Talk:Me at the zoo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:23, 26 January 2023

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film C‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Internet C‑class Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Google C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles

C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Google To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here.
Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale
Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback
Maintain : This WikiProject
Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs
Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products
Other :
- Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...)
- create:
- Help the Google article for a good article status
- Improve the Outline of Google
- Get more members using :
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}}
- Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

YouTube C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles

C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject YouTube To-do:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see list.
Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles
Cleanup : See cleanup listing
Maintain : This WikiProject
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles
Other :
- Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages
- Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

Zoo C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 31 July 2014, see discussion.
Endorse closure, 26 April 2011, see discussion.
No consensus, 12 April 2011, see discussion.

reliable sources

any reliable sources? Floker (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06FOB-medium-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I don't know the process, but this article is utter crap, not worthy of being on here. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.51.13 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the process for deletion involves a lot more than just thinking that something is "utter crap." You'll need to be a lot more specific than that. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's deletion policy. –BMRR (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted, as it doesn't really fit the notability guidelines. A page describing an 18 second internet video with little encyclopedic information doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. I can't really prove this by the terms of the notability guidelines page, however, as there are no guidelines for internet videos. Rectar2 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the first video uploaded to youtube, its notable. Its the the subject of copious press coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That, and it's hard to imagine how any video with over 15 million views could be considered 'unnotable'. I agree, there's nothing particularly interesting about the video. But you would need more than "I don't like it" to prove the subject doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -Jmgariepy (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first youtube video

I saw a Salad Fingers video that was uploaded in 2004.--ReggieScott (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? YouTube was established in February 2005, making it highly unlikely that something was uploaded to it in 2004. –BMRR (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find the video.--ReggieScott (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3iOROuTuMA --ReggieScott (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The video was released in 2004. It was uploaded in 2007. The upload date is visible if you expand the description section of the page — it says "Added: May 09, 2007." That is the date that the video was uploaded to YouTube. "Released" probably refers to the date that it was originally released to the general public, which is unrelated to the date that it was uploaded to YouTube. I can see how this would be confusing. –BMRR (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Please note that this article can be illustrated with a frame grabbed from the video and uploaded to Wikipedia under a Fair Use Rationale. The last version of the image was deleted from Commons as fair use cannot apply there. Fæ (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has nothing in it which requires illustration IAW the NFCC. — Fourthords | =/\= | 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion such a frame grab would meet all the criteria of NFCC and I would be happy to oppose deletion on this basis. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, pray tell, in the article needs particular illustration to increase its understanding? I myself find all 719 bytes to be crystal clear without requiring any copyrighted imagery to better understand it. — Fourthords | =/\= | 08:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to tell you, the NFCC criteria are clear and all 10 are met in this situation. Fæ (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A screenshot would be helpful in demonstrating the quality (of lack there of) of the video. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

This page does not meet general notibility guidelines. Hence i will redirect it to jawed karim. Pass a Method talk 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be discussed first. The article contains multiple independent sources offering at least semi-significant coverage, and the previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me at the zoo was closed with no consensus to delete. I don't blame you for being WP:BOLD, but in this case, given the number of people involved in that debate and the reasonable claims that it does meet WP:GNG, more discussion is necessary. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the subsequent listing at DRV stated clearly "merge/redirect can be done following a consensus on the talk page". A discussion (as has now been initiated) was very much called for. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

The majority of the keep votes in the last AfD also wanted a merge (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me at the zoo). Therefore i propose this be merged with Jawed Karim or History of YouTube. I Have no strong opinions on this matter Pass a Method talk 14:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no clear rationale for a merge and looking at the AfD there was no majority of keep !votes that supported a merge, not that this would be a reason to ignore the AfD conclusion and merge anyway. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support a merge with Jawed Karim Pass a Method talk 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. OK, so there isn't much content here, but there are enough reliable sources covering this in detail that it would appear to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of a stricter guideline, I'm not seeing a reason why this shouldn't have a separate article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a merge to Jawed Karim as it has no special significance to the individual. No opinion on a merge to history of YouTube; the article has seven reliable secondary sources, but might not have much potential to grow much larger than it stands. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer a broader discussion than this, and a clearer manadate than that achieved (or not) at the first AfD. Therefore, per my comment at the DRV, I would favour that this be relisted at AfD. I accept that this is not somewhere to propose a merge, so any such nomination would best come from someone who actually favours deletion, and the discussion can continue from there. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest YouTube comment... ever...

