Talk:List of Crayola crayon colors

message: because color Golden Ochre is absent.
Yoozr (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is incomplete 

message: I wonder if it is a regional thing in the US, I'm from the east coast and was grew up with smelt and smelled having different nuances. In particular things that emitted odors, "smelt" or sometimes "smelled of" and things that sense them, "smelled". Note for the Merriam-Webster link to smelt, they don't appear to have separate pages for conjugations. The page for smell list both smelled and smelt. PaleAqua (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smelled vs smelt 

message: A few weeks ago, I mentioned some problems with the organization of this article, and asked for some ideas to revise it.  My first thoughts had to do with the improving presentation of the main color charts, perhaps following order of hues instead of alphabetical order, possibly incorporating a chronological aspect, and reconsidering the so-called "retired" colors, which until recently weren't separated out in their own section, and which seemed to have numerous other issues.
In the process of considering this, I decided to make some chronological charts using my sandbox, organizing the colors into groups based on major phases of Crayola history, when significantly different color assortments were available.  As I was doing this, I followed the history and color swatches documented at CrayonCollecting.com, which I've come to conclude has been a major source for the current article, even though it's not cited anywhere.  I found a number of mistakes identifying colors, and obvious differences between the colors presented on the charts in this article and swatches of the actual crayons.  These were most pronounced with the "retired" colors, which raised the question of how the color values in the table were arrived at.
I mistakenly believed that the color values given on this page were found at Crayola's web site, since I know it did have information on a lot of colors at one time, and the article cites Crayola.com for them.  But I was suspicious of the values given for colors that haven't been produced for several decades.  When I finally got around to checking Crayola.com for colors that could logically have been found there, I discovered that very few of the swatches offered matched the color values on this page.  A possible culprit is age; until this January the article said that the color values came from Crayola in 2009.  Then National Names 2000 changed it to say that they were currently provided by Crayola, which is false.
I wrote down all of the values for Crayola's swatches.  Very few of them related to "retired" colors, so the source of the values in this table is unknown.  Since few of the colors correspond precisely to Crayola's swatches, and there are no sources for individual color values, I don't consider any of them reliable at this point.  Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that National Names 2000 has invented information about crayons that never existed; I just reverted an edit referring to colors called "light brown" and "light chrome brown," which are complete nonsense.  I'm reasonably sure that he's been editing this article under a variety of aliases for over a year, and that he's currently blocked from editing under the names "Caidin 2000", "Caidin Johnson 2000", and "Caidin C", one of whom previously added a group of imaginary colors called "Caidin 15th Anniversary colors."
Since the colors are all suspect, and some are obviously wrong, their organization is poor, the division into current and retired sections is questionable, the identification of colors used at different times includes many mistakes, the hundreds of "fun" alternative names used on single occasions are clogging up the tables, and the article is now cluttered with seventeen separate tables for various specialty crayons, I think it's time to put forward some proposals for restructuring this completely.
* First, I'd like to split off all the "specialty" crayons into one or more separate articles.  It's harder to manage, understand, and patrol articles like this when there are so many separate topics.  Right now there are two tables for all the "regular" crayons and fifteen for specialty crayons, most of which have only been produced for a short period of time, and which are familiar to only a few crayon users.
* Second, I'd like to replace the main tables with a chronological sequence, showing the assortments available during major periods of Crayola history.  In particular, the original 1903 lineup, the 48-count box introduced in 1949, the 64-count box introduced in 1958 (which featured the same assortment from 1958 to 1990, and still features most of the same colors), and colors introduced since 1990; possibly subsidiary tables showing the Munsell assortment produced from 1926 to 1935, which was incorporated into the regular lineup until 1949, and which introduced the color wheel concept which Crayola adopted and then expanded in 1958, which might also merit a subsidiary table.
* Each table would be organized by hue, beginning with red and running through purple, with pinks, browns, and neutrals following from there, also in order of hue; I've tested this and it seems to work well, since most of the pinks fall into the purple range; and the browns, being darker versions of reds, oranges, and yellows, naturally come after that.  Black and white would need to come at the beginning or end, since their hue is 0, while the logical place for grey is between them.  This layout makes it easy to see how related colors differ from each other and grade into others.  
:The tables would also be sortable by alphabetical order, hue (from 0 to 359, rather than from red, which is actually about hue 346, to purple, with browns and neutrals separated out), saturation, value, or by amount of red, green, or blue.  There'd also be a hex code equivalent, like in the current table, which would also provide source references (whether each color comes from Crayola, or from a physical swatch of the color), and a notes section.  This would only be used for important information, such as major variations in a color's name (not a dozen "fun" names used once each in specialty packages), or dates that the crayon was introduced, discontinued, or renamed.
Now, it could be that this organizational structure would be better suited to a history of Crayola crayons than a simple list.  So that's something else I'd like to put forward for comment.  Would it make sense to leave the basic structure of the current page alone, but correct the color values and perhaps reconsider the separation of colors currently being produced and older colors, while placing the chronological tables in a separate article?  Or would it be better to have just one article on the "regular" colors, and perhaps change the article title from "List" to "History"?  I'd like to discuss all of these things with some of the page watchers before I start implementing any of these proposals.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals to re-organize this article 

