Jump to content

Talk:2b2t

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2b2t has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 23, 2017Miscellany for deletionDeleted
October 18, 2020Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
January 7, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 12, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 2b2t, a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010, has seen more than 510,000 distinct Minecraft players join and explore its eight-terabyte map (pictured)?
Current status: Good article

GAR

[edit]

2b2t

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Clear consensus that concerns have been addressed. czar 08:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "context" template at the top of the article, saying that it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. So, I believe that the article now fails the GA criteria. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the reviewer, No Great Shaker, was blocked. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It appears NGS performed a good-faith and normal review. His block was not due to incompetence but rather sockpuppetry, which is unlikely to impact the quality of a GAN review he did. So I'm not convinced that this particular complaint is a problem. SnowFire (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think sufficient context is provided, and some edits have been made to the lede since then. I think the maintenance template can be removed. "2b2t is a Minecraft server" is as simple as it gets, with the link to Minecraft server. If someone doesn't know what Minecraft is, or what a multiplayer game server is, they can and should simply click the links. Specific terms like "griefing" and "hacking" now have explanations in footnotes or parentheticals. @Trivialist: Are there further concerns about insufficient context? Leijurv (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gave the article a skim, and maybe my two cents isn't worth much, but I honestly probably wouldn't pass a GAN that uses so much direct quotation. It's kind of jarring to read; is there any reason these couldn't be paraphrased in prose, especially the two quote blocks down in Reception? ~Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Going off of @Bluecrystal004's comment, I would say that the main "issue" with the article is the block quotes, which could probably be broken up or paraphrased for a smoother reading. Otherwise, after skimming through the article, I think it does a pretty good job at explaining such a niche corner of gaming culture. Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnson524. SMBMovieFan (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user was blocked as a sockpuppet. See WP:STRIKESOCK. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 01:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? The user was on Wikipedia for 8 years according to his profile before he got blocked, just because the user got blocked, doesn't mean the article is bad. TomMasterRealTALK 00:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TomMasterReal I think you may be confused. SMBMovieFan has been blocked a sock of TzarN64. Pizzaplayer has struck SMBMovieFan's comment, because as a sockpuppet of a blocked user, SMB has no right to contribute to any community discussion. Pizzaplayer is not making any comment on the quality of the article. TzarN64 only started contributing in 2022, so I'm not sure where you get the impression that they were an 8-year contributor prior to being blocked for socking. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my fault, I thought you guys were talking about the person who got the article to be a GA. The guy who got 2b2t to be a GA was on Wikipedia for 8 years before he got blocked. Sorry about that. TomMasterRealTALK 17:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be super pedantic, but No Great Shaker was just the reviewer. Leijurv is the one who did the work to get the article to GA, and they're still around and in good standing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment, but I must defer to Melofors who did way more work than me on improving 2b2t to GA. :) Leijurv (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wandering in here as I'm toddling through the old community GARs. I rewrote the lead a bit, mostly reordering things a bit and incorporating the content that was in the efns into the prose. I intend to start paraphrasing the block quotes into prose next. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right - blockquotes have now been integrated and/or removed. The earlier two were easier to integrate, while the latter two were removed almost wholesale as they added little to the article that a paraphrase could not. I'm now satisfied that it should be kept as a GA (although I don't love the logo section, especially as it has CN tag). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've decided to boldly removed the logo section. It was not present when the article passed GA and was only added in December last year. Steelkamp (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original nominator's concerns have been addressed adequately by Leijurv. The problem with excessive use of quotes has been fixed. The uncited logo section has been removed. There are no other apparent problems with the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove anarchy classification

[edit]

With 2b2t's recent 1.19 version update, several changes have been made to the server that I believe disqualifies it as an anarchy server, including but not limited to a "soft economy reset" (several key items used in the server removed or reduced), removal of duplication, and several anticheat updates. An anarchy server is defined as a server without rules, and I personally think these changes disqualify it from that status. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This is a big deal and definitely needs to be in the article. We can't add it until there is a WP:RS. To some extent, we can perhaps cite the 2b2t.org website with WP:SELFSOURCE, but I'm hesitant and unsure about matching some of the conditions of WP:SELFSOURCE, let alone all of them, for such a large change. 2b2t is an anarchy server (no rules, no resets)... or it was. That's a huge change and I really wish a real WP:RS would write about it. Let's give it some time to see if that happens. If no actual news site writes about it, then we'll have another discussion I guess. Leijurv (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. this should be changed. WikipediaNeko (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going to change description though, as it says "no rules", and this is obviously not true. WikipediaNeko (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Recent changes do officaly make it no longer anarchy under normal terms as of the server no longer allows exploits that impact other players like duping.
And Temp Bans are offical now so bans may occur Wizzardkitty (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent Developments should put this on hold. If at least items are reverted it would technically can be a full on anarchy server again. It seeks likely tho that removing anarchy classification might not be needed. Wizzardkitty (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent developments make this no longer necessary. 2b2t can be considered anarchy again. Wizzardkitty (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"FitMC" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect FitMC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4 § FitMC until a consensus is reached. EF5 22:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

[edit]

Size is now 58.2TB 223.204.219.232 (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2b2t&oldid=1263664277"