Should there be any information about the oldest YouTube comment (posted by COBALTGRUV) on here? Colabcalub (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, if it can be reliably sourced. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=jNQXAC9IVRw&page=114 go down to the bottom of page, the first comment ever got like 18k thumbs up and it's marked as spam. 87.205.77.95 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would qualify as original research since we don't know if any comments were deleted or lost since being allowed. — fourthords | =Λ= | 10:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest comment on the Me at the Zoo video is not necessarily the oldest comment on YouTube. Comments were first enabled at a time when there were already many videos on YouTube. Jawed (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.157.138 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

I'm not sure this article is a stub. Stub means article that's way shorter than it could have been. It doesn't mean very short article. This article is a minor detail of YouTube, which has a much longer article. I can't think of any more information about it that's probably notable except for possibly why it was uploaded and its effect on raising awareness of the ability to upload videos and whether or not the person who uploaded it was somebody working for YouTube. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't know if really short articles that are unable to be very much longer whose topic is breifly mentioned in another much longer article in general or meant to be merged into that article, such as this article getting merrged into YouTube. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International reveals the exact upload time down to the second

So Amnesty International has a web page which reveals the exact upload time down to the second in UTC.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/citizenevidence/

It says the video was uploaded at 3:27'12 UTC. Tri400 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"JNQXAC9IVRw" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect JNQXAC9IVRw. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18 or 19 seconds

The article says in the intro that the video is 18 seconds long, before contradicting itself in the infobox saying that it is 19 seconds long. Any ideas? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly Youtube makes it somewhat difficult to see the duration of a video (it flashes "19" briefly when browsing to the page, but if autoplay is turned off and the video plays through, it displays 18, which I've updated the infobox to say. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

timing second (the video with cursor starting the play at the left of the line), to second (to a clock which I held to compare) the video appears to be 19 seconds Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: didn't see your request there, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

Why does the infobox say the release date of the video is April 25? Wasn't it uploaded on April 23? 77.98.148.182 (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp fix

The upload timestamp says 8 pm Pacific Time on April 23, 2005, and then says 2 am UTC, also on April 23, 2005. The UTC date should be corrected to April 24, 2005. SeanCrain01 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the source provided gives a different upload time to this article when you enter the video's URL, so that should probably be changed too. 2A02:908:E5A:5E60:BC23:C4C:8309:FBDF (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.187.111.192 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first youtube video (again)

I saw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EurHP1DCJg that com-test is the first video on YouTube (but now deleted), not me at the zoo. My last edit was failed. Why? Chuanchauau (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your source for that (a self-published Youtube video by "TheTekkitRealm") does not meet our reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This video is also entirely faked by the way, sources are reddit screenshots from accounts that don't exist. The screenshots themselves depict images contradictory to what Tekkit describes. Ayy23 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a note on the current description

Would it be appropriate for the article to state that the description has been later changed to "contain a rickroll link, disguised as a link to a new video"? KevTYD (wake up) 03:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No; per WP:TRIVIA we don't need to document every bit of minutiae around the video. The significance is that it was the first Youtube video, not the comments, etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Me at the zoo isn't the first video ever uploaded to YouTube, it is the oldest video that is still available for viewing.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EurHP1DCJg User:milkmankarlson (Talk) 02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above – Thjarkur (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

serendipity

video at the cursor view is nicely harmonized to the video still image by colour Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"TheTekkitRealm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TheTekkitRealm and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#TheTekkitRealm until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add transcript?

Should I add a transcript of the video? Kosburrat (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a lyric or transcripts site. General Ization ^Talk 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New oldest video discovered

"Welcome to YouTube!!!", a video which was just recently discovered, appears to have been posted before "Me at the zoo" (April 6 2005). This may warrant the creation of a new article, or at least changes to this one.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=4jowDfvbGIA – PurpleMonk72 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has turned out to be a hoax -- the video was uploaded using an exploit with video premiers which can result in a video being uploaded with a custom upload date (there have been videos that say they were uploaded on 1/1/1970 for example). 480p video quality and video premiers were both unavailable features in April of 2005. Bentokage (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PurpleMonk72 it's a hoax. 2A02:8084:513E:C980:5787:439B:EEB1:4C6B (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 17:29, 26 January 2023 edit Bentokage (talk \| contribs) 2 edits →‎New oldest video discovered: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:23, 26 January 2023 edit undo 2a02:8084:513e:c980:5787:439b:eeb1:4c6b (talk) →‎New oldest video discovered: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit Next edit →
Line 151:		Line 151:

	:This has turned out to be a hoax -- the video was uploaded using an exploit with video premiers which can result in a video being uploaded with a custom upload date (there have been videos that say they were uploaded on 1/1/1970 for example). 480p video quality and video premiers were both unavailable features in April of 2005. [[User:Bentokage\|Bentokage]] ([[User talk:Bentokage\|talk]]) 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)		:This has turned out to be a hoax -- the video was uploaded using an exploit with video premiers which can result in a video being uploaded with a custom upload date (there have been videos that say they were uploaded on 1/1/1970 for example). 480p video quality and video premiers were both unavailable features in April of 2005. [[User:Bentokage\|Bentokage]] ([[User talk:Bentokage\|talk]]) 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
			:[[User:PurpleMonk72\|@PurpleMonk72]] it's a hoax. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8084:513E:C980:5787:439B:EEB1:4C6B\|2A02:8084:513E:C980:5787:439B:EEB1:4C6B]] ([[User talk:2A02:8084:513E:C980:5787:439B:EEB1:4C6B\|talk]]) 18:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)