Talk:Lists of Google Doodles

Art or just irritating rubbish

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

Really?

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)

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 Fire • contribs • 02:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 Fire • contribs • 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if the title contains "notable", it's still unencyclopedic. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@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 Fire • contribs • 02:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

AFD is the proper place for deletion, not RFC. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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 Fire • contribs • 02:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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 Fire • contribs • 15:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support creating List of notable Google Doodles that would include all sufficiently notable doodles from 1998–present and rid of the remaining list pages, per discussion above. Would also support, as an alternate option, retaining List of Google Doodles (1998–2009) and consolidating 2010–present as List of Google Doodles (2010–present). — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 15:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Well, personally, I'd get rid of them altogether. This is an encyclopedia, not a Google fan site. Failing that, I'd support merging them all into one article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic duplication of Google's own list.--John, AF4JM (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Unencyclopedic. I'd support including only notable doodles but I'm not sure we would determine whether a doodle is notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• 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 Fire • contribs • 04:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• I also see the problem of doodle notability. Can we choose only doodle that notices special or interesting event and show globally, such as Juno reaching Jupiter doodle or New Horizon flybying Pluto doodle? –Anonimeco (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support creating List of notable Google Doodles as defined by our notability standards, or more simply, WP:42. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 08:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete We definitely don't need multiple huge timelines detailing Google's branding without comment (per wp:indiscriminate, for starters). Are there really so many notable doodles that they would warrant their own page? Crumpled Fire mentioned Yuri Kochiyama above, but that's already covered at Google Doodle#Controversy and criticism. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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.