Talk:All your base are belong to us/Archive 4

"moar accurate" translation

What poor autistic soul felt the need to include this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.3.56 (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unneeded; I will delete it. If anyone objects, please explain your reasoning here before reverting.  Esper  ^rant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoul Guy (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. There was already a huge debate on this. However, looking it over, I think the general consensus was for deletion. Another argument for deletion is that it was included in the "Original Japanese Text" area. Please do not re-add this.  Esper  ^rant  22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoul Guy (talk • contribs)

Actually. Eh. I'm not sure about this. I personally think that it shouldn't be there, considering the article is about the mistranslation (and thus a correct translation is irrelevant overkill). But if you believe with a passion that it should be there, go ahead and add it again.  Esper  ^rant  22:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

References to consider for inclusion

• Analysis, Criticism, and reference to recent political parodies:

Lori Kendall. (2005-6). "All your base are belonging to us: Cross-Cultural Encounters in Amateur Online Videos [Cover story]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Alumni Newsletter. Cover image on page a. Article with inset images on pages 2-7. Free online at http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/news/newsletter/GSLIS_newsletter_05-06.pdf Jodi.a.schneider 15:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This is atrocious to still be considered GA. Five references, nothing like a good article, consists of a list of trivia and a description of the meme and little else.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If reference is issue, i added as footnote. Mind you it was featured article. Lara_bran 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can notice a notice on top of this page. Lara_bran 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct translation and free-source version?

Why were these removed? Both were very helpful in capturing the true essence of what the dialog was meant to be. It was encyclopedic and should *not* have been removed. 75.41.26.243 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was very useful, but the problem is, it probably violated copyright.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to an above discussion, there's apparently a dispute on whether translating it ourselves counts as original research or not.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored one of the translations. It's informative and helpful. Of course citing a published translation would be preferable (if no copyright issues existed) but when none exists we can fall back on Wikipedia-made translations. There is ample precedent for that. Haukur 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's informative and helpful - it seems to me that if we're going to ignore WP:OR, there needs to be a very good reason. The point of not having original research is that if no published translation exists, then perhaps the idea of a translation isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Orpheus 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's informative because people naturally wonder "What does that Japanese text actually mean?" Wikipedia used to provide the answer and now you've removed it (twice) for reasons which are no doubt principled but which I don't quite understand. What part of WP:OR do you feel providing a translation violates? Do you feel Wikipedia should only provide information which already exists somewhere in English? (If so I strongly disagree.) Haukur 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific parts would be WP:COS, if it's an original work, and a copyright violation if it's not (see here for precendent). See, this is the problem with not having it cited - who wrote it? Where did it come from? How can we verify its accuracy? Is it copyrighted material? Has the author released it to the public domain? etc, etc. Orpheus 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:COS deals with research, not translations. Anyone who knows both English and Japanese can verify its accuracy. Take a related question: How can we use citations to Japanese sources to verify material? Easy, anyone who knows both English (so she can understand the Wikipedia article) and Japanese (so she can understand its source) can do it. Haukur 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A translation from English to Japanese is quite likely to be original research, because of the degree of interpretation required. If it's not original research, then it's a copyright violation unless someone has a citation showing that the original source work has an appropriate license.

The fundamental problem is that there is no source for the translation. We just don't know if it is original research or not - see WP:V, particularly the first line "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The translation doesn't have a reliable source, no matter how unfortunate that might be. Orpheus 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing Wikipedia articles involves a lot of judgment, research and interpretation. Translating a short text from Japanese to English requires no more judgment, research and interpretation than writing a Wikipedia article - in fact it probably needs considerably less of these things. Do you have any reason to think that this translation isn't the work of the Wikipedia contributor who first posted it? Haukur 22:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is, then it's original research and it needs to go on Wikisource. The Japanese text is definitely not available under a free license, and should probably be removed as a copyright violation. I think you're missing the point of WP:OR and WP:V - the requirement for an external source has multiple purposes. It gives a better chance of making an accurate article - I'm sure the translation is accurate enough, but there's no trusted source to check. It also sets a standard of notability and provides an audit trail for someone who wants to examine this further. Without a source, there's no way for anyone to answer the questions I asked above. Orpheus 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese text and any derivatives of it are being used under fair use, same as the animation in the article. I think you are the one missing the point of WP:OR and WP:V. It is very easy for you to get a trusted source to verify the accuracy of the translation, just ask someone who knows Japanese. You say you personally don't doubt the translation is accurate enough and there are several people above noting that they find it useful. We should put it back in. It seems (though I haven't quite dug out everything) that the original version was written by User:Revth and edited by multiple people. Haukur 23:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(od) Can you point me to the precedent for using an original translation in an article? The deletion debate I linked before seemed to establish a consensus that the text and translations weren't covered by fair use, but of course that's not a legal opinion. For verifiability, asking someone who knows Japanese isn't exactly a published source - again, it's the threshold of notability. If there's no published source then that suggests the material isn't encyclopedia material. Orpheus 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you're talking about notability. But just because something hasn't been published in English doesn't mean it's not notable. The text in question was published in Japanese. The policy on providing translations is at WP:CITE#When_you_add_content: "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." See Vlaams Belang for an example of this in practice. Haukur 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean that it's not notable if it's not published in English - but is any analysis of the text published in Japanese either? Apart from the original video game, what sources do we have for the text, and the notes on the translation made above the Japanese version?

It's a fair point about the translation requirement for quotes. We're not quoting, though - we're doing a complete transcript and translating it. I am not convinced that fair use applies when you quote (and translate) the entire scene. The consensus in the delete debate appeared to agree with that. Orpheus 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We are already quoting this entire (short) scene in the article along with the original graphics. Usually we are much more worried about fair use of images than text and by restoring the translation we are making no more use than before of copyrighted material. [That came out wrong - I meant: "making use of no more copyrighted material than before". Haukur 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)] I do think that the Zero Wing (translations) page was correctly deleted, it was not an appropriate Wikipedia article. For one thing, fair use of material typically requires some surrounding commentary. Haukur 09:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard back in a while so I restored the translation. If you remain unconvinced—and I'm not claiming there isn't more than one way to look at this—you can of course remove it again. If you do I think the Japanese text should be removed as well. Haukur 08:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it - partly because I don't like back-and-forth editing, and partly because I agree with most of your points. Especially the last one that you just mentioned! I went back over my thoughts and points, and realised that most of what I said was actually more relevant to the Japanese text and translation put together as a combination. You're right in that having just the Japanese text is a bit silly because most readers won't be able to understand it, but I'm now wondering if it actually improves the article to have the Japanese source and the translation there at all. The quality of the original source doesn't really have much to do with the meme itself - that's based solely on the poor translation in the video game. What do you think? Orpheus 08:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand where you're coming from. Personally I do think that having the original text and a translation of it makes the article deeper and more interesting but it isn't really needed to understand the meme. There is, however, one part of the meme text where I think having the original text helps a lot. I always wondered what "make your time" could possibly mean and now I gather that it was derived from a phrase meaning something like: "Cherish these few remaining moments of your lives."

Now, does the article come close to violating WP:OR and WP:V? Despite my defence of it above I must admit that it's a borderline case. Is this article something you'd see in a traditional encyclopedia? No. But personally I think that popular culture article like this are one of Wikipedia's strengths and I feel that maybe we still haven't found quite the right balance in our sourcing policies to allow interesting pop articles without throwing quality control out the window. If you've followed some of the Pokémon FAC/FARC processes you can see this conflict writ large. The Pokémon people are stuck with low-quality sources and sources which are difficult to cite and use. For example they sometimes want to cite a video game directly (like the AYBABTU article is doing) and other people aren't always happy with that. I'm rambling but I think you get the point, it can be a bit of a baby/bathwater problem. Haukur 09:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where we're actually pretty much agreeing on the same point, just approaching it from different directions. Personally, my feeling on sourcing and Pokemon etc is that it's ok to use fictional sources if you're talking about something fictional, but if you're talking about something in the real world, then it's probably a good idea to have a higher standard for sources. You're right, it's a tough balancing act. I'm a fan of including articles on everything, because I think that's a great thing about Wikipedia, but I reckon the trade-off should be a high standard for the content of the article, with a bias towards short but well referenced articles. After all, we have Google to index all the opinions of the world for us, provided we can find a few key words and starting links here. But that's a philosophical view rather than something relevant to editing this article today. Orpheus 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is so absolutely funny really. We do have a published English translation, provided by the game manufacturers themselves! You can't get any more reliable than that. Their translation says, "All your base are belong to us."

