Jump to content

Talk:Lists of Google Doodles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Art or just irritating rubbish

[edit]

I know which I think. Which is why I have adblock. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

We do not need to list these. Google has their own list, and this is distractiunencyclocruft. Didn't we have a "current Google doodle" template deleted because of consensus at TfD? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that something needs to be done about it. To be fair, I think there is some value to listing the earliest and notable Doodles, but certainly not every single one of them day-in-and-day-out like we have happening now. Perhaps we could keep the List of Google Doodles (1998–2009) article in place (since Google's archive page makes it extremely difficult/time consuming to access the older ones), and create a new single article for List of notable Google Doodles (2010–present), which would list at MOST 10 Doodles (with notability) per year since the large influx of Doodles began around 2010. We would place indicators in the source text to advise only adding Doodles with widespread notability. — Crumpled Firecontribs 02:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we reduce the number of these things from 7 to 2, they're still the same old distractiunencyclocruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, although I still think some Doodles throughout the years have been notable enough to be worthy of mention. However, if these could feasibly all be included within the Google Doodle article rather than in any separate ones, fine. We should wait to see if others have anything to add, but ultimately I wouldn't have a problem with keeping it all at Google Doodle and deleting everything else. If information about notable Doodles becomes too large for Google Doodle, a single separate article List of notable Google Doodles could be an option. — Crumpled Firecontribs 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the title contains "notable", it's still unencyclopedic. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KATMAKROFAN: Perhaps we should consider an RFC in this case, I don't think this page is really on many people's watchlist so we won't get many other opinions without pulicizing it first. It's a good idea to poll the community before any massive deletion, especially since we'd need admin intervention to delete the articles anyhow. — Crumpled Firecontribs 02:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is the proper place for deletion, not RFC. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RFC to discuss what others think should be done, if anything, prior to requesting for deletion. If you want to post the 9 articles to AFD be my guest, but I wonder if an RFC could be an option to get the community's general opinion on whether notable Doodles should have an article, whether we should delete the whole shebang, leave it as is, or whatever else. — Crumpled Firecontribs 02:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

The following discussion 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.


Should we continue to list all Google Doodles exhaustively from 1998–2016 in a growing number of annually-created articles (8 and counting), or condense them, or rid of all of them? — Crumpled Firecontribs 15:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey
  • Comment one way to gauge notability could be whether the individual doodle is covered by a sufficient amount of a wide variety of reliable sources, or if they've made an impact outside of their usual realm, such as the controversy that erupted when they doodled a Bin Laden/Mao Zedong supporter. But I admit we could run into a snag with this, since a lot of RS will cover the doodles no matter how insignificant or repetitive they are. — Crumpled Firecontribs 04:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
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.