Talk:Joever

Requested move 23 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joever → It's Joever – Phrase is usually used in its entirety. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

  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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Oppose - Note that the original memetic image including “it's” has, since this request was posted, been removed from the page. As such, outside the first source, there's little basis to an RM that the “It's Joever” redirect does not already cover. Also, per User:AVNOJ1989, WP:COMMONNAME serves against this RM. Altorespite 🌿 02:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Wouldn't it make more sense to use the full, well-known name for the article title? I've always known it as 'It's Joever'. Waqar💬 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Internet culture and WikiProject Joe Biden have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 17:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image needs to be removed

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

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)

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)

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)

CNET

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah, was just about to say, the current guidance doesn't apply only to AI-written articles, because problems with editorial standards impact all of their content. If anyone feels like this is too restrictive, definitely bring it up in WP:RSN. hinnk (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I updated WP:RSP in [2], moving the smaller sentence to the top where it's less likely to be missed. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)