Talk:Google/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed merge of .google into Google

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Support The TLD is not notable enough to merit its own article. Aasim (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Why not? It passes WP:GNG. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 01:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Agree with merging! Spyder212 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it should be mentioned in this article with a short summary and should have the actual page linked, but I believe that it may be too long of a list for people to read comfortably and should only have a few notable parts listed.JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Any more or less relevant than say .apple or .toyota or others? I'd say more relevant to merge into either Sponsored top-level domain or Google Domains who owns a variety including .new, .dev, .google, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs) 17:23, April 16, 2021 (UTC)

Need to treat all these TLD company names similarly per comment above. Either merge into company article for all of them, keep them all separate (seems least preferable option to me), or merge them all into Sponsored top-level domain article.--FeralOink (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Should be merged, as seems as if it is just a list TapticInfo (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a merge makes sense here, but the list of domains should be removed from .google. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support There's not separate notability. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The article generally meets WP:GNG, with only some sources being primary. Also, a brand domain like .toyota is not really important, but Google's top level domain should remain a separate topic. MatEditzWiki - ^Talk!/_Contribs! 06:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose They would be best to keep separate. Catfurball (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2021 (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.

Section about anti-racism training reverted

I have reverted an addition to this article because I believe the sourcing and writing is, at best, dubious. The Jewish Press is a conservative publication, and the specific article cited is based on no apparent original reporting - rather, it appears to be a mashup aggregated from several other sources - Among other things, the program suggests that using evidence in an argument shows white privilege, according to Fox Business, the New York Post, City Journal and multiple other media - all of which are also conservative, one of which was written by an explicit activist, Christopher Rufo. The wording of the article (GroupThink much?) is far more suggestive of opinion than of news. If we're going to discuss this issue, we should be looking for better sources and a broader range of views - not just someone rephrasing Chris Rufo's dubiously-accurate polemics. (Please note the extensive discussion in Rufo's biography of the times he has misrepresented or outright lied about the contents of such programs.} NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This was a well-sourced paragraph about Google's progressive new anti-racism training. In this long article, the deleted edit was the only mention of anti-racism. Moreover, Google's progressive anti-racism training was widely reported. This article is about a very big company, and edits about an important aspect of the company should not be deleted just because it makes a couple of editors feel uncomfortable. If other editors want to expand on this edit, or have some other information to add, please do so. It seems more like this edit was deleted because others are uncomfortable with Google's decisions, which were reported in the media, and subsequently added to Wikipedia. The input of others would be appreciated. The edit...

In 2021, Google launched an anti-racism program for employees based on the tenets of critical race theory. Google's program asserts that the United States was founded on white supremacy, and that even white people who have not engaged in white supremacy have profited from it. Employees learned that American infants are already fundamentally racist, and that only reverse discrimination against white people can rectify this. Warning signs of "covert white supremacy" include "colorblindness", "[American] exceptionalism", "Columbus Day", "weaponized whiteness", and "Make America Great Again", and former President Donald Trump's movement was a precursor to mass murder and genocide. Conservative Jewish commentator Ben Shapiro was included on a "White Supremacy Pyramid", leading Shapiro to say about Google's anti-racism training: "All it would take is one Google search to learn just how much white supremacists hate my work....The attempt to link everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton to white supremacism is disgusting, untrue, and malicious".

Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the section you inserted was not well-sourced. As I noted, the Jewish Press article is an aggregated mashup with no apparent original reporting, which extensively relies upon a City Journal article written by Christopher Rufo, a polemicist with a history of misrepresenting or outright falsifying claims about what such anti-racism programs contain. The "Yahoo News" article is actually syndicated from the National Review, which is plainly stated at the top of the article - please observe the NR logo. This means that it is an opinionated source which should generally not be relied upon for claims of fact about people and things which it ideologically opposes - much as we avoid Media Matters for America and such. The NR article is also little more a thin rewrite of the same claims by Rufo, from the same source. Whether or not Rufo's claims about Google are sufficiently relevant to this article is not self-evident, and is a subject for discussion and consensus here.

