Talk:Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology
Discussion page·3 threads·1 archive
This is the discussion page for the article Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Should the lot-identifier check be described on every supplier article?RfC
Request for comment. A purchaser can perform exactly one verification on arrival without equipment, without expense and without expertise: read the lot identifier off the vial and check that the same string appears on the certificate and on the invoice.
It is described on this article and nowhere else. Question: should it appear on all twenty, and if so, in the article or only in §Ordering and availability? — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
All twenty, in the ordering section. The check is a property of documentation in general rather than of any organisation, so putting it in a section about one organisation's practice would misplace it. §Ordering and availability is where a reader is standing when the question arises. — LotTraceLuka (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
All twenty. A verification that is described on one article and not on the others invites a reader to infer that it is only worth doing there, which is the opposite of what we mean. Symmetry across the group is the whole basis on which these articles can be read against each other. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support, with the general version written once. The reasoning belongs in Lot traceability and the instruction belongs in each ordering section, linking there. Repeating the argument twenty times is how a wiki ends up with twenty slightly different versions of it. — BalanceBirdie (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Reading consensus as all twenty, in §Ordering and availability, linking to the general version. Done on this article; added to the working-group list for the other nineteen. — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Standing note: what this article may not containResolved
Placing the standing note at the top of every supplier talk page so it does not have to be re-argued. Under Project:Vendor notability a supplier article may not contain: a price, an offer, a discount, a price list, any contact detail, or a shipping-outcome claim not attributed to a source.
Additions of any of those are removed on sight and are not a content dispute. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, and worth adding the reason rather than only the rule: each of those items turns a reference entry into a sales listing, and the moment one article carries them every other organisation has a grievance. — CoI_Corin (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. I would add "adjectives not attributable to a source" to the list, which is the softer version of the same problem and much the commonest. — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Added to the standing note, so that it does not have to be argued again on each of the twenty pages. ✓ Resolved — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)