... ROFL Alastair Haines (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are amused. How about weighing in on the discussion after your laughing fit is concluded? The translation included in the game isn't in question. What is in question is the "Approximate English meaning" that someone has just made up on their own and included in the article. You're right about one thing, though. This debate has gone on long enough without a source provided for the "approximate" translation. It should be speedily deleted. Bulbous (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Offline references

Notwithstanding the above discussion it's quite possible that the referencing in the article can be improved a bit. A search on Google Books gives a number of offline references.[1] Those I checked didn't seem to go into much depth, though. Haukur 09:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Babelfish

I added a babelfish translation to see the comparison between that and the Engrish, and accurate translations. --67.102.184.26 20:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We had one of them already and the consensus was to remove it. Orpheus 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't know. --67.102.184.26 22:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The eponymous flash animation

Should we not include a section that describes the flash video? All we have is information about the phrase, and only a few mentions of the flash itself, and the way it populrized the phrase, when this article should be about both. The problem I have is that this article should be about both, the flash and the phrase. Also, there is a clear lack of references in the article. Should something be done about this? The Wikipedist 23:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Areas of which this article needs to improve

After reading the article myself, I have finally come to the conclusion of what to do to make this article once again good, at least. The following are areas we ought to focus on improving, in no particular order:

• References and sources in areas other than pop culture reference, for verification. Who says it's a popular reference among gamers? Is it even a popular reference among gamers?
• Information on its history, the flash animation, and other things that have yet to be determined. Is there anything about the flash, its origin and popularity?
• Why are the transcripts so important? As far as I can tell, they detract from the encyclopedic nature of this article, and the main focus of the article. It is only there to show the reader that it was mistranslated. It's just not necessary, and somewhat redundant.
• It is unclear at times in certain contrasts what the article is trying to say. I'll give an example from All your base are belong to us#Original Japanese text:

The bluntness of the famous mistranslation is in contrast to CATS's caustic irony in the original text.

o.0? What does that mean, exactly? Does it contrast what is being said, or does it basically just mean it's both, or what? Actually, that whole paragraph describes, in an unclear way, what should be obvious to the listener. In fact, I seriously don't think that paragraph is necessary.

• Some copy-eiting, to ensure its grammar is on par with what it should be.

I'm saddened to see that it is no longer an FA, or even a GA. But we can fix it. Who's with me? The Wikipedist 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Transcripts and translations

Per the discussion above, there's a clear consensus that the transcripts and translations are a set - if we have one of them, we have all of them. However, the subject of whether the set of transcripts/translations is necessary in the article hasnt been discussed yet. Given the recent removal/revert, this seems like a good time to do it. Orpheus 01:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We are far from consensus. The actual in-game wording is sourceable, as is the original Japanese. The "translation" is unsourced and disputable. We should be discussing the "transcripts" seperately from the "translations". Bulbous 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument was that the original Japanese isn't all that useful without the translation. Personally I don't think we need any of them. The article, in my opinion, is about the effect that one line had on the world - not about the game it came from. Orpheus 16:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the original Japanese is not very useful is very ethnocentric. The problem is that the translation is original research. I would say that the original transcript helps put the entire article in perspective. Without it, one has a hard time understanding just how the phrase gained notoriety. Bulbous 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still have a hard time understanding that, despite having read the transcript. Regarding the translation, have a read of the discussion above. Orpheus 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the above text, and the issue that the translation is OR was never resolved. More importantly, I think it is a very poor translation - done by someone familiar with the original and in the spirit of that context. I'm going to try to get idependant translations by people unfamiliar with the original. Bulbous 17:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While a (correct) translation may technically be OR, I feel that it is also a valuable and perhaps needed resource for this article. One shouldn't need to understand Japanese to realize how poor a translation the game employed. Luis Dantas 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The translation needs to go. Recent disputes over it strongly indicate lack of consensus. It's just not right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that there are any words in Japanese that mean "incoming visual". Bulbous (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"メインスクリーンにビジョンが来ます。" "A vision comes on the main screen." The translation used changes it a bit so it makes sense in English ("visions" don't show up on main screens), but it's still correct, technically.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point! This is not a *translation*. It is an *interpretation*, and as such is OR and POV. It can never ever be "correct", and that's why it runs contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Bulbous (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the translation, as per my argument above. It's useful and there are precedents and a basis in policy for keeping it. Haukur (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep mentioning precedents. Please cite some. Bulbous (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping the translation and the original text together, but I'm coming around to the view that neither of them are appropriate for this article. Wikisource would be a good place to put the entire transcripts and translations section. Interested readers can follow a link to get the information, and the article can retain encyclopedic status. Orpheus (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up-to-speed on the discussion, but one such precedent might be Wikipedia:Translation, where translations of foreign-language Wikipedia articles are coordinated. --Iamunknown 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Use in Video Games

Since this Internet Phenomena is highly dependant on gamers and was popularized by them, it should be normal to include video game references as Cheats (Warcraft 3 - StarCraft - Empire Earth - Age of Mythology), general references (defeat ending scene in Civilisation III has "AYB" written on the screen, the tutorial of Max Payne it titled "615 AYB", written in the menu of Halo : Combat Evolved), and others. These appearances keeps this phenomena alive and should be added to this article, in my opinion. This may not be part of the Encyclopedia part of wikipedia, but it is undeniably a piece of the gamer / internet culture. 13th november 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.186.183 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In Rome: Total War when Egypt wants you to become their Protectorate State the messenger says: Pharaoh - health and strength to him - states: "All Your Base Are Belong To Us!"

MechQuest uses it once- when the Kingadent is making a speech about the Shadowscythe invaders, he says their message to him was "All your base is belong to us!" Alinnisawest (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is a popular phrase used by players in World of Warcraft, notably in the Arathi Basin battleground when all five bases are controlled by one side. (217.43.238.126 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Is it worth noting that The Simpsons Game used a similar line as said by one of the enemies in a certain level: "All your Simpsons are belong to us!"?--Dan2paul (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

All your money are belong to us

Looks like this variant is becoming popular on economic and financial blogs.--Shtove (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember one...

There is a cheat on Age of Mythology that brings up the Lazer Bear. If you want information about the bear, the game only says "All your base..." Maybe it's remarkable, maybe not...

--LakituAl (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the information page said "All your base are belong to us." Dan2paul (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So umm...

Im going to do some correcting on this page...

Particularily the translation area...i mean - this page was a featured article candidate and your telling me noone has bothered to correct this hideous grammer?!

   Narrator: In A.D. 2101, war was begun.
   Captain: What happened?
   Mechanic: Somebody has set up a bomb.
       (spoken in the Flash animation as Someone set up us the bomb)
   Operator: We got a signal.
   Captain: What?
   Operator: Main screen, turn on.
   Captain: It's you!
   CATS: How are you, gentlemen?
   CATS: All your bases belong to us.
   CATS: You are on your way to destruction.
   Captain: What did you say?
   CATS: You have no chance to survive, take your time.
   CATS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
       (spoken in the Flash animation as Ha Ha Ha)
   Operator: Captain!?! *
   Captain: Every 'ZIG', Take off!
   Captain: Do you know what you doing?
   Captain: Move, 'ZIG'!
   Captain: For great justice!

Lol 76.203.8.184 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

??!?!? Dxco (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana parody

When this phenomenon first started, I remember hearing a parody of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" using the words of AYB as lyrics. While there are thousands of references in popular culture, this one seems unique enough to be worth mentioning. It can be found by searching for "all your base" nirvana on Google or your favorite search engine. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Huffington post now has an article named "All of McCain's Base Belongs to Us: Why It Won't Even Be Close" by Seth Grahame Smith. Check it out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/all-mccains-base-are-belo_b_110341.html

French Article

In the "languages" toolbar in the French version of this article, the small star shape is still present next to "English", denoting that this is a Featured Article. It isn't featured in the English-speaking community as of right now; does this need to be corrected, or is a once-featured article always a featured article to the other languages of Wikipedia? The problem that I have is that I don't speak any French beyond "Bonjour". Perhaps some clarification? Cheers. Jes Suis Muzzy! - Bonjour 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Et Je suis ... et Le Grande. ;)

Pardonez moi si vous plait, je ne parlez pas Francais. :(

Alastair Haines (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Best laugh I've had in a while

Gotta love the news article on the lads who were arrested for putting signs up all over their town saying, "All your bases ... no chance to survive ... make your time."

