Talk:X Development

Comments

The fact that google can recognize pictures of cats is a mere side effect of their massive neural network program. It was never a goal to 'recognize cats', this is just how media spins it (pun intended LOL). Blonkm (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have interest in starting a history section all I know is that serial entrepreneur Tom Chi helped start it GeekX (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Some times I wonder if some of this stuff is true or if its just gossip making us seem advanced.--Universe Gazzer (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Google x → Google X – The name Google X is almost always capitalized in sources [1] (note: some of these articles are about the rumored Motorola X phone, no relation to Google X.) If that isn't enough, WP:MOSTM advises that proper noun trademarks should always be capitalized. This article was boldly moved from Google X Lab to its present location this May. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Current title is hideous. Support. Red Slash 18:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note: I deleted the talk page that used to live at Talk:Google X because it contained content from the old page (about the Google Labs experiment) and to preserve the edit history of the article's actual talk page. LFaraone 15:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Name and logo

It's just a report for now, but apparently Google will be dropped from Google X. I would propose moving this article to X (company) if this comes to fruition and is verified. The logo is apparently changing too. If it is similar to the one in the report, I would say that it qualifies for {{PD-shape}} and can be re-created/uploaded to commons. --Natural R_X 17:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect and/or outdated information

Google X is now X. All references beyond the first sentence (which is “X, previously Google X…”) should now just say X, not Google X

Many past X projects are missing - These include Google [x] Life Sciences, Gcam, Google Watch, Project Insight, Google Brain, Flux, Project Tango.

Suggest two sections, one “Projects” for current X projects, the other “Graduates” or “Past X projects” for projects that have graduated from X

The campus described was the old campus at various buildings along Stierlin Ct in Mountain View. Most of Google X now resides at the former Mayfield Mall at 100 Mayfield Avenue , building RLS1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddpoynor (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sergey Brin is no longer CEO of X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.105.24 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 2 February 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to X (company). We have clear consensus the article needs to move, and this appears to be the most favored option. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

---

X (incubator) → ? – This article does need disambiguation from X, but examples of WP:PARENDIS are usually supposed to use more common words. Using "incubator" seems to be a case of WP:NWFCTM, perhaps X (company) or X (Alphabet subsidiary) are more appropriate. If there is an established specific naming convention, it should follow that. --Natural R_X 15:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd favor X (Alphabet subsidiary) X (company). Incubator is clearly wrong, makes sense only in specialized business jargon. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC). After seeing discussion, I changed my preference. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Question X (Alphabet subsidiary) would be an improvement, but it appears to now be a legally registered company not just a division, so wouldn't it be X (company)? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Alphabet's site states "Alphabet is mostly a collection of companies...", and the X site does not make reference to Alphabet, if that helps. I would suggest that X (company) is a preferred title, since 'company' is a more common name than 'subsidiary'. Also, there does not appear to be any other companies named X at this time. --Natural R_X 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with X (company). It also seems the most neutral and simple among of the valid options. Gap9551 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment UCN -- Google X is still the common name ; though we could call it Alphabet X -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The name Alphabet X has never been used, this fails WP:COMMONNAME. --Natural R_X 15:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • As I said, call it Google X; Alphabet X would be disambiguated form by parent company. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • But that is not the actual name anymore, which fails WP:PRECISE. Disambiguation is usually handed in parenthesis. --Natural R_X 20:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contextualizing the article name

On 1 May 2021, User:Lyanbox782 moved this page from X (company) to X Development without a move request (that I can find). I believe this is justified, having seen Meta Platforms as a recent example of a company name being used to be more specific versus a scope in parenthesis.

As a visitor to the article, the title did not make sense to me. I was unaware of the legal name, which wasn't mentioned in the article. As a result, I created revs 1142759899 and 1142973955 to reword the introduction and infobox to follow the Meta Platforms example, mentioning that X is legally called X Development LLC (contextualizing article name) and was doing business as X (contextualizing further references to the name).

