Talk:List of Google Doodles in 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Google (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Shouldn't January 18th talk about the blackout logo? dogman15 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


The February 16 section appears to have been vandalised, but I am unable to find the original revision from before the vandalism. Could someone assist? (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it; thanks for pointing it out. For future reference, the tab labeled "View history" ([1]) will show you the history of the page. Glimmer721 talk 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Clean up tag[edit]

Why the article has a clean up tag? IMHO, it looks very clean and neat. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing for the time being; if anyone objects please join discussion here with your reasoning. — FoxCE (talkcontribs) 13:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Muybridge doodle gif comment...[edit]

The gif comment is wrong, it is animated by using javascript and css background position changes giving the illusion of motion. Just like Mr Muybridge did with his spinning disks 130 years ago. Here is a detailed explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

references? use the primary source![edit]

Why should we link to secondary sources (or even questionable sources like, when there is the primary source for every Gooogle Doodle ever published since 1998: I don't get it...-- (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Self published such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Karthik, I think we should stop using too many of the same publisher sources, such as CNN-IBN or The Washington Post. The references should be more varied with other sources used as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that very few news sources publish of doodles, unless they are very special. However, I do think that we should use the Google website as a reference followed by a news source, it could be more beneficial. extra999 (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Correctly said, there aren't many sources which publishes news about Doodles. Will searching in Google from India, these; The Times of India, CNN-IBN, or the The Washington Post are the sources I get. I don't think so if there is any restriction from doing so. Things would have been worst if each and every source was of CNN-IBN, thats where I have tried to avoid sometimes.
Secondly, Google website should not be used as per WP:SPS. We can instead add them at the External links section. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's better too. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, these are self-published sources. But we would not cite it for the logo description (hardly they have it more than an one-liner), just for the doodle image and name, which is certainly more reliable that Mashable or Gizmodo, and hence nor they could be adverts. And we'll have a secondary source, from a well known publisher. Ignore all rules. extra999 (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Lol, I too believe the same, ignore all. But the problem will be, the reference section will show number of Google sources. I don't have any problem with using those, we need complete list, and Google is the only source we can get it from. The Google's Doodle website has many number of doodles, should we add them all? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
That's because not all Doodles are featured for every country. And hence we miss out many of those, because the only ones active in maintaining the page are Indians. And we follow a add or forget policy here. But 'should we add them all' is something we would need a discussion on. And, what's the problem if you have half the sources of Google, nothing prohibits that. extra999 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Yea I noticed... you guys were adding in mainly CNN-IBN sources for each new Doodle. There's nothing wrong with CNN-IBN (and it's probably one of the few that consistently and adequately report every Doodle), but it's better if the publishers/authors/etc. are more varied, but then like you said, the problem is with the small amount of sources available. We should vary it a bit if there are enough sources, otherwise just stick with the most comprehensive source for that Doodle. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem in using Google as a source. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
So we start replacing Mashable and blah blah with Google. extra999 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Instead of replacing, we can consider using them in future. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
But that would not be uniform throughout the article. I want to have something like say one source of Google and other of a recognized publisher for every doodle throughout the article. extra999 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't mind with that, till anyone objects us! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure that works. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Full list[edit]

As per Google's own doodle site; this one, the list we have is incomplete, Should we consider having them all using Google's own link? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make a long, clumsy article, going by the neatness we have today. Going around the data, seems that Google will have around 300 doodles this year. extra999 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
300 may sound a very much predicted figure :D I agree the article is very neat, and should we consider to add the doodle information depending on its notability? I feel that the Table of contents looked well at the left side. I feel its confusing now. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, we should have a guideline about to add a doodle or not. extra999 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Does not the TOC takes up too much space. In my POV, it looked well on the left. extra999 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The TOC is good on the left, and there's no need to hide it. How about we only post a Doodle if it's featured on the main site? We can make that the policy for future Doodles as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no problems. Maybe, we can implement this as policy for future doodles. extra999 (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then the policy for adding a Google Doodle entry is: it can only be added if it was featured on the main site. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What about its notability?? If the doodle is live in Google India, however it always captured media in India. SO, will that do? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking along this line, so my proposal: i) if featured on the main site ii) has received significant media coverage iii) is of current importance, or the anniversary of a very eminent personality of the the particular country or the world. extra999 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We could consider it significant if the topic has media coverage by more than 10 reliable sources, but how specific is "current importance"? Sure, prominent personalities can be added, but how prominent do they have to be? - M0rphzone (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I feel the current wording of the notice is fine. extra999 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Should we try a FL after the Olympics is over. Or should we take till the year ends? I feel the progress till now has ben good. Any ideas for improvements? And dosent anyone think that TOC is gobbling too much space at the left side [imagine the size in Dec]. I suggest we switch to the right. extra999 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can move TOC to right. Regarding FL, let the list be complete to be stable one, that means we will try after 2012 ends. Sounds great? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Added an article feedback tool, will help us identify the defects in the article from the readers the point of view. Hope it will help :) extra999 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


Was worried regarding the gallery section for the section, as it would lead to burden of images which should be avoided. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed :) extra999 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, looks great now. You can instead upload the closing ceremony doodle image too, that will look great :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply, was affected by the blackout :( And that is a very good idea. extra999 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)