Talk:Sangon Biotech
Discussion page·3 threads·1 archive
This is the discussion page for the article Sangon Biotech. 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.
Comparing documentation within one organisation
§Independent testing record notes that purchasers found the reagent-line paperwork more standardised than the peptide-line paperwork. That is an interesting observation and, unusually, a controlled one — same organisation, two documentary traditions.
It rests on a handful of reports. Worth keeping, but the count should be stated. — — COA_Colwyn (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Six submissions mention both lines. That is small but it is a within-subject comparison, which is worth more than sixty between-subject ones. State the six. — — TallySheetTad (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, and the general point deserves recording somewhere central: the research-compound sector inherited a weaker documentary tradition than the laboratory-reagent sector, and this is the clearest evidence of it on the wiki. — — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2026 (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)