Talk:2b2t

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

47.20.143.245 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I wanna make this article and others as accurate as possible

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing of "anarchy"

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.

---

@BLDM: Regarding your revert of my revert - I believe that the sources do support the previous phrasing, which was already the result of a compromise on here. Please see WP:BRD - when your edit to the phrasing was reverted by me, that's the point where discussion on here might have ideally begun. Regardless. You say It's a Minecraft server, not a server "in" Minecraft, but when you look at the first cited source here, you see the worst place in Minecraft, Anarchy servers are a dark tradition within Minecraft, and 2b2t is an "anarchy server," the oldest and most infamous of its kind. Also see here with the oldest servers in Minecraft, and here with The Worst Place in Minecraft and the largest, longest-running unaltered server in the game. All of these support the phrasing of "anarchy server in minecraft". None say "anarchy Minecraft", and only one says "Minecraft server" in a title. The wording of "oldest Minecraft anarchy server" is clunky adjective stacking, and isn't in line with our cited descriptions, which repeatedly describe it as just a "server" or an "anarchy server" and later (in the sentence) adding the qualifier "in Minecraft". On top of which, the previous sentence in the lede reads "2b2t is a Minecraft multiplayer server", so it's already established. We are using "server" as an abbreviation for the rest of the lede and then the entire article; see Since the server has virtually no rules and the server was reported. We need to introduce this abbreviation for it to work: we start with Minecraft multiplayer server then in Minecraft then in the game. However, the qualifier is needed in the "oldest" because of previous consensus regarding MinecraftOnline, which is the oldest non anarchy server. See Minecraft server and this removed footnote. For these reasons, I believe the wording should remain as the previous consensus which was oldest anarchy server in Minecraft. Leijurv (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not bound to the exact phrasing used by sources.

I think it is necessary to establish that the server is an extension of the game, rather than a core part of it (which "server in Minecraft" somewhat implies). Do you think this concept is not supported by existing sources?

I've reviewed the previous discussion of this that you referenced, and there was no significant argument on either side for reaching a consensus. You only stated that "oldest anarchy server in Minecraft" would be so epic and even offered that this phrasing is not critical just a suggestion. BLDM (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct, we are not. But we can look to those sources to see how this server is described colloquially. My thought was that when we aren't sure how to word something, it's very reasonable to see how it's been described in the sources we rely on. As one example, calling it a "server in Minecraft" comes across as problematic to you, because of the concern that it might incorrectly lead a reader to believe that this server is a core part of the game, as opposed to a player-hosted server. Right off the bat, I think that the confusion goes in the opposite direction. For example, "Minecraft world" makes me think of a world within the game - like the Overworld or some such core game thing. If I read "world in Minecraft" I'd think of something that was created independently using Minecraft, maybe a downloadable build. Regardless, I believe that a misunderstanding of that degree is correctable by seeing the previous link - Minecraft multiplayer server. We can also look at precedent on other pages - for example Mineplex specifically calls out its partnership with Mojang. I'm not sure what audience would make this misunderstanding in one wording but not the other to be honest. I think the increased confusion in the wording with adjective stacking outweighs this. To address your concern though, I think the proper avenue would be to reword the lede elsewhere to say that this is player-owned. For example, imagine if the first sentence was reworded to 2builders2tools (2b2t) is an independent Minecraft multiplayer server founded in December 2010. That would be one way to clear up that potential confusion, but, personally, I don't think that's necessary, because all the linked background information demonstrates that these servers aren't a core part of the game. I think that per WP:ONEDOWN we should consider the audience that will be reading this article as people who are familiar with, well, one level down: they are familiar with the concept of Minecraft, or game servers in general, and they're reading about this specific one. I think that the sources repeatedly saying "in Minecraft" / "within Minecraft" should nudge us in the direction of considering that wording acceptable to a general audience. We aren't bound to it - necessary versus sufficient and all that, but it acceptably gets the point across. The concept of this being an independent player-run server is well supported by the sources and described throughout the text. I see the problem with "oldest Minecraft anarchy server" as confusing adjective stacking. There is no need to repeat Minecraft in that way to achieve the point of the sentence, which is to convey to the reader that this is a very old server, and among the anarchy variants, the oldest. It muddies the point to have that word in the middle. The "in Minecraft" serves to qualify the "oldest" claim - without it, we would simply have "oldest anarchy server", which, as I said earlier ^, is insufficiently clear for WP:ONEDOWN readers: it may refer to multiplayer servers in general. As I describe above, we need to follow WP:EXPLAINLEAD (in particular: The lead of the article should tell a general reader ... what needs to be learned first in order to understand the article.) and WP:UPFRONT, since the main article text simply says "the server", we need to go through what that means precisely, regarding "in the game" and how we call out the server owner being anonymous etc. The lead-in from "Minecraft multiplayer server" -> "in Minecraft" -> "in the game" -> "the server" is what I'm talking about regarding WP:UPFRONT. Making it "stutter" the first thing ("Minecraft server") twice doesn't help anything since we're still going to the same destination, except this second repetition isn't linked to the proper articles to help the reader understand (per WP:EXPLAINLEAD). In that previous discussion I was kidding around with Melofors, who I know from elsewhere. Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. (from WP:CONSENSUS). By building on top of edits made by other people, I implicitly agree with what they changed. Leijurv (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's some precedent from two of the three(?) other Minecraft server articles:

• Mineplex: Mineplex is a Minecraft minigame server
• Hypixel: The Hypixel Network is a Minecraft minigame server

Based on these articles, perhaps we can compromise with something like:

2builders2tools (2b2t) is a Minecraft anarchy server founded in December 2010. It is the oldest anarchy server for the game, as well as one of the oldest running servers of any variety.

This removes the adjective-stacking, removes some redundancy, and still establishes that it is an extension of the game.

Minor point regarding talk page responses: WP:BECONCISE please - that wall of text was hard to parse. BLDM (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. And we have 2builders2tools (2b2t) is a Minecraft multiplayer server founded in December 2010. That's a fair addition of "anarchy". It's what makes this one unique after all. Might have to work out the links - would "server" link to Minecraft server? But otherwise that sounds fine for the first sentence. For conveying its independence / extension though, I don't see how it's any better than before. I actually still think "for the game" implies the opposite of what you intend - it reads to me as if this is some kind of DLC / world within the game. Just the word "for" though. I'm not sure how to properly word this, sorry, but something about the "for" implies like, responsibility, or ownership. As in it was created for Minecraft to be the anarchy server. Then again, the very first sentence would be a little too "load bearing" if we filled it up with something like "2b2t is an independent Minecraft anarchy multiplayer server". I do still think that the "for the game" is better as "in the game" and even better as "in Minecraft" though. Or maybe "independent" could be "player-run"? What do you think about balancing the "claim to fame" (oldest anarchy, most covered, etc) versus "background info" (this is player-run, unofficial) in ordering the lede? I'm not sure what the right answer is for order. Leijurv (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, sorry for only giving a partial reply tangent, let me fix that. To your initial concern, I think it is necessary to establish that the server is an extension of the game, rather than a core part of it (which "server in Minecraft" somewhat implies)., is this not already addressed the same way in this article as it is in those others? By leading with "is a Minecraft server" in the first sentence? I don't know why this article would need additional rewording of the next sentence to get rid of "in Minecraft" - if all the sources phrase it that way, I think that contradicts the idea that that phrasing would confuse people into thinking it's official. Leijurv (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

For linking we can follow those precedent articles. In this case, it'd be: Minecraft anarchy server

Maybe, based on the Independent article:

2builders2tools (2b2t) is a Minecraft anarchy server founded in December 2010. It is the oldest server of its kind, as well as one of the oldest running Minecraft servers of any variety.

BLDM (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The anarchy link doesn't make sense in my opinion - we clarify at the bottom of the lede what it means for Minecraft, and it isn't really what that links to. I think "multiplayer" could belong though. I also think "of its kind" is a little bit of a speedbump in reading - probably fine to leave that as "oldest anarchy server in the game" or some such, the referentialness of "of its kind" is a little too much brevity. Also, I'm unsure where / what you've exactly pulled from the Independent, can you clarify? Thanks!

2builders2tools (2b2t) is a multiplayer Minecraft anarchy server founded in December 2010. It is the oldest anarchy server in the game, as well as one of the oldest running Minecraft servers of any variety. Perhaps? Though, I still do not see any problem with "in Minecraft" that isn't also present for "in the game"/"for the game". Leijurv (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The anarchy link would perhaps need to be a separate discussion, as that is not a new addition to the article. "Multiplayer" is not in the precedent articles, and probably shouldn't be given the inclusion of Minecraft server (see its definition).

Here's the full Independent quote I'm referencing: 2b2t is an “anarchy server,” the oldest and most infamous of its kind.

My stated concerns with "server in ..." still remain.