A truly well-sourced paragraph on this subject would rely primarily on mainstream reliable news sources, not partisan polemics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This same information is mentioned at City-Journal and Fox Business. These two sources, and the two from the reverted edit, are either not mentioned or not prohibited as sources at WP:RSP. If Google's decisions make you uncomfortable then your beef is with Google, not with Wikipedia editors who report on it. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

An article written by a conservative activist who's repeatedly lied about the contents of anti-racism programs is insufficient to support claims of fact; at best it's useful for Christopher Rufo's attributed opinion, and that only if there's a consensus that Christopher Rufo's attributed opinion belongs in this article. I don't think it does. Your addition has been rejected by two separate editors; at this point your path forward involves opening an RFC for broader community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Saying the sources are "not mentioned or not prohibited as sources at WP:RSP" is disingenuous. Fox News, the owner of Fox Business, and The National Review both come with flags ("No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply"). But additionally, there's no indication that they've done any investigation of their own. They're both quoting Christopher Rufo, who is not a reliable source. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Magnolia677 and Danbloch. As of 14 September, there is coverage of the racist anti-racism training by Yahoo News, The National Review, City Journal, The New York Post (Google pushing CRT in staff training: Report), Fox Business (Google 'antiracism' initiative attacks Ben Shapiro, suggests using evidence in argument is racist: report), The Washington Examiner, and MSN Online. You are correct, that Yahoo! News replicates National Review's article, and MSN sourced their coverage from this, Internal Google document ties white supremacy to Trump, MAGA, and Ben Shapiro by WashExaminer. WashExaminer linked to that City Journal article by Christopher Rufo, but does not reproduce it verbatim. I would say that we MUST mention something about this in the article, but hesitate because

ONE Washington Examiner also says:

The internal document contains a disclaimer that it was “not legally reviewed” and, therefore, is not to be considered company policy, but it was hosted on Google's internal resources server and made available across the company.

and TWO in City Journal, Rufo claims to "have obtained a trove of whistleblower documents from inside Google that reveal the company’s extensive racial-reeducation program..." but has not published the documents, nor reveal when, if ever, he intends to do so. That troubles me. Fox Business has the best article of the lot, with some original reporting tying the training to a Google publicized initiative about anti-racism training from 2020 that was expected to be released in mid-2021. Until Rufo produces some actual documentation though, I am not inclined to add anything.--FeralOink (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Google illegally underpaid workers around the world

News that will need to be added to the article: Revealed: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers across dozens of countries via The Guardian UK and New York Tines.--FeralOink (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Google wasn’t invented “on the moon”

Article states Google was invented PhDs living on the moon 2603:8001:7802:4ED6:AC57:9FCE:4ECA:DD73 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylea21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xwang2182.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Please restore my account and laptop setting and features 2600:387:C:6A30:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about google, not a way to contact google. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Google Inc 112.134.204.175 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Google is a limited liability company. This isn't the same as a corporation; see .--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant references in "History"

Of the three references (numbered 14, 29 and 30 as of today) given for the etymology of "Google", only the second is relevant. The other two say nothing about the subject. They should either be dropped or be moved to a more appropriate place. Mdmi (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

AHHHHyes (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to edit because I would like to update the facts of what's going on

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Criticizing Google for censoring RT and other Russian media

The article should elaborate more on how Google has censored Russian press on its platform on the Ukraine situation, violating their freedom of speech while also serving American hegemony like dogs. Dimbreath Ubatcha (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That might be better for Censorship by Google#2022 Russian-Ukrainian war rather than here. Endwise (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"Googl" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Googl and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Googl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 04:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

please add google easter eggs Gosistman (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The article already mentions easter eggs and links to List_of_Google_Easter_eggs RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Change back to default 2603:8080:CD00:D26D:946D:F0C7:9DDE:D5CA (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ParamfD (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ParamfD (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Google Foobar" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Google Foobar and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Google Foobar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Project Nimbus into Google#Project Nimbus