message: Having not received much feedback on the two previous topics, and not finding a better place for the new tables, I decided to try and incorporate them into this article.  I've dramatically shortened the lead, since much of the information it contained was better placed under individual sections.  I've added sortable tables for the 1903 colors, Munsell colors, and the original 48 and 64-count boxes.
This weekend I hope to add a table showing all of the colors added since 1990, as checked against Crayola's digital swatches (the color values given in the existing tables don't match the swatches, and a great many of them seem to have been made up out of thin air by National Names 2000 and/or the anonymous IP editor; there's no way to tell if they came from an earlier version of the Crayola site, or from physical swatches of the crayons, but a large number of them are very wrong).
Once this is done, I'll be removing the older two tables, which will be redundant except to the extent that the notes section contains hundreds of alternate names used for only one or two specialty packages.  Given the amount of work that went into them, I suppose these should be kept somewhere, perhaps under their own article as a list of alternate names for Crayola colors.
I don't feel that I know enough about the specialty crayons to do much with the sections of the article about them, other than perhaps some copy editing or formatting work with the tables.  I'm still thinking they might be better off as one or more separate articles.  But I probably should make a table depicting the fluorescent colors, since I haven't been including them with the regular crayons, and they have their own separate issues with respect to names and changes in the lineup.  They still aren't found in any assortments smaller than the 96-count.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions underway 

message: The following protection template should be added at the top of this page:

201.53.53.216 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Inomyabcs (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015 