A slight tangent, but this made me notice that the Newsweek article is seemingly the exact same as the Independent one... BLDM (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That... is true. Wow. The Independent appears to have been published some time later, and it has © Newsweek at the bottom. My mistake on the anarchy link, I was confused. But still, the discussion was about "Minecraft server" versus "server in Minecraft", and the Indepenewsweek does still have the other two: the worst place in Minecraft, Anarchy servers are a dark tradition within Minecraft. The "of its kind" sort of throws a wrench in the flow of the paragraph - what kind? In the article it makes sense because the same sentence previously called it out as an anarchy server, therefore that is the category we are "comparing within". When separated out into the next sentence, it isn't immediately obvious if this is the oldest anarchy server, the oldest server in Minecraft, or the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft. Frankly, I don't see the problem with the previous phrasing, at all, and the concern with it that you cited is addressed by rewording the previous sentence + looking at the other server articles. The stated concern was that it could make people think that this is a core part of the game, but... that doesn't really make sense, and it's fixed in the previous sentence. As you say, we don't need to say "multiplayer" because the linked article Minecraft server clearly explains how they're player-run. You've said that it somewhat implies that 2b2t is... somehow official? not player-run? a part of the game itself? But didn't say how. Where is this implication coming from? How does "server in Minecraft" trump the previous link to "Minecraft server"? Leijurv (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Restored WP:QUO just for the time being, per my initial comment at the very top about the WP:BRD ordering here - the previous wording stood for nearly the entire article's history, and there were no interceding edits between the "B" and the "R", so this does apply. Leijurv (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence that has been proposed removal has, as Leijurv said, remained in the article since the beginning of its creation without being contested. The current sentence is easier to read and makes more sense, and changing it to 2builders2tools (2b2t) is a multiplayer Minecraft anarchy server founded in December 2010. It is the oldest anarchy server in the game, as well as one of the oldest running Minecraft servers of any variety. is redundant as it mentions the same words multiple times, breaking the flow of the lede. Though articles do not need to follow the wording of sources (and are often actively discouraged to) most sources contain similar wording to the current wording. Either way this argument remains at a standstill with no clear consensus to be reached. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you and Leijurv are neglecting the context of these quotes being used to support the "in Minecraft" phrasing. I think it is fair to say that the server experience is contained "in Minecraft" (and the supporting quotes seem to be referencing that), in the sense that people use the Minecraft client to play on the server. However, the server itself - a separate entity - is not contained within Minecraft (think hosting). This entity, not the experience, is what is being referenced to as the "oldest" in the sentence at issue. For example, given this distinction, I have no objections to the following sentence in the lede which references the world experience:

2b2t's world is also one of the longest-running unaltered server maps in the game

Do you both agree that these are distinct things?

Additionally, Leijurv's above concern with "anarchy" may actually be relevant here. We are currently stating that it is an anarchy server, but changing that definition later in the lede. Does "anarchy-style" make more sense given this issue?

I've found that "oldest of its kind" is a commonly used phrase on Wikipedia in this order, and this usage is supported by the Newsweek ref. Here's a revised lede proposal based on precedent:

2builders2tools (2b2t) is an anarchy-style Minecraft server. Released in December 2010, it is the oldest of its kind, and is among the oldest servers of any variety.

and perhaps an expansion of its style definition should immediately follow.

BLDM (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you could be reading too much into this word. The entity versus the experience also doesn't make sense here to me. The world is pretty much inseparable from the entity, you "experience" 2b2t just as much as you "experience" 2b2t's world, there's no real difference between those concepts in practice. People use the Minecraft client to play in the world, play on the server, play the server, I've heard phrasings all across the board. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does (think hosting) mean that you believe wording "server in Minecraft" implies Minecraft (Mojang?) is hosting 2b2t, but wording "Minecraft server" does not imply that? I'm sorry I just don't see this implication at all. Also see what I said ^^^ up above relating to WP:ONEDOWN, and why I think this implied misunderstanding is wholly implausible.

What is the context of the source exactly that you think we're missing? The Facepunch Era - Anarchy servers are a dark tradition within Minecraft. In a standard game, you are dropped into a randomly generated world, where you mine for resources and build structures, one block at a time. This seems pretty clear cut. The server is within Minecraft. I don't see context modulating that to "game world" instead of "server". And The worst place in Minecraft is clearly (to my eyes) referring to the server conceptually - its culture, its toxic chat, etc. Not just the world map file.

I'm not sure what is gained by just adding "-style". I do see a benefit to moving up the explanation though. And/or, we could remove the link to avoid being misleading prior to the contextualization. On top of which, I don't see any problem with how you moved the founding date to the second sentence, that's fine & and I could live with that. It could aid understanding for the "oldest" qualifier. However, I do dislike the change from "founded" to "released"; does that not go against what you've been saying about words implying officialness? "Released" has a large connotation of like, a launched product or DLC put up for download. I think "created" or "founded" work better than "launched" or "released".

