This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frowshanzamir ( talk) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Uniform Building Code (UBC) was a model document that is no longer in use and obsolete. The International Building Code (IBC) is more up to date and relevant. I strongly disagree with the merger of IBC with UBC.
Disagree with the suggestion to merge with International Building Code. This was a different document published by a different organization. Links to IBC are provided. Newell Post ( talk) 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not support merging the two documents, especially not IBC into UBC as the link at IBC seems to indicate (if any merger, it should be the other way around). The UBC article needs more substance, however. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 20:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that these document should not be merged. They are two separate codes and should be stand alone documents. V767 ( talk)16 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC).
The UBC came in three volumes and the IBC is in only one volume. How can there be exact inclusion into the IBC? The 3 UBC volumes were approximately the same size of the one IBC Book. Some things must be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.87.197 ( talk) 01:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frowshanzamir ( talk) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Uniform Building Code (UBC) was a model document that is no longer in use and obsolete. The International Building Code (IBC) is more up to date and relevant. I strongly disagree with the merger of IBC with UBC.
Disagree with the suggestion to merge with International Building Code. This was a different document published by a different organization. Links to IBC are provided. Newell Post ( talk) 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not support merging the two documents, especially not IBC into UBC as the link at IBC seems to indicate (if any merger, it should be the other way around). The UBC article needs more substance, however. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 20:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that these document should not be merged. They are two separate codes and should be stand alone documents. V767 ( talk)16 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC).
The UBC came in three volumes and the IBC is in only one volume. How can there be exact inclusion into the IBC? The 3 UBC volumes were approximately the same size of the one IBC Book. Some things must be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.87.197 ( talk) 01:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)