Talk:Alphabet Inc.: Difference between revisions

view · edit Frequently asked questions

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Google Start‑class Top‑importance 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.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge 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 : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) 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 California: San Francisco Bay Area Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force. Template:Alphabet Task Force

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Introducing the new name in town - Alphabet Inc". 11 August 2015. Retrieved 12 August 2015. Founded August 10th 2015, the company's Wikipedia page is very bare as this goes to press - no more than 30 words all in all. That will change - dramatically - as time passes.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google#Alphabet Task Force StudiesWorld (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why create a new article, according to Larry Page, Google Inc. is replaced by Alphabet Inc., all shares for GOOG will be changed to Alphabet, etc. Google Inc. ceases to exist, it's practically just a rebrand. "Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly-traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Our two classes of shares will continue to trade on Nasdaq as GOOGL and GOOG.", as written on abc.xyz. --YannickFran (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Inc. is not Alphabet Inc. Google is a subsidiary of Alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McoreD (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Google Inc. is still a company which is just a subsidiary of Alphabet and is still a historical company. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's not 'practically just a rebrand'. JoshuaWalker | Talk 21:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a bit premature. If you actually read the SEC filing, technically Alphabet Inc. is a subsidiary of Google Inc. until the merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.217.32 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but ultimately it will become the holding company. That's what matters here. -- Chamith (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to remember WP:crystal Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be noted that the Alphabet restructing hasnt fully finished yet, and is not yet publicly traded? But the header should still have the Traded as portion. Am I mistaken? Dxvin (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're all getting ahead of ourselves. Alphabet is still a subsidiary of Google (rather than Google a subsidiary of Alphabet). The restructuring was just announced hours ago hasn't happened yet. This article is describing future events is past or present terms. Just because there was an announcement, doesn't mean it has happened. The stock swap GOOGL/GOOG stock swap hasn't even happened yet. Although, as we speak, Google is probably transferring assets into Alphabet to prepare for the stock swap, which should be considered current events. Tcrow777 ^Talk 06:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about grasping at straws. And we wonder why we're not attracting new editors. JoshuaWalker | Talk 08:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work correcting the article, but I think the Process section has the definition of "merger all wrong. A merger is when two or more companies disband and fold their operations into one new company. This is a different kind of corporate restructuring that doesn't meet the definition of "merger." Tcrow777 ^Talk 09:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the SEC filing uses the word "merger," so this is all very confusing. Tcrow777 ^Talk 09:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section about hooli.xyz and Silicon Valley TV series may be arguable as a relevant section for Alphabet. Some editors may opt to keep it adding some more relevant focus or link to Alphabet. Some others may prefer to delete it altogether. Your opinions are very much appreciated as this is becoming a very much frequently visited page (around 8000 views on its first day of creation and counting) for obvious reasons. werldwayd (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move the info to another section. Per WP:TRIVIA, the section needs to go, but I'd like to see the info moved. Tcrow777 ^Talk 10:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the section was titled "Easter eggs" earlier before I retitled it "Trivia". I am renaming it for now as "In Popular Culture" instead. I thought Easter eggs was an even more odd term to keep on the page! Naming of section can be amended, but calling it Easter eggs was unacceptable. Once we agree on relevance of content, the title may be further amended werldwayd (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section is still a stub. "In popular culture" isn't quite right either, because Alphabet isn't being referenced in pop culture, but rather Alphabet is referencing the series in the easter egg. "Easter egg" is actually a more focused name, and is better than either "trivia" (meaning misc. info) or "in popular culture." Tcrow777 ^Talk 10:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Recent edits have made this discussion no longer relevant to the article. Tcrow777 ^Talk 11:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presently our page Abc.xyz forwards to the page Alphabet Inc. But is there a way to also redirect a page to be named abc.xyz (with a non-capitalized A) to the same Alphabet Inc. page, as the URL is written as abc.xyz and not as Abc.xyz ... And as a curiosity how would people in general know the company, as abc dot xyZED or abc dot xyZEE ? The mind boggles... werldwayd (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All MediaWiki mainspace pages must begin with an upper-case letter (unless the first character is not a letter). Example: abc.xyz. Only articles with the {{lowercase title}} template can display a lower-case first character, but it's really upper-case behind-the-scenes. Tcrow777 ^Talk 10:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In plain English: it's already done and they are the same page. Tcrow777 ^Talk 10:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ankit555551 (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed: The volume of edits by IPs is low on this article. There's been, like, one or two vandal edits in total over the life of this article. Tcrow777 ^Talk 10:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimin killr21:The type should be listed as subsidiary until the fourth quarter when that changes. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StudiesWorld:The company doesn't even exist yet. It won't be a subsidiary until it's formed, when it will more or less immediately become a conglomerate. It's a legal work around that doesn't reflect the actual state or purpose of the company, nor how it will be for more than a tiny amount of time as is needed to execute the legal transition.--krimin_killr21(talk) 16:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimin killr21: So we should just change the type to not yet formed. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StudiesWorld:The status perhaps, but not company type. This is a proposed conglomerate holding company. This article is essentially about a proposed but yet unrealised company structure. We should reflect the type of proposed company. I'll add a status tag of proposed company or something along those lines.--krimin_killr21(talk) 17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just now, The New York Times writes an interesting article.