Currently, I think the best combined wording would be: 2builders2tools (2b2t) is an independent anarchy Minecraft server. Founded in December 2010, it is the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft, and is among the oldest running servers of any variety. In the context of Minecraft, an “anarchy server” is understood as a multiplayer server with "scarce or no server-wide rules," though this definition is flexible. 2b2t is in part famous for its complete lack of regulation once in-game. 2b2t's world is also one of the longest-running unaltered server maps in the game, which has never been reset since its creation. Or perhaps, to prevent breaking the flow, it could be "anarchy Minecraft server.[a]" with a footnote for "In the context ... once in-game". Leijurv (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's focus on rewording the "in Minecraft" portion first, as that's the primary subject of this discussion.

Can you propose a version that doesn't contain "oldest anarchy server in ..."? I will assume good faith here, but given the older discussion you had regarding this phrasing, I'm concerned that there may be an unstated reason you're attached to this specific word ordering.

I'd even accept a previous version of the problematic sentence as progress with regard to that concern, despite the distinction issue:

It is one of the longest-running servers in the game, as well as the oldest anarchy server.

Otherwise I don't see progress being made here. BLDM (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The wording makes sense to me, Berrely doesn't see a problem with it, it has been the consensus of the article for basically its entire history, and I've given several reasons why the rewords are worse and euphemistic and reasons why the existing wording doesn't really have problems (such as looking at the sources, looking at WP:ONEDOWN, looking at grammar/flow, and looking at WP:EXPLAINLEAD).

I'm curious what you think my unstated motivation is. Are you referring to how this phrase is commonly used to identify the server? That isn't unstated, it's come up before. It's not a coincidence - it's a fine way to phrase it, so many people use it? There really aren't that many variants to choose from of "oldest anarchy server in Minecraft".

Can you propose a version that doesn't contain [...]? Conversely, assuming the equivalent faith: Can you propose a version that does contain it? Is there an unstated reason why you're shying away from this phrase? Frankly, I haven't heard any reasons other than a very strange contrived scenario based on the word 'in' somehow confusing someone into thinking 2b2t is operated by Mojang.

Otherwise I don't see progress being made here. Then this might end up with no consensus on this particular phrase. (Not to discount, however, your points that I agreed with above regarding rearranging/changing the lede otherwise) Leijurv (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In the previous discussion of this you stated that changing:

2b2t is one of the oldest running servers in the game, as well as the oldest anarchy server.

to:

2b2t is one of the oldest running servers in the game, as well as the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft.

Was not critical just a suggestion. In fact, it added unnecessary redundancy. Given that, would you agree to restore the previous wording with some minor changes while we continue this discussion?

It is one of the longest-running servers in the game, as well as the oldest anarchy server.

In my opinion, this version makes more sense as it removes the redundancy, and "one of the longest-running servers in the game" is perhaps more significant.

BLDM (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope you would agree nothing here is critical; it's just what wording is best.

No, I think that phrasing was worse, if I remember correctly it was the result of confusion regarding server age and sourcing and such. 2b2t was previously described as the oldest server, but that was downgraded to "second oldest" then "one of the oldest". When the sentence was originally written, it made sense to put the "more impressive claim to fame" (if you will) first. Presently, every Minecraft server article that we have is "one of the oldest" iirc, so putting that first is not really important. The actual important thing here is that this one is THE oldest anarchy server in Minecraft, so that's why that goes first. I am a little disconcerted by perhaps more significant; how could it be more significant to be among some vague number of "old-ish" servers, than to be the single oldest (and most infamous too) in its category? For those reasons, I didn't particularly like the previous phrasing which stood as 2b2t is one of the oldest running servers as well as the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft. for some time. restore the previous wording with some minor changes The "minor change" here is the removal of the phrase that we are discussing, "in Minecraft". So that isn't minor. It comes across to me like you're looking to get rid of this phrase by any means necessary, and I still haven't heard a good reason why. For example, if server in Minecraft is the issue with the current phrasing, and Minecraft server is the way to fix it, why are you now suggesting server in the game? Doesn't it have the exact same problem as in Minecraft (namely, the usage of the word in)? Do you have a thought on what I said here? Leijurv (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is becoming WP:DIS/WP:TE. I have made numerous attempts to propose new wordings. My most recent attempt was this change, which doesn't solve the primary issue, but is a step in the right direction:

It is the oldest anarchy server in the game, as well as one of the oldest running servers of any variety.

- which was based on a proposed compromise by you, but you have reverted it anyway. Why do the first three lede sentences need to begin with "2b2t" to identify the subject? Why does it not make sense to replace the redundant mention of "Minecraft" with "the game" (the specific change you "hypothetically" proposed)?

BLDM (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus on here yet, so you should not change the article regarding the exact thing in question. I could say the same thing about WP:DIS and WP:TE. If anything, the consensus would be against you with Berrely supporting the existing wording. WP:BRD: Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Also WP:NOCON: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

Perhaps instead we could agree on here, then edit the article with explicit agreement instead of implicit, which can harbor miscommunication.

