This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
I tried to move the animation into another section, since it's kind of weird just sitting there in it's own section, but I can't get it to sit next to the text, it seems to create it's own whitespace. I am by no means an expert on formatting such things, maybe somebody out there could take a crack at it? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Viral Videos on Youtube about the All Your Base Meme
Got a question. I noticed that some notable instances listed under the "References in mass media" section. (I.E.: "Invasion of the Gabber Robots") How popular does a video have to be in order to be listed in Wikipedia? My dispute is considerning JGTraveler's Zero Wing Hip-Hop remix. Is it worth discussing if it isn't "popular" enough? It has considerably gained a lot of views I believe is enough to earn a place under the "References in mass media" section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTraveler (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not popularity that matters, it's notability. Basically we only want third-party references, preferably in mainstream media publications, otherwise the article will balloon into a huge list of links. Orpheus (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
So, Youtube references don't count? DTraveler (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is there are millions of videos on YouTube, and probably less than 1% of them are notable. Also, there are literally hundreds of pop-culture references to AYBABTU, and listing them all would be massive overkill. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
But as far as musical references is concerned, there's only a techno (Laziest Men On Mars) and trance (Kalocin) remix and the picture collages using the techno remix. I haven't seen any videos using the trance remix, which I believe should also be notable as it is listed on different sites, not just on Youtube! The Hip-Hop remix SHOULD be notable because it's used in a different style that noone on Youtube has done before (Atleast to my knowledge)! If the techno remix is notable, why not the trance and hip-hop remixes? Do they not merit the same notability as bieng unique? Most of the pop-culture references use the techno remix and not the latter two mentioned. Both SHOULD be listed under the related-media section! DTraveler (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Novelty and notability are two different things. Notice that all of the references in the mass media section are to news magazines, websites or TV stations - Wired, WWMT, The Register, Time magazine, CNet. We deliberately don't talk about the musical styles, because they're not the focus of the article, and they're not notable in themselves. If someone wrote an article in a mainstream publication about the different musical styles used in AYB remixes, then sure, it'd be worth a section here. The external link that was there shouldn't have been, incidentally, for the same reason. Orpheus (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
So in order for it to be notable, it must be from a reprebable source like a magazine or website other than Youtube, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTraveler (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by the policy at work here. As far as I know, there was a single video -- the dance remix with photo-montage, made by Bad_CRC if other sources are to be believed -- that achieved immense popularity in 2000-2002. I saw it everywhere, and it introduced me to the phrase. Everyone I know saw it, and it introduced them to the phrase. For many people it was their introduction to the entire phenomenon of viral internet video. Yet the article doesn't mention this video at all, relegating it to unspecified "popular culture references" to the original obscure video game. This is incoherent. If a single work is extremely widespread and popular and is the only exposure most people have to a given original work (i.e. the video game), doesn't it merit a wikipedia entry, with information about the author, etc? I had to find the name of the author on some forum somewhere. Wikipedia doesn't do this with other films. The article on T.E. Lawrence has a link and a mention of the film "Lawrence of Arabia", even though there are no doubt many other less popular films that mention T.E. Lawrence. How is this any different? The AYBABTU flash animation was a cultural touchstone for everyone who had an internet connection in 2000, and yet wikipedia seems to know nothing about it. That's truly bizarre, and it makes wikipedia look like a video game trivia site rather than a repository for notable information. Millions of people saw the original AYBABTU flash video -- many more than ever had any other exposure to this video game. It's notable. Why is there no specific information about it? Why do I have to do my research elsewhere to find out about it? --Mrnorwood (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mrnorwood, the BAD_CRC video is the original introduction to AYBABTU.
It's misleading not to link to this video. For me, I see a giant missing bit of information in this article without that video.
Some Stern pinball machines are having the "All your base are belong to us" easter egg, which is accessible in attract mode. Here's example with High Roller Casino(done via PinMAME, should be possible on real unit as well): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5ZujF1yWYk
What do you think about it?
Unfortunately we can't mention the easter egg without a link to a reliable source that describes it, such as a magazine, newspaper or book. According to Wikipedia guidelines, trivia facts about a topic needs to be referenced to reputable writers, who explain how and why that particular easter egg is relevant. The mentions in media included in the article all have such coverage. Diego (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)