"It all depends how you interpret it," said the Police Chief!

... ROFLMAO!

“ Sturgis Police Chief Eugene Alli says the signs could be, "a borderline terrorist threat depending on what someone interprets it to mean. We didn't take it as a joke and neither did the dozens of people who received this because we had calls from a number of them who didn't really know what to do. Did they need more security? Should they operate their businesses? What did it mean?" ”

Emphasis added.

<cleans monitor> Alastair Haines (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Bank (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation back please

Please visit Wikisource:Translations to see the policy there.

The kind contributors who provided the translation did a permissible thing. The best way to deal with it is to donate the translation to Wikisource. This article can reproduce, or link to the Wikisource translation.

This is a classic case of where a free alternative is not otherwise available, and where editors have skills to cover the gap. If anyone thinks the translation is inaccurate, because it is a Wiki, it will be possible to improve it. Because it is a Wiki, changes will also be subject to scrutiny for being genuine improvements rather than vandalism. That's the theory anyway.

Anyone can copy the translation from the history here to Wikisource, and then link to it.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a better policy link? The one above does not lead to anything. Bulbous (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No need, I checked with admin there. There are two issues, one serious. The text is copyright. Copyright law considers translation of text to be a copy. Imagine you wrote a book and someone translated it and published it without acknowledging you or giving you a share of the money from sales. The other issue is size. This is merely administrative. It is too hard to maintain many small translations (checking they don't breach copyright for example).

Now, I don't think that's the end of the story really, since we are only quoting a small section of the game dialogue, acknowledge the source and make no money. It is called fair use. Wiki quotes books all the time, this is no breach of copyright. In fact, it actually works as advertising for the books. The issues here are proportion of a work reproduced and permission. Permission would waive any objection.

However, as regards translation. If there is no free translation available it is not OR to provide one. The orignal language text is the verification. When editors paraphrase books into Wiki articles, we do not shout OR unless they deviate from the meaning of the source. This is just translation from book-English into Wiki-English really. Arguably, this is less open to scrutiny than translation, since the books may be rare and not online. If text underlying a translation is online (or in the article like here) a translation is much more reliable than a summary, because anyone bilingual in the text and in English can modify the translation.

I would simply restore the translation to the article on the grounds of the last paragraph, but I'm not doing that because I don't know how long the quoted passage is the game. However, if translation is unacceptable due to copyright, the original Japanese text is also. It's like someone wrote a poem and we quote the whole thing online here. Not only that, their English translation (which is what the whole article is about) is also copyright, so this should be removed also.

Conclusion: either we cannot have any of the three forms of the text owned by the game designer, or we can have all of them. Translation is not the issue, copyright is. We will not be sued for a bad translation, we can be for illegal copying without permission from the owner.

Someone should clarify the actual status in this case. I, personally, think all three are fine, but it's not my money at risk, and I'm not an expert. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Copyright is indeed a concern, and it does affect all three sections. However, that is an entirely seperate discussion and problem. This particular debate is over the usefulness of the third form, the "approximate English translation". Copyright issues aside, there are two major problems with this section: reliability and relevance. Reliability is a concern because the translation was clearly fabricated by an unknown editor with foreknowledge of the original mistranslation. The relevance of the "approximate English" translation is also a concern. This game is about a cult phenomenon originating from an English version of a Japanese game. The original Japanese text doesn't have a lot of bearing on the article, but a very rough translation of the original Japanese game seems to have NO bearing whatsoever. Should we translate the original mistranslated text back into Japanese and include that too? This gets a little ridiculous and does not advance the usefulness of the main article at all. Bulbous (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Readers naturally wonder: "What does this text which got translated into something nonsensical (but funny) actually mean?" Providing the answer to that is useful. From a copyright standpoint our own translation is the least problematic of the three versions of the text. Haukur (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to explore that. However, the translation that appeared did not advance that goal. It was a complete fabrication. It is unsourced and unattributed. If we could get a scholarly translation/explanation, it would be reasonable to include that. However, this piece is not such. Bulbous (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a translation, it's not research. You don't need a scholar to adequately translate a few lines of Japanese text from a computer game. It's not an obscure 10th century poem. Wikipedia can translate in its own voice and any published "scholarly" translation, if one existed, would most likely have copyright problems. Haukur (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you're going to argue semantics? The point is, this is not sourced and is a complete fabrication by a random editor - probably not even one who was fluent in Japanese. It's less a proper translation than an opinion based on what the editor felt the English version was *supposed* to read. As such, it is an OPINION based on WP:OR no matter what label you want to apply to it. Also, it is not at all relevant to this article. Bulbous (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think any of these things? It's a wiki, if the translation was completely inaccurate someone would have corrected it by now. The Japanese language isn't an esoteric discipline known only to a few scholars. Haukur (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese language may not be "esoteric", but this article certainly is obscure. It's based on an English languange phenomenon, and so one would not expect many first-language Japanese editors to have interest. In any case, unsourced challenged material does NOT get the benefit of the doubt. It's up to you to prove that it is worthy of staying. Where are all those fluent Japanese editors defending this translation? So far, everyone has been quick to defend the *idea* of the material, but no one has come by and defended the actual content. Bulbous (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Bulbous, this is not so. The burden of proof falls on you to explain why there'd be any reason to distort a translation. We already have one approximate translation, the poor one, which is the topic of the article. This already constrains any would-be distorter-of-translation. If you were arguing from your knowledge of Japanese that the Wiki-translation was an inaccurate translation, I'd simply say change it for something better, this is a Wiki. But, as it is, you don't have any basis on which to make an assessment, and yet you argue zero knowledge to total deletion?

Look at Laplace transform. There are no citations for the maths after the first two sections. Are you going to delete it because it is unsourced. I do hope not, any mathematician can tell you it's correct. (It should, however still be sourced.) But, as it stands, what percentage of the population can verify it? Only mathematicians (physicists and so on).

Your skepticism is extreme. Many reliable sources report things that have only been observed once, or by a few people, and are open to some healthy skepticism. It is part of sharing progress in knowledge. But translation? Translation provides no new information. It is no more prone to distortion than people who deliberately misquote, or who misrepresent or misunderstand the sources they read. In fact, when the original text itself is visible at Wiki, translation is considerably more reliable than any other material other than links. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all suggesting that the "approximate English" is a deliberate falsification! I do believe it was created in good faith. But the point is that it is not a translation - it is a fabrication with intent to convey the spirit of the transcript. A direct translation without editorializing might be useful. However, this passage is closer to a work of fiction, and as such is OR. A translation may not be - but we still have yet to find a native Japanase editor to come by and verify that this, indeed, is a good *translation*.

See comment above at 16:36, 22 November 2007 as an example. You reply to that with what seems to me like some sort of misunderstanding of what a translation is. Haukur (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a perfect example of how the "approximate English" is a detriment to this article and not at all a translation. Someone has taken the English meaning of the Japanese text and re-written it to sound "proper". A literal translation would be useful here, not this poetic license. Also, I note just below that comment where you referenced "precedent" and "basis in policy" and, when challenged, refused to cite either. Bulbous (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I did cite precedent and policy, it's right up there in my comment at 23:22, 21 September 2007. Another precedent can be found here. Haukur (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just sad. The so-called quoted "policy" refers to citing non-English source material, not non-English article content. Completely irrelevant. Also, the fist "precendent" does not contain any non-English quotes that I can see. Finally, the second "precedent" contains no non-English text at all - the "Chaucer's English" passages are BOTH in English. You're really grasping at straws here to defend a very weak section of article. Bulbous (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Vlaams Belang article contains Dutch quotes translated by Wikipedia editors, as per policy. Of course those quotes are content as well as source material and of course our AYB quote is source material as well as content. You are ostensibly concerned that Wikipedia translators will miss some of the subtleties of the Japanese text. I am sure there are many more people comfortable with the subtleties of modern Japanese than of Chaucer's English. The Chaucer translation is there for a reason. Haukur (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

@Haukurth -- seconded.