You have proposed many things, but the reasons you cite are contradictory to each other and don't make sense to me as I pointed out above in my most recent message ^. It comes across to me like you're looking to get rid of this phrase by any means necessary. The sentences do not have to begin with "2b2t". I don't think "it" sounds good as the beginning of the sentence, but we could talk about it on here, since we're already discussing any and all potential changes to the first two sentences. The alternative could be "the server", but that sounds quite weird. It would be something like "2b2t is a server. The server is the oldest server". Using the established abbreviation of 2b2t for 2builders2tools is fine with me. It appears you don't like the 3-way repetition of "2b2t". First I'm hearing of it. Sounds reasonable, so I would support replacing "2b2t's world" with just "The world" or "The server's world" in the third one, if you'd like. Regarding "in Minecraft", which is the entire topic here, please refer to my original message where I explained my reasoning. I may have missed it, but I didn't see any addressing of / reply to this: since the main article text simply says "the server", we need to go through what that means precisely, regarding "in the game" and how we call out the server owner being anonymous etc. The lead-in from "Minecraft multiplayer server" -> "in Minecraft" -> "in the game" -> "the server" is what I'm talking about regarding WP:UPFRONT. Making it "stutter" the first thing ("Minecraft server") twice doesn't help anything since we're still going to the same destination, except this second repetition isn't linked to the proper articles to help the reader understand. The same thing applies with repeating the third item as opposed to the second. Additionally, based on a proposed compromise by you - if you pull out just the part you like from a compromise, it ceases to be a compromise. What about this: 2builders2tools (2b2t) is an independent anarchy Minecraft server. Founded in December 2010, it is the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft, and is among the oldest running servers of any variety.[a] (with a footnote to the explanation of what "anarchy" means in this context) The world is also one of the longest-running unaltered server maps in the game, which has never been reset since its creation. (I explicitly support this and would realize it into the article if you agree) This gets rid of two of the three "2b2t" leads that you don't like, moves "anarchy" to the first sentence like you suggest, removes "multiplayer" like you suggest, moves the founding date to the second sentence like you suggest, and rewords "one of the oldest" to "among the oldest" like you suggest. Obviously, this lead is going to change as an outcome of this, the question is how. I'll wait until you explicitly agree before making any change to it. Leijurv (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Leijurv and BLDM: this argument currently seems to be at no consesensus. Both parties have refused to make a compromise and seem to be influenced by an external reason to reword or keep this sentence. Either way this argument is clearly at a standstill and going nowhere, so I believe it is suitable to close this discussion with no consensus. Consensus can change, and a new discussion may be reopened to rediscuss this. But this discussion seems to have led nowhere and will likely result in the article retaining its current revision. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Subreddit as a source

The 2b2t subreddit is currently being used as a source for two claims in the lede. This is a WP:SELFSOURCE, and in my opinion meets all the criteria for such except the following: There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity I could not find any reliable sources noting the subreddit as "official" or the sidebar information representing the "server owner", as the article currently claims.

The reliability of this source has been discussed before [1] [2].

@Leijurv: In regard to WP:SELFSOURCE, please explain how there is no doubt to the authenticity of this source as being information from the "server owner" or even official. You have previously stated that The posts [on the subreddit] are not made by the server's owners, however they are the only moderators, which suggests that the "server owner" has no involvement in the source? BLDM (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not citing the posts made on the subreddit, but the sidebar. The server owner does not make the posts, but they are the moderators. Therefore the server owner is involved in what we cite. This is a bit unorthodox for sure, but I think it's well founded in this specific case. I mostly look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Video_games. Of course, this is discouraged, but we can technically cite the game. For a server like this, with the admin being anonymous, I do not think there is any better source. The subreddit is visible and verifiable, see my imgur link here. It is very hard to find proper sources for sections about the plot or setting of a video game without using the game itself. In many of these sections, the game itself is used as a source, but make sure that it is not the only source. In this case, we are balancing the server admin's modern-day claim against one of the secondary sources from 2015. In neither case are we solely relying on the subreddit. I believe this is permissible for that reason. Leijurv (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Therefore the server owner is involved in what we cite.

This seems like you're drawing an unverifiable conclusion.

The subreddit is visible and verifiable

Verifiable as an official "discussion" board perhaps - again, you are concluding yourself that certain information from that discussion board is attributable to the "server owner".

Are there any sources that clarify this involvement? If not, I'm not sure how you can say there is no doubt to the information's authenticity.

