Jump to content

Talk:Cardboard box

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

If anyone has a deeper and more intricate knowledge of cardboard boxes, any contributions would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.136.206 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 July 2005

Paperboard

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

You know, you could always extend the "Popular culture" subsection by stating that both Starsky & Hutch and The A-Team seem to crash through roughly 4000 cardboard boxes in every episode of their respective programs. Just a thought.

Box Size?

[edit]

There are numbers of sizes for boxes? ShigeruNomi 23:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless people

[edit]

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)[reply]

See stereotype. —Bkell (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed essay

[edit]

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 216.23.87.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- Powers T 14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its "CORRUGATED" NOT "CARDBOARD"

[edit]

The public typically calls a corrugated box a "cardboard" box. Manufacturers of corrugated products do not like this reference. Within the industry, the material is known as "corrugated". The difference is that corrugated board is made of one(or more) layer of corrugated(wavy) paper bonded between two (or more) layers of flat paper, cardboard does not have the "corrugated" inner layer. Corrugated board is stiffer and more suitable for shipping containers and protecting its contents. Cardboard is better suited for printing and is used for cereal boxes and other similar light weight consumer packaging. Corrugated board is manufactured in varying strengths and thicknesses. If there is only one corrugated layer it is referred to as singlewall corrugated, if there are two corrugated layers it is referred to as "doublewall", three layers = triplewall, etc. etc.

Vandalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sir Malcolm Thornhill

[edit]

I can find no source for the name Sir Malcolm Thornhill being associated with the first cardboard box. I've removed him, and made comments in edit summaries to that effect. His name was added several years ago, in a way that made it appear to be associated with the ref that provided the date, but I think it was likely just made up, or some guy adding the name of his friend or something. Since I removed it, at least four editors have put it back, with not so much as an edit summary to explain why. If there's a source, let's find it and add it; otherwise, let's leave it out, and not make wikipedia a source for misinformation. Please note that the numerous web pages that got it from wikipedia don't count as sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by one-day vandal Ajwenn82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Jan. 26, 2007. Web pages that include the info come later than that, according to the wayback machine. Dicklyon (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am able to put the Malcolm Thornhill problem to rest, as I have heard from ex-students where the myth originated. Malcolm Thornhill is a teacher of computer science. I don't know why the myth was created, if it was by him or one of his students, but I believe it was an attempt to illustrate the fact that wikipedia cannot be relied on for accurate information (the diligent rejection of his attempt seems to me to be ample reason to reject this lesson, but nevermind). Since then it has been continued by ex-students who are in on the joke. One Wikipedian's testimony is certainly not sufficient, but this can be added to the list of reasons to reject Sir Malcolm Thornhill as the inventor. Perplexedhellenic (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For extra proof, I have a small piece of evidence that may help.
1) An IP that has edited both the article for Cardboard Box, adding Thornhill back to the article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.102.208.106
2) That IP has also edited many times the article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth%27s_Grammar_School,_Faversham as well as the articles for Faversham itself, and the MP for Faversham, Helen Whately. This seems to place the IP firmly in the town of Faversham, and given the frequency of the edits to the school article, probably within the school itself, where multiple people are editing the article anonymously.
3) The smoking gun. Check the staff for the school here on the official website: http://www.queenelizabeths.kent.sch.uk/198/staff and who do we find in the computer science department? Mr M Thornhill.
Now I will put my sherlock holmes outfit away. Perplexedhellenic (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a former student of the school as well - it was a very long time ago, and I was indeed one of those students who thought getting the school's IP banned the moment existing bans lapsed was a funny joke. I know M Thornhill, and to my knowledge this is true. The version I was told was that he started the original edit for that very reason, and the existence of the book that published this fact is what elevated this story to something that still comes back to this day. He own a copy and it is in his classroom.
He certainly has little to nothing to do with the constant repetition of this joke a decade later, however; it's a school for students between the age of 11 to 17, and, from experience, many of them have a "pranking Wikipedia is funny" phase. What surprises me more is that this isn't actually common knowledge at this point and it's taken this long for someone to explain it in talk. Howiieb (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latest one-edit wonder to put him back is John521242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I undid it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative list of WP:SPA's pushing Malcolm Thornhill or vandalizing my account in relation to me cleaning it up:

