Talk:Royal Society of Biology

Proposed merge with The Biologist
Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, should be merged to this article. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  Neutral, tending to oppose. This is an important trade magazine with a long history. I'm pretty certain there will be sources, given this long history. Having said that, I currently don't have time myself to go looking for those sources (given the general title, that might be rather difficult). --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, in current form unsustainable as a separate article. Anyway, it can be split off later if someone decides to add more meat.  kashmiri TALK  09:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the stub a bit, adding independent references and an infobox. I think it can stand alone as a sourced stub now. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The refs consisted of the LOC catalog card entry and the fact that it is listed in EBSCO.  Neither ref has anything substantial on the subject other than the fact it exists.  The three sentences of the article could easily be merged into this article until there is really enough to have a stand-alone article.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If this were an academic journal, the listing in the EBSCO databases would go a long way to fulfilling WP:NJournals. There may be others, too, this is just the one that I checked. Far as I see, the magazine is notable and there is no harm in having a stub on it. --Randykitty (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A journal is a journal, a society is a society. If a society produces a journal the journal is either noteworthy enough to be given a short article or no mention at all. Also, people looking for a journal will tend to look using the journal title to search, not the name of its parent society. Urselius (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing against my own position here, but: We have plenty of cases where a journal does not meet our notability guidelines, but its existence can be verified and it is not at all unusual to merge such publications to the parent society (if there is one). No problem fo rpeople searching under the journal name, that's what we have redirects for. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I probably just like things to be either horsemeat or radishes, rather than both. Urselius (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources Banner
I think that the banner at the top of the page is not very realistic in its implied expectations. As a recently founded learned society it is extremely unlikely to have generated much in the way of secondary sources relating to it. Who is going to write the history of any society a few years old? Urselius (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One of its predecessors, the Institute of Biology was founded in 1950. Perhaps we should look into merging this article with that of the two predecessors (one of which has only a brief history of 9 years). That would make for one good meaty article, instead of three marginal ones. --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That would make a great deal of sense. Especially as it is about to change its name once again. In essence the history of the primary UK Biology society is linear. Urselius (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
The Royal Society of Biology is the only organisation that can give out this professional qualification, the current article is very short and contains no other references except links to the societies pages. I suggest the topic of Chartered Biologist can be adequately covered in this article. Million_Moments (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Can a monologue be described as a discussion? Urselius (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just following the instructions on the merge page. There was no discussion after a week, and I had notified the creator of Chartered Biologist, so I followed WP:Be Bold. Million_Moments (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)