Talk:Uniform Building Code

Merger with International Building Code

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Time to close this as no consensus for merging, in fact, most are against it. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

The proposal was to merge UBC into IBC. Not the other way around. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I can see my reply is not in accordance to what your saying anyway. Thank you for your input. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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 had always thought that the Uniform Building code was a predessescor to the International Building code. Especially considering it ceased with the introduction of the new International buidling code. They are essentially the same documents with additional expansions. I would strongly support merger between these two articles. However I oppose merger into the article 'building code' Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have subsequently linked this discussion with the above discussion Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (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   – UTEX – 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).

They technically are not two seperate documents UBC was replaced by IBC. They are in fact the same, and as such I do believe a merger is appropriate. If you compare many clauses between both codes youll see that they are the same. Further UBC Is no longer used (or updated) and has been replaced (superceded) by IBC in most american states. With respect, Id like to keep this discussion open just a trifle longer. But will certaintly end it if its clear that everyone opposes this merger of UBC into the IBC article, Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. There were 3 separate codes published by 3 separate organizations that preceded the IBC. (Uniform Building Code, Standard "Southern" Building Code, and BOCA National Building Code.) When those organizations merged, they replaced all 3 model codes with the IBC.Newell Post (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything mentioned in this article could be placed within the history of the IBC wiki page. Not a specific reason to merge the hostory into IBC but id assume that a merger of the three codes into the new one would be better repreasented as back ground information history within the IBC article, espcially considering IBC is the code being used in most states presently. But Since Im alone in this opinion on the matter, Ill step back on the merger proposal, thank you for your input however. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. The organizational structure and staff came from ICBO, including the publication department at Whittier. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UBC into IBC

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)