message: Do we have proof that Crayola actually released Snowy Powder as an extra color in the Silver Swirls set? 2602:306:30AC:C1E0:3DFB:4B4C:C9A4:7E89 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The color, with hexadecimal code "C45768" was added on October 16, 2014 by 125.212.121.129, who also vandalized the article by replacing three color names with bogus colors.  The hexadecimal code "C45678" (transposing the 7 and 6) was added by 2601:c:9b00:1449:a102:aee2:3541:519e on February 9, 2015.  This editor's only contributions to Wikipedia were to this article, subsections "Silver Swirls" and "Markers" on that date.  The color is not mentioned at CrayonCollecting.com's index of Crayola colors, nor in the section on Silver Swirls, and is not pictured with the Silver Swirls crayons.  The statement "~ was an extra color" makes no sense, and sounds like one of Caidin-Johnson's hoaxes.  Since there's no evidence that such a color existed, I'm deleting it now.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowy Powder 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Crayola crayon colors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100809143337/http://www.crayola.com:80/survey/metal/contest_rules.html to http://www.crayola.com/survey/metal/contest_rules.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Crayola crayon colors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111105164658/http://www.flickr.com:80/photos/30556012@N02/3425000328 to http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/3425000328/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140831070255/http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/3472366470/ to http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/3472366470/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140830114127/http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/3474110356/ to http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/3474110356/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140830152652/http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/3451933728/ to http://www.flickr.com/photos/30556012@N02/3451933728/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page is still not complete because the color Blue Ribbon, which is the 100,000,000,000th crayon, is absent.`73.1.57.180 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We can not see the actual color because no one actually used it.--Make WP Great Again (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite.  Got you covered quite a while ago.  Swatched it, wanna figure out what color it actually is?  https://www.flickr.com/photos/25547076@N06/4070384901 --Nintenfreak (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Ribbon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Crayola crayon colors. 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:
*Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20131204161954/http://www.crayolastore.com/product/crayolareg-large-multicultural-crayons-8-ct with https://web.archive.org/web/20140517121808/http://www.crayolastore.com/product/crayolareg-large-multicultural-crayons-8-ct on http://www.crayolastore.com/product/crayolareg-large-multicultural-crayons-8-ct
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone removed the Color Slicks crayons from the list due to original research. I'll upload a reliable source for it before the color slicks colors get put back. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color Slicks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Crayola crayon colors. 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/20130117194713/http://www.crayolastore.com/custom_box.do to http://www.crayolastore.com/custom_box.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505053143/http://crayolastore.com/product_detail.asp?T1=CRA+52%2D3417&. to http://www.crayolastore.com/product_detail.asp?T1=CRA+52-3417&.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As part of an initiative to prune entries in List of colors: A–F, List of colors: G–M, and List of colors: N–Z, the first entry I reviewed, "Absolute Zero" is linked to this page. While this page has an entry, the associated reference appears to be a dead link. My hope is someone can do some research to find a better link.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish I could be more help.  My expertise mainly concerns the standard crayons, and the fluorescents, for which could depend on a scholarly website, Crayola's color pages, and actual swatches.  Unfortunately, as far as I know, none of these cover the twistables!  In the worst-case scenario, I suppose you could buy a pack, make some swatches on plain white paper, and attempt to eyeball the right RGB/HSV and see if the result matches the existing values.  I wouldn't call that original research, inasmuch as you're using those values to describe the actual color of the crayon when used to color things, a bit like describing the plot of a book or the style of a piece of music.  As long as you're simply describing what anyone else could see by doing the same thing, without adding any kind of original theories, it should be okay.  That's about the only way I can think of to support the color if you can't find an official or scholarly source on it (which isn't that likely).  Just remember, even poorly sourced or unsourced information doesn't have to be deleted unless it's likely to be challenged.  So unless there's some reason to believe that this color doesn't actually represent the color of the crayon, it's probably okay to leave it until someone can find a good source.  P Aculeius (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not fully on the same page. Wikipedia is enormously successful, arguably more successful than it deserves, meaning that we've done a good enough job that some people rely on it without reasonable challenges (i.e. checking to see if a piece of information is actually sourced.) One reason I think it's time to take a somewhat stronger position is that I suspect that some people have invented colors that don't really exist and have managed to slip them by us for years. Actually, I shouldn't say "suspect", because I removed many from the list which are clearly invented. That's easy to do when the name is obviously made up and isn't internally linked, but I now fear that some "contributors" are little more subtle and making sure to add a link to some of the page even if that link doesn't fully support the color. I started walking through the list of colors and over 90% are inadequately sourced, many with weaker sourcing than this one. I'll bet there are some people smirking because they've invented a color, added it to a list and smirking because we aren't doing our job.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to try to deal with such articles for a while but gave up on it. I'm pretty sure several fake entries still exists as I've seen them show up over the years linking to the shades of color templates that I have on my watch list. A lot of the fake colors survived for quite a while, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinnwaldite (color) for an example of one. PaleAqua (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I know people do add fake stuff all the time.  For the standard colors and the fluorescents, I know they're not fake, because I've gone through the sources myself.  Every color is documented by reliable sources.  If anything new appears, it's either bogus or verifiable.  Usually easy to spot the made-up ones, because they don't even sound plausible, and they're given details that are obviously made up (any new colors would need to have new dates, not very old ones, for instance, and old colors didn't have silly names).  I can't say the same for all of the specialty crayons, but I have glanced at them from time to time to see if they appeared to be verifiable as colors, even though I'm less confident about how they're depicted.  But I don't think I've ever dealt with the extreme twistables, unless just to check color names.  Fortunately, I'm pretty sure you can find documentation sufficient at least to prove that the colors exist, although to verify the colors, you might need to obtain a set and check them yourself!  