Talk:Cardboard box

message: This article currently confuses corrugated cardboard with paperboard (the stuff cereal boxes is made out of) and uncorrugated cardboard (posterboard), such as is used for jigsaw puzzles. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paperboard

message: Maybe a section could be added that talks about Various uses of Cardboard Boxes in Popular Culture.
The Most Prevalent in the Famous Metal Gear Solid Series where it is not only used as a disguise but has also become sort of a joke in the game where Snake has said "It was Like I was Meant to be in the Box" or "Love your Box" something like that... 
—dady5000 (talk) 18:50, 12th May 2006 (UTC)
````
If such a thing is truly necessary, then why doesnt the article for barrel include references to Donkey Kong or Sly Cooper? I know this hasnt been touched on for almost two years but is this really encyclopedic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.94.129 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cardboard boxes in Popular Culture

message: There are numbers of sizes for boxes? ShigeruNomi 23:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Size? 

message: In the article it says "Living in a cardboard box is stereotypically associated with homelessness." I don't really know what stereotypically means but I've heard some people really live in boxes. --Taida 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See stereotype. —Bkell (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeless people 

message: I removed the following section from the article, as it seemed like an essay rather than a valid encyclopedia section (plus it was POV and belongs in the cardboard article, not cardboard box).  It was written by . -- Powers T 14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed essay 

message: I reverted an edit that was at best full of spelling errors and had no citations, but was most likely vandalism by Asnake8u. Mad031683 17:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I have received a number of messages regarding deletion of facts on this article, as I graduated Ohio university six years ago and have access to the complete collection of the Ohio Journal of Science I know for a fact that the cardboard box was bought into production by Sir Malcolm Thornhill, I have referenced it a number of times and yet it is still being deleted by users with total disregard to the useful research tool of wikipedia. It’s a shame but what can you do. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Dick Lyon invented the cardboard next time a log on. He seems to like bullying new users to believe anything he writes. Is this what wikipedia is coming to?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clblfgoldie123 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think I'll let anyone add my name as the inventor, either.  Why are you crying vandalism instead of responding to a perfectly civil for a verifiable source?  Have you said anything that you believe helps?  Stating that you have access to the latest claimed source is not the same as telling us what it says, and when/where.  It would be great to have a verifiable conclusion here, so please help. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no need to wonder who; use the history link on the article page to verify that it was me.  As to your contributions, you first added Sir Malcolm Thornhill with no comment and no source, like several anons before you.  Then you added a vague source, in a way that removed the date from the source in which it was verifiable.  This kind of behavior, esp. by a new editor who resorts to personal attacks in lieu of discussion, does not give you a ring of credibility yourself.  I am not able to find any shred in web search, book search, or Google scholar to link Malcolm Thornhill to cardboard box or to the Ohio Journal of Science.  That's why I keep asking for more info; a full citation, quote, or scan of the relevant page would be most useful.  Or a statement from an editor in good standing that he had looked at it.  What can you tell us? Dicklyon (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And you made an account just to say that!  I'm glad I could motivate you to become an editor.  But my mode is to pick on content, not users.  It may be that flaky content comes disproportionately from new users; I haven't investigated that possible correalation, but maybe. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Anonymous, I hope you're right; if we can make it verifiable, we can stop arguing.  But I just left a final vandalism warning on your talk page, because based on your other edits, and before I saw your note here, it appeared that you were just a vandal who likes to insert random names as inventors of things, like the way you paired the name David Mann with two different possible stapler inventors in different edits.  If there's something to this, do let us know, because so far you're not looking too good. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was referring to the contribution of the anonymous IP address whose comment I was responding to: 195.50.80.2.  So are you saying that this is sometimes you, and sometimes, not, perhaps because you were posting from an internet cafe or hotel while traveling?  I'm happy to acknowledge the mistake if that's the case.  Log in to help prevent such mistakes.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But I don't see how the two years elapsed since someone inserted the name into a sourced statement, where the source did not support that addition, makes it any more likely to be true.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, good, I'm glad you're not him.  But I think you can see why we're having trouble here.  Four different newbies and anons adding stuff with no source, followed by one vague assertion of a source by you, followed by your personal attacks on the person who is working to try to get to a verifiable answer (me), followed by confusion about who is saying what to whom due to failures to sign and to read.  Let's get our act together and fix it, OK?  Bring us a source. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Another editor has again made an account for the specific purposes of vandalizing my user page and adding Malcolm Thornhill here.  I'm having a hard time imagining what's so important about this guy, or about my attempt to clean up unsourced claims, that someone would be motivated to such childish behavior.  Surely they can't think it contributes toward resolving the quesion, can they?  Anyway, I look forward to you providing a source, since you're our contact in Ohio with access to the only likely source we've heard of, so we can get this behind us. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ohio Journal of Science is searchable online at , and has no mention of Malcolm Thornhill.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant Vandalism 

