Talk:Doge (meme)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doge which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerned about the particular image macro used as an example.
It raises my eyebrows that the given example of this silly meme includes an, in my view, abrupt or overfamiliar reference to sexual assault. Does anyone else feel the same? 2600:4041:79CE:D100:F1C6:363F:CC81:4653 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * yeah, given there are millions of these images why was this particular one chosen? Maxxisti (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If you go to the image file, you'll see someone chose it in 2015, and they uploaded it on the grounds it was the original meme. That may or may not be true, quite frankly I don't care, but that's why it was chosen. That being said, it's a non-free image, and as per Non-free content we can't justify using a non-free image when a free one exists, so I'm changing it to a free version. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the original Doge image should probably be kept, but not necessarily as the lead image (potentially in the Origin section), being the original and most official Doge image. The current lead image, even though it is a free image (so it could still be kept in the article) is not Kabuso, who has an infobox in the article about them in a section, and there could be a small chance of misleading that the lead image is of the original dog.
 * The original image's non-free rational states it was used to identify the original Doge, so it is still useful alongside a remake (the Distracted boyfriend page, about another meme derived from a copyrighted image, does that as well). Because the original poster stated that the original image's captions had controversial content, would a version with or without the captions be more useful, and would the absence of the original captions or the original image of it because of them go against WP:NOTCENSORED? Xeroctic (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Censorship is irrelevant at this point; the image was only removed because of Non-free content. The second image at the distracted boyfriend meme shows a free version that is a vastly different image, in a different style and from a different time period, that is specifically in a section on 'spin-offs' to illustrate exactly that. The difference between the two images on this article is very minor, by comparison. It's just a different dog of the same breed. I don't think that can be justified as per Non-free content. Also, we can just clarify the dog isn't Kabuso in the caption to solve any possibility of confusion. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it might be the original image of Kabuso that saw circulation as a meme, but the text is very likely not. Also this is the sort of image (albeit much milder) noted in WP:Vandalism. Picking a particular meme about sexual assault seemed unnecessary, yeah? And it could be argued the memes aren't typically so dark (so the image not typical), though I'll grant that is editorializing. Maxxisti (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't view the free version as an adequate replacement. I feel that the meme is just as much about the specific image as about the text-captioning format; often the original image appears with no caption and can still be recognized as an invocation of the "doge" meme, but the same cannot be said about a generic photo of a Shiba Inu. The original image adds to readers' understanding in a way that no alternative can achieve. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * there's currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74, where the comments disagree that the image can be justified under fair use. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023
Doge has not passed she is 17 and is being blogged about as recently as the 14th of august 2023 https://kabochan.blog.jp/?fbclid=PAAaZZ4y5mutqmdgeKJWdFqwRw3vxB14cw7p4giVupL1rr72molYRJ_d_YWSs_aem_AXo9XRx2Kj1wWKFoGg8zd0dgX2BmWn2hYIkzma61nGsLfsLuQwp-P77dOe2ycKWN2Qk

The dog who passed that was cheems also know as Balltze or Ball-Ball who passed away after going under for surgery and never woke up at the age of 12 years https://www.instagram.com/p/CwHcTXRhRoL/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== SpaceRex (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅: On the grounds that existing source used to support is WP:QUESTIONABLE with a quick search showing no reputable reliable sources has reported on such other than Doge has leukemia, and cross-checking with primary source (i.e. the owner IG account) doesn't shows any indication that Doge (or Kabosu) has passed away. Any objections to this edit request (which I deemed as good faith) should only be reverted (without consult) if WP:SECONDARY WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources that also tally with WP:PRIMARY can and/or is provided otherwise please discuss per WP:BRD.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone burn this page. Such confusion, much annoying. Kabutsu is not Cheems. 120.17.114.0 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023
In "Reception and Legacy", request to state that the doge dog, named "Cheems Balltze" passed away as of Saturday, August 19th, 2023 Silph26 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The shiba inu has been announced dead due to cancer, please add this somewhere
on the 19th of august, Cheems Balltze was announced dead by its owner. Please add this information somewhere in the page 110.144.134.83 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Kabosu didn't die, Cheems did.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Kabosu has Passed
Kabosu's owner posted on their blog that Kabosu had passed at 7:50 AM on May 24th, 2024.

https://kabochan.blog.jp/archives/51831907.html RandySiemens (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.instagram.com/p/C7V8AGvJPm9/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)