Today (a few hours ago), an anonymous user called User:AnonGoogler reverted the change with the message "Reverted prior change that X Development LLC does business as X." No reason is expressed either in the description or on an entry in the talk page. To avoid WP:WAR (& because I am a new/inexperienced editor), I am seeking the advice of my fellow Wikipedians, and a response from User:AnonGoogler. Please let me know if there's a better forum to do so. violetwtf (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Re-reverted citing WP:NCCORP, which says "Regardless of the article title, the first sentence of the article should normally begin with the full legal name of the company." If User:AnonGoogler reverts again, I will wait until resolution of this thread to make any more edits. violetwtf (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi violetwtf, according to X itself (e.g., its website), X claims to be a division of Google LLC, not X Development LLC. After reviewing the history of this wikipedia page (X Development) I was unable to confirm why it was changed to X Development LLC, and I've reviewed the citations as well. So I've revised to make this page consistent with X's own public statements; X refers to itself either as "X" or "X, the moonshot factory"; it appears that only third parties have called X instead as "X Development LLC". AnonGoogler (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AnonGoogler: Great point. I've reverted the move to X Development per WP:RMUM and WP:COMMONNAME and the page is called X (company) again. As it turns out, Lyanbox782 was a sockpuppet anyway. However, if someone wishes to move this page back to X Development, I encourage them to create a move proposal here. violetwtf (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, on https://www.x.company/press/ I read: "COPYRIGHT © 2019 X DEVELOPMENT LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.". --wimmel (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wimmel thanks, I saw that as well after my reply. I prefer to keep it as "X" since (1) it doesn't appear that www.x.company/press is accessible by navigating the current website (i.e., it might be a deprecated link that's still live), (2) it's dated back to 2019, according to the copyright notice, which further leads me to believe that it's a deprecated link, and (3) the same footer in the currently available webpage instead says "X, a division of Google LLC" which makes me believe that X currently signals as a division of Google LLC and not X Development LLC. AnonGoogler (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@AnonGoogler: I agree to keep it as "X" however for a different reason. I don't consider the text on their website very trustworthy. In 2022 the contact form contains the text "X is a division of Google LLC", but the footer contains "Copyright © 2021, X Development LLC". The text "X is a division of Google LLC" was added somewhere in 2018. In 2022 a committee of the congress still writes to "X Development LLC". If it is a division of Google, it is not a Subsidiary of Alphabet as currently stated on this page. But their website is a primary source, and there are enough secondary sources telling that the official company name is X Development LLC and it became a Subsidiary of Alphabet in 2015, so it is not a division of Google any more. On bloomberg.com it states "X Development LLC, doing business as X", which is why I would agree to call this page "X". --wimmel (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, but @AnonGoogler: Do you have an undisclosed COI? Please read WP:COI and clarify on your userpage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Can't believe I didn't notice that 🤦‍♀️ violetwtf (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, will do. No harm intended (wasn’t trying to hide anything, since it’s in my username!) thanks AnonGoogler (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@AnonGoogler: Thank you. Are you are being paid for your edits? If so, you must follow the instructions on WP:PE and WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE; if you are not beiing paid, you must follow the instructions at WP:COIEDIT and WP:DISCLOSE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2023

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.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Note that WP:NCCORP discourages using LLC in this situation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

---

X (company) → X Development – (Could also be X Development LLC). Edit: This could also help tidy up the awfully long hatnote.

Original comment: I think that this would help differentiate this article from other, similarly-named articles, such as X Company and X Corp.. I am not sure what the WP:COMMONNAME here is, but there are some sources which refer to the company as "X Development" or "X Development LLC" (such as Bloomberg and Business Insider), and we could always WP:IGNORE the COMMONNAME guideline, as I believe changing the article name would improve it. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak move to something like X (Google company). Could be better to maintain the present format with the disambiguator of "Google" to improve WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and distinguish from the stupid rebranding of Twitter. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Would also help cleanup the hatnote. Have edited main comment to add this. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support from X Development LLC: Because Twitter changed its name to X. Parham wiki (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  The LLC part is not necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATURAL. Previous RMS for Meta Platforms and Apple Inc. established precedents for this. X (company) will become a DAB page disambiguating between X Corp. and X Development, given there is WP:NOPRIMARY topic (Google X existed way before Musk bought Twitter, and is equally notable in terms of coverage over the years). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support "X (company)" should point to the disambiguation page, what with so many companies carrying the name -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, technically, there's just two, but WP:NOPRIMARY applies. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus There are quite a few at X (disambiguation)#Businesses and organizations. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you look at that list, there are only two companies called "X": Google X and Twitter X. U.S. Steel, X.com, and Twitter would go under "See also" in a DAB page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus I'd argue they should all be on the disambiguation page. They're all businesses that are referred to as "X" in some capacity. An easier method is to just redirect "X (company)" to X (disambiguation)#Businesses and organizations. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's actually a splendid idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support because WP:NATURAL is preferred. cookie monster 755 19:14, 30 August 2023 (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.