@Bulbous -- Thanks for your very well written and polite reply. Can you hear me building up to disagreeing with you? :)

Relevance. The article is not about the game is it. It is actually only about one line of a mistranslation. Translation is my area of work. I find it hard to imagine translation without two languages, and hard to imagine mistranslation without precisely one source language and at least two versions of the source in the receptor language. If I wrote an academic article on a case of mistranslation and showed interaction with less than 1 source and 2 versions it would fail peer-review. Mistranslation => Source (A) and Versions (a_i), where (Ei)(Ej) : (a_i) <> (a_j).

Reliability. Wiki MoS recommends foreign language terms be transliterated if necessary and always translated. Cogito ergo sum. Editio princeps. Textus Receptus. De dicto and de re. Several linguistics articles need to show how linguistic concepts work across all languages. Time Manner Place. Singular they. This cannot be done without using those languages. There are ways of doing it that make it easy for people who don't know the languages. (Professional linguists work with data in many languages that they cannot speak.) Sometimes suitable examples can be found in publications and simply quoted, other times this could actually make it harder for readers, simpler examples are needed than those found in linguistics text books.

Conclusion. An article claiming mistranslation from Japanese to English is unencyclopedic, by failing to verify its case, if it cannot cite a Japanese source and two English sources. The original Japanese and the bad English are the ones that are important, because a reader can't know what they are without a source. However, given a bit of license since no translation is perfect, the accurate English is pretty mechanical. It is certainly more reliable than any information at Wiki not included in quotes, so long as the Japanese is visible with the translation.

I'm a part time English second language teacher. It's fascinating and helpful to observe the mistakes people make trying to use English. It's frustrating to miss that opportunity. Interestingly, I thought the editor-supplied translation was accurate, without knowing Japanese, because several of the errors were classic errors. I could almost guess the original Japanese from the Engrish alone. I doubt the editors would know how to do that (they are probably better at making mistakes in Japanese!) Finally, it is always easier to translate into one's own language from your second language than vice versa, as, in fact, the subject of this whole article shows.

Anyway, until copyright is sorted out, I'm not comfortable touching the text. Thanks again for your thoughts. Good on you for guarding against OR. But if you apply the same standard you want to apply to the translation, you need to remove anything that is not a direct quote from all articles. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Table format

Please visit All your base are belong to us/Sandbox to see a proposed new page layout. Rather than having all of the different translations in different sections, I think it might be helpful to have them in a table (replace all three of the current sections with this table). Agree? _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 20:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:All your base are belong to us/sandbox, since we don't put subpages in the article space. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I labeled the page with a notice explaining what it is, to prevent more confusion :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When I read this article I wanted a tabular format badly enough that I created one, reproducing almost exactly Kloske's work. Then I noticed this talk section. I have edited mercilessly and added a table to the main article, making sure it has the latest version of the text. I left the game transcript in the article, even though this is duplicate information, since I think it deserves also to stand alone without risk of being obscured by the other versions. - P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.19.237 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[sic]

Why are this „[sic]“ mark belong to the third line of the Japanese original? Even though I don’t speak Japanese at all (but might start learning this interesting language one day), I would like to know about this one, id est some more knowledge are belong to me. All my gratefulness are belong to the one who for great justice move answer here. --84.174.57.169 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not even quite sure what "sic" means in this context, although I've seen it used in this way often. If it helps, "sic" means thus, or "in this way", in Latin. I think.  Esper  ^rant  22:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you click on it (sic), you'll see it means that the original text had an error, which has been quoted verbatim. It shows that the error was not made by the person quoting. 87.112.75.197 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked with a forum why it says sic, it's because of "言ん", which just means "word", written as "in", however, it should be a verb "to say" and not word, which would be "iun" (that is 言うん) another note, word "in" should be just written as 言, and not with the ん as 言 is already read as "in". short terms -- it's just a typo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.235.74 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone vandalized it one day, but no-body noticed, so it just stuck.--Gondana (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarify the translation

The article says:

Which, in English, it approximately means: ... Captain: Tell me what on Earth has happened!

Does this mean "what on Earth" (the exclamation) or "what happened on Earth?" -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rocketboom AYB history episode

Over at Rocketboom we put out a "Know Your Meme: All Your Base" documentary episode last week, which runs through the complete history of AYB:

http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_aug_15/

I thought this might be a good addition to this article but wanted to run it by less interest-conflicted Wikipedians. --Jamiew (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-English Wikipedias

In at least the Russian Wikipedia, the section giving the meaning of the Japanese is in English, making it useless. Could someone who speaks Russian translate it? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

I get that Template:Contains Japanese text is being very slowly deprecated, but could the people who remove it please replace it with the new template? Cheers. Orpheus (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevada?

From where is that etching in the stone on Hwy 50? There doesen't seem to be an explaination of it in the article anywhere, an explaination might be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panth0r (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin much older

According to a colleage and according to the urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=all%20your%20base%20are%20belong%20to%20us), the line stems from a 1991 game that was poorly translated. This article seems to ignore that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.115.193.244 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See the second sentence of the lead. Orpheus (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

xkcd?

Nobody mentioned xkcd reference here...

Then add it in...  Aaron  ►  18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars

Guild Wars actively uses all of these terms for skill names, its pretty common. Could be mentioned on the page, but I will leave it for other people to decide 70.94.212.72 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the "Make Your Time!" and "For Great Justice!" parts... 217.60.105.2 (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage/Meaning?

I do know it is a popular internet meme, but shouldn't the article mention how the phrase is used? For example, when the meme originated, many players in online multiplayer video games used to say "All your base are belong to us!" when they defeated their opponent. Although I don't have any reliable sources to confirm this... — ThreeDee912(^talk/_contribs) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Media Coverage

If something is on TV it should be already covered in media since it's audience is somewhere outside the Internet. We should rename the section to Cultural References since that makes more sense. Cncxbox (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

TV Shows w/ Phrase

• In the Kim Possible episode "Ill-Suited", Professor Dementor stated that "All your suit belong to me!", refering to Kim Possible's invincable battlesuit. Cncxbox (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture - Google's Blogger

Blogger mentions, in http://cadiesingularity.blogspot.com/, "All Your Personal World Wide Websites belong to CADIE" which is possibly making fun of "All your base are belong to us" as well as the well-publicised ToS snafu regarding Google Chrome. Does it deserve a mention here in this article? Kushal (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, as it's an April Fools joke. Orpheus (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, as it's an April Fools joke by Google.  Aaron  ►  18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft III Cheat Code

Im kinda suprised that no one has noted in the media referances section that 'allyourbasearebelongtous' is used as an instant win cheat code in Warcraft III while in single player SpartanLaser 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartanLaser (talk • contribs)

K-ON!

In the new anime K-ON! Ritsu describes Yui by saying "All your sweet are belong to me". Should we add this as a media ref? Mew Mitsuki (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No - it's not referring to an event in the real world. Orpheus (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing text

The second sentence of the following text from the article is confusing:

• This line and those following it are not in some animated GIF/Flash versions seen on the Internet. They may also be included within the song lyrics of the animated Flash movie.

What is referred to by "the animated Flash movie"? When it says "They may", are they or aren't they included?

Deleting this second sentence since it does not seem to add anything useful in it's current form. Maybe someone who understands what was intended can put back an improved version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.19.237 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

All Your O Are Belong to Us

Google. Check it out: when you click today's logo, it searches "unexplained phenomenon". This is the most searched query on Google. But we do not know whether it is because Google links to it, or whether it is the reason for the logo. However, the story becomes even more complex. On Twitter, Google released a Tweet: "All Your O Are Belong To Us"- though in the simple code of numbers, where 1=a, 2=b, etc. Which connects and enhances the question: which came first? the Chicken or the egg. Because it looks like they're starting said unexplained phenomenon, based on the original phrase of All Your Base Are Belong to Us. Should this be included somewhere in the article? --DMP47 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been included. I just edited it briefly -- it could stand more work, especially explaining the A=1, B=2 code. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The unexplained phenomenon was referring to this: http://exeterufofest.com/. The AYOABTU was just there to make us even more puzzled about the unexplained phenomena. Takeda (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Not in citation given"?