BLDM (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm relying on WP:EDITDISC and this. There is no prohibition on original research or synthesis on here in order to make a consensus-based decision on what is citable in the main page. If all sources needed sources on themselves we'd be in an infinite loop. Anyway. In this case, the tab menu of the server states that the subreddit is among the only three "official websites and contacts". The newsweek source also links this subreddit. On top of which, the moderator of the subreddit (reddit user u/2builders2tools) commonly posts information relating to the server before it happens, pins posts, adds motds from the subreddit, etc. I don't think there is much reasonable doubt that this person is also the server operator. And even if that specific account is not, the subreddit is called out in-game as "official". The sidebar of the subreddit contains this information, which is only changeable by the moderators of the subreddit. Leijurv (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you be open to changing the attribution to a variation of "according to the server's official subreddit"? I agree that it is likely that the subreddit is operated by people associated with the server's operations (i.e. staff), but I don't think we can conclude that it's the server owner. BLDM (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah something like that would be good. Maybe we could go like "according to the sidebar of the official subreddit" or "according to the moderators of the official subreddit"? Just so we clarify that this isn't just any old post on the subreddit, but something from the moderators. Leijurv (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made this edit: [3] Leijurv (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Umbrella section for the flurry of content changes just now

@BLDM: (no issue with the other smaller edits that I don't mention, up to and including when AnomieBOT edited)

• [4] You're right, the source does say founders, so this is a good edit. However, I think we could make it a little more clear. Perhaps "one founder, the current operator, is referred to as Hause / Hause / Hause"? Because the idea of "the current owner is named hause" (which is well sourced) was lost, so I think we could consider reintroducing that. I also have an additional thing as this relates to the other hause edit which I'll say later on.
• [5] Just want to say that this is not a minor edit, and was contemporaneous with the events on Rusher. Please only use the minor edit checkbox where applicable. The actual change to the article is fine, however.
• [6] Yep. The source does say "separate" indeed. This is accurate wording to the source, but in my opinion makes the article harder to understand. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• [7] As Berrely and I have said probably four or five times now, the "no consensus" applies to the area we were discussing, which is primarily the first two sentences of the article. Many of the things you proposed (including this specific thing of removing "multiplayer") I agreed with. But please consider just bringing it up on here, it doesn't take much time. Especially within a day of discussing the exact same thing and coming to "no consensus".
• [8] Yep, "some" is probably fine here. There's always the WP:OR of assuming that the sources we have are all that exist - we can't say that just because the majority of the sources we have say X that a majority of sources say X. I might remove the "some" entirely to be honest, it's similarly WP:WEASEL. Something like The server has been described as "the worst Minecraft server" by Robert Guthrie of Kotaku[4] and Andrew Paul of Vice?
• [9] Please see here for my previous musings. Basically, the word "cheating" has a connotation of breaking the rules of a game or gaining an unfair advantage. I don't think that applies here, really. It isn't against the rules, and everyone's doing it. It's basically the norm and not the exception. So that's my reasoning for the "hacking" word. Which is why this is interesting, because it previously linked to Cheating in online games which says that part: Cheating in online games is defined as the action of pretending to comply with the rules of the game, while secretly subverting them to gain an unfair advantage over an opponent. This doesn't much apply. There is no pretending, there aren't even any rules to comply with. However, your link to Cheating in video games actually seems much better: Cheating in video games involves a video game player using various methods to create an advantage beyond normal gameplay, in order to make the game easier. Surprisingly, I actually think it makes sense to have the word in the article be "hacking" but it links to an article about "cheating". So, no disagreement here.
• [10] I have to disagree. 2b2t is one single world, it isn't split up into levels. The linked article says the total space available to the player during the course of completing a discrete objective, and that just doesn't describe what's happening here. There is no discrete objective, and there is no segmentation of the game into different spaces available for different tasks, the entire area is always accessible if you travel.
• [11] Please see #Housemaster_or_Hausemaster. There is a lot of past discussion about this. About this one + the removal of "hausmaster". There is a lot of disagreement on whether or not we can say that the person or persons currently referred to as "hausemaster" (aka: the server owner that people call hausemaster) as described in our sources, is actually one of the founders.

tl;dr confusion about hause (founder? owner? operator?), maybe "most" / "some" shouldn't be there at all, the "level" link doesn't make much sense Leijurv (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy...

1. The content of the Vice article seems to suggest that the founders (plural) remained owners Example: its upkeep of ninety dollars a month is maintained at almost no cost to its founders.. This is conflicting with the other sources that refer to a sole founder/owner.

2. I'd classify this as a grammatical change, which is fine under WP:ME. Let's stick to content issues though.

3. I think it is easier to understand "separate queue" vs "priority queue" here for those unfamiliar with the concept.

4. Small and likely uncontested changes should not need talk page discussions.

5. Removing "some" would be fine with me.

6. Yay!

7. How about the "Nether" and "End" dimensions/levels of the game? Maybe it's that article that should change, since there does not seem to be a more appropriate one.

