Talk:Royal Society of Biology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Royal Society of Biology 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.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with The Biologist[edit]

Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, should be merged to this article. GregJackP Boomer! 05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I probably just like things to be either horsemeat or radishes, rather than both. Urselius (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources Banner[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the articles, as no objections were made Million_Moments (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can a monologue be described as a discussion? Urselius (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]