Template:Did you know nominations/Bloodbath of B-R5RB

Bloodbath of B-R5RB

 * ... that the losses incurred from the video game battle Bloodbath of B-R5RB cost a hypothetical real-world value of $300,000–$330,000 USD?
 * Reviewed: Miguel Henríquez

Created by 3family6 (talk). Self nominated at 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT 1: That the massive video game battle Bloodbath of B-R5RB broke out due to one players mistake?
 * ALT 2: That the massive video game battle Bloodbath of B-R5RB involved over 7,500 players, making it potentially the largest Player versus player battle ever?

Problem: the article makes very clear that the "real-world value" is purely hypothetical, if all the pieces had been bought using a mechanism that few if any players actually used. I think you would have to make quite a convoluted hook to put this in a way that isn't misleading. Please suggest a better hook. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As for review, the article was started five days ago, is quite lengthy, seems neutral as best as I can tell (I don't know what commercial issues to look for). Spot checking for close paraphrasing three times, I came up with "Both sides began trading titan kills every hour, when their titans' doomsday weapons were ready to fire again" vs. "The two sides traded Titan kills every hour, when their Doomsday weapons could fire again..." but the similarity extended only this far.  Based on the reaction (or lack thereof) I got recently at  I'm going to say this will pass for now (it's definitely not a copyvio).  QPQ seems deserved - he wasn't the "first" reviewer, but the one before him gave only the (to me) cryptic comment "full review needed".  So I'm going to say ...  get a hook, and you should be accepted, but for now Symbol possible vote.svg. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this better? I specified that it was media outlets that estimate the losses of the battle totaling $300,000.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it seems like it's misleading. I think the hook is supposed to better represent the whole story. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'll try to think of something. The dollar value is what the media latched onto, and I think is the most intriguing aspect of the battle. Well, the accidental start is also intriguing, so maybe I can go with that.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There. I tweaked the hook again, and suggested some alternate ones. Alt 1 doesn't have the same drama that the main one does though. Alt 2 is a little better in that regard.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll say Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT2. I still don't like the original much, and ALT1 is, in my subjective opinion, not interesting.  I should point out though that you have room, and you might be able to add something to ALT2 from the next sentence "Joystiq called the battle potentially the largest recorded PvP battle in any game to date" (which also checks out at the source) to increase the impact of your hook. Wnt (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I realized too that "largest PvP battle" would make a good hook.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 21:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm ready to pass this ... with the exception that I think the DYK rules want the AFD to be settled first (if I'm wrong about that, a closer should feel free to promote any time). I voted against deletion; presuming the disposition is favorable it should be ready to run right afterward. Wnt (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Articles for deletion/Bloodbath of B-R5RB is ongoing. --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT2. Afd closed as Keep.  Reinstating previous tick by Wnt. --Allen3 talk 11:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)