Talk:Bunk bed
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bunk bed article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Please merge relevant content, if any, from Loft beds per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loft beds. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:49Z
Safety
[edit]While all statements in this section are certainly correct, I wonder whether similarly comprehensive sections about the safety issues of furniture and other items of daily can be found in the respective articles. I believe not. This could be taken as a sign that all other articles carelessly jeopardize the readers' health or it could be an indication that the section in present article attributes far too much attention to safety. Personally, I find the latter more plausible. If others agree, I would be pleased to see the section shortened. --134.91.141.39 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. This type of safety instruction should be found in user manuals, not a website dedicated to general information. 71.48.61.43 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bunk bed. 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/20071025194428/http://www.askthebuilder.com/printer_280_Build_a_Loft_Bed_for_Any_Bedroom.shtml to http://www.askthebuilder.com/printer_280_Build_a_Loft_Bed_for_Any_Bedroom.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108032942/http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/01/49805?intcid=inform_relatedContent to http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/01/49805?intcid=inform_relatedContent
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606143542/http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2001/12/14/4131/ to http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2001/12/14/4131/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006184053/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19871337_en_1.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19871337_en_1.htm
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) 19:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Adult Bunk Beds Section Proposal
[edit]Hi all, I attempted to add a short section about adult bunk beds, which are increasingly common in shared housing, hostels, and commercial settings. The content was based on general industry trends and supported with a guide from a UK manufacturer and supplier. I understand it was reverted for being promotional, but I believe the topic itself is relevant and underrepresented in this article.
Would it be acceptable to reintroduce this information with a more neutral tone and possibly without the external link?
Thanks! SLCRB (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, if you can provide a reliable source. Count Count (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- What kind of media is approved as a source? I assume blog posts by an experienced UK Manufacturer and supplier are rejected, hence the recent revert for being promotional? SLCRB (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Correct. Is this is such a big trend you should be able to find a newspaper article or something similar as a source. Check WP:Reliable sources to see what kind of sources are allowed. Count Count (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- What kind of media is approved as a source? I assume blog posts by an experienced UK Manufacturer and supplier are rejected, hence the recent revert for being promotional? SLCRB (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)