Talk:Joever

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 10 April 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Joe Biden Internet culture Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/its-joever-social-media-flooded-with-memes-as-joe-biden-withdraws-from-us-presidential-race-6159811 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/its-joever-internets-memeful-goodbye-as-biden-drops-out-of-race/articleshow/111914547.cms https://www.vulture.com/article/joe-biden-drops-out-2024-race-meme-roundup.html https://www.vulture.com/article/biden-drops-out-2024-twitter-meme-accounts.html

It has been proposed in this section that Joever be renamed and moved to It's Joever. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Joever → It's Joever – Phrase is usually used in its entirety. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per image and 1st source. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The word itself, as stated in the article, has extended past the original meme and is now understood, I believe, without "it's". I do not believe it to be necessary to add. 50.230.17.190 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Phrase is usually used in its entirety" is completely false. Google Trends. "it's joever" has only 348,000 results. "joever" has 1,580,000 results. WP:COMMONNAME is actually against this RM. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using Trends to determine the common name of a meme is probably a 'false positive' of sorts. Looking into some recent instances of the use of the term on 4chan and SNS, I'm seeing variations such as "Is it Joever?", "It's so Joever", "It isn't Joever", etc. The article as written documents "We're so Barack" as a variant of the original meme, which, if it really was just "Joever", then wouldn't such an alternate simply be "Barack"..? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're using 4chan to determine how we title articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's part of the encyclopaedic process, isn't it? Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Considering other variations of the meme such as "All Joever" [1], I'd say we leave the title as it is now. MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME, I would rather see this article renamed to It's Joever. I have never seen just "Joever" alone. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Joever meme.jpg needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. — hako9 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Do you also suggesting removing the images from Doge_(meme) and Internet_meme? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Doge meme, this is plainly creative indulgence. The doge meme is a very specific image. This one is a random unflattering Biden pic that can be substituted with any other random unflattering Biden pic with a superimposed caption. See relevant policy MOS:IRELEV. — hako9 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even Doge (meme) § Online?

NVM, I see your point. I'll remove it as an {{icn}} image. Searching Google Images gives a rightwards facing photo like https://imageresizer.com/meme-generator/edit/its-joever instead. While images are useful to illustrate an article, this one (especially because it's in the lede) would mislead as to which image macro is most common. Additionally, this internet meme is also text, not just an image macro. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hinnk and Djkauffman:

CNET began deploying an experimental AI tool
— WP:CNET

but

CNET in a human-written article
— User:Djkauffman 23:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

. I'll remove it for now, but I thought Oganguly's reply at AfD was silent consensus that this one article was reliable. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNET doesn't distinguish between AI and human-written articles, it distinguishes based on publication date. Considering their support for deleting this article, Oganguly's comment appears to be sarcastic. hinnk (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Their AI policy slipped my mind and I was mostly speaking on the other two articles. It's a good reminder for me to be less scatterbrained about replying. Joewari da. Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the WP:CNET, CNET has never attributed an AI-written article to a specific human, only to "CNET Money Staff" or similar (and the AI-generated nature was disclosed in the byline). I believe the pre-October 2022 reliability ranking ought to be applicable to articles that are attributed to specific journalists as with this one. Djkauffman (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to take this to WP:RSN when I found editorial independence problems, which are "related to but separate from the AI stuff above".

A bit of a shame I had to cut like 50% of sources, but I suppose that the price we pay for the rest of the encyclopedia to be reliable. I've given up at AfD, but it was a great learning experience in WP:RS and WP:OR. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]