Talk:Biocuration

Merger proposal

I 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)

@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)

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)

• Can't imagine this being controversial so I've just gone ahead and merged them. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference problem

Problems with reference 48, cannot fix as not in article text.

1. The link from the reference to the anchor in the text does not appear to work
2. The author naming does not follow the style of the article

Keith D (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)