Someone has (cleverly) added "not in citation given" for the translation to be cited. Please fix this, as I'm not sure that the phrase is in proper English... 96.230.97.228 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not sure who's watching this, but it seems fairly well maintained due to the "lulz factor" involved with the article subject. Someone with admin tools may want to think about moving some or all of the somewhat intrusive inline wikitext comments into a Wikipedia:Editnotice instead.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. Orpheus (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I left them in, but did create an edit notice page. Template:Editnotices/Page/All your base are belong to us Perhaps the combination of the two will slow down the constant additions of every tiny mention ever made of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thinned the inline comments out a bit a couple of weeks ago, so they're less intrusive than when the original request was posted. Orpheus (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Google translation

An ip user decided a few days ago that there should be a machine translation included in the table. I don't understand what this was supposed to accomplish as machine translations are notoriously inaccurate but there is no mention of a translation program in the article. Given that Zero Wing was released in 1991, it's likely a human did the translating. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hope I'm doing this right, I haven't editted on wikipedia in ages.

Well, as for the vandalism... "All your trash" "All your base are belong to Hartley" "All of your bases are under our Hartley." "Telephone communications say "Mouses are awesome" Operator: The main screen is receiving a virus...."

I am certain this is vandalism, so I'll go revert it, but just incase I've made a mistake or done something stupid, I thought I'd just mention it here first =]

Edit: Flip, I don't know which version to revert to. I'll leave it for a bit and see if anyone else wants to jump in first. If not, I'll do it myself. Sorry, it's been a while since I've done this... Dx

Edit 2: Ok, I went ahead with it... it should be alright now

--86.156.228.162 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Take off every 'zig'

I'm pretty sure the phrase "Take off every 'zig'" was part of this (and was mentioned in this article in the past). Where has it gone? – gpvos (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

translation

I've just reverted an edit in which the entire section on the translation was removed. Since the humor and notoriety of this entire phenomenon is derived from the mistranslation of the original text, I must disagree that it is "wholly unnecessary." Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There needs to be an established importance to it - and besides, there aren't even citations for these translations. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an very well established importance for the article on the whole, each individual detail does not need to independently prove notability. But even if it did, obviously the poor translation is the direct cause of the notability of this subject and the only thing anyone remembers from Zero Wing. Similarly, anyone who was fluent in Japanese and English could make the translation, we have a whole group of people here on Wikipedia who translate content for article use, and I don't believe they've ever been asked to cite a previous translation before. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Being notable doesn't make it less necessary for an article to be discriminate in what it includes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My central point is that the translation is the source of the notability, the very thing that made this phrase notable in the first place and sparked one of the first truly huge internet memes. As it seems we are not going to agree on this point, I'm going to request input from WP:3O. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

But we have an image that displays the translation word-for-word. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

30 guys must be taking a break. True, there is a handy little flash animation that shows the bad translation, but it really makes it clear what a truly awful job was done with the translation to see it side by side with a correct version. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to contributing so please don't be too aggressive if I'm missing something here. It seems to me that the game's intro as a whole can be considered part of the context of the phenomenon so having just a small part of the comparisons seems insufficient; as Beeblebrox said, without the table the phenomenon is only poorly described, and I see no reason not to include it to the full extent - while removing it is directly against the spirit of Wikipedia; it is an unnecessary removal of relevant background information. Thus, I see no reason at all why the removal is constructive to the purpose of the article and site. --Krainert (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here looking for the translation, but it's not there. It's not as convenient to have to wait for the animation to play through before I get to see the whole thing. I also can't copy text from a GIF image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.205.32 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

3O

Having the direct comparison side-by-side makes it very clear what exactly went wrong in the translation, and really how hilarious this thing is and why it ever took off. That being said, the table is massive and disturbs the reading of the page (or, would if there were any significant content on the page). I'd even go so far as to say that the table might actual deter editors from adding content by being so obtrusive. If we think ahead to AYB as something other than a start-class article, would this table be appropriate to include? I really don't think so. As such, I don't think we should include the full thing in the article, especially as the gif accomplishes the task of giving the complete text of the meme, which is more than enough for the full context and understanding needed. I do feel that an in-text translation of the main phrase (and maybe another secondary phrase, such as "You have no chance to survive, make your time" or "Somebody set up us the bomb") could be appropriate in order to show the severe level of misunderstanding, but there would likely need to be more content to more fully round out the article. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you make several excellent points. I very much like your idea of just making a few of the most known examples. I'm guessing RetroHippie will be amenable to this as well, but I'll wait for him to weigh in before making changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Choice examples would be cool. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done finally Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was stunned to see what happened to this article. The full text of the Zero Wing intro and the full translation are gone. I've read the chat threads above that discussed why the changes were made, and while I appreciate everyone's sincerity here, what you've done to this once-great featured article is a terrible shame. It brings to mind the old saw that a camel is a horse designed by committee. I truly urge you to lose the example table and restore the full text and the full translation. Generations of WP readers to come will thank you for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.168.81 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Who would actully say "all of your bases are under our control." I would say All Your Bases Belong To Us/Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed having the full text of the translation as well. I thought it was funny. My favorite translation was the broken English "It's you!!" (thrilled, like your girlfriend surprising you for your birthday). Previously Wikipedia had a wonderful, simple rending of this into correct English that perfectly captured the intent (instant recognition coupled with longtime animosity and mutual loathing). I came back here to refresh my memory of what the good translation had been, but, So Outta Luck, it's gone now. For what? I don't frankly have any conception of how this is seen as an improvement to the article. If you didn't want to read the full translation, no biggie, you scroll down one screenful. --Rnickel (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a reference in popular culture that is new and not mentioned on here, but I don't know how to go about it. In the video game Ghostbusters, there is an etching in a stone in the graveyard that says, "All your souls are belong to us." BlewJ (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Being bold and reverting as per above

(From above discussion) I get the feeling that the whole translation was removed from the article to satisfy the wishes of one user alone, and there are already several anonymous and accountful users who think this was not a good decision. I have been bold and reverted the translation to the article, as I definitely see no reason why it should not be there. I see no copyright issue (famous, short dialogue is covered by fair use) and a Wikipedia-based translation which has been reviewed by tens or hundreds of thousands of Japanese-English bilingual readers is reliable – just for the sake of having been in Wikipedia for so many years. Thanks for not re-reverting without discussing first, hydrox (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC) (refactored 22 May 2010 00:46 UTC)

If the gist of a work can be conveyed by excerpts instead of the full text, then fair use only applies to those excerpts. A whole translation is unnecessary, appropriate examples get the idea across. There's plenty of other places where people can get the full translation, so Wikipedia doesn't need to have it. Wikisource might be a more appropriate place for the full version. Orpheus (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

From above comments it is deductible that people expect the full translation to be found in Wikipedia. I could give cautious support to moving the full translation to Wikisource, with clearly visible links from this article to the Wikisource page. Find my proposal below on right.

There is no fair use issue here. The doctrine specifically states that we can use limited quotations and citations of copyrighted works for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." Also even if something can be expressed more tersely, as I understand it fair use does not require we do so, as long as the extended citation is still "non-substantial". Also, limited translation is obviously not the same as the full translation, and fails badly to convey anything of the original dialogue. The full copyrighted work here being the Sega Genesis game cartridge and the video game on it, even a full transcript of the introduction dialogue is still very much a non-substantial part of the full work. I would question if an animated image showing the dialogue was fair use (this article apparently still had one when the decision to trim the translation was made), but to my mind even the full written transcript is just too trivial to infringe any IPRs. --hydrox (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the reason for having the full transcript? The comments above seem to boil down to "It's funny", or "I like it" which aren't good reasons to include in an encyclopedia. I think Wikisource is a much better place for it, and I agree fully with your link proposal. Orpheus (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it can not be moved to Wikisource at all. They do not accept fair use texts. I will however look into the possibility of moving the material to Wikiquote. --hydrox (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mention in MechQuest tutorial

There was a mention of the infamous line in the tutorial for MMO mechquest. If you were to click the monitor, the king would eventually say, "The Aliens said, 'All your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time...'"71.237.72.25 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Coverage by meme-demystification site Know Your Meme

Hello everyone,
I tried to add the following text to the header of the article, but user:Orpheus deleted it and has not responded on his Talk Page. I believe his deletion was incorrect; I can hardly think of a more authoritative source for information about a meme than Rocketboom's site. Can I please get your support for inclusion of the following:

Meme-demystification site Know Your Meme published a definitive short documentary video and a summary page about all your base are belong to us on August 15, 2008.