Blatant Vandalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The source was clearly stated on wiki, and still deleted by I wonder who??? Have you said anything that you believe helps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clblfgoldie123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In regards to Clblfgoldie123 comments I can fully agree, Dicklyon does seem to pick on new users, a number of people have made comments on this. Shame really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveo521242 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yet again another dig at a new user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clblfgoldie123 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right its time to end this silly argument, i am sure we all want the best for wiki so the way i see it is as follows: Dick has hinted that new users post "flaky content" and i have clearly said that he bullies new users. So lets see whos right I will try to prove my comments while Dick can prove his, since he believes in proving every fact on wiki he should have no problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clblfgoldie123 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am away on business for a few days, however when I return the Thornhill fact shall be proved, until then please leave it alone unless proved otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.80.2 (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It appears Mr.Dick may have made an error, in fact here is my contributions page: 10:14, 17 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dicklyon‎ (→Blatant Vandalism) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Cardboard box‎ (→Blatant Vandalism) 09:35, 17 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Cardboard box‎ (→Blatant Vandalism) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dicklyon‎ (→Blatant Vandalism) 16:36, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Cardboard box‎ (→Blatant Vandalism) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dicklyon‎ (→Image:AmericanScientistStamps_cropped.jpg listed for deletion) 15:13, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Cardboard box‎ (→Sir Malcolm Thornhill) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Cardboard box‎ (→History) 10:00, 11 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Cardboard box‎ (→History)

I see nothing about Mr.Dick's friend David Mann or his stapler. False accusations Mr.Dick is not wanted here. Its not looking very good for you at the moment is it Mr.Dick?

Also the fact that the Thornhill thing has been on wiki two years before I even joined can hardly mean I just made it up, and the fact that a number of editors have added it since makes it even more likely that it is a correct fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clblfgoldie123 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I wasn't aware that you were referring to the anonymous ID; I am not in any way related to that person. I though you was referring to me since I have not been signing off my postings properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clblfgoldie123 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, I will try my best to get a source together when I can. I must say that I think all ‘personal attacks’ are entirely self inflicted, however this is not really the place to discuss this. So far I have evidence of Malcolm Thornhill producing the cardboard in 1817, however no evidence of him being a Sir or having any title at all, as far as I am aware he died in poverty. I will try to verify this fact before I post my evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clblfgoldie123 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Ohio Journal of Science is searchable online at [1], and has no mention of Malcolm Thornhill. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mockery continues in 2014 with Docklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another non-source for Malcolm Thornhill

[edit]

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)[reply]

I reverted this edit that put Sir Malcolm Thornhill back in as inventor. It's another 2009 source being cited for this; again, almost certainly taken from Wikipedia, as no earlier source exists: Challoner, Jack (2009). 1001 Inventions that Changed the World. Cassell. p. 268. ISBN 978-1844036110. (Or possibly it's not actually in that source at all; if someone has it, let us know.) This was added by WP:SPA ScarfeL (talk · contribs) in May 2016. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got a copy of the 1001 Inventions book, and sure enough Thornhill is in there with the 1817 date as the "first commercial cardboard box". Nevertheless, since it's a 2009 book, and the article had for a while associated that sourced date with that drive-by-added name, I don't think we can count this popular unsourced collection as a reliable source for the name that appeared in Wikipedia before anywhere else. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Change to proper name

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
May I ask what the difference is between a cardboard box and a corrugated box? Powers T 01:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay. Are the two types of cardboard boxes different enough to need separate articles? Powers T 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Split proposal

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Oppose – since the terms cardboard box normally includes, and is the most common term for, corrugated boxes, I'd say a better strategy is to improve the article with this new info, instead of doing a content fork. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support two articles because they cover two very different treatments of a related subject. The industrial use of these containers involves engineering and analyis: Nobody in industry calls these "cardboard". ASTM International defines corrugated box as a container having closed faces and completely enclosing the contents. When this term is used in connection with fiberboard boxes, such fiber boxes must comply with all the requirements of the carrier rules." The primary industry group of producers is The Fiber Box Association. The US Forest Products Laboratory calls these corrugted boxes or corrugated containers. TAPPI International calls these corrugated containers [2]. I would also support one article called corrugated box which would include some of the uses children have for them. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any attempt to treat this subject technically would be negated by putting it in an article called "cardboard" box. "Cardboard" has no techical meaning. This is not a "Split" because the material is not in the cardboard article now. There is a need for a good technical article on "corugated boxes" or "corrugated containers". Pkgx (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dicklyon is correct; we do not provide different treatments of the same subject in separate articles unless a single article becomes too long. Cardboard box is the common name for this item, and any technical details should go in this article. Powers T 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rewrite by Rlsheehan

[edit]

