Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/2b2t

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Berrely (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

2b2t

(
)
2b2t's destroyed spawn-in area
2b2t's destroyed spawn-in area
  • ... that 2b2t, a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010, has gone to war against YouTube for the future of the server? Source: [1]
    • ALT1:... that 2b2t is a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running on the same map since 2010, with no player-bans and a hands-off administrator?
    • ALT2:... that 2b2t, a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010, has seen over 510,000 distinct Minecraft players join and explore its 8 terabyte map?
    • ALT2a:... that 2b2t, a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010, has seen over 580,000 distinct Minecraft players join and explore its 9 terabyte map? Site was updated over the course of this DYK, these are updated figures from there.
    • ALT3:... that 2b2t is a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010 with a world of over 8 terabytes in size?
    • ALT3a:... that 2b2t is a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010 with a world of over 9 terabytes in size? Site was updated over the course of this DYK, these are updated figures from there.
    • ALT4:... that 2b2t is the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft, and over half a million players have joined and left their mark on it?
    • ALT5:... that 2b2t is a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010, making it the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft? Source: 2b2t is an "anarchy server," the oldest and most infamous of its kind. [2]
    • ALT6:... that 2b2t is a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010 with an initially procedurally generated world now exceeding 8 terabytes in size?
    • ALT6a:... that 2b2t is a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010 with an initially procedurally generated world now exceeding 9 terabytes in size? Site was updated over the course of this DYK, these are updated figures from there.
  • Comment: GA review. The alt hooks are a WP:SELFSOURCE from 2b2t's official web presence, the relevant quote is 2builders2tools is a minecraft server with the goal to never reset the world in a free for all no rules pvp environment, with little modification to the vanilla survival gamemode. The world is nine years and seven months old, with a size of 8376 GBs and over 513,255 players visiting at least once (see GA review). The main hook is from Kotaku, and the quote is pretty much just the title of the article. I would prefer ALT2 the most.

Improved to Good Article status by Melofors (talk) and Leijurv (talk). Nominated by Leijurv (talk) at 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

  • This interesting article is a newly promoted GA and is new enough and long enough. The hook facts for ALT1, ALT2, ALT3, ALT4, ALT5 and ALT6 are cited inline, but I am not approving ALT0 as it is not stated in the article, as far as I can see. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The image is licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0, which is not compatible with Wikipedia according to this page. No QPQ is needed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for the review! Wow I did not realize that 4.0 was not compatible. Does that mean I have to remove it from the article? I'm sure I could ask the author to rerelease under CC BY-SA 3.0, would that be sufficient here? Leijurv (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks again, I went ahead and did that. I asked him to edit the release to 3.0 and he did, and I updated the commons page accordingly :) Leijurv (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations. The image is now appropriately licensed and could be used with the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am undoing the hook changes just made by Leijurv because it appeared that I had approved the new versions when I had not done so. @Leijurv: If you wish to suggest a change to a hook, you need to write the hook again as "ALT3a" or whatever, or strike out the original text and add the new text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry! I've done so, the "a" variants are updated. Leijurv (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reopening nomination in anticipation of getting a final tick. Here is the discussion on licensing that took place at WT:DYK#2b2t:
Discussion at WT:DYK

Template:Did you know nominations/2b2t is currently in Prep 3. I would be glad of another viewa on the status of the image. When I reviewed the article, the image was licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0, which is not compatible with Wikipedia, and when I queried this it was changed to CC-BY-SA 3.0, which is, but see here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I took that web archive as a timestamp. You can see it live on reddit though, here. If you need proof that the license was actually edited from 4 to 3, you can look at the previous internet archive from June here where it says 4.0. I had mentioned to the author that there was a potential of being on the front page, and I'm sure he would edit the comment any which way is necessary if need be, including releasing the image into the public domain entirely. If there are other concerns, I believe they may be addressed by my comments on the GA review on the matter here or on the Commons DR that I linked from there. Thank you for checking closely though! :) Leijurv (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm out of my depth here, which is why I asked for others to look at it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Since the preps are being promoted pretty quickly, I'm returning the nomination to WP:DYKN until this issue is sorted out. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
CC-by-4.0 is fine for files, just not for text: "According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licenses under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however media files uploaded under this license are fine." from: Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright - Dumelow (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Dumelow, would it be appropriate then to move this back to the queue? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
With a second opinion saying the license is suitable, I plan to move this to a prep area, unless there are other objections? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 20:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This is not how we do things. Everything is recorded on the nomination template so administrators and other editors can refer back to the discussion. So far nothing has been posted on the template about whether the licensing is ok or not, and no one has administered a final tick. The hook should be returned to the nominations area until the template is correctly filled out. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak for Berrely but am I not correct when I see that Cwmhiraeth gave a check mark on the hook, then said Congratulations. The image is now appropriately licensed and could be used with the hook., then asked on here for a second opinion, then Dumelow said CC-by-4.0 is fine for files, just not for text? There is a final tick, a question was raised about licensing then resolved? Leijurv (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Leijurv: The hook was promoted and the template closed without any reference to the discussion over here. Anyone who refers back to the template discussion will see a question mark with no resolution. If Berrely is in such a rush to promote the image, he should ask other editors to sign off on the template before he closes it. Yoninah (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay I don't understand why this can't just happen. Are you saying that I should go on that page and write an explanation that Cwmhiraeth was unsure about a license and Dumelow clarified, with a link to here? And that's it? What am I missing here, let's go do it? Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'm reopening the template, listing the discussion here, and asking someone to formally sign off on it. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As I am completely unfamiliar with image licensing, I'd appreciate it if Dumelow or Nikkimaria could weigh in here and give it the final approval tick if the image licensing is in order. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A second reviewer has confirmed the image license is suitable for inclusion, specifically stating that per WP:FAQ/Copyright, the image's license is correct and can be used on Wikipedia. I waited 3 days for a reply on the DYK talk page and received none, so I assumed it would be okay to move it back to the prep queue. Yoninah I am confused about what else I should've done, other than pinging Dumelow again, which I didn't do, as I didn't want to be an annoyance. Please tell me, other than a reviewer specifically stating that the license can be used on Wikipedia, what could be a "final tick". I appreciate you have more experience in this field than me, and I may be wrong, but I am quite confused as to what should happen. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Berrely: this is a self-inclusive template. You may go to WT:DYK to solicit other opinions, but the final tick has to be placed here before you can close the nomination. After you solicited the other opinions, you needed to ask them to place an approval tick on the template. Ensuring proper procedure is not an annoyance. (In the hours I spend checking hooks for promotion, I am constantly pinging nominators and editors to settle on and sign off on the final hook.) Right now any editor or administrator who has a question about the hook while it is in the prep sets or queue will come back to this template and see the last tick on the page is a question mark. The last tick should be an approval. Let's see what our resident licensing expert Nikkimaria has to say about the image licensing. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah:, I appreciate your help with this and I apologise if my earlier comment sounded a bit rude. I agree it may be beneficial to wait for a second opinion on the license. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Since it appears that the original author has released it CC BY-SA 3.0, I do not anticipate there being a problem with running the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Based on Nikkimaria's and Dumelow's comments, I am restoring the tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. @Berrely: you may go ahead and promote it now. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/2b2t&oldid=987676805"