Talk:Bag

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anthropology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Packaging This article is within the scope of WikiProject Packaging, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of containers, packaging, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PackagingWikipedia:WikiProject PackagingTemplate:WikiProject PackagingContainers articles

I don't see anything about this page that "doesn't comply with the disambig policy." The longer version at any rate is much more useful than the stub that was likely to stay that way for quite some time. Am I missing something? - Hephæstos|§ 05:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This email might tell you more. See also Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposed changes to policy, where Eloquence says "disambiguation pages should only link to pages where there is a substantial risk of confusion with the actual page title." I think this was his objection to this page, as no one is going to link to Bag when they actually wanted to link to a page about airbags or bag knots for example. Angela. 07:14, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

I guess that makes some sense. I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not, but I'll go ahead and change the page back. - Hephæstos|§ 07:19, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think baggage should have it's own page. If nobody objects I'm going to move Checked baggage and Excess baggage to Baggage, add some stuff about carry-on baggage and add redirects from luggage and hand luggage.

Edward 19:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Go for it, that will give even more reason to get rid of this ridiculous entry.--Signor Giuseppe 21:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A separate page for baggage is a good idea, but this page absolutely should not be deleted. There is nothing wrong with extra content. In fact, if you want it deleted, why are you even reading it? Just pretend it doesn't exist and go on to other articles. -- Bilbo1507 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our condo, in New Hope PA, is located on the Deleware River and was once a Union Papger Bag Company plant. The river has a "wing dam" adjacent to the building that was used t direct water into the plant for processing. I am trying to locate information about the company and the plant. Anyone have any suggestions on where to look? Lou Molettiere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.149.105 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be yet another case of people trying to turn Wikipedia into a dictionary, or people just being amazed at the ability to self-publish. Or hypertext newbies thinking it's cool to link every noun in every article. I mean, what is the point of defining "bag"? "Sometimes a travel bag has a lock." *rolls eyes* How interesting. I didn't know that. Sorry, I feel a bit snobbish today. Still, I'd like to hear a defense of why this article should exist. - mjb 18:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur completely, though of course, if it's deleted it won't stay that way for long.--Signor Giuseppe 21:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You really dont need to know about bags. Are there people fascinated with bags out there? Thats just strange and stupid--The Republican 18:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Bag" has meanings in contexts other than the obvious, Bag (mathematics) for example. Thus there needs to be some trivial explanation as to the common meaning of the word. There's no need for you to talk down to Wikipedians in this way. If you feel the need to apologise for your comments, you probably shouldn't post them, Mjb. -- Bilbo1507 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A common misconception is that a 'bag' with an over the chest strap is actually a bag, this conflicts with commonly acceptable definitions of 'bags'. The trend for such 'bags' has become popular in the early part of the 21st Century and displays another prominent example of the erosion of our civilised culture." Actually this nonsense should be deleted right away, but just in case somebody cares about this, I'll leave it here. And BTW, the "baggae" sections should really go to an article of their own. Kosebamse 16:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to read when bags were invented. After all, only with bags hunter-gatherers could gather enough for many thus allowing specialization, and eventualy culture.

Who the Heck cares about the History of the Bag?!?!?!?!?!?! You people are really werid!--The Republican 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A history of bags would be interesting, it would certainly add more content to the page. One could find out when and where the bags were first commonly used, what they were made of and how they've evolved over time, including how they relate to today's world (pollution?).

The history of bags is a great interest to me because when prehistoric humans start to migrate they had to have bags. You see they needed something to carry their arrow head in, their knives, knapping materials, fire making equipment, food, and many other things. They had to be able to carry these needed items along with them because these items were not always available to them when they reached new territory. Bags would also make their hunting more efficient because they could go out farther carrying their gear with them; they also could carry the meat they caught back to their families easier and not have to drag their families along on the hunt. Other types of food such as fruits, nuts, grain and vegetables as well as fish could be taken back in bags to the camp or village. Obviously, it seems to me that the use of bags predated the ancient Egyptians. I would set the time for the invention of the bag at the time the first humans migrated out of Africa, because they needed bags to migrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeothur (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there documentation somewhere about "bag" as an insult originating in New Jersey in 2004? It sounds like an excuse for listing insults on the page. Joyous (talk) 16:39, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

HI!