P Aculeius (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear - I'm presently only interested in Absolute Zero which does not have a supporting reference. I don't plan to search for documentation. If someone tracks down documentation for Absolute Zero I won't remove the color from the list of colors but if there isn't documentation I plan to remove it from the list of colors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, that's thoroughly unhelpful.  You would have deleted something that could have been documented in five minutes by checking reputable sources.  I found it first try, and also found what the correct hex codes should be for all eight, because according to the source, all of them are based on other extant colors—all but one of them fluorescent.  Reworked the table, and it's done.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be completely clear, policy is that "Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (emphasis mine). I don't see anything "unhelpful" or contrary to policy in S Philbrick's comment. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an outside observer who is familiar with the excessive disruption that has gone on at this article, shifting the burden to an established editor to disprove questionable content is just not reasonable here, even if it only takes 5 minutes. There has been so much garbage submitted at this article, in many cases by one disruptive child with a legacy of pollution, it's just not fair to make everybody else do the homework. May I please request that we keep that in mind the next time around? We should assume good faith until the good faith becomes vandalism, at which point we should all become watchdogs. This would be one of those articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I considered it unhelpful is that a great deal of time and energy was used to argue over the deletion of citable and formerly cited information, following the loss of the source material when the link went dead.  Wikipedia policy says (and maybe someone can remind me where, as I looked but couldn't locate it last night) that before deleting unsourced or inadequately sourced information, editors should consider checking to see if sources exist.  "Citation needed" and related tags could have been used to flag the statement for this, and there's no time deadline for supplying the information if it's not obvious nonsense or a case of BLP.  That wasn't even tried here once the original source was found to have vanished.  It was just, "you find a source for this or I'm deleting it".  It took longer to type that up than to find a reliable source that isn't likely to go anywhere soon.  It makes no sense to make a huge fuss about something being unreferenced, but be unwilling to do a quick Google search or check known references for the information.  But it does create work for other editors!  What would have been helpful is if the editor in question considered doing that, instead of stating his or her unwillingness to do anything of the sort.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I understand your dilemma, but I think we're approaching the matter from opposite viewpoints.  I know a lot of rubbish gets added to articles like this, but the page is regularly patrolled, and anything that sounds doubtful tends to be checked.  In a case like this, where there was a source, but the source has vanished, the most sensible approach is not to delete the information without first checking to see whether another source can be located to verify the claim.  A vast amount of accurate information on Wikipedia isn't currently cited to reliable sources, but easily could be, and in most cases, it probably shouldn't be deleted unless attempts to determine whether it's verifiable have been made.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about deleting unsourced material from List of Crayola crayon colors, I'm talking about deleting an entry from List of colors: A–F if it isn't sourced. I'll also note that while you tracked down a source supporting the existence of Absolute Zero as a real color, I didn't see anything in the reference that supported the color coordinates. I'm still mulling over what to do (at List of colors, not here) in situations where a reliable source supports the existence of the name as a real color but there is no source to support the color coordinates. I see (footnote 3) that many the coordinates on this page were determined using which surely must be characterized as original research.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I may well have misunderstood you if you weren't proposing deleting it from this article.  Frankly, I think many of the names invented by Crayola since 1990 are absurd, and this is an example.  Outside of the world of Crayola, this color doesn't have a name.  But I don't know the criteria you generally use for the pages you work on, and whether having a crayon with a particular name should be good enough to say that's the name of a "color" rather than a specific crayon.  As for the method for obtaining it, however, I have to disagree.  WP policy clearly indicates that works of literature, art, architecture, etc. are valid sources for their own contents, provided that they're described objectively, and that anyone who examines them can verify the statement.  If you can measure something with a yardstick, or a scale, or a digital color meter, and anyone can use the same process to obtain the same results, then it's verifiable, not original research.  If you have a sample of a color, and can reproduce it to a high degree of accuracy using RGB, and indicate clearly the limits of accuracy, it's not original research, because anyone can look at a sample of the same color, and verify whether the color matches.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a note that RGB mappings are not a perfect match to the full gamut. Its possible to get several different coordinates from a single crayon drawing just from how light or hard the crayon was pressed, the type, color and properties of paper or canvas, the properties of the background lighting, how the image was scanned into a computer, etc. The is also the color space of the display to consider, are we talking sRGB? The best we can say is that some coordinate will look like a color that could be produced by a crayon of a certain color. But it wouldn't be the only coordinate possible. It's very possible, actually almost certain if you have that two people drawing with the same crayon and scanning it into a computer with different equipment will get different values. This isn't the same thing as measuring something with a yardstick. PaleAqua (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that there's some variability inherent in swatches taken from actual crayons, although that's not the case with Crayola's digital swatches, which are solid colors with every pixel identical.  That's why those are the preferred sources for all the colors for which they're available.  However, when they're not available, which is the case for many older colors, it's still possible to approximate the RGB values (and yes, they should be sRGB, since that's the default display method) within a reasonable degree of accuracy, and as long as it's clearly stated that it can't be pinned down more precisely and why, it should still be acceptable.  It's not as different from using a ruler as you think; for instance, unless you're using a micrometer, you generally round up or down to the nearest significant unit, so what one person reports as "about 25 centimeters" someone else might claim is "exactly 25.27 centimeters", not taking into account that the natural variability of the object itself might mean that most examples vary between 25.2 and 25.4 centimeters.  The natural variability of crayon wax on paper is clearly stated in the text preceding the tables, and in an accompanying footnote, and has been since the current tables were implemented two or three years ago.  But as I said, if someone thinks there's a mistake, they can easily check the source for themselves, and see if it's a fair representation.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute Zero reference 

