This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article GB StandardAutomotive GB Standards should be merged into this one since it covers the same subject (although the specific standard numbers in that article are different from the ones in this article). BW95 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Support. The page is now at Automotive GB Standards. However, its table contains petty details compared to the subjects covered here, and probably should not be kept in Wikipedia because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I suggest just merging the intro about CCC and the some or all of the external links, rather than full merger. – FayenaticLondon 07:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived 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: move. As I said, it is illogical to have the category and the main article at different names. I'm not going to force Justin to go back to CfD to get the category changed (likely fruitlessly) and it seems apparent the proposed name wasn't invented from thin air. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - reluctantly, would really like to be able to support. "GB standards" is misleading and will lead most people to think "UK standards". Unfortunately cannot find sources to support. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps GB standards (China) and "GB standards" becomes a disambiguation page linking to all the various UK standards general articles and this article. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Support If that's what the GB stands for, I have no problem supporting this. There is some serious potential for confusion, as IIO notes, and using the expanded name seems like a better solution to me. The proposed form is used in the first EL, so it's not like we'll be inventing it. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. As a Brit, I do not remember seeing/hearing "GB standards" being used when referring to "British standards". The individual standards are all prefixed "GB" so there is real significance in "GB standards" as opposed to "Guobiao standards". The hatnote pointed out by In ictu oculi suffices for disambiguation re British standards. – FayenaticLondon 13:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment It is illogical and ridiculous to have the category and the primary article at different titles, so these either the category needs to be moved or the article needs to be moved. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 28 June 2013 (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.