8. It doesn't seem like any sources support this distinction, so I'm not sure there's anything that can be done here?

BLDM (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting sources on the founder / owner situation was what led to the previous state on the article what with owner is commonly referred to as, which, admittedly, is awkward phrasing, but it avoids making a claim as to whether that's the owner's actual "name" (well, not name, but identifier). An IP suggested looking at Minecraft name changes too. Ugh. Maybe the best thing is "The server's management is referred to as"? Or "The ownership is collectively referred to as"? I'm really unsure.

A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Um, wasn't there a dispute happening at the exact same moment regarding Rusher and whether TheCampingRusher belonged on it?

Fair point. Someone who's never heard of the queue before might find it easier to understand a separated line versus the phrase "priority queue" which might not parse as well. Edit: Maybe "separated prioritized queue"?

Small and likely uncontested changes should not need talk page discussions. For sure! In general this is absolutely true. E x c e p t, we had just closed as "no consensus" a very long talk page discussion regarding a potential rephrasing of those exact sentences, and had gone over this exact potential change as well as other such "small" changes.

I'll remove "some" in the way I suggested above, sounds good.

Right, I'd have less of a problem with linking to Level (video game) if we had something like, for example, "2b2t's overworld is the largest explored dimension of Minecraft" or some such. We aren't talking about any dimension specifically, but rather the entire collective Minecraft world that has never been reset. There's nothing notable / mentionable about any dimension specifically here. Even still I don't think a Minecraft dimension is a video game level. There is no single discrete objective, is the missing component. It's an open sandbox game! But for sure, a Minecraft save on a whole is not a video game level. It would be more appropriate to for that to link to Saved game than to Level (video game).

It doesn't seem like any sources support this distinction Well, look at the first quote in "History": The basic story is that this guy who ran the Garry's Mod server started a Minecraft server with the same premise – that you can do anything you want – and this was then given to one of his friends, who we know as Hausemaster. This supports the founder being different from the owner (who we currently know as Hausemaster), doesn't it? Leijurv (talk)

Um, wasn't there a dispute happening at the exact same moment regarding Rusher and whether TheCampingRusher belonged on it? Edit unrelated to WP:D issues. Again, stick to content discussion here.

Maybe the best thing is "The server's management is referred to as"? Or "The ownership is collectively referred to as"? I'm really unsure. When the sources use whatever variation of "HauseMaster", it is in reference to a single person - so I don't think we can go that route.

separated prioritized queue Sounds like it could easily be confused with the concept of a priority queue - which, if I understand correctly, is not how that separate queue functions.

We aren't talking about any dimension specifically, but rather the entire collective Minecraft world that has never been reset. Maybe "world" isn't the right word? Is it only the overworld that's the longest-running? Those dimensions are generally referred to as separate worlds (and are filesystem-wise).

This supports the founder being different from the owner (who we currently know as Hausemaster), doesn't it? I question the reliability of that quote, and Newsweek says: created in 2010 by a user named Hausemaster.

BLDM (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it only the overworld that's the longest-running? Oh jeez. Well, technically, yes. Because the nether and end weren't added until 2011. But, none of our sources talk about differences between dimensions and age. It's just the entire world. Maybe we could have "2b2t's world save" or "2b2t's map" or some such, linked to Saved game? Maybe a link isn't even needed here though, since the concept of a sandbox game's entire universe just might not have an applicable article.

"Priority queue" could certainly be confused with that. (for all I know it could function that way though). Whatev, separate is fine.

I don't want to "die on the hill" of the owner/founder/operator stuff, but I can already predict someone else might (and has in the past). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ At least the page has gotten semi-protected since that last time. Leijurv (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

since the concept of a sandbox game's entire universe just might not have an applicable article. Maybe open world (subset of level) is more appropriate? BLDM (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I can't believe I missed that. Yes. I don't think a link is necessary, but if it'll be linked, that should be the target. Leijurv (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Displaying website(s) in external links

So there are a few things about this that have been on my mind.

1. There's another website

So in External links, the official website, 2b2t.org, is listed, but there used to be another official website, 2b2t.net (currently down). Here's an archive of that website from June 2012 (currently down). Should we add it to the list?

2. Is 2b2t.org down?

The website itself is still there. It's just blank. So does it make sense to say its "down"?

3. What should "archived" be linked to?

After the link, it says "(currently down; archived)", the word "archived" linking to the oldest archive of the website in 2013. I think it'd make more sense to link to here, which shows a timeline of all archives of the website to choose from.

Please tell me what you think! —  Melofors  TC  06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Is there a reliable source asserting that 2b2t.net represents the same entity as 2b2t.org? Does this link provide any additional information about the subject (not contained in other sources or 2b2t.org)?