I'm from sussex county and I'd just like to add, with regards to bag as an insult, that the term is in full use in my high school. I'd go so far as to call it an epidemic! Its just so easy to say, even among foreign exchange students. And what with its 3 letters, its amazing none of you have seen it around the internet, I sure have!!!!

People don't know its origins, and that is actually why I did a search for bag on wikipedia in the first place!! My lunchlady called me a bag, but i think she thought it originated from 'drag'.

Also, I'd like to add another use to the colloquialisms having to do with bag, and that is 'bagdad'. If you're girlfriends father is a real unpleasant guy, this qould Certainly describe him!

-Sussex county

I don't understand why people keep removing the alternate definition from this page. First of all, an article that just simply defines bag doesn't belong here it would belong on wiktionary. Also, clearly people use it/have heard of it or else it would have never been posted/reinstated by other people. In addition, I go to rutgers university, and have cerainly heard it being used here, as well as a bit more southern New Jersey where I am from/went to high school. Stop removing this post, it turns a worthless article that doesn't belong into a useful, informative one. If your going to remove the alternate meaning, then the whole page might as well be deleted or moved to wiktionary.

I keep removing the material because it is unsourced, unverified, and rather unencyclopedic. Can you verify that this list of derogatory terms is actually in widespread use? By verification, I mean something other than the fact that the material keeps getting re-inserted. I'm going to remove the material again, but if you feel it really needs to be there, I'm willing to ask for some outside opinions. Joyous (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put his up for deletion. I don't think anybody cares about bags, do they? The Republican 18:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bag. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say. I just polled my office; thirteen of fourteen people brought bags to work today. The bag is one of the most fundamental and important tools in the entire history of technology. I find it incredible that anyone would suggest that bags are uninteresting, or that "nobody cares about bags". The article is crappy, but that does not mean that the subject is unimportant. -- Dominus 15:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody write anything about drinking alcohol from bagged bottles? Is it really legal to do it out in the open in front of a police officer (I'm talking about America now)? Or is it an urban legend? They always show some bums in the movies drinking booze from brown paper bags. Please, clarify. I'd really appreciate it. KNewman 17:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the law is that is its illeagal to carry around aloholic beverages in the open, so by putting it in a bag you avoid that law, I am not certain of this though

I go to Suny Buffalo, and I have heard bag used here as well, I don't know if it originated in jersey, but I know some of the people that say it are from jersey, so it certainly exists as an insult and seems to be very popular in jersey

As far as it being on wikipedia, it's not really a word it's coloquial and as such does not belong in wikitionary, It is part of the culture and it belongs in an encyclopedia because it speaks about an aspect of the youth culture.

I am going to re-add it

In the Royal Navy an ugly member of the opposite sex was referred to as a one bagger or two bagger. This referred to the practise of putting a paper bag over your partner's head, and in extreme cases a supplementary bag over your own head, in case of slippage of the main bag. I first heard this expression in approximately 1970, and it is still in current use. 213.78.105.185 12:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out because, once again, there's no outside verification. I see no hits on the NJ definition in urban dictionary, and the list wasn't very descriptive -- and even looks like vandalism. Please don't re-add it unless we get some citations? Thanks. Janet13 07:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, of the definitions in urban dictionary, only one corresponds to the ones cites in the list: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bag specifically, the fourth definition. The most popular definition seems to be to make fun of one's mother.