Numerous edits by Rlsheehan seem to be primarily directed toward changing the tone and topic of the article to get away from the most common usage of the term "cardboard box" to refer to containers made of corrugated fiberboard. I've reverted some of that (twice now); per WP:BRD, he should now come here and discuss why he wants such a radical change in direction of the article, why he objects to the lead image in the lead, what he intends to do with the material he deletes without comment (e.g. on living in cardboard boxes), etc. Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using the talk page - this is more productive than the "Delete Cycle". I have tried to improve a very poorly written and inaccurate article. I have included four new citations to support these edits: no other constructive input nor coutering citations have been offered.
Please note that your statement that ".. what he intends to do with the material he deletes without comment (e.g. on living in cardboard boxes)" was already handled by a new section on "Other uses". This has NOT been deleted, just moved to an appropriate section.
Feel free to suggest improvements in this article and to support them with reliable sources. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your desire to improve the article, and I've been more careful not to lose any of your contributions this time. But your attempt to redefine the topic by rewriting the lead needs more discussion. The move and split proposals that were trying to push a similar point were not very supported, so you should get the point by now. Cardboard commonly means corrugated. You shouldn't have to pretend it doesn't when incorporating your more industrial point of view. Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "Cardboard commonly means corrugated": you are entitled to your opinion. The little boy next door says that a cardboard box is what he drinks juice from: He is not a WK Reliable Soource though. My wife says she pours cereal from a cardboad box into a bowl: I would not try to correct her. There are many common uses for the term. Wikipedia:Common knowledge does not define it.
The cited dictionary definition of cardboard is very open. Let's look at the model used in the related article on cardboard. The vague general term is described then three common specific usages are described with links to better WK articles. It works. With cardboard box too, the vague general term can be described and specific usages can link to better WK articles. This would bring us back to an earlier attempt to have such a specific article on corrugated box. This too would work. What seems to be the objection? Rlsheehan (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is that (in my opinion, as you note), people coming here for information on "cardboard box" are with high probability expecting to find info on what you prefer to call a "corrugated box". Splitting the small article into two would cause them to need to read a while to find out they're in the wrong place, and then go to the other. Since the most common name for a corrugated box is "cardboard box", it makes sense to leave it as it is, and cover that among other cardboard boxes in one article. That will also help people appreciate the difference. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of work with sources to improve the history section, and incorporated all of your improvements, short of your rewrite of the lead sentence. Your summary revert of all my work is pure disruptive editing, of the kind that we don't tolerate. Please try to build on these improvements rather than removing them. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal version of common knowledge WP:CK seems to be that all "cardboard boxes" are corrugated shipping containers. Common knowledge is not a Reliable Source in Wikipedia. People call many types of containers made with many materials "cardboard boxes". A common dictionary agrees that cardboard can be a wide variety of materials. I am making a couple of minor edits to the lead paragraph, without deleting your citation. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly that mischaracterizes my position. Not all, just many. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-specialist usage

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I edited the term 'Cliche' to the more appropriate term 'trope'. This is due in part to definition. Cliche denotes something that is tired, old, overdone and overused. However, this is still a very valid and credible circumstance. Therefore, the term trope seems highly appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.5.22 (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Life-cereal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Life-cereal.jpg, 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 image page (File:Life-cereal.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving cardboard boxes

[edit]

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)[reply]

History section needs mention of the Industrial Revolution

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1817 and Thornhill

[edit]

Hook and Heimlich

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source for 1817

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

More Thornhill vandalism

[edit]

Another driveby IP replacing sourced info with Sir Malcolm Thornhill: [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had over a decade of Malcolm Thornhill vandalism. In 2019, we reached a decade since books copied this error from Wikipedia.

Updated cumulative list of WP:SPA's pushing Malcolm Thornhill and/or vandalizing my account in relation to me cleaning it up; with time active (or active on this article on a few who had other things sometimes).

LLbeejay on imgur.com says When Wikipedia was relatively new, some guys at my school changed it so one of our teachers invented the cardboard box, this has since Been published in a book, that book was cited as a source for the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardboard_box "Sir Malcolm Thornhill"

So I suppose that's the origin story. Or could be just more BS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update: Later in 2021, a couple of editors messed with the name in the citogenesis page: User:JanBrugg changed Malcolm to Malcom, and then User:CaptainLoggy changed it back and added the middle name Augustus. I just noticed and changed it back to Malcolm Thornhill. Dicklyon (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Card board

[edit]

Card board wor start in pakistan 39.51.122.240 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invented in China? Uncited claim.

[edit]

I'm removing the following from the article, since no citation was provided.

Cardboard was first invented in China shortly after paper and has been continuously used since then. Historians generally credit Cai Lun, an Imperial advisor of Chinese Emperor, He of Han. He created carton boxes made of cardboard to be utilized for storing scrolls. Cardboard spread to Europe only via the Silk road.

Srleffler (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer Hoax? :) Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cardboard_box&oldid=1251790067"