2. Leijurv previously linked this screenshot from the server which includes "website: 2b2t.org (currently down)". It's "down" in the sense that the informational content is currently unavailable, but could become available in the future.

3. I think the link text should then be changed to something like "Archive snapshots of official website".

BLDM (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

1. There doesn't seem to be any any sources at all mentioning 2b2t.net, as that website was only active in 2b2t's early years. The website is similar to 2b2t.org in that it introduces the server, gives updated player counts and world file sizes, donation info, etc.
2. Berrely changed "down" to "inactive", which I agree with.
3. So you're proposing it should look like this: (currently inactive; archive snapshots of official website)

I disagree and think the linked text should simply be "archived", because if we're using your suggestion, why is it currently (currently inactive; archived), and not (currently inactive; archived snapshot of official website)? The word "archived" still makes sense if we link to the timeline of archives instead of a single archive. Or could we just call it "archives"? That might make more sense here.

I also just realized that the majority of the archives (178/223) are from after the website went inactive, and so if people go to the link and click the archives, they'll mostly be useless and confusing. Could we maybe change it to (inactive November 8, 2015 – present; archived)? This way, people will know which archives have informational content and will not have to waste their time. —  Melofors  TC  05:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally archives external links simply have the text "Archived on the Wayback Machine" or just "Archived" — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 05:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Triumph Books references

So there are three books published by Triumph Books (two are in this article, one was recently removed for the reason I'm about to state) about Minecraft that mention 2b2t.

1. July 2014 — The Ultimate Minecraft Creator: The Unofficial Building Guide to Minecraft and Other Games
2. April 2015 — Master Builder 3.0 Advanced
3. April 2016 — Ultimate Guide to Mastering Minigames and Servers

Now, I found that all three of these have copied information. In the quotes, below, I'll bold the copied phrases.

The first book states:

So... 2b2t is crazy. It is a world where the idea is that anything goes, at all, and is not supposed to be reset ever. Unfortunately, it was reset once recently, due to the need for an update, but this is actually kind of good because as 2b2t goes along, it gets outright wild. This server is really like no other, and in fact, it's like no other thing in gaming. Because people cheat wildly, grief relentlessly and absolutely wreck the area for thousands of blocks around the spawn, 2b2t's landscape turns into a nightmare wastleland which you will probably not survive. Be warned: 2b2t is not for the faint of heart or the sensitive. You will die, people will attack you and wreck/steal whatever you have, and you will very likely run into some offensive language and behavior here. That being said, it's an experience like no other and completely fun, if you're ready for what awaits you.

[...] Where 2b2t is all chaos and no direction, A'Therys Ascended is just about the opposite of that. This is [...]

The second book states:

So... 2b2t is crazy. It is a world where the idea is that anything goes, at all, and is not supposed to be reset ever. Unfortunately, it was reset once recently, due to the need for an update, but this is actually kind of good because as 2b2t goes along, it gets outright wild. This server is really like no other, and in fact, it's like no other thing in gaming. Because people cheat wildly, grief relentlessly and absolutely wreck the area for thousands of blocks around the spawn, 2b2t's landscape turns into a nightmare wastleland which you will probably not survive. Be warned: 2b2t is not for the faint of heart or the sensitive. You will die, people will attack you and wreck/steal whatever you have, and you will very likely run into some offensive language and behavior here. That being said, it's an experience like no other and completely fun, if you're ready for what awaits you.

[...] Along with 2b2t, Hypixel and WesterosCraft, the MindCrack server sits among online royalty when it comes to public servers.

Everything in the first book is original so we can include everything from there. The second book copies everything from the first book (that giant paragraph in the quote), except for one sentence later in the book (the one about "online royalty"). The third book had only one sentence mentioning 2b2t, and that sentence was copied from the second book (the "online royalty" sentence).

With that being said, how could we reword the sentences? Should we completely remove the third book, only keeping the first book and the one original sentence from the second book? I think that's what I will do right now, but tell me if you have any objections.

Possibly, one thing we could do is say something like this: Book 2 and Book 3, published by Triumph Books in 2014 and 2015 respectively, both stated that [...] —  Melofors  TC  16:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The copied quotes mentioned in the Book 2 description should be moved to the description of Book 1. I do wonder if that "online royalty" quote is even worth noting after that. BLDM (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I did that right after. And yeah, the online royalty is a minor mention, but I still feel like it's notable. Is this edit good? —  Melofors  TC  20:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that revision. Sorta feel like Ultimate Guide to Mastering Minigames and Servers shouldn't be included at all, but not sure what policies/precedent there is for notability of clearly copied content. BLDM (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)