Talk:Crumpler

The latest (8 June) version of this page does indeed appear to be very biased against Crumpler. As an Australian cyclist, I have never heard a negative word about Crumpler bags, and they certainly have a reputation among the Australian public for being very tough and hardwearing, as the original article states. Is it a coincidence that on the same date as that revision (8 June), a very similar criticism of Crumpler was made on a discussion list [1], and criticised for violating the policy of that list, and again at [2] and at [3] ? It is my opinion that these changes should be reverted ASAP. Any seconders? LachlanA 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree

Crumpler does manufacture overseas (i.e., outside of Australia), as do 99% of all major (and minor) bag manufacturers. So it is unfair to single out this company when its manufacturing operations are quite similar to others. I would love to buy an Australian-made messenger-type bag, but they are too difficult to find, and are often exorbitantly priced.

On another note, though, Crumpler do manufacture a small range of bags which are hand-stiched at their Fitzroy store, so it is technically not correct to say that none of their products are made in Australia.

It sounds to me the author of this article has a particular axe to grind with Crumpler. Wikipedia is NOT the appropriate forum to do this.

Impossible Spelling

Laricanism doesn't seem to exist. I have hazarded a guess that it is larrikinism which is intended here. But someone should decide if that is a useful word to use to describe this company.

Yep, that's what I meant :) Thanks! LachlanA 07:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

Should we add a phot of the bags as an example or would that be too much an advert? RJFJR (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crumpler. 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/20090406225653/http://www.dhub.org/object/9790%2Cbag to http://www.dhub.org/object/9790%2Cbag

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

dePROD

I think this one needs some broader community discussion before it gets deleted, ie, at AfD if it is to go. There are some non trivial sources available, for example:

• https://www.olympics.com.au/aocsponsor/crumpler/
• https://insideretail.com.au/news/world/the-long-term-vision-behind-crumplers-australian-open-pop-up-201901
• https://www.adnews.com.au/046BF6C8-952D-4459-81F0149BD8995D28

without prejudice as to the quality of the above. Aoziwe (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Im not sure how you can say they have none trival coverage but then cavet your sources as "being without detriment to their quality." Quality is exactly what determines the triviality of a source. Broad coverage is in none trivial sources is not about raw search results. The quality of the sources counts way more. Your first source is garbage because it contains an interview with the CEO of the company. Which completely kills its neutrality. Plus, it's written like an advert anyway. Whereas, the third source wont even load. Leaving a single article about a temporary popup store. Which is definitely trivial, both in establishing notability of the company through broad coverage and also as an actual notable event. I already went through this with you in another article where you didn't bother to check the quality or content of the sources. It's pretty ridiculous you'd do it again here. Next time, actually check your sources to see if they are usable before you remove a PROD. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The third loads for me. Checked again just now. Aoziwe (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to load now for me also. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Germany

It is unclear where the HQ of Crumpler Europe is located in. Crumpler.DE says its online shop is in Cologne. The legal entity which I think is Bagmania GmbH is in Dormagen (https://www.crumpler.eu/pages/imprint). Crumpler Europe's Facebook and Twitter say it's in Berlin. If someone can verify the fact please say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juneloci (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)