message: This 2009 book lists Malcolm Thornhill as the inventor in 1817 of the cardboard box.  Apparently this is copied from some of the wiki mirror sites that got the unsourced misinformation from here.  I wrote the author to ask her source, since the book doesn't mention, but I got no reply. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus it's a "coffeetable book" a.k.a. "bathroom reading", the worst possible kind of tertiary source: a collection of factoids put together by some random non-expert author who doesn't cites sources for the alleged facts.  It's a categorically unreliable type of source.  We encountered problems with such things frequently in animal breed article, etc.  There are hundreds of "encyclopedias" of dog, cat., etc. breeds, all of this sort, and cannibalizing each other for "information" that no one in the world has verified, and which frequently turns out to be apocryphal nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  another non-source for Malcolm Thornhill 

message: This title of this article needs to be changed from cardboard box to corrugated box as that is the term used most by manufacturers and by users of these boxes.  Pkgx (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we use common names in Wikipedia, and "cardboard box" is far more recognizable to the average reader than "corrugated box".  Powers T 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No - - - it would be better to leave cardboard box alone and to have a separate technical page on corrugated boxes. I'll do it. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask what the difference is between a cardboard box and a corrugated box?  Powers T 01:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the content fork which didn't get any significant discussion here yet.  Cardboard box, as understood in the US at least, usually means a box made of corrugated cardboard, but can also mean a box made of other kinds of cardboard.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Are the two types of cardboard boxes different enough to need separate articles?  Powers T 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The article on cardboard box is useless mush:  how can kids play with it, how households store things, etc.  My preference was to rename that into corrugated box and have a good article on the engineering aspects of corrugated box design.  That was rejected.  It is acceptable to me to have two articles: one for lay people and households and one for engineering.  Pkgx (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither a rename nor a split is required to improve the article contents.  Why not put the new content in here?  Or add a split proposal if that's the way you want to go.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Look at the line citations and the books listed in the article on corrugated boxes that you have deleted.  None would be fitting for cardboard box.  The ASTM standards listed all reference corrugated boxes: these all belong in the corrugated box article.   Please do not delete valuable information that is not covered in any other article.  Rlsheehan (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to proper name 

message: Recent edits are effectively a proposal to split off a new article Corrugated box from Cardboard box; Corrugated box started out as a redirect to Corrugated fiberboard.  I'm adding proposal on behalf of those editors.  Comments?  Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the material I reverted was just a copy from Corrugated fiberboard.  The more box-specific parts could easily go in cardboard box, which is the WP:COMMONNAME, in the US at least, for a corrugated box.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well the proposed article on "corrugated box" seems to have been blocked for now.  This article is really bad: It has a lot of misinfomation in it.   I will try to discuss the various types of cardboard boxes (materials and constructions) and direct readers to other articles for good information.  Rlsheehan (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: The term non-specialist had been deleted because an editor did not have citations.  The industry usage has been supported now with two good citations and the non-specialist qualifier restored.  Rlsheehan (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources look good, but my objection was to the restriction of the sourced usages to "non-specialists"; I don't see any support for that restriction in the sources, so I took it out.  I did explain that in the edit summary, and you put it back as if my removal was unexplained.  I just don't want you pushing the POV about there being different "specialist" and "non-specialist" uses, unless you can justify that by sources.  Generally, usages are usages, and everything we say in wikipedia is "non-specialist"; if "specialists" do something different, let's document that, but not just assert a difference without sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am willing to remove the "non-specialist" terminiolgy and put "specialist" in the industry usage.  The two types of usage are very different and the article must indicate such. This should resolve this minor issue. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but then why did you put "To the general public" where you previously had "To non-specialists"?  Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You may be right, but I suspect most readers are even less literate than my sad level, at which I've never heard of that word; so I reverted it.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-specialist usage 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Life-cereal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I have the sensation that there is a standard size for cardboard boxes used for moving in a new flat. It is possible that the standard extends to all other types of shipping. At the very least, if you ask people in France, Germany or Sweden for "moving cardboard boxes" they seem to give you boxes of the same dimensions. Does anybody have more info on that? Could somebody add a section to lighten us up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiklein (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving cardboard boxes 