Thanks & cheers, Tntdj (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that addition. The text you show above looks simply like an advert for the know your meme site, it doesn't add any actual information to the article for the reader, it simply directs them elsewhere. See WP:EL and WP:RS for more info. Bigger digger (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pics

What sort of pics should be included? When Adobe bought Omniture, they put up a billboard in the style Omniture had been using for their recruiting billboards. This one said "Omniture and Adobe. All your base are belong to us." I took a photograph Small version of Billboard Pic. Would this be of interest due to it being Adobe's billboard? Due to the lovely shade of green? If so, I'll crop it, adjust it, etc., upload it to Commons, and insert it. If not, where would be a better place for it? Lyle (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources #1 and #2 are the same

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A19147205 I'd suggest merging the two into one reference, or dropping #2 entirely and reattribute to #1, but for #$%&! sake I can't figure out how to renumber sources #3 to #8. Please advise, TiA. - (User.0.0.0.1) 07:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change. Note that using the <ref> tag will enable automatic numbering of the refs. Mindmatrix 12:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

where is the animation?

there was animation here before. you can't rely on wikipedia for anything. Always some purist or vandal or puristvandal messes it up.12:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.202.68 (talk)

That's what I'm saying. I remembered the flash animation and came here to look it up and watch it again. There's only 1 mention of the flash animation, and that's when the article mentions that the wired article mentions it. There is also no link to the original flash. This article contained no new or useful information for me. --Paintblock (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Blizzard

I'm surprised that the Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos reference is not in this list, as it is an early and influential use of the phrase. The phrase is used as a cheat code for the game to give instant victory to the player in single player mode.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/cheatcodes.shtml

The game was first released July 3, 2002 in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Chaos

The game and expansion sold 3 and 5 million copies respectively, so there is definitely a lot of exposure there as the cheat codes were released with the game in the back of the manual.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_Blizzard_games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.242.131 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that while the game was notable, its usage of the phrase as a cheat code might not be. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Phrase shows up on a tee shirt in the May 11,2011 episode of TV show "Breaking In" C172driver (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be notable in any way, and was unsourced. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hackers Broaden Their Attacks ~ The Wall Street Journal

Can we mention the WSJ article from May 31st 2011 Marketplace section which discusses hacking incidents at defense contractor Lockheed Martin and broadcaster PBS. The story title was "Hackers Broaden Their Attacks" by BEN WORTHEN, RUSSELL ADAMS, NATHAN HODGE and EVAN RAMSTAD. The article shows an image of the PBS website message, post attack, with the phrase "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO LULZSEC" with a link to http://twitter.com/LulzSec. Reference an electronic version of the article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623894502788.html. Ascarola (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Synergee (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Herostratus (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A good source for information

http://www.gamefaqs.com/genesis/468841-zero-wing/faqs/10688 I had this link in the article over four years ago. Not sure when it was removed. It does give a lot of valid information. Dream Focus 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Very likely because it is not a reliable source. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 11:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

CATS

If someone can find a source explaining why the bad guy is called CATS, please add it to the article. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No luck yet, but looking... FYI ReginaldTQ (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Cultural References?

I noticed on the edit page that occurrences that are not covered by the media should be 'placed in the article List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us"'. However, that article is nowhere to be found, other than a link on this talk page. Should a new page be created for this?

I really wanted to add a Pandora error message, in which they refer to a line of this. Apparently it's an out-of-sync like error sent out by Pandora to its desktop clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8vdude8 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Newbie

I'm new to editing wikipedia and what not so I'm not sure where to start. I was going to edit this page because it is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture's to do list and I really am interested in internet culture but when I went to do some edits on this page it showed a warning. I think this wikipage could benefit from categories under the references section and filling them up a little more because there are very few references to where its been used. Thank You please respond I will check back periodically!

I edited your post so that it linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture rather than displaying the contents of the entire page. Please preview your posts before saving and sign your posts using four tildes (~). Thanks, Newbie! Primogen (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

See also English As She Is Spoke

I am considering adding English As She Is Spoke to the "See also" section, as a similar stereotype of broken English. --Boson (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do it, and include an explanation of that relation per WP:SEEALSO. The See also section often includes serendipious and loosely related articles when the section is not too long, and the guideline allows for "peripherally relevant" links. Diego (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New Note

Hi, not sure how to edit this; I did come across a pop-culture reference to AYBABTU.

There's a music radio station in Boston that has been "hacked" by aliens or something. lol If you go to http://wgih.org and then click on the now playing thing, it pulls up the radio player page and its like some kind of weird alien rap music and they just keep singing all your base. it's a remix of the video game

what's weird is its one of those Jesus rock stations

anyway I'll leave this to you guys to figure out what to do with — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.130.240 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

not sure there is anything to do with that, but thx ReginaldTQ (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

More accurate English translation

Where did these translations come from? They sound suspiciously like a case of WP:NOR. Primogen (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

They look basically made up to me, and not very well - I would phrase about half of them differently. I think the whole table should be removed, personally. Orpheus (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. I agree it looks like nonsense. Someone trying to be helpful, simple mistake I'm sure. Dream Focus 22:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It was restored, but I removed it again, because unless there's a reliable source that can verify this, I think per WP:BURDEN and WP:OR these translations don't belong. - SudoGhost 09:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've reverted the removal for various reasons. First, translations aren't considered OR because the verifiability policy explicitly allows for them at WP:NOENG (sure a reliable source would be better and should be used if available, but it's not mandatory). Second, the table has been widely debated at this very talk page, the current article contains the consensual version after many edit revisions. Third, even if it was OR only the "More accurate English translation" should be removed, not the whole table. Please try to follow the explicit instructions explaining the consensus that were included with the table the next time, and start an RfC if you want to change previous consensus. Thanks - Diego (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted to the stable version once again, but won't edit war anymore if you decide to remove it against WP:NOENG. If this direct statement by policy is not enough to keep the translation, we will go through a request for comments. Diego (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this previous consensus? What I'm seeing is a discussion about the removal of entirety of the translation table, not the "more accurate" section specifically. A recent specific discussion is not overridden by a more generalized discussion from three years ago. - SudoGhost 09:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time a consensual translation was provided, made directly from the primary source. Other discussions have been made and are available in the archives about the table as a whole and the translations in particular; they arrived largely to the table we have now, which was trimmed to just a few sentences for fair use. Slight revisions to the translations have been made over time. See also here for what seems to be the last consensual discussion. Diego (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

After reading that, I'm against having it at all. There are many different ways to translate Japanese, and no one seems to agree on how it should be done, giving totally different meanings to things. Dream Focus 10:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Four people have stated it should be removed, one person wants it in. You don't need a "request for comment" when you have enough people discussing it here on the talk page. If someone who speaks Japanese can confirm what a literally translation is, I have no objection towards it being in the article, just not at the top. Surely with something like this so popular online, a reliable source has published an accurate translation that could be used as a reference. Dream Focus 09:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please read the WP:Original research policy mentioned as a reason for deleting the table and see what it says about translations. Wikipedia-wide consensus can't be trumped by local consensus. (We really should write a F.A.Q. about this table). Diego (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is original research since no one could agree on how to translate the Japanese, you having to guess the emotion and the meaning of words in that confusing language. Different interpretations give totally different meanings. Dream Focus 10:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Different interpretations with different meanings" calls for a revision of the translation, but it still doesn't make it original research because OR says it doesn't deal with translations; we have both the primary source and the japanese text, so every reader can try to verify the content by themselves.