This doesn't need to be its own article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a $1.2 billion project involving Google, Amazon, and other companies involving a radical restructuring of the Israeli government's operations. It clearly deserves it's own article. It also has its own article on WP:HE. إيان (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm withdrawing this merge proposal. I misunderstood the project (it is not just Google). But I do think that article has different issues that I'll address elsewhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ... Edwardx (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Change: Google develops the Android mobile operating system

To: Google develops the Android mobile operating system Johntathamtech (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Done EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022 (2)

In the second paragraph of the 2022 section of "Criticism and controversies", Google is misspelled as "Gooole". Amgroce (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible addition to Controversies section

On October 9, 2020 the Wall Street Journal quoted Operation Warp Speed chief Moncef Slaoui as naming Oracle part of a three-corporation joint provider of a tracking platform monitoring vaccine recipients for vaccine series uptake and side-effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:780C:6F00:F8F7:CC7A:42BD:19B2 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request for Google on 26 November 2022

I want to make a change! I am gonna put in some real, google Easter eggs and secrets, such as, if you put "do a barrel roll" in the Google text box, google will do an actual barrel roll. I am sharing some secrets for people that don't already know Google Secrets or just want to have fun 😇😳. Please 🙏 accept this edit request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.85.217 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: that's just trivia which does not belong in an encyclopedia article. No matter how many emojis you use it's not gonna happen. You provided no sources regardless. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Already mentioned at List of Google Easter eggs. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 02:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

The part "COVID-19 pandemic and the succes of it" should be changed to "COVID-19 pandemic and the success of it" 213.178.135.4 (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Spelling Change

In Philanthropy, it states "Google announced a $15 mln donation to support Ukrainian citizens." It should either say mil, or million. Wikibrowser30 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wikibrowser30: Thank you, that's  Done -- John of Reading (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Googlenet" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Googlenet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 22 § Googlenet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Muhali (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on 9to5Google as a source

There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source. Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

EditRequest: Date of incorporation

The "early years" section gives two different dates of incorporation within just a few lines. It is either Sept 4 or Sept 7, but not both. Please change, or at least mark the inconsistency using a template. Thanks. --77.23.54.32 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Marked both with {{contradict-inline}}. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. It seems a little unclear and only supported by self-published sources anyway, so I removed both.      — Freoh 02:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to remove that from the note in the infobox as well. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see that, and the date there looks like it's better-sourced. Feel free to re-add it in prose to the body if you'd like, but it seems like the exact date of incorporation isn't super notable in the history of the company, so I'm fine leaving it as-is, where the date of incorporation only appears in the infobox.      — Freoh 03:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright I'll leave it as is then. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

2604:3D09:AA7F:FEA0:32B0:A7A2:163B:884C (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Add: Eugene Kwok to Key people .~

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1,000 Languages Initiative / Universal Speech Model

I haven't seen any mention of this here, or on any other Wikipedia pages:

Google’s one step closer to building its 1,000-language AI model — The Verge, March 6, 2023

Universal Speech Model (USM): State-of-the-art speech AI for 100+ languages — Google Research Blog, March 6, 2023

Not sure where in the article this could go? Or is there a special page regarding Google's AI & ML research? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 69.58.143.240 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

Tommyedit82442 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Can i please edit a date is not correct

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit that says Google is an "United States-based company".

I elect to undo this wording as it is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's pages on Silicon Valley companies and other American multinationals. Googles own parent, Alphabet inc, uses the term "American multinational", as does Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Symantec, Broadcom, Intel, AMD General Motors, Ford, Facebook, Twitter, and etc. Taking this into account, it does not make sense to undo consistency and change the wording. Otherwise, we should then change it for the rest of Silicon Valley's thousands of companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger (talk • contribs) 18:05, July 16, 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

In the history>early years section, David Cheriton invested "change $250,000 to ($100,000 - 200,000)"

Reference - https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/05/32475257/the-professor-who-made-10-billion-by-cutting-google-its-first-startup-check 114.130.156.201 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 21:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi, I was wondering if it would be best to change the part of the lead section mentioning Google's products into a list format, as the prose looks very confusing and difficult to read. Thanks, The Troutinator 🐟 - Slap me | What I've slapped 04:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is generally preferred to write in prose rather than lists. Furthermore, the lead section only highlights the most notable and important products. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"Google." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Google. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Google. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Google AI into Google

