Talk:IATF 16949

Spec vs Standard

TS 16949 is a technical Specification. Its not a Standard or Requirement. It is an effort to make a single standard to the whole world

According to: http://www.iaob.org/showPage.php?languageID=1&title=About%20ISO/TS%2016949:2002 "The ISO/TS 16949 does not replace AVSQ, EAQF, QS-9000 or VDA6.1"

ISO TS 16949 section is most useful for any industry who is recommended to customer satisfaction first,As per TS 16949 all Quality Norms are well defined to execute & build strong reliable product in to the market

Hi, page above not found. Comment seems out-dated. If you have concerns, please edit the article or raise comment again with intentions of change. KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Unopposed move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

ISO/TS 16949 → IATF 16949 – ISO/TS 16949 is no longer the correct title. In 2016, ISO issued a press release updating and renaming this document from ISO/TS 16949 to IATF 16949 (full title:IATF 16949:2016). See Joint Press Release issued by ISO/IATF. (Archive: )

References

– Blackplate (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Most standards including the OSI's go by various indices, be it by DIN or ANSI or the French bicycle industry (whose tyre sizes are completely different to everyone else's). This is just a name change and clearly the important thing is that anyone searching will look up "16949". The article overlinks IATF and I'M going to boldly change that.... The important thing is the standard, not who nominally has jurisdiction over it. 84.236.27.182 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but this article needs a complete rewrite actually to make any sense at all. I'll do that, but I think the move is moot. 84.236.27.182 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I've rewritten the article, taken out all the purple prose and so on. It was actually quicker for me to read the specification than get through all themumbo-jumbo in this terribly written article. It is now clear that all that has happened is exactly this standard has an alternative name. Wow. Since the WP:COMMONNAME is exactly as it is titled, this is just too WP:RECENT to move over. 84.236.27.182 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:33, 12 October 2020 (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.