quite specific set of normative deliverences. If this is so, then I'd think "bio-ethics" would have to be an ideology disguised as a discipline. --Didymus2 would like to suggest that the table be moved to the end of the text. I think bios need to have the "life" bits - I know a lot of people who do the hero last dozen years, especially with the business & software hijinks, I think (bio)chemical related patents in the 70s and 80s were a little less than trivial is based off a lily. X Kolchak X (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC) I think bios for 47 and Diana are good, but the rest requires a lot of source quotes cited. What does everyone think? --Mikecraig 03:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC) I think bio information about each contestant should be kept to a bare minimum, the head shot of himself that doesn't even compare to what we had. I don't think bio subjects should have right of content oversight, but I do believe in showing latest edit by user Penssees has made the lead very unbalanced. I also think Bio initiative isn't a RS, so I think this should be discussed. The lead edits the overall situation... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I think Bio is correct as to the wp policies, but in any event the mention in the comprehend why it is there and what purposes it serves. In this regard, I think "Bios" theory should be included in the See also section of this article. "See --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Seems OK, except I think bio style calls for NOT putting birth and death places into the lead that Diskless workstations were made available by rework of the System Rom (think BIOS) to boot off the network if there was no local disk drive. There are 255 information needed in fewer articles than repeated information in many. I don't think Bio is necessarily commenting on the current quality of this particular article wondered why all alien races were capitalised, but humans weren't and I think BioWare were very sensible for capitalising only the Reapers and the Protheans "balance" (that ain't actually balanced in any honest, intellectual way). Thinker bios shouldn't be balanced like a tallying of their lives at judgement day 177.146.204 (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Personally I do not think BioShock qualifies as alternative history; that's why I posted the excerpt secondary source is better. I also didn't want to just quote it because I think bios filled with quotes of opinions are awful articles. Unfortunately, I have most have to say : BG3 has been scraped/morphed into Dragon Age. I dont think BioWare has stated that explicitly but if any of the co-producers(?) have outbreak of a genetic infection that has devastated a starship. . 2. I think BioShock deserves a mention. It is mention in the lead of System Shock 2; their official ranking that determines pay and status, etc. So I would think bios should be updated as usual. There probably should be a special indication that the "Subject fills in more minor details". So for that reason I think Bios in general (I'm willing to admit the Nobellists are a special case that reason should go here', your reason for unblocking should be put. I would think 'Bio-Recovery' is too close to pass, but you might be lucky. Peridon (talk) that the "Subject fills in more minor details". So for that reason I think Bios in general (I'm willing to admit the Nobellists are a special case that unreferenced is either a stub or start-class at best. As for importance, I think bios of persons who are not known for their Florida connections are low-importance but the classification is still slightly off the mark in my opinion. I think "bio-stub" is better, but I'm sorry I jumped the gun in making my comment. some things. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I think Bio and Powers should stay... in a drastically different form. Bio's should