Talk:List of Google Easter eggs/Archive 2

External links in article body
A discussion is clearly required about the inclusion of external links in the article body.

WP:EL has been cited (generally) twice in edit summaries within the last couple of days, and I propose we WP:IAR in order to freely discuss the value vs. disruption of the inclusion.

It is my personal opinion that this article benefits from these convenience links, and that given the article subject and nature, are acceptable. fredgandt 07:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I don't see any harm in these links and it certainly helps the reader explore the subject. WP:ELNO's list is only a "should generally avoid", and this article - a list of what happens if certain URL queries are entered into a browser - seems a special enough case. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, there is no WP:IAR in this case. There is no reason to have links to Google searches when the text itself describes how to do the search. You do a disservice to our readers to assume they aren't smart enough to use Google without a couple dozen links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Stesmo (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from reverting the page as it has been for some time whilst there is a discussion about the issue in progress. I have placed a warning on your talk page, and expect you to respect the opinions of other editors. If you'd like to discuss the article content, we can continue once I see evidence that you're not going to continue forcing your perspective whilst also removing article content completely unrelated to this discussion. fredgandt 17:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Because and  are unable or unwilling to discuss this concern civilly whilst leaving the article content alone, and because their repeated lazy semi automated reversions have repeatedly removed unquestionably valid content, I have done the honourable thing and removed the external links from the article content body manually, carefully and respectfully.
 * This should not be considered my agreement that these links were in any way unacceptable, I am merely trying to do what is best for the article, by protecting it from rash and thoughtless editors who won't abide by the consensus view that the status quo should be maintained during disputes, and who don't appear to have read BRD.
 * As far as I am concerned, without a proper discussion on this issue, resulting in agreement, the links should and will be put back.
 * P.S. If I seem angry - you're right. fredgandt</i></b> 19:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't been on Wikipedia since before your hate filled message on my talk page. Not everyone is on Wikipedia 24 hours a day, so drop the "unable or unwilling" crap.  Then you mention "civilly" while you certainly are not civil.  Any more uncivil and demeaning rants and then you are out of the discussion.
 * I came in to fix a problem and saw the reverts. My first thought was page protection, but instead reverted to MOS and called for talks. I had no stake or opinion on what should be done.  That has changed since Fred Gandt's temper tantrum on my talk page.
 * Never use WP:IAR as a reason. I've see IAR used on copyright issues, blp issues, neutrality issues, ownership issues and the list goes on over this.  Use MOS and "rules" instead.  Vast majority have "should" and "occasional exceptions" in them.  If other people are working on the page, one should ask first.  If one is called on it after it was put in, then a discussion should happen.
 * I do think the EL's do get too much. However, I also agree that it is important that the reader be able to goto the Easter egg.  Is there a middle ground?  Converting the lists to a table with a row dedicated to external links wouldn't do.  Adding a note instead of an EL would work, maybe?  Are there any other suggestions?
 * Bgwhite (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just popping by to say that I am pondering the layout concern/suggestion/questions you've posed Bgwhite. I also don't think tables will work for this article; the descriptions should have room to breathe. I wouldn't be opposed to utilizing the notes system or something similar, but I'd like to continue pondering for a day or two (slow turning gears make less noise). There's a rough idea forming, which I may play with in my sandbox tomorrow. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 23:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see a suggested compromise at User:Fred Gandt/sandbox/article where I've used a template to float links to the right. This acts to lift the external links out of the text and to thereby differentiate them from the norm, and provides a relatively similar result as would be experienced if a table were in play i.e. a dedicated column of resources. It's only a suggestion for discussion, and should not be considered set in stone. Might something like this be acceptable to the opponents? <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 00:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Append - I propose using GeoGroup to handle <ins title="on second thoughts">some (where coords provide the desired result) external linking to map featured easter eggs. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 12:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the discussion, . External links like these are not permitted in the body of the article, whether in a table or not. This isn't some whim created by me or, rather it was decided via consensus over the years and detailed in WP:EL, WP:ELN and WP:NOT. The solution is already present: Include the word or phrase that invokes the easter egg and count on our readers being smart enough to know how to visit Google and search for the word or phrase. I'm sorry this is angering you, but my removal of external links wasn't directed at you or any particular editor. Nor was it done with any anger or to elicit anger. This is one of many hundreds, if not thousands of articles that had external links in the body of the article removed. I'd encourage you to visit WP:ELN and read previous discussions around this very issue and to continue this discussion there if you feel that this page deserves a special exemption or for any other issue around External Links. I visited the above mentioned sandbox article and can see that your (see it) solution is elegant, but is still an external link in the body of the article. Thank you, Stesmo (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am angered by edit warring over content instead of following wp:BRD, and not in any way by the subject of the dispute. I would also like to draw a line under that element of this dispute since now both you and Bgwhite have joined the discussion and we can get on with it.