message: The /* History */ section should mention for each step in the evolution of the cardboard box, whether a machine was part of it.  The Industrial Revolution's introduction of machines, especially non-human powered machines, made cardboard boxes (and much else) economical, allowing their wide use. I hope someone adds text based on the current citations and finds new citations to add to our readers understanding of how this technology developed. Lentower (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that would be interesting.  But machines were important to so many things, and find a source that makes the connection for cardboard boxes might be hard.  I'll look.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I suggest you read through the current citations.  They could have the support needed for the edits. Lentower (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Here is an 1884 book with an account of 100 years of cottage industry cardboard box making; some machines, but still a lot of manual work.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

text: And here is an 1851 book about the Industrial Exhibition, which had a paper and stationery section that included "paper and cardboard boxes and cases of all kinds".   An an 1869 book about the thousands of people in France making cardboard boxes. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needs mention of the Industrial Revolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cardboard box. 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  tag to http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0133.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051015023431/http://www.farusa.dk:80/en/arkiv2.shtml to https://packagingbee.com/blog/corrugated-cardboard-packaging-that-has-been-used-for-almost-150-years/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050530043802/http://www.dailyiowan.com:80/media/paper599/news/2005/04/20/Metro/When-A.Cardboard.Box.Is.home-930741.shtml to http://www.dailyiowan.com/media/paper599/news/2005/04/20/Metro/When-A.Cardboard.Box.Is.home-930741.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ===Hook and Heimlich===
The dead link to the Hook and Heimlich document at Ohio State is unfortunate, as that's where the 1817 date comes from.  According to the doc "Community Development Series – Factsheets Removed from Ohioline - 2016", their "A History of Packaging, CDFS-133 Paula Hook, Joe E. Heimlich" is one of many fact-sheets being taken offline for unspecified reasons.  Perhaps we could impose on them to put them back?  In the mean time, its content can be found broken up in this Orkut page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, an archive link was found and added here, so we're good to keep that ref. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Which I did add in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Malcolm Thornhill was an IT teacher at the time at a grammar school in Kent, UK. He used it primarily as an example of why to not trust Wikipedia. Most of the later edits are primarily students; who, unsurprisingly found it incredibly funny that it had spread as far as it had. 92.10.138.176 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 1817 and Thornhill

message: The dead link to the Hook and Heimlich document at Ohio State is unfortunate, as that's where the 1817 date comes from.  According to the doc "Community Development Series – Factsheets Removed from Ohioline - 2016", their "A History of Packaging, CDFS-133 Paula Hook, Joe E. Heimlich" is one of many fact-sheets being taken offline for unspecified reasons.  Perhaps we could impose on them to put them back?  In the mean time, its content can be found broken up in this Orkut page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, an archive link was found and added here, so we're good to keep that ref. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Hook and Heimlich

message: Rather than rely on the broken link to the non-archived and now-deleted Ohio State report, let's use an oft-cited history of packaging that has the same result.  Here's what it says, in part, about the origin of cardboard boxes around that time in England:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the early history of packaging from the early
history of boxmaking, but it is evident that some of the first boxmakers in England were craftsmen
who made boxes to sell, empty, to the public, not to sell to manufacturers for the packaging of
their products: in this category were the widow Cooper, already mentioned (page 31), and the
street vendor of 'Band Boxes' who was the subject of a plate in Modern London, 1805, which
showed him crying his wares in Bond Street (plate 73).
The first serious research into early boxmaking in Britain was undertaken by the anonymous
author of a series of articles published in a now defunct trade journal, the Paper Container, in
1922. He dates the birth of the boxmaking industry in Britain as 1817, the year in which the
oldest boxmaking business known by name was established – M. Treverton & Son. A firm of
this name was still trading 105 years later, when the Paper Container articles appeared; it had
been founded when a Mr Treverton 'placed on the market in London a small box which was made
of chipwood and covered both inside and out with paper, the whole thing being something
similar to our present matchbox'. Treverton seems to have got the idea – which was scarcely a
revolutionary one, even in 1817 – from a Frenchman with whom he was associated, whose name
has not come down to us.
London's second recorded boxmaker was William Austin, who used paper tubes made from
old ledger paper to make round boxes of the pill-box type; presumably by this use of secondhand
material he was able to price them even lower than chipwood boxes of the same shape. It is
thought that Austin took over the business (in 1825) from a manufacturer who was also a street
vendor of boxes.
* 
At least we ought to include M. Treverton & Son as the 1817 producer. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I did add in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for 1817 

message: Another driveby IP replacing sourced info with Sir Malcolm Thornhill: . Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Malcolm Thornhill was an IT teacher at the time at a grammar school in Kent, UK. He used it primarily as an example of why to not trust Wikipedia. Most of the later edits are primarily students; who, unsurprisingly found it incredibly funny that it had spread as far as it had. 92.10.138.176 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Thornhill vandalism 

message: Card board wor start in pakistan 39.51.122.240 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card board 

message: I'm removing the following from the article, since no citation was provided. 
 Srleffler (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented in China? Uncited claim.