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for a merge; conflicting views and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

---

A division of Google. Article has little content, is more like a stub. We don't normally have separate articles on company divisions unless these divisions enjoy notability independent from the parent, which is obviously not the case here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Google AI is an integral division of Google, and will likely continue to grow in size and importance in the coming years, as the company continues to place greater emphasis on AI. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Irrespective of their size, I will argue that company divisions are inherently non-notable as, barring rare exceptions, they normally fail WP:INHERITORG. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Google AI is likely going to expand in the future with the recent release of technology such as PaLM 2. For “future proofing” purposes, I argue leaving the article as-is is better. KnowledgeSeek23 (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support, but ideally wait. I'm viewing this as WP:TOOSOON, but it also may be "too soon to merge". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Decent Support I believe that generally, having less pages on Wikipedia makes it less confusing for people, especially when they are stubs/start-class articles that would belong better in a section of another article. Maybe in the future, it will have a more significant impact, but for now, I believe that it should be merged. It's a branch of a company that is related enough to the main company to warrant a merge. The Troutinator 🐟 - Slap me | What I've slapped 05:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support for now, it can always be split into its own article in the future. Persent101 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• On current content I lean towards a merge without prejudice to expansion, but not sure where it would be merged to. There is no individual coverage of divisions here. CMD (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Listen, folks. A merge doesn't make sense. Even if the article has few sources, this is clearly a {{Sources exist}} situation. And as Chipmunkdavis noted, where would be a good merge target? The term "Google AI" isn't even mentioned on this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. No need for a separate stub specifically for Google's ai r&d wing. Cfls (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Google Brain, Google_DeepMind ( both already merged together by google ) can be combined into Google AI - But Google AI should be standalone should not be combined into GoogleGsgdd (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  See my Talk:Google_AI#Proposed_merge_of_Google_DeepMind_and_Google_Brain_into_Google_Ai Gsgdd (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  This comment (and suggestion) makes no sense. To copy what I replied on the other page: Huh? Google DeepMind and Google Brain did not "merge to create Google AI". DeepMind and Google Brain merged to create Google DeepMind. To accommodate this change, the page DeepMind was moved to Google DeepMind, and the wording on Google Brain was tweaked. In any case, it would be unreasonable to merge the substantial content of Google Brain into the very large Google DeepMind. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:38, 11 November 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.

On a procedural note, one of the templates was removed with this edit on the 11th December, functionally ending the proposal before a formal merge close; I've now removed the other template, but of course anyone is free to start a new proposal - or just update the Google AI page with more on Gemini ... Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michcat11 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jitman43.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XiaoyuChennyu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by XiaoyuChennyu (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A good copy edit

Wow, this article could use a good copyedit. I can't even get through the first section. Firstly, not everything has to be linked. Let's start with that. Shelter3 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

First line "Google LLC" or "Google"

Hi, what is the importance of "LLC" in this sentence?

Google LLC (/ˈɡuːɡəl/ ^ⓘ, GOO-gəl) is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence (AI).

Can we omit "LLC" or hyperlink that? Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

References

This is a WP:COMMONNAME issue. Google is the usual name for the company in reliable sources, so I have removed the LLC part.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's quite common in articles about companies to mention "LLC", "Ltd.", "Inc." etc. in the first sentence. Maybe just because some editors like it, but maybe there's a policy or MOS convention. I don't know. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:NCCORP looks in favor of using the common name, so without the "LLC". Alenoach (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NCCORP doesn't help in this case, since it's about the page title, but we're discussing the first sentence of the article. I tried to find a policy or guideline about the issue, but failed. I found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 19#Legal name vs doing business as name, but that short discussion doesn't tell us much. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked about a policy or guideline regarding the general issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Use of business form in first sentence in article about business. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: I don't really care whether this article's first sentence uses "Google LLC" or "Google". I noticed that many (most?) other articles about companies use the business form / legal name in the first sentence, and I'd like to understand why and whether there's a guideline. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That would be MOS:FIRSTCORP Ptrnext (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, that's exactly what I had been looking for. Quote: "Regardless of the page title, the lead sentence of an article on a company or other organization should normally begin with its full legal name." Thanks for resolving this issue. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"The Keyword" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Keyword has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 18 § The Keyword until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"Google Open Source" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Google Open Source has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 18 § Google Open Source until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"Greyglers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Greyglers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 18 § Greyglers until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"Gppgle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gppgle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 22 § Gppgle until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Censorship of Google

