Talk:Biological Society of Pakistan

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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

list of monographs
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 These are not original research, what I did here is not a violation of WP:NOR. According to Stand-alone lists, 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)


 * 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)