Given that there's still no consensus for the change I will continue the process of dispute resolution; wider attention will help to achieve a most accurate translation, or decide once for all a strong consensus about the table. (You of all people shouldn't be remembered that consensus is not decided by the number of votes but by the strength of arguments - since you are a member of the WP:ARS and participate at AfD discussions you're well versed with the consensus building process). Diego (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've listed the discussion at all the Wikiprojects interested in the topic, as suggested by Wikipedia:Request for comment#Before requesting comment. Diego (talk)

You posted at three wikiprojects. [2] How does this effect the animation wikiproject? Internet culture is the only wikiproject involved and perhaps the video game wikiproject. We already link to the thing in the article at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zero_Wing so people can view it there. I'm against the "Correct English translation" thing, since different translators disagree on what the original thing said, as I mentioned already. Dream Focus 13:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted at the three Wikiprojects because all three have marked this article of interest to them. As a reader that found the original meaning of the Japanese sentences by reading this articles, I assure you that it provides some value; you're denying to all readers that come behind you the chance to assess by themselves the quality evaluation you made above for yourself (the Wikiquote box doesn't provide any hint that a literal translation is included there, and it could be deleted anytime). I can't see how providing no translation at all is an improvement and a benefit to readers, compared to providing an approximate one even if its accuracy may be questionable. Diego (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Does reading that someone aid in understanding this better? And better no information than wrong information. We strive for accuracy here. Dream Focus 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It helped me. I had no clue what "You have no chance to survive make your time" and "What you say!!" meant before reading this Wikipedia article. I don't think the translations were wrong; and every translation by their nature will have several possibilities and some a degree of interpretation, even machine-made ones (see Hofstadter's Le Ton beau de Marot for a thorough anaylisis of translations - a perfect one is impossible, but that doesn't mean they are not useful; only that we should decide which criteria are more important for the readers of this article to understand the original text). Diego (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• 3rd Party comment - First of all, it's hard to know what we're talking about without being able to see it, so for other late-comers like me, here is what the table looks like when it's part of the article. But as far as the translation table is concerned,...
  I think it's clear that the poor English of the expression is a large part of what it is. Having both the original Japanese and the original English translation are very helpful to illustrate the exact linguistic evolution of the phrase. For this reason I'm against removing the Japanese script and the original English. The "more accurate English version" may not violate WP:OR, but it does express an individual's view of the text and as such it may violate WP:NPOV - especially as it currently seems to be challenged. The structure of the text may fit a table best, but it's not necessary either, so if consensus moves to blockquote it or whatever then that's fine. The only thing that I will say is that in my view the original Japanese script and the original English translation are helpful to a full understanding of the topic and should appear in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing this discussion to WT:VG's attention. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. I'm going to agree with Thibbs. Unless there's a copyright concern, I don't think it's a problem to include some snippets of the original Japanese and English scripts. I think the current table falls under Fair Use, so that's fine. However, I don't think WP:NOENG really applies here. If you follow the first bullet point, it would suggest providing the original Japanese and official English translation. The second bullet point doesn't apply at all here, since you're not using the text as a citation. Obviously there is contention over what an "acceptable" better translation would be. To be perfectly honest, I don't think a "more accurate" translation would be terribly beneficial to the article at all. Most readers can get a decent sense of the meaning, even from the lulzy official translation and they can machine translate the Japanese if they so desire. In sum, remove the "better" translation, but having a table with official Japanese and English might be helpful. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Google translation for "せいぜい残り少ない命を、大切にしたまえ・・・・。" is "Shitamae a chance to survive make your best · · · ·". I still found "Treasure what little time remains of your lives" or "Cherish what remains of your lives" or even the first version "Struggle! For what good it will do to your soon to be destroyed lives" better translations and expected content in an article in which the main topic are bad translations.Diego (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your comments. Thibbs, can you elaborate in which way you think the available direct translations could be a violation of WP:NPOV, and if you fell that there's a way in which they could be improved to avoid the problem? I've asked help at Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English to see wether someone experienced with translations made by editos can inform us of how this is usually solved at other articles. Diego (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • NPOV asks editors to "Avoid stating opinions as facts". The truth of the matter is that apart from an inelegant literal translation like Google Translate tries to perform, a proper "poetic" translation as we see in the table requires the use of editorial opinion when it comes to word choice. The table is vague on the question of whether the improved translation is "A more accurate English translation" or if it is "The more accurate English translation". Although it is obvious to anyone who has tried their hand at translating that a definitive translation is impossible and that an authorized translation is the best anyone can hope for, this fact may not be common knowledge to the general public. So if an improved translation is to be part of the final article, some of the following would be worth considering:
      1. Change the table to say "A more accurate English translation" and include disclaimers that this is not an authorized translation
      2. Use an agree-upon consensus-based translation (possibly with the help of "WP:Pages needing translation into English") and use IAR to dodge WP:V in this limited case. Be prepared to alter the text if consensus changes or to add a different "more accurate English translation" if a significant competing view emerges.
      3. It must be considered a stop-gap measure and that as soon as an RS emerges its "reliable" translation will be used instead.
    • I'm not dead-set against including the "more accurate translation", since word-choice in an article really should fall under editorial discretion like it does with the English usage, but if the item cannot be sourced except to WP editors, then I think some combination of consensus and IAR will have to be the basis for its inclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with your caveats since they are common sense- include a translation defined by consensus and update the wording if consensus changes. This was the situation with the existing translation and how it was created. WP:NOENG is clear that we should use a sourced translation if available, but nobody has found it in years and in that case the rules allow us to create one; I don't think there's a need to ignore all rules nor that this case is exceptional. Diego (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Yeah that's true I guess. I've been regarding the text as the object of the reporting rather than as the source itself, but if we consider the text from the Japanese game as the source then an English translation is warranted without further concern for WP:V. I agree that NOENG covers it as long as we're careful to avoid the implication that this is somehow the only or the official way to translate the original Japanese. -Thibbs (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the translation

Original script	Original English translation	Wikipedians-made English translation
機関士：何者かによって、爆発物が仕掛けられたようです。	Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.	Engineer: An unknown assailant has planted a bomb!
通信士：メインスクリーンにビジョンが来ます。	Operator: Main screen turn on.	Radio Operator: Video is being routed to the main screen.
CATS：連邦政府軍のご協力により、君達の基地は、全てCATSがいただいた。	CATS: All your base are belong to us.	CATS: With the help of Federation Forces, all your bases have been taken over by us.
CATS：せいぜい残り少ない命を、大切にしたまえ・・・・。	CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.	CATS: Treasure what little time remains of your lives.
艦長：我々の未来に希望を・・・	Captain: For great justice.	Captain: Let's hope for our future...

Hi! I came here after I saw a message at the WikiProject:Japan's talk page. I'm a native ja speaker. The translation is correct, I'm not sure if it's natural en though. As for the first line, the original ja is the passive. Oda Mari (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've copied above the most recent version of the translation. Is this the same one you read from the history page? Diego (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Strictly speaking, the first line uses "assailant", but 何者(か) is just "somebody" or "an unknown person". 爆発物 is "an explosive substance" or "explosives", not a bomb. Bomb is 爆弾. As for the fourth line, the object is "life", not "time". The original ja is "Treasure your running-out life" or "Treasure your soon-to-end life". Oda Mari (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Saw your request... I say remove it, looks super shady. Can anyone verify translation? THX ReginaldTQ (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I also received a request to verify. I am a native speaker of both languages and will make my own translation from which you may judge the above translation for yourself.

1. It appears that an unknown party has planted an explosive.
2. We are getting video on the main screen (lit. a visual is coming on the main screen)
3. With the the cooperation of Federation forces, all of your bases have been taken by us (lit. CATS has received/taken all of your bases)
4. Treasure what little remains of your lives
5. Let there be hope for our future (lit. to our future, hope.)

I used let there be (like fiat); however, the last line takes on slightly different meaning with context. For example, it could be a proclamation as I have translated it, but, in the given context, it is more like a prayer or wish (please give hope for our futures). The closest literal translation I can think of is as I have written it. Rufe (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If we put the translation, does it not make sense to include the full Japanese text as taken from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zero_Wing ? Adding just the second to last line removes the ambiguity from the last line making it

• I ask of you, ZIG [units]
• To our future, [restore] hope...

I should point out that the translation there is probably original work by another wikipedian.

Rufe (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanese-to-English translation

Reviewing the situation as a way to advance discussion:

• There were doubts about the neutrality of a translation that is created by Wikipedia editors.
• We have some editors stating their concerns about the accuracy of the available translations directly from the Japanese source.
• There are also some worries from the availability of several alternate translations for each sentence.

In the discussion we analyzed the relevant policies and guidelines, which in any case forbid a Wikipedia-made translation and even encourages it above machine-made ones (the alternative that Axem Titanium suggested for readers).And I strongly suspect that Google Translate is using the Wikipedia-provided translation for these sentences, making this course of action WP:CIRCULAR.