That does not seem to be mentioned anywhere here - I think that's an oversight. I've recently started an article on this (not to be confused with the older topic of censorship by Google). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

External links modified (September 2025)

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 2 external links on Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20241109174639/https://wired.me/technology/googles-ai-hub-saudi-arabia/ to https://wired.me/technology/googles-ai-hub-saudi-arabia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20221120194600/https://xconomy.com/wisconsin/2019/01/31/googles-madison-expansion-to-triple-size-of-local-offices/ to https://xconomy.com/wisconsin/2019/01/31/googles-madison-expansion-to-triple-size-of-local-offices/

Please refer to the FaQ for information on correcting errors with the bot.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on Article Accessibility and NavigationSuggestion for Google Article Improvement

Hello fellow editors,

I would like to provide some constructive feedback regarding the Google Wikipedia article to help improve its accessibility and navigation for readers:

1. **Section Organization**: The article could benefit from clearer section headers and a more intuitive flow of information, particularly in organizing Google's diverse product offerings.

2. **Navigation Aids**: Consider adding more internal cross-references between related sections to help readers find relevant information more easily.

3. **Currency of Information**: Some sections could use updates with more recent developments, particularly regarding Google's recent initiatives and partnerships.

4. **Accessibility**: The article would benefit from more descriptive alt-text for images and diagrams to improve accessibility for screen reader users.

I appreciate the comprehensive coverage the article provides and believe these enhancements would make it even more valuable for readers. I'm happy to help implement any of these suggestions if there's community consensus.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 118.179.126.169 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion for Google Article Improvement

Hello fellow editors,

I would like to suggest a potential improvement to the Google article. Given that Google has become increasingly prominent in the artificial intelligence space with products like Google Bard, Gemini, and various AI integrations, I think the article could benefit from expanding the AI and machine learning section.

The current content seems to touch on this topic but could be enhanced with more recent developments, particularly: 1. Google's AI research initiatives 2. The integration of AI across Google's product ecosystem 3. Recent AI partnerships and acquisitions 4. Impact on the search industry and competition

This would help keep the article current and comprehensive given AI's growing importance to Google's business strategy. I'd be happy to contribute to such improvements if there's consensus from the editing community.

Thoughts and feedback welcome!

Thank you. 118.179.126.169 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beware though that the section "Products and services" is a dense summary of the many existing products, so keep it succinct. It is also important for your edits to be backed by reliable sources. Alenoach (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Location Table Waltham Cross Hertfordshire

Could someone add the new AI Centre, in Waltham Cross Herts (about 15 miles north of Central London HQ) to the Europe Table? Thanks https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmek723dz9o.amp Dotsdomain (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't do evil

In the "Corporate identity" section: The original motto was retained in the code of conduct of Google, now a subsidiary of Alphabet.

There's no reference supporting that claim. If you search their website, the code of conduct doesn't mention any such motto since it's been replaced by "do the right thing". 109.130.157.14 (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

> doesn't mention any such motto

You would be correct, as the motto is actually "don't be evil". OmegaAOL (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Halve the lead section

There is so much going on in the lead section. Why does every product need to be linked to in it? Why are there citations, despite the style guide that you should not cite in lead sections?

This being a level-4 vital article, and at many points in the top 25 and top 50 most viewed Wikipedia articles, I am asking for consensus instead of just doing it myself. Because I would otherwise. OmegaAOL (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE is quite flexible about whether to include references in the lead, leaving editors to decide on a case-by-case basis. References that don't bring much value can be removed.