message: An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.
The entry is :
* Coconut
I don't see any evidence that this term is discussed in this article as a color, rather than just as a scent and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries
If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible removal from list 

message: The recent RFC on Talk:History of Crayola crayons has led to the removal of the HSV and RGB values. I am going to implement the same result here. The RFC also removed some but not all of the hex values. Only the referenced ones were kept. I will remove the values which are "estimated" and leave the rest. 
The other tables, with the grids of colours, are not referenced. I think these tables are ugly and uninformative but the RFC gives us no clues as how best to handle those as they had no equivalent in the other article. I'd like to see them reformatted and referenced, if we are going to keep them at all. I'll wait and see what people think before altering those. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of HSV and RGB values and table formats 

message: I'm rearranging the tables here and at History of Crayola crayons so that the names and colors are in separate columns. The goal is to improve readability, since text on a colored background can be difficult to read. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a nice improvement. Wonder if the production years should also be split into a separate column for sorting. PaleAqua (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that this is an improvement. If we all like this arrangement then, once we have got it optimised, it would be good to convert the other tables further down into a similar format for consistency. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I added a production year column, wouldn't mind an extra set of eyes to make sure I did everything correctly. PaleAqua (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any problems so far. BTW, when dealing with columns I have found that the Visual Editor can be very helpful. I don't like or use it for general editing but it definitely helps with table columns. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep that's what I used, then did some tweaks of the column style options with the wikitext editor as a second pass. But still was a lot of cutting, trimming and pasting. PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table layout 

