This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Google: Alphabet This page 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.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle This page is supported by the Alphabet Task Force. WikiProject Google To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

@Tcrow777: @Varnent: Do either of you have any ideas for how to organize the Wikiproject? StudiesWorld (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect much more more than the way things are now, at least in the short-term future. We're in a quiet news phase right now, and all the commotion regarding the Alphabet bombshell has subsided. One key area I think we should all focus on is averting the tragic level of misinformation disseminated by the edits in the hours after the Alphabet announcement. Wikipedia messed up, and it's a miracle our mess ups didn't end up in news coverage.

For projects as small as this, it's important that we don't spend so much time editing WikiProject pages and delegating tasks, that we lose focus on actually building and editing mainspace articles; large projects need rules and traffic control, small ones don't really need it, or benefit from it. That being said, presentation is key to recruitment: broken templates, empty project page sections, red links, etc. signal abandonment and/or neglect. The quantity of the task force organization should match the quantity of task force participation, but the quality should always be our best. Tcrow777 ^Talk 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that for now - it's going to be important to clean up errors and focusing on mainspace edits. However, we should finish setting up some of the base setup of the project. I wonder if Task Force vs. WikiProject makes much of a difference? It can also be helpful to add the banner to article talk pages to get more attention and define article scope. WikiProject X is also developing some helpful resources. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of what you said but it is a wikiproject not a task force. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be renamed and treated as such. Although I personally think it is very unlikely to succeed as a separate WikiProject given the activity level of the Google WikiProject. I would strongly encourage not changing to something separate. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Varnent: If we do every change, would you help the conversion? If, we succeed independently would you rejoin? StudiesWorld (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StudiesWorld: I would certainly rejoin. I am nervous about helping with the rest of the changes as I generally only like to do edits I can "defend" if asked to. I am not really sure how to explain to folks that this effort falls outside of what WP Google is working on. To me, there's too much overlap to avoid the groups working together, and doing that as separate WikiProjects seems less logical to at least me personally after looking into how other Tasks forces and WikiProjects got going. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 12:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best method for recruiting new members? StudiesWorld (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think use of banners and functional templates will be the best method. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verb is a new company under Alphabet

[1]

50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open discussion on moving X (incubator) to something else that uses a more common disambiguation word. Your input would be welcome and appreciated. --Natural R_X 15:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a 1 year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Alphabet task force/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Google.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Google, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards,

— The Community Tech Team 17:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)