons. As I pointed out, if you want to tackle the history of the crayon, you have to at least go back to Charles A. Bowley in the late 1880s as the originator of the wax crayon. Louis Prang's company "Prang Educational Co." would come after that sometime around 1892 with their introduction of their Prang Watercoloring crayons which look and color similar to that of the parafin wax products. Bowley's process was taken to the American Crayon Company and made into a line of wax crayons in 1902. Copies of that catalog still exist with illustrations of the crayons and boxes. A number of physical boxes are also known to exist in private collections including that of Ed Welter. Crayola (then Binney & Smith Co.), not Inc. as this article shows...that didn't change until 1955, introduced a line of Crayola crayons. An important correction here is that Crayola didn't start with just the 8-count box as Crayola claims. A pamphlet called "The Art of Crayola Painting" from 1904 shows 13 of the original line of crayon boxes offered by Crayola. In addition, http://www.crayoncollecting.com/PL-1903.htm provides the complete product line documented from physical box evidence and referenced back to the pamphlet and historical records stored in the National Archive's Binney & Smith collection including a cost sheet identifying all boxes from 1906. Furthermore, Youth's Companion Magazing dated Oct 18, 1906 shows a Ruben's No 500 box of crayons offered as an incentive for magazine sales; clearly disputing Crayola's web site claiming that the Ruben's line was introduced in the 1920s. I have the physical box in mint condition with all the crayons. After Crayola, there are a host of early 1900 companies producing coloring crayons. Companies such as Standard crayon started producing crayons as early as 1905. B&B Crayon Company also produced many crayon products. The New England Crayon Company produced coloring crayons starting around 1905 as well. In all, I have documented around 250 different crayon companies or manufacturers of crayons leading up to the current day. This doesn't even take into account all of the generic crayon manufacturers. These companies can be identified here: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/Other/ByCompany.htm

Ed Welter (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Ed Welter

Sounds like work needs to be done. Flynneffects (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, crayons were invented more than 8000 years ago. 71.198.42.112 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Large sections of this article were cut and paste from here: http://crayoncollecting.com/hoc04.htm 184.77.159.253 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's because I also did the original research. That is my site. The sources from my original web site were taken from Google documents, physical products, catalogs, price lists and material researched at the National Archives. All of the material is prior to 1920 and therefore doesn't qualify to copyright laws anymore. Ed Welter (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the association with children? Use by artists?

Almost the whole article is just history of manufacturers. Not a word on why the wax crayon is currently thought of primarily as a children's medium, nor on any uses of it by significant artists. Just a list of things someone might want to add/fix, made in passing... 63.3.9.129 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In my vast experience as an artist, we use Crayola very often due to the number of colours available (and at a cheap price) however we professionally call them 'waxes' to increase social licence to sell our wares and avoid the old adage that 'my child could do that', when in fact they could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahou (talk • contribs) 11:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

US-centric POV tag?

The US-centric POV tag seems unwarranted - maybe the necessary work has been done? There is easily as much mention of France and Europe. Air (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed a section

I was reading the article, and one section had a number of techniques to make your crayon drawing better. I removed this because Wikipedia is about giving encyclopedic information, not for improving your art skills. McBenjamin (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

two suggestions

... the last 3 sentences of the Crayon History section need to be incorporated into the first part of the section, for logical flow of historic events.

... add info about Whitman crayons, which were somewhat popular in the United States during the 1950s and 60s.

Bcooke12 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Beth Cooke

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Crayon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100409022027/http://www.crayola.com/mediacenter/HistoryOfCrayons.doc to http://www.crayola.com/mediacenter/HistoryOfCrayons.doc
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.tlaupp.com/goldmedal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crayon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100822175649/http://www.tlaupp.com:80/goldmedal.html to http://www.tlaupp.com/goldmedal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crayon. 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/20090826233121/http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia00/os/crayons.pdf to http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia00/os/crayons.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

In the Milton Bradley section, please remove "They didn't stop by offering just games however." The subject of this article is meant largely for children, but the article should be written in a formal tone, not in the tone of a children's book. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Tags

Let's talk brass tacks. This is a general article on a common art medium. The laundry list of manufacturers excessive. Giving detailed histories on companies that don't qualify for articles is pointless, and having them all be American is, frankly, obviously unbalanced. It's pretty obvious that it was written by a collector (yes, there's such a thing as vintage crayon collectors). I'm tempted to just straight delete the whole thing as it's clearly not appropriate for a major overview article in a general interest encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And so you did, removing 22 kbytes without discussion. It would have been better to split it to American crayon manufacturers or similar. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas L'agneau is in fact ...

... Nicolas Lagneau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:890:6570:29A4:7E54:3697:ECEA (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What are "fire crayons"?

I just read a Connecticut newspaper account from 1897 where a minister was honored by his cathedral with a silver plaque and a "fire crayon" portrait of the man hung in a place of honor. This Wikipedia article does not mention that term, "fire crayon", but it is obviously used in a fine arts way. Can you fill me in? Thank you for your attention, 173.3.61.241 (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Missing from see also

The following are missing from the see also section of this article:

• Conté crayons
• Photo-crayotype
• Trois crayons

Thanks. -- 71.223.117.216 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)