Talk:World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations

message: "is a working party (WP.29)[1] of the Sustainable Transport Division"
Is that correct? WP.29 is a working party of the ITC Inland Transport Committee, see http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/itc/ITC_structure_v3.pdf
I guess, WP.29 is belonging to the ITC and not to Sustainable Transport Division.
Ing Nbg (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP.29 part of ITC 

message: Two new major vehicle manufacturers, India and China, also are non-signatories to the "1958 Agreement."  With their burgeoning auto production, China and India join the United States and Canada as significant exceptions.
QUESTION: Do these two countries, even if not formally participating..., recognize..., mirror..., permit the use and importation..., or both??  Either way, I think mention of these two particular countries would strengthen the article.
Skipdunn (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: India was moving deliberately towards signing the 1958 agreement as of 2007 (and Google searches show updates and further progress towards being ready to sign in 2008, 2009, and 2010). My quicky searches don't definitively say if India has signed yet or not. Both countries' national regulations are substantially (and increasingly) aligned with the ECE regulations; a Google search shows India was saying their regs were 78% aligned with ECE in 2008. China's CCC regs are virtually identical to ECE regs. But in neither country are ECE type approvals granted or recognised. So in that respect, both those countries are practically more or less "ECE countries" in that automakers can send in and sell their rest-of-world-outside-North-America vehicles to India and China with little or no variance in specification; the maker simply has to approve or certify the vehicle or component as complying with the Indian or Chinese regulatory regime. It's the ECE type approval that's not recognised, not the ECE-spec vehicle components, systems, and design features. So at the practical level, India and China are in closer alignment with "rest of world" than they are with North America. Nevertheless, you're right, this deserves good-quality, well-supported coverage in the article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not need to recognize foreign type approval because they are not member of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic which does require it for cross border vehicles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.217.104 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  China and India non-signatories to the "1958 Agreement"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5vLTIzlak?url=http://www.motivemag.com/pub/feature/tech/Motive_Tech_The_Difference_Between_US_and_European_Lights.shtml to http://www.motivemag.com/pub/feature/tech/Motive_Tech_The_Difference_Between_US_and_European_Lights.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current structure does not match the content: 
Currently, this article basically focus on two topics: the 1958 agreement on one hand and — out of this agreement and out of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations — the USA on the other hand.
Structure could be improved to match content.
One proposal was done to change the structure but was reverted by a robot which detected "poorly written changes": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Forum_for_Harmonization_of_Vehicle_Regulations&diff=988184557&oldid=988122822
However, there are many issues in this proposal: one of them is the expression "vehicles categories". Might be for "vehicle categories"?
Could someone take into account that issue?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.31 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Structure could be improved to match content?