Headline-1: Alphabet? Google Might Get Some Letters

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/technology/google-creates-alphabet-but-runs-into-bmw.html?_r=0

QUOTE: "One can only assume that before Larry Page and Sergey Brin chose Alphabet as the name for their new holding company, they Googled it. ... Alphabet is the name that Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, Google’s founders, have given the newly created parent entity that will house the Google search business and several smaller holdings like Nest, a maker of smart thermostats, and Calico, a company focused on longevity. ... " -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: “Don’t worry,” Mr. Page wrote on that home page. “We’re still getting used to the name too!”[reply]

I don't think it's worth a mention yet. Iady391 | Talk to me here 13:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some of the companies previously called "Google something" are going to drop the Google from their name. Examples: Google Fiber -> Fiber,[1], Google Ventures -> Ventures,[2] Google Capital -> Capital,[3] and Google X -> X.[4] . Thoughts on how to handle that? Obviously some of those names are a bit generic - so just Fiber (company)? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 15:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see what the decide to name them first.
I'd personally go with Fiber (Alphabet Inc.) though Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't rush to decide articles name yet. Per WP:COMMONNAME we have to use commonly recognizable names. Google's Fiber network is still prominent as "Google Fiber", not "Fiber (Alphabet Inc.)". Even most reliable sources still call it "Google Fiber" at the moment. This could change after the restructuring is complete. Until then I think we should keep using "Google Fiber" as the article title. We have to establish a consensus on specific Wikiproject nevertheless. -- Chamith (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was basically saying lets wait until the restructuring is complete, but I was giving my personal preference on what could happen. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't mean to ping you straightforwardly. I removed it afterwards. My bad. Just wanted to participate in the discussion. -- Chamith (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future plans do not represent present facts. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, we change articles after real life changes are realized. Tcrow777 ^Talk 10:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Also, there is no suggestion in those link that Google Fiber or Google X were changing since they never stated that. I think they may have been using shorthand. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has challenged the relevance of the last two sentences in the top section. IMO, these sentences are absolutely relevant. The CEO of Alphabet and future CEO of Google is absolutely relevant, as well as the stock tickers, which is probably the first piece of info web searchers would want to know. Many casual skim readers will be looking for info on corporate leadership and Google/Alphabet stock, which is why this info needs to be above the fold. Tcrow777 ^Talk 10:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely agree with that because while we don't state the future as fact we should state the proposed future as a plan. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's relevant at the moment. However, it'll become trivial as the situation progresses. -- Chamith (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but I'm reverting this back. This is not consensus. Keep the tags and allow the discussions to flow for several days. This is not relevant at all for the lead. It is entirely irrelevant for the Alphabet article to state in the lead who will lead Google. This relevant for the Google article but not for Alphabet lead section. Furthermore, a lead is a concise summary of the article that does not have to include intricate details important for a specialised audience. The lead is a general overview of the subject. Intricate details go into the body, not the lead. For this reason I'm restating back the tags, as this discussion was started yesterday and one day and only 3 people is not enough to conclude there is consensus. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• However, Google is the largest part of Alphabet and a general user will want to know who will be leading one of the largest companies in the world. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But not on the lead of this article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to try and rephrase this in a more appropriate way. If you disagree please readd the tags if you disagree. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I really like what you did. Is anyone NOT satisfied with this? I believe we have reached consensus. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, still don't like the fact we still mention the ticker symbols in the lead. That's unnecessary in the lead but fine in the body. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, that is the primary identifier of many companies. So, I think that until we add it to the infobox it should stay in the lede. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with adding it to the infobox. However, it's not crucial to be mentioned in the opening sentence of the article. -- Chamith (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What about "Following the restructuring, Google stock will be converted into Alphabet stock, and continue trading under the same ticker symbols."? The information is already available within the article, so IMO that's a decent middle ground for the lead. I'm OK with taking Sundar Pichai out of the lead, as long as he is still mentioned in the main body. Tcrow777 ^Talk 12:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already agreed to keep Sundar Pichai. But, I support the solution about the ticker symbols. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]