 * I will not go to a policy (which I am well aware of) talk page to discuss the content of this article, and have no quarrel with the policies, as they are clearly reasonable.
 * wp:EL does not rule out the use of external links in the article body; as and  have pointed out, there is room for discussion, and per wp:IAR (a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia which I will invoke where I feel it necessary), we should concentrate on what is suitable for articles on a case by case basis. Whilst there is no absolute rule against external links, and considering this article's unusual use of external linking, I would prefer to explore methods to include them for the convenience of readers. As EL and Bgwhite suggests, it is preferred to avoid ELs in the body, but if we can agree on a method of inclusion that separates them for the inline text, that might be more acceptable. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Where does WP:ELN have "previous discussions around this very issue"? Searching the archives for "google" doesn't seem to turn anything up.
 * A special policy exemption would be necessary if these links were an WP:ELNEVER issue, but we're in the "normally" and "generally" avoided area of WP:ELNO, and the "exceptions are rare" of WP:ELPOINTS. This article may possibly be such an exception. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, . I wasn't clear. The conversations on WP:ELN I was referring to are conversations regarding External Links in the body of an article/stand-alone lists, rather than specifically about Google. Examples for Lists that come to mind for me include, External links/Noticeboard/Archive 17, External links/Noticeboard/Archive 17, and External links/Noticeboard/Archive 16. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * External links/Noticeboard/Archive 17 is practically incomparable; a severe lack of references and links to YouTube videos as probably ripped off examples that aren't strictly the subjects?
 * External links/Noticeboard/Archive 16 is closer to relevant, but still these are links to resources, whereas here it's a special and somewhat illusive trait of a site that's of interest. It's not the search or the results that we're interested in. You may have noted 's comments that those are/were convenience links just as I have here?
 * External links/Noticeboard/Archive 17 is perhaps the most relevant, but apparently inconclusive, running into the same problem we have here. LINKFARM and NOTYELLOW simply don't apply at all but are repeatedly cited, and there is a lot of discussion about how the links in that case might be improper references for an otherwise poorly referenced and apparently not very notable subject.
 * Can we please stick to discussing this article and these links to save getting bogged down in meta debates?
 * P.S. Please forgive my restructuring of your links for readability. 01:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This really isn't an edit war and there is no need to get angry. I'm about to block somebody who reverts any changes made to their father's page... around 20 so far.  They've also invoked IAR.  That's when frustration and anger sets in.
 * At the top of WP:EL it states, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Greater than 95% of the time, I'm on the side of following MOS and not making an exception.  This is rare for me.  I do think this is a case where an exception can be made.  Some of the refs don't have the Google link or are not obvious.  This will help the reader to easily goto each Easter egg.   I do like 's sandbox page.  It's obvious to the reader where the link is without cluttering up the description text.  I do think it is a good compromise and better than the original. Bgwhite (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I agree that 's sandbox page is nicely done! However, I continue to remain unconvinced that our readers will be befuddled and unable to search for the term itself on Google to discover the easter egg. Speaking to IAR, I am less convinced of the use for IAR when it seems the only rule that needs to be ignored is the one thwarting their edits. In my experience, claims that IAR must, must, must be respected for that edit is usually followed by all the rules and policies that others absolutely must follow and are not up for ignoring. :D Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article should not have external links to Google searches in the body. They serve no encyclopedic purpose. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Although typically I would agree, in this case it is not the search that is relevant, but the unusual behaviour of Google's website under special circumstances, which are the focus of this article. Images would serve a similar purpose if there weren't so many legal obstacles. It is my understanding of the guidelines about the use of external links that they are (when boiled down) not to be used to substitute preferable alternatives like references. In this case, these are not being used to back up claims relying on the following of the link to prove, and as such are merely for convenience. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 16:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And, this is an article about searching inside one of the most famous search engines. I feel confident that the Wikipedia reader that can find Wikipedia and this article, can also find Google and type in the search term for the easter egg they're interested in. Additionally, the article for Google is wikilinked, and that article contains the external link to the Google website. Of all the articles on Wikipedia, I continue to feel this article is the least likely to require external links in the body of the list. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your objection to the links (as they were)? The policy/guidelines you've repeatedly cited clearly state that they may be acceptable in some circumstances which are not strictly defined, so we are discussing the issue here, and as yet you've not actually stated your objection. Sure readers can search for themselves, but the question is "why should they?". Is it a disservice to provide a button when users can instead build their own GUI to utilize the API? Of course not - it's the exact opposite. If your objection to these links is that they're helpful, well honestly that would just suck. So what's the actual objection?  00:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

