Talk:All your base are belong to us

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article All your base are belong to us is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sega task force.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Animation / Computer / Web (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon 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.
 

Restore to old version[edit]

I am proposing that some content of the 2004 version of this article to be restored and merged in to this article. This article was once a featured article. And now??? Start-class. what happened to this article? if only anyone could help bring back the content of the old revision...... --Fazbear7891 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Why not do it now? --Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

this needs a good title[edit]

"It was referenced in a comment immediately below the post by a user chsh1989[at]hotmail.com"

a) I don't think that is relevant and think it could be removed, and

b) It has been proven that adding stuff like person[at]example[dot]com in an email address will not prevent spammers from getting your email. (I'm too lazy to cite that, but someone set up a web page with seven test emails, each mangled in some way. Then, a year and a half later, they measured the volume of the spam received to each address in megabytes.) Hitechcomputergeek (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Almost all references have been removed from the main page and archived here due to the near-infinite possible number of references that had been or could be added to the page.

format[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 06:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A good starting point is at WP:RS. Orpheus (talk) 18:42, 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fvTxv46ano
J_Tom_Moon_79 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few links where Bad_CRC is mentioned in relation to the All your base video:

- Soulkeeper (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Elon Musk: "All our patent are belong to you"[edit]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tesla-patent-belong-195400784.html

I'm not sure where to find a RS making the connection, though (even though the reference is obvious). 89.90.144.90 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Tesla put a picture of the meme on their ex-patent wall: https://twitter.com/TeslaMotors/status/479704948360216576/photo/1
Also, the original announcement with this title: http://www.teslamotors.com/jp/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
I think it can't be any clearer than that Caroliano (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
CNN also made the connection, although the meme is only referenced in the title, which in turn is directly from Tesla. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I added two references which make the connection in their articles. [1] Dream Focus 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Linking those to the article violates WP:SYNTH. Orpheus (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Its not synthesis if the article specifically says this. As for your revert [2] you claim those are "Not notable media references". Really? Mashable "the site has over 43 million visits per month, as of 2015". How is it not a notable media? Dream Focus 19:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

CATS: doesn't this sound like a "lolcats" subtitle?[edit]

Would this GIF be famous if the CATS: bit wasn't there? The article doesn't seem to suggest that it does. Or did the "lolcats" subtitle take its form (of skewed English) from this GIF?--184.63.132.236 (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing significantly predates the common lolcat.©Geni (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Stern pinball machine AYBABTU easter egg[edit]

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?

Titanic2 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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)