Talk:BioShock#Requested move 25 May 2015

{{Article history

|action1=PR

|action1date=06:04, 21 October 2007

|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/BioShock/archive1

|action1result=reviewed

|action1oldid=165996049

|action2=GAN

|action2date=06:26, 28 October 2007

|action2result=listed

|action2oldid=167580006

|action3=FAC

|action3date=16:28, 18 November 2007

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BioShock

|action3result=promoted

|action3oldid=172241313

|topic=Everydaylife

|currentstatus=FA

|maindate=August 2, 2008

|otd1date=2024-08-21|otd1oldid=1241051542

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=Mid}}

}}

{{refideas

|1={{cite web|url=http://www.joystiq.com/2009/05/08/ken-levine-next-project-will-cost-a-fair-amount-of-money/|title=Ken Levine: Next project will cost 'a fair amount of money'|last=Grant|first=Christopher|date=8 May 2009|work=Joystiq|publisher=AOL|accessdate=}}

|2={{cite web|url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/making-bioshock/|title=The Making Of: BioShock|date=23 July 2012|work=Edge|publisher=Future plc|accessdate=}}

|3={{cite web|url = http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-17-the-true-story-of-bioshock | title = Rapture leaked: The true story behind the making of BioShock | publisher = Eurogamer | first = Simon | last = Parkin | date =2014-04-17 | accessdate = 2014-04-17 }}

|4={{cite web |url=http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/religions/article/view/12163 |title=‘The Lamb of Comstock’. Dystopia and Religion in Video Games}}

|5={{cite web|url=https://blog.2k.com/news/residents-of-rapture|title=Residents of Rapture}}

|6=[http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/19/12972940/bioshock-little-sisters-adam Analysis of the flaw in BioShock's Design at Polygon]

|7=[http://www.pcgamer.com/the-making-of-fort-frolic-bioshocks-most-twisted-and-memorable-level/ The making of Fort Frolic, Bioshock's most twisted and memorable level - PC Gamer]

|8=[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bioshocks-jordan-thomas-discusses-the-acclaimed-trilogys-creation-2k-infinite-bioshock-collection Vice.com article with Jordan Thomas

|9=[https://www.gamesradar.com/the-making-of-bioshock-how-irrational-games-created-an-fps-thats-still-celebrated-15-years-on/ Reprint of Retro Gamer's Bioshock article]

|10=[https://archive.org/details/bioshock-articles 181 articles from American, British, and Australian gaming magazines about Bioshock]

}}

__TOC__

Trivia: Booker DeWitt was named after the physicist Bryce DeWitt

Booker got his last name from the Bryce DeWitt who worked on the many worlds theory in quantum mechanics.

See wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_DeWitt

Regards,

2600:8805:9880:FA:8D16:DB4E:931A:A211 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

:While many third-parties have made the connection between Bryce and Booker and the many-world theory, we would need someone from Irrational Games like Ken Levine to assure this was an intentional reference. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2016

:The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, with the suggestion for {{u|Neverrainy}} to follow through on Ferret's comment. {{RMnac}} JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

----

:BioShock → {{no redirect|BioShock (video game)}}
:BioShock (series) → {{no redirect|BioShock}}

– Series has more than 3 video game articles now per WP:NCVG, set this page to be the secondary article. Neverrainy (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

:This is a technical request brought to full RM (permalink). — Andy W. (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move While we would normally put the non-disambig name for the series, in the case of the first BioShock game, it is likely more well-known in of itself rather than the series, and thus should take precedence. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:NCVGDAB No. 6's exception says (my emphasis in bold): "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series, the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Per Masem and Soertermans. Additionally, it might be time for someone to ask Neverrainy to stop unilaterally moving all the series pages with technical moves instead of proper move discussions. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

----

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:BioShock (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The only male Little Sister (2788720631).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

HW requirements

I'm wondering, is there any particular reason why minimum HW requirements (for the PC version at least) are not listed? Actually pretty much for no game on wiki at all, as far as I noticed. That's one of the *most basic* facts I would expect a site called "encyclopedia" to carry about a video game, so is there anything behind it? Hard to imagine nobody ever got that idea…

Behemot (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

[[WP:URFA/2020]] notes and comments

As part of the Unreviewed featured articles sweeps, older promoted featured articles are being rechecked against current criteria and standards. I had some thoughts on this article:

There's a lot of overlap between this article and BioShock (series), and I think as such a lot more could be summarized here versus given in a full list (arguably most of the related media, which could get folded into Legacy.)
Speaking of "Legacy", it's a pretty short section considering the game is still considered one of the greatest FPS of all time, and there's more sources that could be integrated that have come out since release.
I think the PC Technical issues and DRM section seems disproportionately large compared to the over-all article and could be summarized better; I don't think :File:Bioshock widescreen.jpg likewise has a strong fair use rationale.
Some accreted "blow by blow" sections in the article, especially the ports bit.
There's some other organizational stuff I find weird, like sticking the bit about Jewish themes in at the end of development (when it really feels like it belongs in a themes section, which doesn't exist), stuff like limited editions, rereleases of the game not being included in the actual releases section, etc.
Prose could definitely use a touchup throughout.

Pinging Masem, Ferret, Al83tito and Pale Autumn as major/recent contributors for input and thoughts.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is BioShock an immersive sim?

It's been frequently called as a successor to System Shock, which makes sense considering that a chunk of its developers had previously worked on the series (System Shock 2 especially), but is it actually an Immersive sim? Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

:I would consider BioShock an immersive sim, but get other opinions first before editing. Drdr150 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

FA criteria issues

A featured article should be predominantly made up of academic sources when possible. There are many such sources available, but they are not used in this article. The article right now falls far below a comprehensive overview of high quality sources. It also uses unreliable sources like including Metro and We Got This Covered, as well as borderline sources like About.com, Vice, and press releases. A full copyedit would also be helpful, because it looks like there are a lot of places where the prose could be tightened up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Thebiguglyalien}} It looks like there were some edits to this article since you noticed it. Have your concerns been resolved, or should this go to WP:FAR? If FAR, would you like to nominate it, as you can explain your concerns better then someone else? Z1720 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:None of the edits appear to introduce significant changes. My primary concern is the state of the sourcing, which I believe is far from the highest possible quality. FAR is a little bureaucratic for my taste and I don't see myself participating there at the moment. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::I removed the Metro reference, but in general the referencing could do with an overhaul (lots of less-reliable publications being used when better sources are available for the same information.) The About.com review for example could be replaced by a better ref, though it's citing the content that's currently there so I didn't remove it presently. I will probably take to FAR because the cleanup job will probably take more than a single user to effectively rewrite. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)