message: Crayola just dropped three new specialty crayon sets, the first new standard crayons since Metallic FX if I'm not mistaken.  I did some swatches linked here: https://imgur.com/a/nMpXWL2
Some important things to note, I don't have the glitter crayons yet, since I didn't notice them originally, and will rectify that as soon as possible.  From their website it does appear that this is a different set of glitter crayons than the previous 16 count, as there is only one white, but we'll see.  
The Neon set contains three versions of 8 colors each:  shocking pink, wild watermelon, atomic tangerine, sunglow, screamin' green, sky blue, and purple pizzazz.  There are glitter and pearlescent versions of each color included, and those were swatched in the link as well.  It's probable, and eyeballing it, it seems to be the case, that the glitter versions are just the regular colors with glitter in it.  All glitter seems to be silver or colorless.  Additionally I'm unsure if the pearl versions of these colors are different in hue.--Nintenfreak (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addendum, there appear to be a new set of Metallic crayons in a 24 count too.  They weren't listed publicly on the site until recently, but I just ordered them and I'll get a swatch of them.  I also ordered the Glitter crayons and we'll see if there's any overlap with the 1997+ glitter crayons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintenfreak (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Just a bit of a note before I do the swatches, the new Metallic crayons are, indeed, the original metallic crayons plus another 9 new ones. Metallic Sunburst was discontinued, at least as a color name.  I checked that swatch first and it appears to be a dead on match for a new color, robot canary.  It was probably renamed because of metallic seaweed, not that they haven't had 16 years to fix it or anything.  The new sets do have multilingual names on their wrappers and they're at the end like normal, so if they get used up a lot you can still tell.  The glitter crayons are definitely different, at least, some of them are.  I'll have to make some guesses as to what they are, because unlike the original set, they have unique color names.  For instance "black with glitzy gold glitter" is just "black gold" and "orange with twinkling turquoise glitter" is "campfire flicker" (probably, still have to do swatches since the obviously sky blue color seems to have red glitter instead of gold).  The biggest difference is that only one white crayon survived this transition, diamond dazzle.  The line has once before changed "purple with ruby red glitter" to "royal purple with ruby red glitter" so these kinds of changes aren't expected.--Nintenfreak (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl/Neon/Glitter 2019 

message: Couldn't find the Crayola colour "Pale Rose". I know it exists because I'm holding it in my hand. Could someone please add it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguy15 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't exactly do that, but if you could take pictures of it and, if you have already used it, make a swatch, that might be something that crayon collectors would be interested in knowing.  The truth is, our information about a lot of early Crayola history has been put together by collectors.--Nintenfreak (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pale Rose 

message: I remember Burnt Umber from my childhood, so it must have been in existence around 1960, but the page here says it was discontinued in 1944.  Is there a way to find out?
Daniel R. Grayson (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Daniel!  Good question, the Crayola company wasn't exactly keeping great records back then about their products.  My mom was born in 1958 and she had a box of Crayons including Medium Violet, even though the current Box of 64 was first standardized in 1958.  More than likely you had some new old stock as a child. --Nintenfreak (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burnt Umber 

message: Ok so as you probably know this page has a lot of problems. I'm gonna list some problems I found that I don't think anyone else is talking about the problem is that the background for charcoal gray is showing the color sandstone. obviously I could be wrong on this but I just wanted to make sure because this page needs the biggest amount of help possible and this is something to help this page. (https://www.htmlcsscolor.com/hex/736A62 also here was the link for how I made the desertion of the thing of charcoal gray is wrong, #736A62 is the hex code for the thing and you can check this by "inspecting")  I do acidly have another thing I want to talk about. just because that hex inset on the Crayola website doesn't mean we should only put the hex only on there web site we should do all the colors like charcoal gray or blue (|) and I know that will take a lot of time but Wikipedia has done bigger so we can do this and also where the heck is the hex on the Crayola website?!
*These color swatches may overlap with the names of other colors, but the color names are what Crayola calls them.  These are the hexcodes of the actual colors.--Nintenfreak (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem  

message: Thememe420 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistakes 

message: --Thememe420 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare Crayola crayons  

message: Hi! I’ve never tried to help with a wikipedia page before so I’m not sure if this is the best way to do this, or what the organization system for this page is, but i noticed the Techno Brite crayons from 1997 aren’t in this list? They’re my favorite release from crayola, with fun silly colors like plug & play pink, green dot com, and www dot purple! Should someone add these? 76.27.86.200 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techno brite 

message: Here's sources it's not made up. Stop acting like its formatting means it isn't real https://shop.crayola.com/color-and-draw/confetti-metallic-neon-and-cosmic-crayon-set-96-count-5234620000.html http://www.jennyscrayoncollection.com/2022/06/crayola-24-bold-bright-construction.html https://www.jennyscrayoncollection.com/2021/12/crayola-24-cosmic-crayons.html https://shop.crayola.com/color-and-draw/confetti-crayons-24-count-5234070000.html https://www.walmart.com/ip/CRAYOLA-SPECIAL-EFFECTS-CRAYONS-96-CT/1140967033?athbdg=L1700 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintenfreak (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sections because you're a wikilord 