- Just giving it a little kick. 23:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What are the plans for ELs besides the search engine section? Bgwhite (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think they're especially useful in the "search engine" and "youtube > search" sections. I'd like to slap 'em on thick from top to bottom, but can and probably should live without; the convenience link argument would wear thin if we stuck 'em everywhere. The "maps" section(s) could possibly utilise Coords, but I can see how that could be considered inappropriate.
 * It seems we need to differentiate between normal Google search (desktop) and Google search app(s) (mobile) since a couple of 'eggs are specific to the mobile app, so a new section? I'm still not sure if the "previously featured" sections are overkill.
 * I'm currently ill and feeling rough, so have paused trudging through all the references, but will jump back on it as soon as my health picks up. I'm hoping to bring it up to a standard good enough for nomination as a featured list; there's enough detail (much missing but out there) and content to justify it I think. 23:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose we close

 * 1) As has been discussed, wp:EL allows breathing room for editors to decide what's suitable on a case by case basis; it is not a blanket none shall pass policy.
 * 2) There is little stated objection to the external convenience linking this article was employing, but in fairness, moving them out of the main body of the text is desirable by majority, and this has not been specifically contested.
 * 3) It has been repeatedly stated that my suggested method, of including the links whilst separating them from the main body of the text, is at least good in its own way.
 * So, I propose that since this discussion has gone on a fair while, had a fair amount of input, but has slowed to a stop, we should make a decision and close.

I am in favour of utilising my suggested method to include the links, as although I am personally comfortable with the links being in the text body, I understand the concerns of others and believe it addresses them within reason. 19:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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? <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 16:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Done <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 18:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images
- 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? <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 16:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In principle,, I only objected to WP:NFCC (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 (see also WP:NFC). 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. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 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. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 22:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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. 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.

((( dino runner )))

((( maps pac-man )))

((( bletchley park )))

((( super mario, do a barrel roll, maps pac-man, dino runner )))

((( let it snow, barrel roll )))

((( walk into mordor, let it snow )))

((( star wars youtube )))

((( barrel roll, maps jet ski advice, askew, calculator H2G2 42, Google Earth flight simulator, YouTube's Snakey game,	ASCII, Legoland pegman, calculator once in a blue moon, anagram, Ninjas on Google Reader, interfaces, recursion )))

((( zerg rush, askew, barrel roll )))

((( no more 301+ views on youtube )))

((( maps loch ness monster )))

((( google in 1998 )))

((( interfaces, calculator once in a blue moon, teddy bears and ninjas, iGoogle themes )))

((( barrel roll, askew, ASCII, recursion, google.com/mentalplex, pac-man doodle, reader ninjas,	iGoogle themes, earth flight simulator )))

