Talk:List of Google Easter eggs

src: cnet3.cbsistatic.com

Video Talk:List of Google Easter eggs

Talk Page Archive

Archive 1 has been created with the archive box at the right. Archive 2, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage titled "Talk:List_of_Google_hoaxes_and_easter_eggs/Archive_2" (same as creating an article). For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on 5Q5's page for the beginner. (Please retain this notice, as it is mentioned in the Wiki talk page how-to article.) tedjam (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Maps Talk:List of Google Easter eggs

External links in article body

src: cognitiveseo.com

Current ( April 26, 2016 ) external links section

I just noticed that external links includes an unofficial YouTube video and two external articles more suitable as references than further reading. Any objection to removing them? fredgandt 16:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Done fredgandt 18:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

src: cnet2.cbsistatic.com

Fair use images

@Finnusertop: - Hi. I was actually just taking care of the rationale as you were removing the image; these things happen. Would you agree that it's now fair to put it back? fredgandt 16:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In principle, Fred Gandt, I only objected to WP:NFCC#10 (and by the way, have nominated File:Elizabeth-line Easter Egg.png for deletion on Commons). But a closer look at this article will reveal difficulty with WP:NFCC#8 (see also WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion). How is any single image representative for the purpose of identification here, when the examples are so varied? Or, how would the omission of the image in question hinder the reader's ability to understand what this means: "when 'The Shire' or 'Rivendell' is entered as the start point and 'Mordor' as the destination and the walking directions button is clicked, the directions return the warning: 'Use caution - One does not simply walk into Mordor.'"? - Finnusertop (talk ? contribs) 17:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not so great with image policy and defer to others. I was just re-reading the wp:NFC after asking questions at wp:VPP, and saw the bit about multiple fair use rationales. Off I went to add it, and by the time I'd worked out what to do, you'd removed the image (I'm chuckling here). Soo, I can't really answer the question. If I were going to speak about it from the heart, I'd argue that it does what all images do, which is disambiguate meaning and qualifies the statements - but I'm an open source hippy, so (as I said) I defer to those who know better (in image licensing cases).

Regarding the other (commons) image, please see its talk page where I asked about the possibility of fair use here. fredgandt 17:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And since the easter egg in the image is no longer active, there's no way else to see it. fredgandt 22:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

src: i.pinimg.com

Original research and references

I had previously noted that I am attempting to tackle the original research in this list, but began a more focussed effort a few days ago. I'm working through all the currently used references, and digging up some more, aiming to get as much of the info we already have properly cited, and along the way I'm finding unmentioned 'eggs and details missing from those we already have.

I can't say how long I'll take to do this work, and ask that in the meantime, if anyone is or is thinking about doing anything similar, let's please communicate now and pool our efforts. Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been busy doing other things, but have got back to working through the references. It's a laborious task that will take a while. I'm keeping notes as I check all the refs, and below is a direct copy of the .txt doc I'm working with.

I'm discovering many 'eggs and references we don't currently feature, so although quite tedious, this is valuable labour. Feel free to join in.Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

src: static4.businessinsider.com

Hodor

The Hodor and tilt Easter eggs doesn't work anymore. Nutcracker100 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to support that claim? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

src: res.infoq.com

Chuck Norris

For the record the "find Chuck Norris" 'egg relies on Google's I'm feeling lucky feature, which takes the user to a popular result, which at one point was a website not served by Google. It is thus not a Google easter egg - it's just funny. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

src: img.gadgethacks.com

"I'm Feeling Lucky" Search Section?

There are many Easter Eggs that have to do with the " I'm Feeling Lucky" search feature. I would like to propose this as a sub-section under the "Search Engine" category. Many results lead to a YouTube video or Wikipedia Article relating to the search. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.89.216.233 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The I'm Feeling Lucky feature is itself not an Easter egg, and it has unpredictable results; what's at the end of the process today, is not guaranteed to be at the end tomorrow. Although the results of clicking this button are widely documented in articles about Google's Easter eggs, they're not Easter eggs at all, but rather, they're popular destinations for specific searches. They are especially not features of the search engine, since the user has to navigate away from the search results to see the subject. Even if the destination is served by Google, unless the site has its own Easter egg, we should not be listing it; the only way I'm Feeling Lucky should be mentioned, is if the result itself is a Google served Easter egg i.e. if Google did something unusual when clicking that button for a specific search term. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

src: www.androidcentral.com

Proposal to nominate this as a Featured List

I think this list is good enough to be seriously considered as a Featured List, and propose we work toward nomination by ensuring it meets the Featured list criteria.