I don't know if the list of products is good or bad, it's a little tiresome to read but also rich in information.

Articles on major topics can have a lead that is a little longer, but condensing it by around 25% may be good. For instance, here are some sentences that I believe aren't very valuable and could be removed:

"Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc., is considered part of the Big Tech group, alongside Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Meta." (not so specific to Google, and Big Tech is loosely defined)

"Google is the largest provider of search engines, mapping and navigation applications, email services, office suites, online video platforms, photo and cloud storage, mobile operating systems, web browsers, machine learning frameworks, and AI virtual assistants in the world as measured by market share.[19] On the list of most valuable brands, Google is ranked second by Forbes as of January 2022,[20] and is fourth by Interbrand as of February 2022.[21]" (quite redundant with the rest of the lead) Alenoach (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Criticism of Google into Google

Merging this is will be more productive for developing consensus on content. Consider what a mess Praise of Google would be. In the main article, due weight can more properly be measured and if there are specific topics that need to be forked it will be easier to achieve those forks with a simpler dedication to neutrality Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Criticism of Google is way too large to be merged here successfully, and would lead to WP:SIZERULE problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  That is not a good reason to oppose this merge. If the content was already in this article and a split was proposed, a "critcism of google" split would not be a wise choice. Czarking0 (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• A merge here wouldn't really work, but there are some obvious subpages part of the Criticism article can be merged to. For example, "Criticism of search engine" and "Censorship" should be integrated into Google Search. CMD (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  No policy based reason provided for "wouldn't work" Czarking0 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Such pages are supported by WP:CRITICISM - they are appropriate if criticism is substantial, well-sourced, and relevant to the subject. Similar to @Ianmacm's argument, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE advises splitting large topics into sub-articles. In fact, we already have Google Search, Google Maps, Google Brain, YouTube, etc. Should those all be merged into mother Google or should the Criticism of Google article be fanned out into those pages? I prefer the current page structure.

Cdmx545467 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Why then not make a "praise of google" page? CRITICISM is an essay that is a poor guidance here compared to policies like WP:POVFORK. I encourage summary style and forking. However forking on criticism and praise makes maintaining WP:NPOV a herculean task. I agree that parts of "critcism of google" could better be merged into these other forks and I think that could be a good consensus to find here. Czarking0 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The answer to the question about "praise of google" is unclear to me, but that's a different question. Clearly, there are many Criticism of <some company> type of pages - Criticism of Apple Inc., Criticism of Netflix, Criticism of Facebook - but not many "praise of" pages. So, we have historic reasons at a minimum and maybe, just possibly such pages run against existing WP policies. I agree that there are WP:NPOV issues to consider (always), but am not convinced they force a merge-back at this point. The most prominent items in this page are notable enough to be split into separate articles, leaving only short summaries here. It may be more practical to reach consensus for such actions (or just perform those splits and see if they stick), as they could be helpful on the way to the more ambitious proposal discussed here.

Cdmx545467 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I probably would advocate for merging all of those but that is not the question here. PAGEEXISTS is not a policy based rationale Czarking0 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose No one is suggesting a "Praise of Google" here except you. Criticism is a neutral word. WP:NPOV (specifically WP:POVNAMING) and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The "Praise of" articles I see on search seem to be due to a name of an episode or song. Such an article would be against WP:NPOV. The nominator is presenting a theoretical scenario versus the reality. The "Criticism of..." article was created as notability was established for it to stand on its own. Merging the content is counterproductive. – The Grid (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am not suggesting "Praise of Google" I am quoting the policy at WP:POVFORK Czarking0 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  There is a link to "Criticism_and_controversies" linking to a separate article. That seems to honor the brevity limits imposed by Wikipedia. I believe that is the better route rather than creating an enormous article that can get a user "lost in the weeds", as it were. Bd64kcmo (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose criticism of Google is quite a long article, we're not just talking about a "it happened once" incident. there are many others "criticism of x" articles, and i think that keeping them separate would remove a lot of clutter. also, some of the criticism in that page just doesn't fit into the main google article, for example this.

