Talk:Crayola 64

Color table

Something's wrong with this chart - the colors on the two columns of the table don't match! Also, text on very dark background should be made white, not black - currently it is not readable. Nyh 12:19, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know, I haven't gotten around to actually reformatting the chart. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crayola/to do for all the things that need to be done. If you can help out, that'd be great! GPHemsley→◊ 01:12, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

The old table is mostly borrowed from X11 color names. Many of the color names are not part of the Crayola color names (e.g. all the medium colors like "Medium Blue" are X11 and not Crayola). I intend to make a new page for Crayola colors which will show the build up from 8 to 40 to 64 to 72 to 80 to 120. I think I would be able to squeeze in all the name changes and retirement/replacements too. George Hernandez 00:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to take a look at Crayola, where the history of Crayola and the crayons has already been taken care of. I'm glad you're planning to do this, as I have wanted to, but not had the time nor the willpower. I'll be following along every step of the way, though. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good to see that you're watching this Gordon! I just added content to Crayola. I think it makes Crayola 64 unnecessary. --George Hernandez 17:51:47, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Article significance

I really don't mean to belittle the efforts of everyone working on this article, but does the 64 pack really deserve its own article? In my opinion this should be covered in the main crayola article. Impaciente 23:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but the article had already been created by someone else when I came across it. We're more focused on improving what's already here, rather than deciding whether it should be here at all. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think thist list (and the efforts for it) would be better merged to the List of Crayola colors topic. That topic already has more information than is given here. -- Mikeblas 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]