We have attracted the attention of a native Japanese speaker who has checked that the meaning of the translations is accurate. Also, Thibbs has proposed some check-list points that we could use to ensure that Neutrality policy is met, and a way to avoid the problem of several translations - just decide on one and use it for the article, but make it clear that it's open to further discussion.

I see this as rough consensus to recover the translations into the article, adding enough caveats to warn readers on the nature of the translations and pointing them to the way they were made. This consensus also suggest keeping working on the translations to decide some criteria by which they can be improved and eventually replaced with a better version, created through a clear process. I for one think we should decide which tone should be used for the translation, as we can choose between a more literal translation that is close to the original words (such as "Treasure your running-out life"), or a more loose one that nonetheless provides a more natural tone closer to the original intent of the sentences ("Treasure what little time remains of your lives").

So, can we re-add the table with the modifications suggested by Thibbs and start this discussion process, or are there any more reasons against the inclusion of the translations? Diego (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I added some info aboveRufe (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Errata/Suggestions for Japanese Translation

I would like to suggest in the third line we might want to change "help" to "cooperation". I am unsure of the context (if "Federation forces" refers to a third party or the player's forces), but cooperation is a translation of the Japanese that could apply to both cases.

Also, I switched the literal and looser translations for the first line. A study of the Japanese makes it clear that the ambiguous language is the more literal translation

Rufe (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I've edited that sentence following your suggestion. Diego (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

List of cultural references was deleted

The article List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us" was deleted in 2007. Isn't it absurd that the section "References in mass media and elsewhere" instructs to place removed entries there? Diego (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You guys base, CATS has taken all.

And that's how Google Translate currently renders 君達の基地は、全てCATSがいただいた. LOL 68.37.254.48 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Several translations/interpretations

I've reverted a repeated attempt by an IP user to change the translation to include alternative wordings within slashes. I understand the desire to have various options for each translation, but the approach to put all the different versions in the same place just makes the test unreadable.

Also the current text was arrived to by consensus and help by many different editors trying to provide an accurate, direct translation. Maybe the alternatives could be placed as footnotes or below the table, but placing them all mangled within the text is not an improvement. Diego (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree that listing everything will make it unreadable. To make the article so literal and including every translation kind of ruins the spirit of why it's funny. The saying is interesting to people because it's a 'miss' right? Synergee (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This needs a better translation:

Original script	Original English translation	Wikipedians-made English translation	CATS：せいぜい残り少ない命を、大切にしたまえ・・・・。	CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.	CATS: Treasure what little time remains in your lives.

The actual translation is not fully correct. It needs to be fixed. 216.186.154.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can you please explain how it is not correct, and do you have some suggestions on how to translate it? Diego (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say it would be something like: "Make sure you spend the rest of your lifetime, meaningful." Well, then again, let's just put both. >_> 216.186.154.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Translations

The translations read like fansubs. Literal translations are being used even when there are idomatic equivalents in the English language. Here are some alternatives: メインスクリーンにビジョンが来ます = We have visual. 連邦政府軍のご協力により、君達の基地は、全てCATSがいただいた。 = With the help of federation forces, all your bases are ours. (Or will be ours, depending on the context) せいぜい残り少ない命を、大切にしたまえ・・・・。 = Make the most of what little time you have. たのむぞ。ZIG！！ = Come on. ZIG!! (It would be odd for such informal Japanese to be translated to such formal English the way it has.)

Try and think of something better and list it here. It must preserve the tone and context of the original. Slang must be met with slang. Informal with informal, etc...M miyama (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That could work, with the line, 『せいぜい残り少ない命を、大切にしたまえ・・・・。』. :|

216.186.154.23 (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Plants vs Zombies

Isn't there a mention in PvZ with the puzzle level "All your brainz r belong to us"? Interest=phine (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP April 1 suggestion

A Pacman-type game routine which 'consumes' areas of the MP with tbe message on completion 'All your edit are belong to us.' (and which can be readily 'turned off' after being seen once). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

References in mass media and elsewhere

Song "My Feelings for You" by DJ Avicii

On December 13, 2010, the song "My Feelings for You" by DJs Avicii and Sebastien Drums was released. Its music video makes reference to this citation stating "All your feelings are belong to us...".

Any objections? Best regards, Hippo99 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Futurama's Anthology of Interest II

In episode eighteen of the third season of Futurama called Anthology of Interest II, the sequence entitled "Raiders of the Lost Arcade" shows many video game references, including a sequence where 'villains (Lrrr, Donkey Kong, a Berzerk robot, BurgerTime's Mr. Egg and Q*bert) exit the landed ship, one character says the phrase "All your base are belong to us."' --Nay1989 (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Advertising Industry

After major advertising holding companies Publicis Groupe and Omnicom Group announced in July 2013 they would merge, a parody Twitter handle was created: PublicisOmnicom. As of July 29, 2013, the profile picture depicted Publicis CEO Maurice Levy's head on CATS's body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcarmine (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Song "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" by Kenji Yamazaki

The title of this song which appears on the Soundtrack for the Super Famicom game "Appleseed : Oracles of Prometheus" is historically, the first mention of the phrase to date. The game was released in August 1994. Source: internal track listing of Appleseed: Prometheus no Shintaku or Shadako (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"All your data are belong to us"

I edited the caption on this image to try to sound more neutral. The way it was seemed irrelevant and incitant. Anyone else have any thoughts? Skolithos (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Combichrist

What about the Combichrist lyrics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.130.147 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

this needs a good title

"It was referenced in a comment immediately below the post by a user (Redacted)(note: redaction is post archive; however, refer to concerns brought up here —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC))

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)

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

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)

Restore to old version

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)

Elon Musk: "All our patent are belong to you"

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. [3] 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 [4] 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)

Stern pinball machine AYBABTU easter egg

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)

format

• 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)

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:

• "This new craze culminated when Bad_CRC created the first “All your base” video."
• All Your Base turns 10-years-old today!
• The 5 Earliest and Geekiest Viral Videos

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

Sign In American Truck Simulator

In Las Vegas In American Truck Simulator, There Are A Sign That Give Messages AYBABTU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes on the English translations

I edited and removed "onboard" from the literal English translation of the Japanese as no reference to location (ship or otherwise) appears in the original Japanese, and therefore also put (on our ship) in quotes in the English idiomatic translation. Most correctly it would be deleted there as well, as it is evident only in context from knowing it is on a spaceship.

Literally word for word the sentence is as follows: 機関士：Engineer 何者か:Somebody によって、By 爆発物がBomb 仕掛しかけられた was set up ようです。it appears

Also "vison" (ビジョン), regarding "main screen turn on", does not have the strange/odd feeling that one would have in English reading the sentence "The vision is appearing on the main screen", because ビジョン (vision) is written in katakana and has the feeling of some kind of loan word, perhaps reflecting the advanced technology of the spaceship. It would be more accurate to reflect this grammatical nuance by putting "vision" in quotes.

Somekindofusername, 12/31/2018 happy new year

Another example of why the English translation is WP:OR and shouldn't be in the article at all. Orpheus (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Add a reference to Harold Goldberg's 2011 book with the same title

Harold Goldberg published "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" in 2011, by Three Rivers, part of Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House. ISBN 978-0-307-46355-5 and eISBN 978-0-307-46356-2. It's a quick read, and lots of fun. Neither Mr. Goldberg nor the book have a Wiki page so no disambiguation would be needed at this time. Djhill8262 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Noteworthiness?

Wikipedia isn't Know Your Meme. I don't think this article sets a good precedent because at what point do we draw the line on obscure and unnoteworthy 2000s memes? hjk321 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't obscure then -- If you were on-line and perusing the English-language Internet at the time, then you had it running out your ears. I don't think it's a good idea to delete articles on things that were extremely popular fads for a few years, then faded, like Rubik's cube and Hula hoops. To put it another way, if we can have an article on Hampster dance, then we can have one on "All your base are belong to us"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? IF there's a line to be drawn (and I'm not sure there really is, it's not like Wikipedia is running out of disk space), it's WELL past "All your base". This is not just part of internet culture, it's made its way into general culture. You might not be happy about that, but when US Congresspeople use it 20 years after it originated, it's thoroughly noteworthy. XeroxKleenex (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hjk321: agree with AnonMoos and XeroxKleenex, clearly passes all relevant notability guidelines I'm aware of. - Scarpy (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)