Emayeah (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2026 (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.

List of Google products

please add this topic in the page somewhere ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Under "Products and services", there is a "Main article: List of Google products". The 3rd paragraph of the introduction also covers the main products. Alenoach (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I wish to see topic in the See also section so that I don't need to search the link in the text. I mean it purely for the convenience. ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. You can add a link in "See also" if you want. Although it might happen that someone reverts it, arguing that the link already exists in the rest of the article. Alenoach (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Google fact sheet worth a lot

Every company listed in stock exchanges needs a fact sheet ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Commonwealth Bank
• aol — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• hsbc

PLS VERIFY FOR TRADED AS STOCK CODE — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• TOYOTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• amex — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Fujitsu
• Macquarie Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Subsidery is another atribute for transparency — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Subsidiaries have got types

According to Al Overview's article. It says:

Types: Subsidiaries can be horizontal (same industry) or vertical (supply chain), and sometimes have their own subsidiaries (second-tier or "grandchild" companies). ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

"User:Shelving" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User:Shelving has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 28 § User:Shelving until a consensus is reached. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 01:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2026

~2026-16888-35 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

SpankBang

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Mention for Google Scholar?

Should Google Scholar (2004 to current) get a mention here, as a significant (and well used) Google service, particularly in academia? I work in a technical/science documentation area and use it many times a day, as coverage of "reliable" (generally peer reviewed) research literature in contrast to "anything" that may be in more general circulation on the web. Also amazed to find it is still supported by Google, and free to users! Tony 1212 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned under the search engine services, as should Google Lens, which produces quite amazing results in my brief experience.

Google Scholar has been criticized and here, as examples, so will need a balanced presentation when you write the revision. Zefr (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm also surprised to see that Google Scholar is currently not mentioned anywhere in the article. Alenoach (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the navbox at the bottom of the article. This article is intended to be about the history of Google as a company, and it isn't an exhaustive list or description of everything that Google does.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Well if it is mentioned, it would presumably go in Google#Web-based_services - or just included in Google#Search_engine. Maybe we need a small show of hands for or against addition of Scholar at either location - or does this action open too many floodgates - I do not know. Indeed I take the point immediately above viz. "it [the article] isn't an exhaustive list or description of everything that Google does"... So I do not wish to pronounce on this one, perhaps others might. Tony 1212 (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2026

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: Procedural close per WP:SNOW. WP:SNOW closure as suggested. If you disagree, send me a talk message. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Google → Google (company)Google (company) – Common name is for the search and AI application/website, not for the company. ~2026-27443-67 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Renaming the primary article for the corporation to Google (company) is unnecessary and contradicts WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Google" is overwhelmingly recognised as the common name for the company Google LLC. Moving the main company article would create significant confusion and go against established naming conventions for major organisations. --Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and recommend SNOW close. GSK (talk • edits) 03:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest procedural close per WP:SNOW. Google is a much larger topic than its search engine alone. Kibblebrain (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: Current name is fine and within naming guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 6 May 2026 (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.

Propose to add a Google stub or bullet points on Google product Google Cloud Marketplace

Propose to add a Google stub or bullet points on Google product Google Cloud Marketplace: Google Cloud Marketplace (formerly known as Google Cloud Launcher, and then GCP Marketplace) is a product of Google LLC. It is an online store for discovering, procuring, and deploying agents, apps, data, services, and tools from Google Cloud's partner ecosystem from categories that include business function, industry, DevOps, security, data analytics, infrastructure. Tflkiwi (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2026

I want to add "Not to be confused with Googol." Jacob8382 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done: This is already in the hatnote at the top of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2026

Why I can't edit this page? Eniac81 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It has WP:SILVERLOCK which is semi-protection. You have a new account created on 22 May 2026, and silverlock requires at least ten edits to the English Wikipedia and four days since the time of the first edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

"Google's" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Google's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27 § Google's until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Creator - Tate Salway

~2026-42008-85 (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ crtbob (talk • contribs • talk) 02:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)