Template talk:Google

First deletion discussion
This template has survived TfD, with no consensus. See Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 11 for details. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Multi-word queries
Doesn't work with multi-word queries. Pimlottc 06:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It does work, sort of, but you because of the sillyness of URL syntax, you have to replace spaces (" ") with plus signs ("+"), as in . Dragons flight 06:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone fixed this problem a while ago by adding the  magic word to the template. --Teratornis (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Google
Template:Google has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kungming2 00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_19, not deleted.--Patrick 00:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ghits
I just created this one for better convenience without passing arguments, but on second thought, perhaps it would be better to screw with the template syntax to make Template:Google do this automatically if there is no argument, effectively merging the concepts? It would certainly help to unify and improve the endeavor. Also, why not make the link text more descriptive than just the basic argument being passed? This seems counter-intuitive to me and misrepresents the fact that this is a google link. Please give input or feel free to contact me; if there is no input on the matter, I will assume there are no objections and will attempt it myself. (|--  UlT i MuS  23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (undent) But a substitution tends to obliterate from the wikitext any obvious sign that a user substituted text from a template. This makes Wikipedia less self-documenting and thus harder for new users to learn. That is, a user who does not know about the Google template will have a difficult time learning about it merely by reading someone else's substitution of it. That's why I like transclusion; a user can look at the wikitext and see exactly how another user did something. One of my favorite features of Wikipedia is how we can learn from each other's wikitext, and substitution defeats this. What exactly do you mean by "bad news", and how bad is it? Many instances of Google will be on talk pages which tend to get archived anyway. Has anyone actually caused old transluded instances of Google to create problems on pages by editing the template? --Teratornis (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Implemented these changes. I think this is much more useful. Please give feedback. (|--   UlT i MuS  20:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the default parameter, but making the [Google links for blah] reduces the flexibility of how it can be incorporated into discussions. Often I might be talking about, for example,  and want to provide a relevant link with breaking the flow with strangely formatted text.  Also, using small and sup is basically illegible on IE.  If people want to identify that it is a google link, they are free to do so, but it shouldn't be required.  Dragons flight 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Keep in mind that this is intended only to be used on discussion pages and should essentially never be incorporated directly into articles.  Dragons flight 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - that's why I didn't nom Template:ghits for deletion yet, to see how merging with Template:google would take. But did you really have to basically wipe out all of the other unrelated improvements I made (see also, commenting, etc.)? I'm assuming that's not what your intention was or you did it for convenience, so I'll try to rebuild those bits. (|--   UlT i MuS  23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note the substitution bit; this may be trivial, but it is worth noting since a lack of subst with a common template can be bad news when it is modified heavily. (|--   UlT i MuS  23:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Safe Search
I've undone this edit. The "safety level" is a user option. I don't think we have any right to override that. —Nricardo 06:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Site parameter
Wouldn't the site parameter be useful here? I know it can be put inside the query, but that way we would be able to obtain statistics someday (plus makes the usage clearer). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to make links to search on specific sites, you may find Google custom useful. (My comment is only about searching specific sites or subdirectories of sites with Google; I don't know what statistics you refer to.) --Teratornis (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a subsection of examples showing some options for searching on specific sites. --Teratornis (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Calculator and the '=' symbol
There's a note in /doc explaining how to insert an equals sign using Template:=, but the wording seems to imply that use of the Google Calculator requires that trailing equals sign. Actually, the = is only necessary if you need to hint to Google that this is an expression to evaluate - 1 pound in kilograms and 1 lb in kg both work fine. Is there a way to say this without it getting too verbose? Rosuav (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the parenthetical remark:
 * (A trailing equal sign may sometimes be necessary to trigger the Google Calculator, depending on the search expression.)
 * I don't think this is too verbose. Google may have changed its parser since we documented that example, to make the trailing equals sign less necessary. Thanks for pointing this out. I will also add another example illustrating that the equal sign is not always necessary. It's interesting that Google returns slightly different search results for the variations on "one pound in kilograms". --Teratornis (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the parenthetical remark since it seemed like overkill after I added the example showing that the trailing equals sign is not always necessary. --Teratornis (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2022

 * 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Google → Template:Google search – for further clarification.&#32;PK2 (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)  — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily opposed to this, but what exactly would this clarify? SkyWarrior  14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would clarify that the template is for a Google web search (see Google Search), rather than for some other purpose related to Google, which is a company whose activities are not limited to web searching. To me that seems reasonable. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. I agree with the user above me. -- PK2 (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting, but given this was protected as it's a "highly visible template", probably safer to go to a full WP:RM? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to do that if that's what you want. -- PK2 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is the best, given that Google is most known for its search. I don't see a convincing reason to move the template and I don't think the current system is broken. As such, I'm contesting this technical request; an RM would be a much better process here if you disagree with my analysis. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Alternative since this is an external links template used to search on Google. "Google Search" is a particular part of Google used for search, so could be construed to be a topic template used to interlink the topics of the Google front page, Google Page Rank, etc.  "Goolge" is a subsidiary of Alphabet so could be construed to be a corporate template for the company called Google -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But this isn't about searching Google; it's about using Google Search to search the internet. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't about Google Search and how it fuctions. Therefore, it isn't about the topic "Google Search", thus should not be called "Google Search". It isn't about the company topic "Google". It is an external link to search the Google database of internet pages to find something. Thus it searches Google's database for internet content. So, it should be called search Google because it searches the Google database. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the suggested name has "search" in lowercase, which distinguishes it from Google Search. The template is not for searching Google, but for searching the internet. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A subtlety that may escape many people. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really distinguish it, since if you had a template called Google executives it would be about the C-suite, so if you have a template Google search it would still be a topic template about the search algorithm and related components at Google -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support for - Google search makes sense to me, but search Google seems more directly related to the purpose of the template. Template names in my opinion are really irrelevant as long as the right redirects are there, and all of the above seem to accomplish the goal of making it accessible, but I see no harm in  being the official title. Edit: I'm not certain if template titles are also forced uppercase, in that case it doesn't matter what the initial case is (and there's probably little point in using  on a template.. ASUKITE  13:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Google has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Internet has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:52, 3 September 2022 (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.
 * Oppose&mdash;"google" has become a verb like "xerox", a non-generic term that has been adopted as a generic action. Thus, I support keeping the status quo. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  as proposed, per my prior comments (some of which are hatted above from WP:RMTR). The current name can be retained as an alias. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)