Looking at the criteria, I think we meet them all within reason, but can improve our chances (and thus this list) by:

1. Expanding the lead.
   • Not fluffing or padding; there's room for genuine expansion.
2. Ensuring ALL the entries are referenced.
   • I have no doubt that this is relatively easy, albeit time consuming.
3. Adding more images.
   • This is difficult due to the nature of the content.

The contentious issue of the use of convenience links may require further examination if nominated, but if that examination results in a community consensus that they shouldn't be used, we simply remove them and the list can still be considered a suitable nominee for being Featured; no harm - no foul.

Whaddya reckon? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What might we include in the lead? FalsePaul (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose since the list is pure Google, some background on their sense of humour and history in regard of when they started kidding around in public. We would have to mirror content in Easter Egg to go that route, which would be pointless. I suppose really, there are two ways to look at it:

1. What are the leads like in other featured lists?
2. What leads the reader into the list; what would we want to know about the (very specific) subject?

I think that although the article is strictly a list, there's no other article about Google's easter eggs, so this is where the buck stops. Stuff like popular media coverage, influence and how the company image has been shaped by its playfulness would iMO be fair game in a non-list article, so if the buck stops with us, maybe we should try and fit it in here?

Things like the gay-pride 'eggs for example, are far more than trivial lols, and as a multibillion dollar tech company, their Image Breakout, Dino Runner and All your base... type 'eggs show a respect for and camaraderie with their root community that is (or was before Google made it cool) somewhat surprising - and as such worthy of note - me thinks. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of featured lists, and many cover subjects quite incomparable to this, but here's just a couple that show how although at first thought they might seem to have little going for them but a dry collection of factoids, they're actually quite engaging:

• List of amateur radio frequency bands in India
• List of culinary nuts Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose removal of "previously featured" as distinct from "current"

Although I added the "previously featured" sub sections with the hope of stopping "it doesn't work anymore" edits (which kinda worked), we now have a situation where references are removed in order to justify moving 'eggs from "previous..." to "current". This is disruptive and unhelpful. I propose we rewrite the whole page to remove grammatical tense, and simplify the list layout accordingly, by removing the indication of whether the 'egg is current or not.

Any objections or concerns? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Was not my intention to disrupt, since it didn't appear to be the highest quality source in the first place. But I agree, it would be for the best we mergered current and previously featured. Sro23 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No one is to blame (doesn't help); it's been an ongoing problem. Glad of the support. Epic grammar job; not enthusiastic. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Y Partly done Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Might we add a function to the "see it" template that will clarify if the egg is currently working or not? Instead of ( see it ) have ( inactive ). FalsePaul (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The {{see it}} template was built to be sparingly used to provide convenience links in an "out of line" manner (see the discussion up there ^ a bit). We're treading a fine line already by having these links in the article body, and I suggest we don't push our luck by adding functionality that would implicitly encourage its overuse. There's no need for a special floating marker after every 'egg, telling readers that there's nothing to see; if there's nothing to see, there's no marker telling anyone to "see it".

We should concentrate more on getting all the grammar sorted to be completely ambiguous as far as tense is concerned (as it should be (IMO (not sure if there's a MoS entry about it right now) all articles should be written as if everything is past tense, since we can't document the present or future)). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

YouTube 301 egg - search or video?

The "see it" link on the "Why do YouTube views freeze at 301?" egg has been swapped back and forth from the search term and the video itself, probably by accident. So, just to be clear, which webpage do we want to link? FalsePaul (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The first attempt to change the destination was technically incorrect and the result was non functioning. The second attempt was technically correct, but ClueBOT considered it shifty. The third attempt to revert ClueBOT's reversion completely missed the target and broke a reference.

Personally, I just wish people would pay more attention to what they're doing when editing this encyclopedia, and at this precise moment in time couldn't care two hoots where the damn link points, as long as it points somewhere relevant and is properly cited. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation inside or outside quotes

Referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks where the following examples of correct style are given:

• "Life", Anaïs Nin wrote, "shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage."
• In Margaret Mead's view, "we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities" to enrich our culture.

We can see that we're expected to follow Logical punctuation rules, and keep commas and/or periods outside quotes unless they're being quoted.