Additionally, the list in the entry is not formatted correctly and does not actually expand on what each phrase means. Please stop inserting it in until you can actual expound on it in a literate way and with citations, anonymous users. Janet13 18:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed bag up for informal mediation under Wikipedia:Mediation CabalJanet13 18:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the article bag to be quite ridiculous. Nevertheless, this is Wikipedia, and I feel that what is on Wikipedia should not leave. I do not see why insults are not allowed on this article while there are so many other ridiculous, ambiguous, obscene, and offensive articles on Wikipedia. --Chris 21:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thought on this is that we're working toward a better wikipedia, which means improving what we see. If you see ridiculous, ambiguous, obscene, offensive, etc. stuff, be bold and edit. We shouldn't be working towards a WP where all articles are equally bad; intead, to a WP where all articles are encyclopedic and well cited if at all possible. Janet13 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that DDR section really belongs on this page... it might be moved or improved in some way, but I have no idea what a 10 footer is and it provides no explanation. Maybe that part could be on the dissambiguation page? IMFromKathlene 03:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our condo, in New Hope PA, is located on the Deleware River and was once a Union Papger Bag Company plant. The river has a "wing dam" adjacent to the building that was used to direct water into the plant for processing. I am trying to locate information about the company and the plant. Anyone have any suggestions on where to look? Lou Molettiere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.149.105 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I suggest this article be removed, or moved to a disambiguation page. This article.as it stands, falls way below acceptable standards.

The subject of paper bag should be split into a separate article. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are objections, I will prepare and article on Paper bags. This will include the basic styles of paper bags and also multi-wall paper bags used in industry and agriculture. Recycling issues can be addressed.

The remainder of this article is very weak. Bag really should be a disambiguation page with links to plastic bag, paper bag, dunnage bag, shopping bag, and others.

Comments?

Rlsheehan (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have created a new article on paper bags. "Bag" now redirects to an improved bag (disambiguation). Rlsheehan (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this as an article. The bag is actually a simple machine, and one that has been absolutely fundamental to the development of human civilization, as much as the lever, the screw, or the pulley. After all, how would the builders of civilization have carried around all those levers and pulleys and screws if they didn't have bags? bd2412 T 18:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bag. 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/20140729184927/http://www.handbagheaven.com/history-of-handbags.html to http://www.handbagheaven.com/history-of-handbags.html

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) 02:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The "paper bag" actually only had the wrong caption for ten days, this time. The photos are at the very top of the wiki markup language, so they are a popular target for vandalism, which is what I realized when I tried to figure out "how long" the caption had been wrong. This photo has been at the top since about 2013, so it has been subjected to vandalism and rollbacks many times. It looks like the bottom of the wiki markup changes far less often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluoborate (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing about this article that I thought was hilarious was that prior to my edit a few minutes ago, the first and largest photo was of a plastic garbage bag and it said "Paper bag" as the entire caption, verbatim, no further details. The bag pictured is a Bebbi Sagg from Basel, Switzerland, according to the comment by the photographer/uploader. The Bebbi Sagg has been in use since 1993, and it has apparently changed color and material a few times. The bag pictured looks like one of the plastic versions. See here:

PDF, in Swiss German, about the history of the Bebbi Sagg

On the second and third page, it says that around 2009, the bags were made of recycled plastic, they were blue (at that time), and they were slightly transparent. Although this is obviously a government-sanctioned garbage bag from a single specific city, it is actually very hard to tell what the bag in the photo is made of. I strongly suspect it is made of plastic. I moved it to the bottom of the photos and made the caption unambiguously correct, because the caption no longer says anything about what it is made of, it says the purpose of the bag.

The second thing I found hilarious about this article is how many people think the article should be deleted entirely. I think you may not realize how people use Wikipedia, especially in their non-native language, or especially with assistive technologies (e.g. blind people). English is my native language, but I'm pretty glad that Spanish Wikipedia has a page for bags. There are web browser plugins that will allow you to mouse-over a word and get the Wikipedia article of that title, for instance. Is it better to look up "bag" in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, in most of these cases? Yes, but if the person doesn't know English very well, they might think "bag" is a far more specific word, like cyst or vellum. When looking up "cyst", you really might want the Wikipedia article, not a dictionary. This is a digital encyclopedia that is used by digital tools like web browser plugins, this is not a paper encyclopedia where we might "waste space" with the article on bags.

The third thing I found hilarious is that this (paper bag with cat inside) is one of the only two photos on the Spanish Wikipedia article for bags (Bolsa on es-wiki). Fluoborate (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]