Talk:Biocuration
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Keith D in topic Reference problem
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
The content of Biocurator was merged into Biocuration on 2020年09月06日. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors :
- [[List of biological databases#Antimicrobial resistance databases|particular Wikipedia list]] The anchor (#Antimicrobial resistance databases) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an errorI propose to merge Biocurator into Biocuration. Just as Archeologist redirects into Archaeology, there is little scope to discuss biocurators in a matter distinct from biocuration, in particular since both articles are very short most of what is in one of them will be in the other.--Mvqr (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @Mvqr: Sure, I agree. I belive that, in this case, it is best for the article to focus on the field of research, as in the case of Archeologist. What do you think? TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Well, I agree that Biocuration, despite being newer, is a better title for a single article on the field and its practitioners. I don't have strong feelings here other than advocating that we avoid duplicating content in two articles that should be nearly the same.--Mvqr (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Can't imagine this being controversial so I've just gone ahead and merged them. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Reply
Problems with reference 48, cannot fix as not in article text.
- The link from the reference to the anchor in the text does not appear to work
- The author naming does not follow the style of the article