Talk:Messenger bag

Miscellaneous ancient notes[edit]

Mythmon 22:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article link to Diplomatic bag?

Should it not? Ewlyahoocom 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are two rather different things. Mathmo ^Talk 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about [Satchel (bag)]? What's the difference, exactly? -RoSeeker 09:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satchel is (basically) a subset of messenger bag. Satchel is often leather and mostly for papers. Rakerman (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT'S JUST A BAG! If it has one strap, it can be slid around to the back. It's about how you use it, rather than any "design". After someone cleans up this article, there won't be anything left. Merge with another article on bag designs, where people who are not messenger-bag-afficionados will throw out the all this extraneous stuff having to do with a fad. --Flyswatting (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messenger Bag Vs Satchel[edit]

What is the difference between a Messenger bag and a satchel. This should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.129.99 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clarified in the Satchel (bag) article. Rakerman (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A year or so after the fact, but: messenger bags are designed specifically to be worn on the back, not at one's side. Some of the smaller bags can be worn at the side, like a purse or satchel, but the point is still that they be worn on the back, to facilitate biking while wearing it. ASWilson (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upper/Mid Back[edit]

There are some styles of bags that have a single strap designed and the bag moulded in such a way as to fit only on your upper or mid back. e.g.[1] Should these also be considered messenger bags, despite the definition specifying lower back? Rakerman (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

Why were the external links for the bag reviews and the brand list removed? Completly un-necessary. I would say that those are helpful links and are not link spam. the bag reviews page is quite helpful and informative. As long as that content is not included in the article (which would make it NPOV) I see no reason not to have it in the article. The list of companies should be listed too. I will reinsert the reviews page but won't put in the company list yet. --Tainter 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)--150.131.70.240 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as an ex-courier my view is it should be there. It adds to the article as a whole. Mathmo ^Talk 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that: Both [2] and [3] are very useful sites. Unless someone protests, I'll just be bold and add the info again next week Tierlieb (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, messenger bags are a specific type of bag, the IFBMA list is most credible, if it needs updating just email them. Some "messenger bags" are not messenger bags and with no commercial list of companies there is no need to confirm if the links are to actual messenger bag companies. Let the IFBMA, actual messengers have that headaache —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.23.89 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Why does fag bag redirect here? Most people use it to denote a fanny pack. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]