((( google voice konami code,, marquee html, alternative "I'm feeling..." buttons, bacon number	google in 1998, translate german beatboxing, atari breakout )))

((( PegMa'am )))

((( star wars crawl, choose light or dark side, hangouts creatures, barrel roll )))

((( choose light or dark side )))

((( barrel roll, hangouts creatures, /ponystream /ponies /shydino /pitchforks /bikeshed )))

((( barrel roll, dicussion on the virtues of Google philosophy )))

((( geek week, pow query var, beam me up scotty, use the force luke, fibonacci, snake game,	missile command, stats for nerds, wadworth query var, harlem shake, doge meme )))

((( let it snow, barrel roll, Hanukkah )))

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

()

http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/02/chat-with-martian-in-google-earth-5.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2013/11/youtube-easter-egg-for-doge-meme.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/07/googles-anagram-easter-egg.html

http://www.omgchrome.com/chrome-dinosaur-game-pterodactyl-upgrade/ http://www.omgchrome.com/chrome-easter-egg-trex-game-offline/ http://www.omgchrome.com/interview-with-sebastien-gabriel-google-chrome-visual-designer/

http://searchengineland.com/google-adds-graphical-math-calculator-to-search-results-103631 http://searchengineland.com/new-google-easter-egg-seo-geeks-server-status-418-im-teapot-201739

http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/07/25/konami-code-easter-egg-discovered-in-google-play-games/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/27/androids-stock-dialer-app-is-hiding-an-easer-egg-from-the-it-crowd/

http://uk.businessinsider.com/batman-bruce-wayne-house-google-maps-2016-3 http://uk.businessinsider.com/unicorn-easter-egg-hidden-in-google-play-store-app-2015-11

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/12/12/google-turns-smartphone-snow-globe/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/12/16/google-easter-egg-brings-christmas-carols-mobile/

http://www.guao.hk/posts/google-glass-easter-egg-introduces-you-to-the-entire-team-in-a-panoramic-image-controlled-by-your-heads-movement.html http://www.guao.hk/posts/google-io-2013-combination-page.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/20/google_moon/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/22/google_puts_tardis_on_street_view/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6201814/Google-easter-eggs-15-best-hidden-jokes.html http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/27/google-biggest-algorithm-change-hummingbird http://codegena.com/top-10-youtube-tricks-know/ http://cultofmac.com/google-reveals-hidden-menu-in-iphone-app/6570 http://gizmodo.com/5863187/with-one-click-you-can-see-every-google-doodle-ever-made http://laughingsquid.com/google-maps-includes-a-ufo-easter-egg-at-area-51/ http://lifehacker.com/5849342/skip-past-the-boring-intro-on-youtube-videos-with-the-wadsworth-constant-bookmarklet http://memeburn.com/2012/05/13-more-of-the-coolest-hidden-google-tricks/ http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/experiments/heart/ http://research.google.com/pubs/NaturalLanguageProcessing.html http://techmunchie.com/a-guide-to-android-daydream-how-to-setup-and-unlock-hidden-features http://www.androidauthority.com/android-marshmallow-easter-egg-flappy-bird-game-with-multiplayer-647378/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27778071 http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/go-figure-google-adds-calculator-to-search-results/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/sciencetech/video-1008095/Googles-new-hidden-Easter-egg-Atari-Breakout-Images.html http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/06/this-is-the-truth-behind-webdriver-torso/ http://www.ew.com/article/2012/12/11/google-festivus http://www.geeknative.com/21619/rlyeh-removed-from-google-maps-some-geek-alternatives/ http://www.htxt.co.za/2016/05/20/google-chromes-offline-dinosaur-game-now-has-a-day-night-cycle/ http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/30/google-chromecasts-geeky-easter-eggs http://www.labnol.org/software/chrome-offline-dinosaur-game/28781/ http://www.mtv.com/news/1999946/google-hodor-and-get-lots-of-hodor/ http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Google-Easter-Eggs-10-Different-Services-Lots-of-Secret-Jokes-110450369.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226404/software/google-easter-egg-leads-to-story-behind--blink--tag.html http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/03/the_legend_of_zeldas_link_is_a_guest_star_on_google_maps http://www.pcworld.com/article/142620/googles_top_17_easter_eggs_gags_and_hoaxes.html http://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-play-pac-man-in-google-maps-right-now http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-Glass-App-MyGlass-Play-Store-Puppy,news-16946.html http://www.zdnet.com/pictures/secret-google-youtube-easter-eggs/5/ https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/master/chrome/renderer/resources/offline.js https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2191362/google-easter-egg-search-conway-s-game-of-life https://twitter.com/numberphile/status/629261560247119872 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151876461489058&set=a.365684129057.139813.15279704057&type=1 https://www.google.com/doodles/30th-anniversary-of-pac-man

