Talk:Biological Society of Pakistan

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Biological Society of Pakistan is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biological Society of Pakistan. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130914165548/http://gcu.edu.pk/ to http://gcu.edu.pk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

list of monographs[edit]

@Randykitty: A few hours ago, you removed the table I added listing the monographs published by the society, stating that "WP is not for posting your catalogue".

What do you mean by "your catalog"? This is not a list from a single source of any kind, not a list of any single person, institution, or vendor's holdings, but rather a compilation of information aggregated from many library catalogs, and citations in books and research papers. (The institutions that are listed explicitly rather than relying on a WorldCat link are those that have a single entry for the series, and list the ranges of years and/or volume numbers that they have, since I don't know of any way to automatically see a list of who has each issue.) The links on the right side have no connection to me, I simply found them by searching online. I can remove them or reformat them if you'd like.

What policy did I violate? According my interpretation of Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information, what I did here is not a violation of WP:NOR. According to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria, this should be an allowed list, since it falls under "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" and/or "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". WP:NOTCATALOG says "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable".

What harm does this cause? The benefit is that it provides a centralized location for people to find and share information about the monographs, since the information is otherwise extremely scattered and hard-to-find.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list is completely unencyclopedic, it really is trivial, for example, which libraries own copies of which monograph. Adding places where the monographs can be bought is another no-no. The article is weak enough as it is, you'd do better finding independent sources establishing notability so that the article will not be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]