message: In both this article and "History of Crayola crayons" someone has added some new information about how 20 new colors are being added to the 152 count box by this October. However, the reference linked does not direct to a working link on Crayola's website. I've been looking for a reputable source about this for a while now; does anyone know where this information comes from? TheMinester (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: some changes in the "Standard colors" list 

message: Hello! Have you ever heard about the new 24-set Cosmic Crayons? It was just released last year. So I'm just asking that we need to add this special crayons from the list. Thanks!   11:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic crayons 

message: I changed the ordinary "yes" and "no"s into a template but the Bluetiful row is broken, I tried to put a asterisk * into the label but it bugs up the cell and causes them to appear as the partial source code of the template. How can I fix this, it must be a bug when a sort key is added? RainbowLover334148 (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: I restored the revision before my change and added the aforementioned broken version into my second sandbox. RainbowLover334148 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: I finally found a way to fix, it was an additional pipe. RainbowLover334148 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetiful row bug 

message: The description under Confetti Crayon reads like an advertisement. I'm going to rewrite it when I get autoconfirmed. Alternatively, someone could fix it for me before then. Dinsfire24 (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dinsfire24 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confetti Crayon 

message: Has Crayola actually published these hexadecimal values as canonical, or are they just numbers that some programmer stuck on the website to approximate the named colors? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They are original research sampled from website. Similar problems exists on many of the color term pages, and even many of the sourced ones are circular references that can be traced back to old versions of "List of Colors" and the like. PaleAqua (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hexadecimal 

message: I came here from the depths of Wikipedia twitter account; this article is charming, and someone's clearly put a lot of work in to representing the colours of each crayon, but – as people in years previous have raised themselves – I'm concerned about the accessibility of some of the tables in the 'Speciality Crayons' section.
There's no unified table formatting for these colours. Sometimes the tables are colour first, name in white cell next to it, then details in cells next to that; sometimes it's a block of colour with the crayon name displayed on top in a differently-coloured font. The Crayons with Glitter table seems to attempt meaningful contrast, and it mostly succeeds, but the display of rainbow colours behind text is clunky; the table below that is worse – the colours 'aqua fizz', 'tropical shower', etc. are pretty unreadable.
Surely we could plump for a unified, colour-first legible-name-second table approach here?—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ( me!) 15:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified table formatting for accessibility  

message: This is like the most helpful page on the entirety of Wikipedia. I have used it for probably ten years. 47.12.225.19 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You! 

message: Would it be possible at all to sample several photos of the crayons under good lighting to estimate the colors for this page? (For example, sampled from branding materials, scans of boxes... scans of crayons...) CrustyCaverns (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color Estimation 

message: 1: It would be great if we could fix the tables so that the names and colors are in different columns. A lot of this has been done since the last time I looked at this page, but there are still some where the text is on top of the color- often with low contrast. As of today, they are:
-Fabric Crayons
-Color Mix-Up Crayons
-2019 glitter crayons
-Neon Crayons
-True to Life Crayons
2: For some reason, the color names for the Metallic FX crayons are bold, while nothing else is.
3: This issue in particular is definitely up for further discussion, but I think it might be prudent to reorganize the Colors of the World Crayons. At present, they are organized alphabetically(ish), but if you look at them, you'll notice there are three hues- Almond, Golden, and Rose (this is only counting the skin tones, by the way)- and ten shades- Extra Light, Very Light, Light, Light Medium, Medium, Medium Deep, Deep, Very Deep, Extra Deep, and Deepest- although it seems that Medium Rose and Very Deep Golden have been swapped out for Extra Light Almond and Deepest Almond. I would propose listing the skin tones according to one of these characteristics.
4: I'm going to call attention back to 76.27.86.200 (talk) and   's comments on Techno Brite and Cosmic crayons. Were/are they unique colors, or old colors with special names? I also have seen a box of "Colors of Kindness", and the same questions could be applied to that as well.
5: I'm not sure why the list of Confetti Crayons was deleted. I get that the color "sprinkles" and maybe even the base colors probably don't have known hex codes, but we could still include the names. I will note here that, on the crayon wrappers, the names are written in all lowercase- you guys can decide whether or not that should be copied here.
That's it! Thanks!
-AAEexecutive (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several notes