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. 03:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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?  00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Norris
For the record the "find Chuck Norris" 'egg relies on Google's 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. 11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"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 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  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.   21:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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.
 * 2) * Not fluffing or padding; there's room for genuine expansion.
 * 3) Ensuring ALL the entries are referenced.
 * 4) * I have no doubt that this is relatively easy, albeit time consuming.
 * 5) Adding more images.
 * 6) * 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? 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:
 * What are the leads like in other featured lists?
 * 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.  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  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? 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.  06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)).  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.  03:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation inside or outside quotes
Referring to Manual of Style where the following examples of correct style are given: 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.
 * "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.

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. 04:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see your argument. FalsePaul (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  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   sqᴉɹʇuoɔ 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.  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.  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.  18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just reworded it, to quote the ref directly.  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. 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.  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. 11:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

YouTube Snake game content dispute
The above constitutes an edit war, is not acceptable behaviour and must stop immediately.
 * 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.

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? 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).  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)

Pac man not an 'egg?
I believe this section describes a previously featured Google Doodle, not an easter egg. Also, none of its citations describe it as an easter egg. Can we remove it? Paul (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch and call; I'd say so.  02:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Paul (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Dreidel: he > hay
It looks like google changed their dreidel to say "hay" instead of "he." However, all online sources that cover the 'egg say "he" (this website even has a picture). I would like to change the article to say "hay," but there is no reference saying so. What do we do? Paul (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You already know the answer to this Paul; WP:OR. Our hands are tied until consensus decides that OR is okay (personally I'd be fine with it if clearly noted in much the same way good quality unreferenced content can be).  03:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Konami Code
It appears (my own simple research suggests) that Google generally responds to the Konami Code, no matter the platform. I wonder if a single listing for "konami code" as a "search term" (spoken or typed), covering all referenceable permutations, would be preferable for readers? 02:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the article, the Google Play Games and Google Allo apps are listed to respond to the Konami Code. However, I don't have either of these apps, so I cannot test those functions. And when I do an normal Google web search for "up up down down left right left right b a start," nothing unusual happens, no matter if I speak or type it. So where, exactly, does the Konami Code work? Paul (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was searching for references to the one's we already have listed, and found several that talk about reactions when using various Google services; I didn't take notes.  23:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Google Easter eggs. 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/20161009165254/https://www.theboundlessweb.com/technology/google-tricks-you-never-knew-best-new-google-tricks/ to https://www.theboundlessweb.com/technology/google-tricks-you-never-knew-best-new-google-tricks/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527022012/http://techmunchie.com/a-guide-to-android-daydream-how-to-setup-and-unlock-hidden-features to http://techmunchie.com/a-guide-to-android-daydream-how-to-setup-and-unlock-hidden-features

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Conway's game of life - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * Funcion corazon - easter egg google.png
 * GOOGLE IO 2 - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * GOOGLE IO 3 - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * Google IO - EASTER EGG GOOGLE 369.png
 * Google birthday - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * Google drive PRIDE - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * Sonic 1 - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * Sonic 2 - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * Sonic 3 - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * Super mario bloque - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png
 * The answer of life CALCULADORA - EASTER EGG GOOGLE.png