Talk:Bamboo scaffolding

Requested move 04 November 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Bamboo Scaffolding → Bamboo scaffolding – Decapitalise second word of title per convention, as it is not a proper noun. At present the proposed title redirects to the general article on Scaffolding. This redirect is not necessary to retain now that we have the new article : Noyster (talk), 14:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - Absolutely, per nomination and capitalization standards.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support this is an uncontroversial technical move and should be speedied. -Zanhe (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Not a proper noun. kennethaw88 • talk 03:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content

There is some superfluous information in this article--for example, the credentials of the person quoted in the section on decline. 24.7.87.13 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed sentence in regards to bamboo scaffolding originating in india. Bamboo scaffolding has been used for thousands of years in china and hong kong is just using it currently. Bamboo is most abundant in china and many believe originated in china and permeates chinese painting and art through the centuries. It is not really considered a building material in india. almost all history in regards to bamboo scaffolding relates to it being used in china for thousands of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37F0:94E0:91BB:DEF7:DF4E:DFDB (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Bamboo [scaffolding] [...] has contributed to 23 deaths" as of when?

@Underbar dk: You have mentioned in the article in revision 1324369711 that "bamboo [scaffolding] [...] has contributed to 23 deaths." It is challengeable whether "23" is still the latest figure, especially after the recent tragic fire at Tai Po, as some claims (or claimed) that bamboo is the cause. If that's the case, this figure would heavily deviate from 23 to something like 174 (RIP). Would it be better if we add something like "as of April 2025" to the sentence? 1F616EMO (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to what the sources say. As I understand, the 23 deaths were construction accidents and not fires. I would advise not to jump to conclusions and make original research. _dk (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There might have been some misunderstanding. I was not proposing WP:SYNTH'ing sources and write "171" onto the page, but instead add "as of April 2025" for "23" for the sake of clarity. And I agree that the source is talking about construction accidents.

After reading through WP:ASOF, it seems like the norms here is to not add "as of" unless the figure is expected to change rapidly (through reliable sources). If that's true, then the current state would be OK. 1F616EMO (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)