I argue that we should revert the recent changes but am not the only person interested in this article and accept that the MoS is open to interpretation and would thus welcome discussion before action in this case. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I see your argument. FalsePaul (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikitable

Would it be a good idea to make this list a wikitable? It would be a bit more organized, I think. 1.6180339887 golden^sq???uo? 22:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this material is not very repetitive. I am not sure how we would fit all the details into a table. Paul (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Paul; a table's greatest strength compared to a list is in its columns; I think we'd end up with too few columns to justify them, or too many redundancies on rows where we couldn't fill them. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

RNG easter egg

I found that, if you search random number generator or RNG and put a number in the max or min that is more than ten digits, it outputs a dizzy face ?. The closest thing that I can find for a source is here, but it doesn't provide much information, and forums aren't very reliable. Should we wait until we can find a better source, or include it in the list with a CN tag?

Happy Easter, by the way. I have had a lot of fun searching for virtual easter eggs. Paul (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Lolz :D Gotta love those Googlers!

Personally, I'm all in favour of adding uncited content as long as it's indicated as such, but the rules and I often disagree; in the long run, the rules always win, but consider this: if we add verifiable statements with no reference, a reference might be found. If we don't add verifiable statements because they currently have no suitable reference - nothing - literally nothing can happen - sounds of wind howling and tumbleweeds roll by in the distance...

IMO: Add it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"Proud to be playful"

... doesn't seem like a statement of fact so much as it sounds like a marketing slogan. Does this fit with the wikipedia content guidelines? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.233.95.130 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Without directly quoting (an alternative option), it's lifted from the reference at to support the context of why a tech company would put so much effort into gags.

Feel free to rewrite the statement to your liking. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I just reworded it, to quote the ref directly. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we give LGBT 'eggs their own sub-sections?

Google aren't shy about diversity and have their own Gayglers; there are several 'eggs on the theme. Should we group them? This is about editorial segregation, not the crappy kind. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tense

I thought we were removing tense from the article per the MOS, but recently tense has been re-added in a few places. Should we revert? Paul (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think my recent faux pas in response to the removal of referenced content is an unfortunate indication of the problem that lead me to creating "Previously featured" sub-sections. I personally don't relish the thought of editing the entire article to correct the tense, bearing in mind how every reference would have to be checked for its tense before deciding on ours. Ideally it would be great to have an inarguably tenseless article which also respects its references and that doesn't confuse its readers, but ... good luck with that (it's nearly 5am and sitting up feels like hard work right now).

When you say "re-added"; when was the tense removed; did I miss that? I know it was briefly discussed (more of a monologue really), but was it ever truly actioned? I did a bit.

Reverting is overkill if the only issue with the content is grammar. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Addition of editnotice

I added an editnotice as a reminder to editors that this list should be historically neutral, and not edited to include original research regarding the accessibility of Easter eggs. Please preview the editnotice here or in the article window when editing. Discussion welcomed. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

YouTube Snake game content dispute

• At 12:41 on August 14, 2017 IP User 71.208.205.51 added unreferenced original research to the listing of an Easter egg pulished on YouTube.
• I reverted it.
• User 71.208.205.51 returned to bulk out their original claim with synthesized OR using a self published and unreliable YouTube video as a reference.
• I edited the listing to remove the recentism, placing the listing in a historical perspective, and added two references.
• User 71.208.205.51 returned again to add their synthesis over the course of three edits.
• I informed the user on their talk page that their editing was inappropriate, with links to various policies, guidelines and help pages, and advised that their edits would be removed again if the issues were not addressed. I gave the user plenty of time to respond by either addressing the raised concerns, or attempting discussion, but neither happened.
• I removed the spurious content again.
• User 71.208.205.51 put it back.

The above constitutes an edit war, is not acceptable behaviour and must stop immediately.

This is a request for consensus regarding the content; should the synthesis of original research added by User 71.208.205.51 be retained, or should we follow Wikipedia guidelines and remove it? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Repeat 'eggs

Google Birthday Surprise Spinner contains 'eggs that also belong under Embedded tools. Should we include the 'eggs in both sections, or only under Google Birthday Surprise Spinner? Paul (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to repeat anything, or worry about where things should go if they're not explicitly mentioned alongside the birthday spinner; any results not already mentioned in our list, either should be or shouldn't be, and the Doodles are covered in other articles. We don't need to be exhaustive in this case (or any other); any 'egg that can stand on its own - should.

I already made the changes I think appropriate, but since this question was open, I figured I'd at least wave (hai). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I honestly wasn't sure what to do with this section. Paul (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia