Talk:Yahoo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Microsoft deal too prominent in lead

Does anyone agree that the Microsoft deal should not be the third paragraph of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.17.70 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer is yes, I agree. Long answer is... I imagine, when it was first placed there, it was likely shortly after Microsoft launched its bid. While that's still a bit of recentism, had the bid been successful, Microsoft would certainly have continued to be mentioned in the intro (and, when it was announced, it was generally seen as game changing for Yahoo!, perhaps still a true statement). Since the bid was withdrawn, although there are lasting and still rippling ramifications, the "History and growth" Microsoft subsection has it covered. Perhaps, though, that subsection should be unnested and should become "Acquisition attempt by Microsoft (2008)" and the preceding section should become "Post dot-com bubble (2002-2007)". Thoughts?   user:j    (aka justen)   04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be removed in its entirety from the lead, and just made a paragraph in the 2002-07 section. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo!#Yahoo.21_International

Hello - I'm wondering what some of you think of this section. It is mostly a directory of yahoo's sites. It includes a large number of external links and it contains just a few lines of prose. As far as the manual of style is concerned, these aren't good qualities. So, I'm curious what some editors might have to say about this section. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a big list with few lines, but it's a good section of an article becuase it's hard to gather the information together elsewhere. I say keep it in there, or have a separate page for the international versions of Yahoo!.com. It should be restored for those reasons, but i'll listen in for what others have to say before acting unilaterally. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The section clearly displays Yahoo's very own compilation of the very links that were removed (world.yahoo.com). It couldn't be more perfect. We are not obligated to list all the sites; Yahoo has kindly done this for us. This is my perspective on it, but Wikipedia has laid out the guidelines even more clearly at WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 07:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms and Controversy restored

Wow, at some point the entire C & C section was deleted, and then a stub section was recently added. I went back through the history and restored the version as it was. I am aware that the section can use some TLC and copyediting, and even some judicious pruning, but the major subtopics in this section are well-covered and noteable. Cheers, and happy new year! --NightMonkey (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

First Website With Personalization

When yahoo first came out with my yahoo, I remember that after that point other websites began introducing personalization services. Was yahoo the first to do so? Family Guy Guy (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I would suggest to merge Yahoo! Green with Yahoo! -Pmlinediter (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy section

The Criticism and controversy section is far too verbose for an otherwise skeletal article (and, frankly, it's too verbose for any article, for that matter). I think the link to Wang Xiaoning's article, with a brief summary should be adequate for that segment. I'm going to take a look at the Shi Tao article, to see if it could be more prominently highlighted, but also with a more succinct summary. Li Zhi has an article, but it isn't linked at all from this one at the moment, and only briefly mentions the Yahoo! affair, in any event. I'll post any suggested changes here before integrating them into the article. Justen 07:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP should be a subject of interest to the wiki

I have contacted the Yahoo corporate legal office by phone and simply asked Yahoo if they moderate / filter their message boards, and their legal department refuses to answer that very simple question. Many (including this author) are aware that active message deletion filters are in place wrt yahoo message boards. The reason Yahoo legal refuses to answer the moderation question is because it restricts Yahoo from using the New York 1998 Prodigy decision as a legal defense regarding libelous postings. Searching the internet reveals very little about Yahoo's moderation of their message boards, which is operated via Yahoo! Guesthouse. This subject is not addressed anywhere in the yahoo wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact is, Yahoo does censor its financial message boards in the United States. By removing important information about the way in which yahoo censors its message boards, the wiki's editors demonstrate that the wiki is not open to posting fair and factual information about the operation of powerful mega-corporations in the former USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger With Microsoft

Does anyone think we should include the possible merger of Microsoft and Yahoo!. I personaly think we should wait to see if either Microsoft or Yahoo! say that they will. Chetblong 23:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been rumored so many times that, personally, I don't think it's notable. --moof 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo has merger rumors every few months! Does anyone remember the last spot of "insider" knownledge last year that AOL-TW would be merging with Yahoo???? [1], [2], [3] CaribDigita 13:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! It's notable now :-) 202.64.168.196 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is incomplete; the last statement is just left hanging: i.e. microsoft offers $20 Billion to Yahoo, YES ...AND THEN WHAT? What happened to the offer? was it accepted? or rejected by Yahoo?. To a young student, that is new to this subject, they wouldn't know how this ended- to date. You need to close that section with info on their current state. 66.130.177.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

I'd like to know what happened in the end, too. At the moment it says there was a "10 year deal that Microsoft" but doesn't say what Yahoo got out of the deal - only that Microsoft would not have to pay any money up front and would get access to the yahoo search engine for use in Bing. Did they ultimately pay any money to Yahoo at all, and if not, what kind of deal is that? The cite link to tech.yahoo.com doesn't work any more, by the way. 81.131.60.240 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

POP3 Access

There is no mention about pop3 and smtp access for Yahoo! mail. Some time ago, yahoo! mail was accessible via pop3/smtp. Now, "premium" accounts are needed (this created some criticism) for yahoo.com accounts, but not for some other countries sites (including yahoo.fr, yahoo.com.au), etc...

In the same style, there is the feature of secondary addresses or "AddressGuard" (trademark of Yahoo)...

Do you have a reputable source explaining the criticism around this? Dmarquard (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting "Yahoo!" in italics?

For me at least seeing exclamation marks (!) in the middle of a sentence is distracting and hard to read, as an exclamation mark is intended for the end of sentences. English rules > trademarks.

My favorite search engine is Yahoo! because it is good.

My favorite search engine is Yahoo! because it is good.

My favorite search engine is Yahoo because it is good.

Either putting it in italics or getting rid of the !s all together after the first paragraph or so. Perhaps with the beginning with "Yahoo Inc. (styled Yahoo! Inc. in press reports and logos)...". Also please don't refer me to previous discussions about the article title. --Indolences 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has objected for the two weeks this has been posted. I have changed many "Yahoo!"s to "Yahoo". I kept most specifics, like "Yahoo! Search" and "Yahoo! Mail". -Indolences 14:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much 72.144.252.2 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on -- Yahoo! is the company name -- the exclamation mark has nothing to do with whether it is correct use in english or not -- I suspect that the next thing is that people want to change the name "Flickr" to the correct English spelling as well -- please change the Yahoo! name back to use the exclamation point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.125.23 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with English grammar. You do not include logo decorations in the written reference to the company name. Technically, the middle character of Wal-Mart is a five-pointed star (not a dash nor asterisk). Can you correctly write their name please? Can you tell me where the five-pointed star key is? I'm going to name my company Awesomeness?". Yes, that's right, with a question mark and a right double-quote after it. Now, can you construct a sentence using my proper company name, and quoting our president? How's the following:

"I think there's no better company to work at than Awesomeness?", I really do," the president said.

Yahoo uses the exclamation point for visual branding, but news organizations understand that the ability to confer meaning through proper sentence construction takes precedent, and encyclopedia authors should know better. See: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/12/31/yahoo.intel.tv/index.html?iref=newssearch 66.119.170.242 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of the company is "Yahoo!" and not Yahoo. As a matter of fact, Yahoo! wanted to register as Yahoo, but could not because a company already existed with that name. And well, if you look at any finance website, it lists the name as 'Yahoo! Inc.'. See: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=YHOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.234.190 (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the name of the company really at issue? It is well recognized in the article. There are legitimate issues here, such as abbreviating that name for legibility and conformance with WP style, and setting a precedent for WP to follow with other proper names that may incorporate awkward or foreign symbols that create issues for searchability. With foreign names, of course, we commonly use translations and romanlzations--not only in WP, but other media, too--even if these changes are not supported by the trademark owner. There was a time when some companies made a big stink over tiny spelling issues, b/c their lawyers insisted on it to protect their brand name; e.g., if I recall correctly, Kimberly-Clark insisted that professional writers never use "kleenex" as a generic for "tissue". Are any lawyers complaining these days about such issues as this with Yahoo!/Yahoo and Wal*Mart/Wal-Mart/Walmart, or whether google is capitalized or not? If other brands are named B!ingo and L爱ove, would we have to keep those spellings everywhere? I'd like to see more opinions and perspectives on these issues & others related to this topic. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Missed this when I started a thread about it further down. MOS:TM explicitly says to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'" and "in the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used", so we should be using "Yahoo". --McGeddon (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

When and why were the News message boards removed?

I happened to see this article posted so, as is my habit, came to Wikipedia to investigate. Unfortunately I see that Yahoo has removed the explanation from their web site which is referenced at Wikipedia external ref #98, so now we have an explanation in Wikipedia that is unsupported. Any ideas where a more permanent reference can be found? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They were removed some time after the 2004 U.S. general elections. But I saw they're back.Example I don't use Yahoo anymore, but I did notice they were back sometime around last October. Yahoo has had lawsuits in the past. Yahoo Sued over Message Board Posts 2004, Yahoo message board users sued 2010. CaribDigita (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Your first link takes me to a news article, not an example of a message board, However, the cnet 1998 reference is priceless. Thanks again. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs Updating

This page has a lot of 3 or 4 year outdated info. If someone wants to go through it and make sure its up to date feel free. I went through some of it. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

YAHOO ANSWERS

Why is there nothing in this article about the popular yahoo answers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjlaidlaw (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers has its own Wikipedia article as do many other Yahoo services.Ottawahitech (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol Bartz Shoots A Subtle Dig At Facebook On CNBC, Asks "What's Their Revenue?"

Interesting interview with the CEO of Yahoo - not sure where in this article it belongs http://www.businessinsider.com/carol-bartz-shoots-a-subtle-dig-at-facebook-on-cnbc-asks-whats-their-revenue-2010-3 Ottawahitech (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does it belong in article? How notable is it for a CEO of one company to ask another "What's your(their) revenue?". Did she say in that same breath what was Yahoo's revenue to do a comparison? From that article she was basically ranting on air. CaribDigita (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Buyout rumor

Wsj: AOL, Firms Explore an Offer for Yahoo http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550661101743360.html Ottawahitech (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Exclamation marks in article body

I see there have been a couple of failed attempts to move this article from Yahoo! to Yahoo, but shouldn't we still be following MOS:TM in the article body? ("In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used.") It seems needlessly difficult to read sentences with fake punctuation in them, particularly when the company name comes at a point when the sentence could feasibly have ended, or when a new sentence begins with it - "In 2000, Yahoo! was taken to court in France by parties seeking to prevent French citizens from purchasing memorabilia relating to the Nazi Party. Yahoo!" --McGeddon (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A problem that concerns me more is the exclamation mark in the URL of this article, which causes indigestion in many email programs which cannot decipher this web address correctly and the leads to a mangle that results in inaccessible information. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo! is an acronym

I was reading through an mX newspaper from March 1, 2010, and I discovered that in one caption, entitled "It's True!", it states:

The name Yahoo! is an acronym for Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle

Paul Gil wrote a page on Yahoo! for About.com and mentions this, What does 'Yahoo' Stand For?.

So is this valid for amendment to the "History and growth" section of the article? Eug.galeotti (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a backronym, not an acronym, and its removal from the article was discussed here. I'm not sure it's really worth documenting "Yahoo founders joked about a backronym once", even if it has been quoted or misquoted here and there. --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More layoffs?

Yahoo said to be rolling out layoffs

Multiple media outlets reported earlier this month that Yahoo was on the verge of major layoffs, perhaps as high as 20 percent (but more likely 10 percent) of the struggling technology company. On Tuesday, TechCrunch reported that tipsters were contacting them to say the layoffs had begun. The company's Yahoo Groups and Flickr divisions were named specifically.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20024161-36.html#ixzz17L7pPLW5 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Added Twitter slide leak on changes to Yahoo Products. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. Slowly but surely it'll prob. just shut down stuff and continue to shift more people to MSN until it is just a shell and then poof it'll be gone when everyone has been shifted to MSN's site. At this point Yahoo IMHO is merely an MSN proxy trying to delay the inevitable. This process was started from since the integration of Yahoo messenger with Microsoft's Messenger. So now you don't even need to download Yahoo IM anymore it comes standard in Windows under the integrated Microsoft Messenger (which can just patch thru to Yahoo). So really, why even use Yahoo at all? I think Yahoo is on the path to closure. CaribDigita (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft's valuation since the bid???

Microsoft's valuation since the bid. Has it gone up or dropped? CaribDigita (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Who owns who? - Softbank

Does Yahoo own Softbank or is it the other way around? ("Each of the international sites are wholly owned by Yahoo!, with the exception of Yahoo! Japan , in which it holds a 33.41% minority, and SoftBank which holds 40.16%") Ottawahitech (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of AdInterax

The AdInterax article really doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Since the company was acquired by Yahoo!, there may be useful content for this article. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know I removed the merge template from AdInterax since I believe it should now meet notability requirements at Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What did you do, because it is not any different? I added the merge template back to the page since there was no substantial change to the article. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

AdInterax didn't come close to meeting any notability guidelines so I redirected it to Yahoo!. If anyone knows of sourcing or any specific dates of the acquisition, they should add it to List of acquisitions by Yahoo!. Alpha Quadrant, when an article has no content like that, it can usually be redirected without a discussion.130.91.93.243 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't notice that AdInterax was already on the page of subsidiaries. 130.91.93.243 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Yahoo homepage.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yahoo homepage.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo patents could throw a monkey wrench into Facebook's IPO hopes

Interesting tidbit - but where does it fit http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/08/yahoo-facebook-patent-dispute/ ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Bing?

What is the relationship between Yahoo! and Bing?

If you do a search on Yahoo!, and then go to the bottom of the page it says "Powered by Bing". And if you click on "Submit Your Site" and then "Submit Your Site for Free:" it takes you to Bing.com. But there is no mention in this article about Bing. Kind of lame don't you think. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Death and the Internet

Just wondering why Yahoo! has no section on the page Death and the Internet? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Employee layoffs

As reported by Wired, Yahoo! has just announced the layoff of some two thousand staff. Should this be added to employee stats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.162.33 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Other media/trivia

Should there be any mention that in the film Frequency the character Gordo gets a second chance at becoming wealthy by investing in Yahoo! stock while it was affordable?

I don't see it menntioned in film Frequency?Ottawahitech (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Error message trying to access Yahoo's press room

I get the following message when I try to access the pressroom (see external links at article page):

The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.

Please contact the website administrator.

Anyone else? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I did a search for Yahoo Press Room, and got a different site. Updated external links to reflect this. swinquest (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Swinquest. It's good you found another type of press room for Yahoo, however the one I had put in is the one Yahoo uses to communicate with shareholders in their language. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wow the Yahoo! shareholder website still malfunctions? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Yahoo! Green be merged into Yahoo!. I think that the content in the Yahoo Green article can easily be explained in the context of Yahoo!, and the Yahoo! article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Yahoo! Green will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Fumitol|talk|cont 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. It is a one line article as of now. It is better off as part of the main page. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree. It would be best conviniently merged into that same page.
  ~

⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed As well would be a good thing and its part of yahoo right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.224.42 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree.CurlyPop88 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the main article is already way too cluttered. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• I agree because if the article is about Yahoo! then it should include all information about Yahoo!, unless the article become extremely long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DK3535 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. The article is far too short to be worthwhile on its own. Could be included as a short paragraph/sentence on the main Yahoo! article. The fact that the main Yahoo! page is cluttered is an argument for de-cluttering that page, not an argument against merging this one. GintyFrench^(talk!) 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree. It is better off as part of the main page. User_talk:Ankulbarar —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC).
• Comment: If you feel Yahoo! Green needs to be merged then why not propose merging it into List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services instead? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In A Nut Shell So To Speak

Most people find it very difficult to believe that there is such a thing as altruistic self-interest. I believe it is possible under one condition. It must be in-forced or administered by someone with excess power, the excess of which is used for split purposes - both self-interest and altruistic. For all practical experience, the universe is finite because everything we know in relation to our lives and personal power or abilities, is finite. The space, even of which the largest individual can occupy, and the energy available, is finite. So here is the big question:

What happens when the largest individual has no place to go? What happens when growing faster than the rate of expansion of the universe, means to outright kill smaller individuals?

In such a situation, it becomes desirable to grow in perfect proportion to the rate of universal expansion. However, it is necessary to further define what desirable growth is. The most desirable growth happens by way of what is call dimensional development. As time passes and as we think our thoughts, moment by moment, dimensional development becomes more and more complex. Dimension is increased.

Higher dimensional complexity is more powerful than simplicity, because it posesses more tangible connections to raw high-force energy. Growth by way of dimensional development is the best type of growth for one very important reason. In its purest form, this type of growth does not increase the energy demand on the energy base in the air and space. This means that in its purest form the high-energy side of the energy cycle of high-energy-time/low-energy-time can be stretch out to the lengthiest time possible.

The big picture makes it possible to understand that altruism can only happen when someone has a monopoly or, in other words, an excess of power. Without such a situation, there is as there was, untold suffering and pain.

As time passes, and as the most powerful individual moves into the future, there is truly is no choice except to grow by increasing dimension, because to kill without need is to waist opportunity for new dimension. Mind over energy. Power is life if power is used to construct and not destruct unnecessarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.126.205 (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Babel Fish

Babel Fish is discontinued from Yahoo!, however its own brand is online again apparently since 2010, just check www.babelfish.com; with regard to Microsoft, both babelfish.altavista.com' and babelfish.yahoo.com redirect to www.microsofttranslator.com , the official site of Bing translator, however yahoo.babelfish.com redirects to www.babelfish.com . Does anyone have more information on this issue?-Jorgen W (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hackers Publish Over 450,000 Emails and Passwords Stolen From Yahoo

Hackers Publish Over 450,000 Emails and Passwords Stolen From Yahoo http://www.pcworld.com/article/259135/hackers_publish_over_450000_emails_and_passwords_stolen_from_yahoo.html Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The history of this article

If you go to the very first version of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo!&oldid=700881 you will see that it is dated 25 February 2003, and that it was a simple redirect to Yahoo (without the "!"). Howewver the earliest article at "Yahoo" is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo&oldid=22129766 is dated 29 August 2005.

It appears obvious that at least one version of Yahoo existed at Wikipedia before 2005, but was removed without a trace for some unknown reason. Can anyone shed light on this? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You can use the Special:Log feature to figure out what happened to a past title; see page log for “Yahoo”. In this case it looks like there was a single monolithic page under “Yahoo” that covered various meanings, and Yahoo-the-company was split from it, the original article becoming Yahoo (Gulliver's Travels). See Feb 2003 history of “Yahoo (Gulliver’s Travels)” and nostalgia:Yahoo. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC).

Dead links

I have done my best with the rectifying of the Dead links situation in this article—where I have not been able to find an alternative, I have inserted a Citation message for old notices.--Soulparadox (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have repaired some more remaining bare URLs, but I think some of the Dead link tags can be removed now.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

BT Yahoo malware?

What's going on with BT Yahoo? btinternet.com is apparently associated with yahoo.com (clicking on bt.yahoo.com sign-in results in "Email (e.g. user@btinternet.com)", but Google's Diagnostic page for www.btinternet.com says various things including "Of the 409 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 17 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2012-08-21, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2012-08-20.
Malicious software includes 25 scripting exploit(s), 14 trojan(s), 8 exploit(s).
... Malicious software is hosted on 11 domain(s), including htpcapital.com/, wantedh2o.at/, karenbrowntx.com/. ..." --EarthFurst (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find a North American ref, but it appears that BT has dumped Yahoo! see:

http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2272228/bt-dumps-yahoo-after-wave-of-account-hijackings XOttawahitech (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Added sedition, in relation to 2007 and later statements in relation to their news coverage

Since 2007, yahoo news services have been considered to be seditious with regards to their news articles alleged to pertain to other nations (tab bound). Specifically, those news articles are not in relation to other nations but in relation to certain parties within their own locality & nation in relation to those nations, and pertain to forms of feudalism between nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.217.235 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

History and growth section

There are two complementary articles for keeping track of the less important historical happenings at Yahoo:

• Main article: History of Yahoo!
• See also: Timeline of Yahoo!

Just wondering what others here feel we can move out of the section: History and growth and into those other articles., so that we can keep the main Yahoo! article tidy and under control? XOttawahitech (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

30 Days of Change

Is it wise to upload every logo for the 30 day period, would it be best to just stick with the 2009 logo until September when the actual new logo is revealed? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep the official logo until the new one is revealed. swinquest (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the new logo is introduced now and the page can be updated. http://www.yahoo.com/ //iXavier <talk/edits/logs> 03:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The new logo will not be known until 4 September.[4] -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 14:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Logos

Okay, the first bit on the logos is technically inaccurate.

I have a screenshot of the Yahoo! logo as it appeared in 1994, taken on an old IBM PS2.

The logo in 1994, is vastly different than the logo which debuted in 1995.

My screenshot is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosenow_photography/4400734358/ Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:

Not moved. Apart from what is expressed in the comments below, there are more reasons as to why this cannot be moved. First, yahoo does not have the same meaning as Yahoo! with the ! at the end. The former refers to the phrase or expression, while the latter refers to the company. And that takes us to the second and key point: Yahoo! is a proper noun, while yahoo isn't. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Yahoo! → Yahoo – WP:TITLETM says that we should use standard English for titles except when the altered spelling is the one used in most other sources. Most sources unrelated to the company refer to the company as "Yahoo," not "Yahoo!". Furthermore, the use of Yahoo! in the article text can create confusion, and we tend to use the same name for both the article and in-text mentions. The concept has been discussed on the talk page, with the only objection (that Yahoo calls themselves "Yahoo!") not being valid under the guidelines. — trlkly 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose put the disambiguation page there instead. Also "Yahoo!" 's primary meaning is the search engine, not the company, so this should be Yahoo! (company) or Yahoo (company), while this title should redirect to the search site. Given the non-internet meanings found at Wiktionary, we have an article on yokel for yahoo (no "!"), which is quite likely non-internet-wise. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support; the given sources almost unanimously refer to the company without the exclamation mark in headlines and prose, as does a random Google News search for sentence fragments like "Yahoo said" and "Yahoo spokesperson" - "Yahoo!" does not appear to meet the required "most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark" of WP:TITLETM. (Some headlines in the references section use an exclamation mark that isn't there in the actual article, presumably from an editor search-and-replacing "Yahoo" with "Yahoo!" throughout the article at some point.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as its official name is Yahoo! Inc., which is also the styling in which the company trades as. A Google search for "Yahoo" and "Yahoo!" pull in roughly the same amount of results, so I don't see a pressing need to rename the article. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  What search were you doing, there? I didn't think it was possible to use punctuation in a Google search term. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I don't see how this closing rationale is supported by policy. WP:TITLETM only permits non-standard formatting if "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage" - there is no additional exception for when the trademark is also an English noun. (Wikipedia has articles on Dell and Intuit with the English noun equivalents being at Dell (landform) and Intuition (psychology).) --McGeddon (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Exclamation mark in name

I spent a while manually cutting the exclamation mark from mentions of the company name in prose (but not ref titles), last October, to avoid bizarre sentence fragments like "...enables individuals to leave comments in online publication boards by using their Yahoo!" - User:Jesant13 added these all back in January explaining that they were "correcting some errors". Before I go through all this again, is there any reason that removing the exclamation marks doesn't fall under MOS:TM? --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@McGeddon, I have always thought Yahoo! is the company's official name, not only its tradmark. Was I wrong? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Yahoo!" is how the company likes to style its name, but MOS:TM clearly states that Wikipedia articles should use "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'", for the sake of readability, and to stay in line with how other sources would typically write the name in prose. We write Macy's instead of "Macy*s", Time magazine instead of "TIME magazine", and so on. --McGeddon (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going back and fixing this again, since no other argument has been offered. Please do not revert this back without discussing it first. It is, as McGeddon says, against MOS:TM. But first I will apply for a name change of the article, to prove that this is what policy says we should do. — trlkly 04:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The article name change was rejected by the editor that closed it, but I've gone ahead and removed the exclamation marks from prose mentions of the company, per MOS:TM. --McGeddon (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo malware attack (December 30, 2013)

Seems to be big news (at least on google) in the United States, but not in Europe which according to the news is where most of the damage happened.

• http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57616635-83/questions-left-unanswered-about-yahoo-malware-attack/
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57616635-83/questions-left-unanswered-about-yahoo-malware-attack/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/05/worried-about-the-yahoo-malware-outbreak-if-youre-in-u-s-youre-probably-safe/
• http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/yahoo-says-some-ads-on-its-european-sites-spread-malware/articleshow/28456809
• http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-malware-attack-2014-1
• http://www.4-traders.com/YAHOO-INC-4918/news/Yahoo-Inc--Thousands-of-Yahoo-visitors-hit-with-malware-attack-17753041/

XOttawahitech (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There is more to Yahoo! than this one article

If you would like to watch changes in the Yahoo! category try: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Yahoo!. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo date of creation

There are conflicting dates on the various Wikipedia pages relating to Yahoo and its creation. Many say April 1994, but there is no citation. Adding to the confusion, Yahoo itself is inconsistent. One Yahoo press release says February 1994, while their timeline says January 1994. Compare http://web.archive.org/web/20070918225007/http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/history.cfm and http://web.archive.org/web/20080713214826/http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/timeline.cfm. I don't feel strongly as to either Jan or Feb (and clearly neither does Yahoo), but I wanted to flag the issue in case other people see erroneous dates listed elsewhere.

GhostModern (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@GhostModern: all I can say is welcome to Yahoo! :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

Hello. I currently work for Yahoo and wanted to request a few small text changes to the page. They all have to do with removing old exclamation marks from the Yahoo name in text.

Under the photo in the right column, remove the exclamation mark from "Yahoo! headquarters" Under Products in the right rail, remove the exclamation mark from "See Yahoo! products" In the right rail, remove the exclamation mark from "Yahoo! India Bangalore office" In the History and Growth section, remove "Inc." from the first line of the "On August 2, 2013..." paragraph In the Logos and Themes section, last line of the first paragraph should read "On occasion the logo was abbreviated "Y!". In the Logos and Themes section, remove the exclamation mark from Yahoo in the first line of the "On September 19, 2013" paragraph

Thank you. cayabyab@yahoo-inc.com

209.131.52.148 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: When was the exclamation mark removed from those names, was it never there, and can you link us to some sort of verification of these changes? If it was never there, then it is simple to remove them per your request, if it was there and then officially removed, then it might be worth noting someplace that it was removed and a little detail about that change. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Still waiting on a response to my question... Deactivating the request until the question answered. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

Please change: ' "Jerry's guide to the World Wide Web". ' to: ' "Jerry and David's guide to the World Wide Web". '

as shown on Yahoo's website as referenced by reference 8:

reference 9 should be removed, it is incorrect. Thank you! Alexhaddadnm (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Going to go off the archived version of Yahoo's own timeline and the subsequent cited source for making this change and ignoring the Guardian ref that omits David. Cannolis (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Backronym?

It seems they started with Yahoo then created a backronym to explain it. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

The CEO personally resolved many of the copyright and trademark issues. Yahoo is working on service level agreement and fees as they occur; mainly, the United State Patent Trademark Office fees and fines. 174.65.7.190 (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable, inedpendant, sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Yahoo Aviate

I think Yahoo Aviate made quite a impact among android users. Maybe we should add a section for Aviate? Rimsky.cheng (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, Aviate could be an independent article linking to Yahoo Page. 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimsky.cheng (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

62.201.219.99 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC) magjsk@yahoo.com

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

yahoo contact and false pages

What is the accurate address for the yahoo home page? Is hsrd included in the address? When I go to yahoo, most of the links include the hsrd at the beginning. A few times I have opened Yahoo and it looked slightly different and none of the links included hsrd. I can't always go to this page. I tried to write their help page, but do not receive a answer from Yahoo, but always from the false page. I looked for a telephone number, but was not able to find one. I would like for some help on this topic to be included on Wikipedia, if possible. I would include my email address, but I cannot receive email safely on Yahoo. 172.243.166.114 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo and Alibaba

The Yahoo/Alibaba relationship needs expansion. At present (Dec. 2014), most of Yahoo's shareholder value comes from their partial ownership of Alibaba.[5]. The value of the rest of Yahoo may even be negative.[6] John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

Please delete the Yahoo template from EL as the Yahoo Directory closed down, now redirecting to main page of Yahoo Small Business Directory 71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge at this time. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 17:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Criticism of Yahoo! with Yahoo!. Both articles are treating the same topic (Yahoo) but with two different POVs (Critical and non Critical) demonstrating a classic POV content fork. Merging the two articles will give us an article that is more NPOV and also will help us not give undue weight. The article has 13 sections I propose a merger as follows:

• Section 1 Yahoo! Paid inclusion controversy - This will be moved to History of Yahoo! it happened in 2006 and there is no mention of it in the History article
• Section 2 Adware and spyware - this can go into the section on advertising easily. the wording might need some changing but it will fit there no problem
• Section 3 Work in the People's Republic of China - We can move this section into Internet Censorship in Mainland China Censorship is a topic. Criticism is a point of view ( in this instance )
• Section 4 User-Created Chat rooms, message boards, and profiles - this can all go into the "defunct services" section of Yahoo!
• Section 5 Shark fin controversy - this can go into the criticism section if you can't find a home for it. we could look at making alibaba a part of the yahoo article if there is other information on it that is compelling.
• Section 6 Closing down Geocities - this can be moved into "defunct products"
• Section 7 Yahoo Groups Remodel 2010 - This can be placed in the criticism section
• Section 8 Flickr redesign 2013 - this can go into the flickr page itself, or in yahoo! we have the "Logos and themes" section where a source about user unhappiness could easily fit
• Section 9 - Yahoo! Answers redesign 2013 - same as flickr, it can go in Yahoo! answers or in "Logos and themes" if we get enough content about redesigns we could make an article "Redesigns of Yahoo products and services" which could lead to a "history of redesigns of Yahoo products and services" we can make these contents split by topics very easily
• Section 10 - Yahoo Malware Attack - this can go in general criticism
• Section 11 - See also is just "criticisms of " 3 of Yahoo's competitors. it acts more as a justification for the POV content fork then it does to help the readers. we won't need it
• Section 12 - References ( will be added to these references of course )

My break down shows that this merger will be very easy to accomplish and Wikipedia will be stronger from it. I appreciate any feedback and any assistance with making these moves. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOV. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support I to find this a violation of NPOVBryce Carmony (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  As a proposer, you shouldn't vote – it's clear that you support a merger proposal you've put up. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is no way a POV fork, so if that's the reason for merging it's a bad reason and I object. Let's see some more opinions about this over the next few weeks per WP:MERGEPROP. andy (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'm happy to wait 30 days andy and we can continue to take feedback on it, I do ask that you stop taking down merge headers. the way we get more discussion is by letting people know the discussion is happening.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yahoo! article is already somewhat lengthy, so having separate articles on rather different topics goes by WP:SIZESPLIT, which also wouldn't support more content to be merged into the primary article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Hey Dsimic, I appreciate you weighing in , I have gone ahead and removed the merger request, I agree that a merger isn't the best thing. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2015 (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.

Requested move 4 March 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. The main arguments of the nominator and other supporters cite MOS:TM; however, other editors have pointed out that this guideline says it will have occasional exceptions and that special characters are permitted if it is consistently recognized in reliable sources. WP:COMMONNAME, which is part of a policy, was also cited by the opposition. The support arguments are not very strong, especially considering this same move request was made thrice prior. (non-admin closure) –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Yahoo! → Yahoo – Proprietary punctuation in trademarks should be avoided per MOS:TMRULES. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 22:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC) – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 22:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the previous requests to rename this article. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  For information: the archives show three previous attempts to remove the exclamation point from the title, in 2006, 2008, and 2013. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  True, but the 2013 attempt doesn't hold much water, in my opinion, because one of the two editors opposing actually agreed that the article should be moved, but suggested Yahoo! (company) or Yahoo (company) instead of Yahoo. The other opposing editor used a experiment that relied on Google's ability to search punctuation (which is questionable, as McGeddon pointed out). If we're going to go in a direction opposite the guidelines, we should probably have a better reason than "this is the way it's always been". – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question User:Voidxor, you seem quite sure that this move is required. At my talk page you said repeatedly that the move is required by "policy". I assume this is the item at MOS:TMRULES you are referring to: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love") or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject." Is that the rule you are talking about? I see that page is not described as "policy", but rather as a "guideline" - to be applied with "common sense" and "occasional exceptions". Could you clarify if that is in fact the MOS rule you are applying here, or is there wording at some other page we should consider? --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  That is indeed the guideline I am referring to; sorry if I called it a policy by mistake. It is not, however, a rule as you are now calling it. Also, I certainly never said "required" as you assert. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I see now that "required" was implied ("enforcement of existing policies") rather than stated. I got the word "rule" from the shortcut TMRULES. You also asserted that your proposal was a "routine technical fix" and would be non-controversial; this discussion will determine if that is the case. BTW I personally have no opinion one way or the other about this article's title. My involvement is just to see that WP:CONSENSUS (including its acknowledgement of "policies and guidelines") is respected. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, I would like to reference WP:TITLETM, as it too is relevant to our discussion. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I find the MOS:TMRULES argument generally to be spectacularly weak. However I think that it can be noted that the exclamation mark is mainly shown in the logo and that, while the letters are upright, the punctuation is in italic. Also a search on "yahoo" in the search engine that uses the logo "Yahoo!" and got the following titles in the 10 initial results.
  • Yahoo! from uk.yahoo.com "A new welcome to Yahoo... Sign in to Yahoo... Yahoo News UK & Ireland ... Yahoo News UK
  • My Yahoo from my.yahoo.com
  • Yahoo - login from mail.yahoo.com
  • Yahoo UK & Ireland Finance - FTSE, Stock Exchange, Mortgages ... from uk.finance.yahoo.com
  • Yahoo Mail - Free email with 1 TB of storage from uk.mail.yahoo.com
  • Home | Yahoo Answers from uk.answers.yahoo.com
  • Yahoo from yahoo.tumblr.com
  • Yahoo Movies UK: Latest Film News, Exclusives & Trailers from uk.yahoo.com/movies

I do not see that the company necessarily uses "Yahoo!" as a consistently applied trademark but just as an occasionally applied graphical feature as in the logo. However I would still be happy for Yahoo! to remain as the title for the sake of disambiguation. GregKaye 09:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation (if needed; as is Yahoo redirects here and doesn't have a disambig) could be achieved by moving the article to Yahoo (company) or the like. I'd rather keep this discussion about whether there should be an exclamation point in the name. If the consensus is that there shouldn't be, then the parenthetical disambiguation can certainly be a different discussion. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello! Well, it's a tough one, and it reminds me to the 3DNow! article. The exclamation mark in "Yahoo!" logo might be seen somewhat similarly as the colors in Google's logo – they're both there when it's all about the logo, but they're left out almost always in various texts. Though, "3DNow!" is different to some extent, as it seemingly keeps the exclamation mark in various texts. All that might lead to a slightly inconsistent application of our guidelines, as I might vote for removing "!" in "Yahoo", but would prefer to see "!" as part of "3DNow!". Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The exclamation mark is hardly a special character, a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject, and in a way, it is pronounced. Therefore, it is not required by MOS:TMRULES. tr (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:TMRULES/WP:TITLETM. A flat "Yahoo" seems to be "demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark": in the first ten pages of Google News results I only found one Forbes article that used "Yahoo!" throughout and a Telegraph article that said "exclamation mark and all" as an aside after the second usage and then went back to "Yahoo"; everything else just uses "Yahoo". Even Yahoo's own about page and press releases don't seem to use the exclamation mark any more. Given that we don't even have an article for "yahoo" as a noun or interjection, I don't think we need the punctuation as a disambiguator. --McGeddon (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Where are people getting "significant majority of reliable sources" and a COMMONNAME "like a knife through butter" from, out of interest? A simple Google web search for "yahoo are" returns only 13 "Yahoo! are" in the first 100 results; the same on Google News returns 11 instances in 100 results. The large majority of secondary sources and general web users don't seem to use the punctuation. --McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose- MOS:TM is frequently overruled in cases like the current one; WP:COMMONNAME runs straight through it like a knife through butter. Red Slash 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Support - I stand by my previous rationale, but I actually don't see it applying here as the true commonest name, which means we should go for the least adorned name we can. Red Slash 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  That would be true. But as GregKaye pointed out, even Yahoo mostly omits the exclamation point in text. It appears to be more of a logo stylization these days. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  and I guess this just goes to show how weak editors consider guidelines like MOS:TMRULES and WP:TITLETM to be. GregKaye 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, you're right, GregKaye. Were you here for the Talk:Deadmau5 chronicles? Check through that pages four or five consecutive move discussions, which eventually ended in a flood of consensus against applying MOS:TM to a crystal-clear example of where MOS:TM says it should be applied. I filed an RfC here on the talk page with scads of text poured out, but was frustrated on every side. MOS:TM's overseers refused to allow consensus elsewhere to influence that guideline, and consensuses since have frequently developed against it since. Not always, of course; not even most of the time. But frequently. Red Slash 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Red Slash Lol, its almost enough to tarnish the good name of Mos(s). enjoy! GregKaye 20:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT I'm not seeing any valid reason for deletion merging RENAMING, If Yahoo! use it and the sources are using it then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't use it, Also WP:COMMONSENSE should override MOS. –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Nobody is proposing deletion; this is a move discussion. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Derp meant "merging" , Have AFD on the brain yet again . –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Nope, it's not about merging either. It's about renaming this article from "Yahoo!" to "Yahoo". Get some rest. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  MelanieN the "Get some rest" comment was gratuitous IMO. sry. GregKaye 23:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Davey is a friend; I was just teasing him. I should know by now that Wikipedia has no sense of humor. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Umm Greg.... Melanie was joking you know ..... Me & Melanie are friends plus I love the banter so all's good in the hood :) –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Losing the plot here seriously ... No wait I lost the plot a long time ago !, Jokes aside It's a lack of sleep unfortunately so sorry about that. –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - When I Googled "Yahoo", the ! was not in the companies name, even thought it's in the logo. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment So long as we have both a title and a redir from the other version (whichever way - I personally don't care...), does it matter very much? The company uses both, apparently. While everyone is counting angels discussing this, how about Yahoo Search which redirects the opposite way to Yahoo! and any other Yahoo!s that belong to them and have articles? Peridon (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Nope, it's the other way around: Yahoo! Search redirects to Yahoo Search. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 19:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is a fairly well-known quirk that's part of the title. It IS dropped sometimes but usually in a more specific context: "Yahoo! the company announced changes to Yahoo Search today", etc. This is a case where it'd be inaccurate to leave off the exclamation mark from the main page on the company but fine to remove it elsewhere. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is an important part of the disambiguation from yahoo, which IMO should be the DAB, as I don't think that the internet content provider qualifies as the primary meaning although it's probably the most prominent meaning (even that may be in doubt). Agree that, at the risk of instruction creep, this example probably deserves some tweaks to guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  If we were to create a disambiguation page at Yahoo (while that's not what this discussion is about, you're not the first to suggest it), shouldn't we move this article to Yahoo (company) to disambiguate while complying with MOS:TM? Also, would you mind elaborating on which guidelines you feel deserve tweaks. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  That would be a possibility, but I think that the exclamation mark is sufficiently commonly used to be a preferable disambiguator, so I'd leave it as is. The guidelines that IMO need a tweak are exactly those that suggest that we should do something else, I'm guessing MOS:TM is one from your comment. I'll look at the details when I get time. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  So you're surmising that the guidelines need be changed without even having read them? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the individual arguments in a debate before voting. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's guidelines and policies derive from years of debate leading to a consensus. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  Agree that Wikipedia's guidelines and policies derive from years of debate leading to a consensus. Please bear in mind that consensus can change. No, I am quite familiar with the contents of these guidelines, and I hope that you are equally familiar with the policy I just quoted. My need to guess is just that I don't want to put words into your mouth, even inadvertently. Perhaps you should be a little more generous in your assumptions as to other people's levels of research, particularly when they disagree with you. Andrewa (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  I didn't assume that you hadn't read the pertinent policies; you said as much: "The guidelines that IMO need a tweak are exactly those that suggest that we should do something else, I'm guessing MOS:TM is one from your comment. I'll look at the details when I get time." Sorry if I misread. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 19:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How could Yahoo Screen be added?

Hello!

I am new to wikipedia: please

How would a person go about adding Yahoo Screen to the page? There are three shows running on Yahoo Screen: Community, Sin City Saints, and Other Space.

Thank you so much for your kind attention and help!

Violincatherine (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Violincatherine: Welcome to Wikipedia! You can learn about editing Wikipedia by clicking here. As a new editor, you should familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's Policies, particularly Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability. Once you have done so, feel free to edit any page by clicking the "Edit" button while reading the page. If you don't feel comfortable with the normal editor, you can try editing with the VisualEditor. If you have any other questions feel free to ask in the same way you did here, visit the help desk or ask on IRC at webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help for a quicker answer. PhantomTech (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

Please check the following line in the article Yahoo!. It is in the initial paragraph.

According to third-party web analytics providers, Alexa and SimilarWeb, Yahoo! is the highest-read news and media website, with over 7 billion readers per month, being the fourth most visited website globally, as of June 2015.

Please rectify 7 billion readers part.

Regards. Tspin105 (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bazj (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

121.54.32.161 (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 05:21, 14 (UTC)

Readers per month

Our intro says that Yahoo has 7 billion readers per month. The world's total population is 7.3 billion. Somehow I find it hard to believe that 7 billion of them are on Yahoo, for reasons that probably don't need to be elucidated here. What is this statistic actually supposed to be saying? 7 billion page views? N^oformation ^Talk 21:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016

Line to add to the expansion paragraph:

In July 2013 Yahoo! adquired Xobni for more than $60 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.40.189 (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Can someone add the Start date and age template from the current "{Start date|1994|1}" and "{Start date|1995|3}" to {Start date and age|1994|01} and {Start date and age|1995|03|02} respectively to correspond to Yahoo!'s official formation? 173.73.242.76 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2016

Can someone change the Start date and age template from the current {Start date and age|1995|3} to {Start date and age|1995|3|2} to correspond to Yahoo!'s official corporation date, which is March 2, 1995?

And could somebody also change "March 1, 1995" to "March 2, 1995" in the sentence, "Yahoo was founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo in January 1994 and was incorporated on March 1, 1995. 173.73.242.76 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Yahoo/Verizon Acquisition

Isn't this something that should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.29.37.200 (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone added it but shouldn't the history/recent developments section be updated as well? This page seems in need of a rewrite or significant edits. -KaJunl (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent developments section

This section doesn't seem to have enough coverage on the Alibaba holdings as would be appropriate given media coverage on trying to spin it off etc. -KaJunl (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

the text below is copied from the section "Privacy" - it should also be mentioned as a Recent Development

On September 2016, it was reported that data from at least 500 million Yahoo accounts was stolen in 2014.[121]

In October 2016, Reuters reported that in 2015, Yahoo! created a software to search their customers e-mail at the request of NSA or FBI.[122] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:41A9:C900:51EB:36B2:EC54:A77D (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

Please remove "valuew" because it is unnessecary and is not needed. It is at the top line with "valuew

This page is about the corporation. For the search engine, see Yahoo! Search. For other uses, see Yahoo (disambiguation).

". Please change it to just "

This page is about the corporation. For the search engine, see Yahoo! Search. For other uses, see Yahoo (disambiguation).

". Thank you.

Gee Transit (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 23:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Rebranding as Altaba?

It looks like Yahoo's leftovers after the Verizon sale will be called Altaba, but where will this lead this article to?

So far it hasn't been exactly clear what will happen to the 'Yahoo!' name and brand. I'm certain it will still exist but rather the question is, who will own it, Verizon or Altaba? I believe in both cases this article should stay as 'Yahoo!', but if Verizon owns the brand then a separate article for Altaba should be created. If Altaba will own it things should stay as they are, as we would be considering Altaba as simply the 'legal name' of the Yahoo! brand. --Pincerr (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Yahoo! → Yahoo – The exclamation mark, even though still used in the logo, is no longer used at all on the Yahoo website as part of the brand name (i.e. wherever Yahoo is mentioned on the website in typing, as well as in Yahoo Mail (previously Yahoo! Mail), Yahoo Groups (previously Yahoo! Groups), Yahoo Answers, etc. Mamdu (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• This has been discussed four times in the past. I won't comment on whether or not this move is valid or not, but if there has been a move discussion (no less four) in the past, then it is not going to be an uncontroversial move. SkyWarrior 01:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Mamdu and SkyWarrior: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as it stands because the sub articles are titled "Yahoo! X": for example, Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Answers. A proper RM should list those articles, for WP:CONSISTENCY. The exclamation mark is still in the logo on the website, which is the most prominent use anyway. Laurdecl ^talk 09:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the previous RMs as well as per COMMONNAME - The Terms of service on their website indicate they still use the exclamation mark and as noted above sub articles are also using the exclamation mark. –Davey2010^Talk 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Also still used on Yahoo! Japan ( [7] ) which largely still has the early 2000s Yahoo! .com page layout. CaribDigita (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  Note that Yahoo! Japan is a seperate company, although Yahoo! owns a minority stake. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support That other articles on Wikipedia haven't updated is not a good enough reason not to update this one. Mamdu shouldn't have to file a separate move request if we can come to an agreement here that getting rid of the ! is necessary for this page. Updating to reflect the current reality trumps consistency across articles. That they use a ! in their logo is not sufficient cause to keep it as title. All that means is that the logo, not necessarily the name of the company, has a ! in it. That the terms of service say that "Yahoo" means Yahoo! EMEA Limited only tells us that they registered the company back when their branding was different. That one subsidiary keeps the ! does not mean we shouldn't update the parent company's page. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 08:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if the company made a press release that said the ! is removed from its name, the commonly known name is Yahoo!.--Frmorrison (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The decorative punctuation mark has always been an annoyance, and such things are discouraged by Wikipedia MOS guidelines. Now that the company itself has dropped it, it should be very clear that the punctuation mark is not used consistently in the naming, and therefore that it should be removed from the article title. Mulligatawny (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• followup: it's not a matter of how it feels, it's a matter of facts. This is an encyclopedia after all, and encyclopedias give facts, not feelings. The name of the website has changed to "Yahoo" wherever it's written on any of their websites, therefore we should reflect this change here, for factual purposes that's all. And same goes for any other article here that includes the Yahoo brand name, like Yahoo Groups, Yahoo Answers, Yahoo Mail, etc. As for Yahoo! Japan, it is indeed a separate company and their branding still has the exclamation point, so it should remain in their specific case (the "Yahoo! Japan" Wikipedia article). It's all about facts, that's all. Mamdu (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  Mamdu, I don't think it's considered good form to make a bolded recommendation on a request you initiated. It may mislead if someone does not pay close attention to signatures. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 04:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  Altercari - I'm just following up. Not meaning to mislead. That's why I added my signature. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though. I removed the bolding. Mamdu (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Unless it can be established by secondary sources that this is the new WP:COMMONNAME, it should stay at its current name. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Mere seconds of searching at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Guardian and others show that the exclamation point is not used by reliable sources at this time. oknazevad (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose oh no, not this again. feminist 10:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support (1) From Yahoo's own home page https://uk.yahoo.com/?p=us this footer: "By using Yahoo you agree that Yahoo and partners may use cookies for personalisation and other purposes." No screechmark. And of course none in the URL either. (2) From https://policies.yahoo.com/ie/en/yahoo/privacy/index.htm -- the first sentence: "Welcome to the Yahoo Privacy Centre--take a look around. You'll learn how Yahoo treats your personal information, as well as ways to control your preferences and settings. As always, Yahoo is committed to gaining your trust." No screechmark. (3) From Wikipedia Manual of Style, under Trademarks: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration"; "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." Standard English text does not have exclamation mark in middle of a sentence. High time to stop having to shout every time this company is mentioned. JamesD'Alexander (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)JamesD'Alexander

• Inregards to point 1, 2 and 3, Point 1: As far as I can see there is no footer on any Yahoo page (I'm simply getting endless scrolling on every Yahoo page), Browser URLs cannot physically contain exclamation marks (! is encoded as "%21" on browser URLs and no one is going to search for "yahoo%21.co.uk"])

Point 2 - https://policies.yahoo.com/ie/en/yahoo/privacy/index.htm does mention the exclamation mark 3 times which I'll quote here: ""Yahoo” means Yahoo! EMEA Limited which operates within and is subject to Irish data protection law. However, if you are a Sky " and "Yahoo! EMEA Limited 5-7 Point Village North Wall Quay, Dublin 1 Ireland" (emphasis mine),

Point 3 - We have many articles with the exclamation on the end (Shout! Shout! (Knock Yourself Out), Bomb the Music Industry!, Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!!, Oklahoma! and Mamma Mia!),

Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose From the latest 10-Q, Yahoo! Inc. is still the company's name in its corporate charter. Of course, we will have to have another discussion when the company changes its name to Altaba. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• There will be no need to rename for Altaba, Yahoo will continue to exist. Altaba will be a new company. Gusthes (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support https://about.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Inc. is a legal name. The company may use a different trade name, and that's what Yahoo does now. Wikipedia is not a legal document, the title of the article should (when possible) reflect the business name of the companyand not the legal name. Commercially Yahoo no longer uses the exclamation. It is not possible to read the exclamation in any site of Yahoo, the exclamation only appears in legal documents. Gusthes (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Laurdecl's comments.LM2000 (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. Nickag989^talk 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Most reliable sources do not include the exclamation mark. Meatsgains (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Davey2010. –Buffaboy ^talk 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The common name has not changed. Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the previous RMs. Brain (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yahoo! is the right title for the article, noting that internal and external links to Yahoo will work just fine, noting that terminal punctuation is often stripped from urls. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

107.77.215.124 (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Tense error: Yahoo is not yet bankrupt. Please change all past tenses to present tenses until June 16 2017, which will be renamed Altaba.

Done Made edits to reflect Yahoo Inc's continued existence. Gfcvoice (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Acquisition of some of Yahoo Inc's internet assets by Verizon

This article is about the company formerly known as Yahoo! Inc.

At about 11:42:06am on June 16, the company changed its name from Yahoo! Inc to Altaba Inc.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312517205499/0001193125-17-205499-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312517205499/d372379d8k.htm

The stock of the company is currently traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol YHOO

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/quotes/yhoo/view/v1

On Monday June 19, the stock will change its symbol to AABA.

https://investor.yahoo.net/
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170613005941/en/Yahoo-Completes-Sale-Operating-Business-Company-Re-Named

Gfcvoice (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

At present Yahoo is trading under "Yahoo" so at present all of these changes are more or less unsourced and IMHO unnecessary, Best wait until they change names and all that (if it happens!). –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what you have written. The company changed its name earlier today, as shown in the source provided above. Your claim that the changes I made are unsourced is incorrect - please refer to the sources above. You have not explained why the changes are "IMHO unnecessary". (What does "IMHO" mean?) The reason why the changes are "necessary" is that they provide a truthful depiction of the company, rather than the current incorrect statements. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Gfcvoice IMHO = "In my humble opinion". YborCityJohn (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

When I go to http://uk.yahoo.com/ there is nothing on that homepage that says "Altaba" so whilst they may have internally renamed we should wait until they've externally renamed or atleast there's more reliable sources confirming this, IMHO = In my honest opinion, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a simple explanation for that - the Yahoo! Internet assets have been purchased by Verizon's Oath unit, and will retain the Yahoo! brand name. There will be no "external renaming". Regarding sourcing - the name change has been discussed for months (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=yahoo+change+name+to+altaba). Today's completion of that renaming is merely the completion of an action that was announced (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170613005941/en/Yahoo-Completes-Sale-Operating-Business-Company-Re-Named) and reported upon (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=yahoo+change+name+to+altaba) earlier this week. There are several other sources in the article that report on this - I'll just add them (again) in the first sentence as sources for the company name.

Regardless of the above - this article is about Yahoo! Inc, which is now called Altaba Inc. The details of what is on the Yahoo! UK homepage (or any other Yahoo! web page) is irrelevant. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Reinstatement of outdated information about company

Fuhghettaboutit, I note that you reinstated various information about the company that is outdated. Are you aware of the transaction that took place on June 13 and the changes that this involved? http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170613005941/en/Yahoo-Completes-Sale-Operating-Business-Company-Re-Named Gfcvoice (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course I did. You apparently did not read my edit summary. I simply disagree with you. Please also note my last edit summary referring to the three revert rule.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Fork proposal

I think the article needs to be forked.

One, under "Altaba", can focus on the business concern, which no longer owns yahoo.com, but is a large publicly-listed company and is notable. The other, under "Yahoo" describes yahoo.com, which is an Alexa top-10 site and is notable.

Should the new page be Altaba or Altaba, Inc. ? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea Power~enwiki. We only use "Inc." "Corp." ltd", etc. for natural disambiguation where the base name is shared by another existing Wikipedia article, or there's a confusingly similar name (and neither is the primary topic), or where the corporate designation is near invariably used as part of the common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). So, Altaba. As for the direction of the splitting, I don't know that it needs it be said, but this title, with its long history should be for Yahoo!, and the recently added Altaba content should be split/merged to a new location (with mandatory copyright attribution provided of course).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not certain if you mean "revision history" or the section of the document marked "History", but I would agree with keeping both here. I'll create a new Altaba page tomorrow, if somebody else wants to please go ahead. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo

I see Drudge is listed in Wiki as a right wing news site. Why don't you have Yahoo listed as a left wing organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.140.56 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Privacy of e-mails

In spring 2018, Oath/Yahoo posted new policy etc., including a statement that by agreeing to continue using the service, the user allowed reading of e-mails for marketing and other purposes " If you have an existing Yahoo or AOL account, you will need to agree to this Privacy Policy. If you have not yet agreed to this Privacy Policy, the legacy Yahoo Privacy Policy or legacy Oath Privacy Policy (for AOL) still apply to your account." https://policies.oath.com/us/en/oath/privacy/index.html This means that, i.a., people with Yahoo accounts who send emails to Yahoo email accounts have their emails also subject to Yahoo's data analysis. Some of this may be opted out of https://policies.oath.com/us/en/oath/privacy/controls/index.html (but sometimes at the expense of another requirement, such as cookies0. Kdammers (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok so I'm confused about who exactly the new parent company is, Altaba vs. Oath

Press releases say the new company name is Oath (http://www.oath.com/) but other Wikipedian are listing Altaba (http://www.altaba.com which btw redirects back to Yahoo! Investor Relations). So which is correct Altaba or Oath? YborCityJohn (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo (the website) is now owned by Verizon under Oath. Yahoo (the stock) is now called Altaba, but is otherwise un-affected by this deal. Altaba appears to primarily be a US-traded holding company for Alibaba stock at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

is Yahoo still an entity or is it defunt shouldn't pass tense was be used in the first line, not is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.218.94 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe Altaba also holds shares in the separate Yahoo! Japan company. CaribDigita (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018

77.31.101.217 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019

"Despite its decline from prominence, Yahoo! domain websites are still one of the most popular, ranking 10th in the world according to the Alexa rankings as of October 2019."

Several things can't really be one of anything, because they're more than one. Please change it to "still among the most popular" 2601:5C6:8080:100:99F3:8AEC:F35E:C715 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

PS, in the history section, please link "directory of other websites" to the web directory article. 2601:5C6:8080:100:99F3:8AEC:F35E:C715 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Yahoo Partial Screenshot 2019.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

{{IncreaseNegative}}

I think Alexa Rank usually gives Increase Negative, not positive. Decrease Positif when Decrease — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.193.137.149 (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The "decline" chapter is poorly written and has mistakes

The beginning of the chapter gives misleading information on the stock price.

The price did not peak at 35 usd in Nov 2013, it continued up till 41 in January 2014 and 52 in Nov 2014. The sources don't mention discussing Mayer's position and the stock price reacting positively to that.

The graps can be found here: https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/AABA

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaherpio (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• A valid point, shows that the source is wrong. Perhaps a note needs to be added. Feel free to improve. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The !

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Duplicate concurrent discussion. See the formalized move proposal below. – voidxor 21:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The ! is never used anymore except on the logo. All over *.yahoo.com, Yahoo is just Yahoo now. Not once with an exclamation mark. Only on the logo. I don't see why we still have the ! on here although the company itself stopped using it in its typed brand name. I suggest the page be moved to "Yahoo". On mail.yahoo.com it says "Sign in to Yahoo Mail". On answers.yahoo.com, the title says "Home | Yahoo Answers". On news.yahoo.com, the title says "Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines". Et cetera. -MatthewS. (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my previous requested move. I feel the oppose argument was week then, and even more so now that Yahoo appears to be phasing out the exclamation point everywhere but their logo, which is simply a throwback to the Yahoo yodel ad campaign in the nineties. To summarize my point back in 2015, I don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME contradicts MOS:TMRULES at all. The former says to use the most common name for subjects with more than one (which is not the issue here); the latter says to omit trademark stylization like the exclamation point. – voidxor 02:46, 1 January 2020 (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.

Proposed move Yahoo! → Yahoo

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 to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I am proposing to move Yahoo! to Yahoo, i.e., omitting the exclamation mark. The reason has been stated above by MatthewS. and Voidxor. I am also aware of past discussions, the last one taking place in 2017. However, a lot has changed since and the current owners have removed the exclamation mark from virtually everywhere on their website except the logotype. So I believe a new discussion is warranted.

Thank you to indicate your support or oppose below. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC))

• Oppose This is arguably a case of WP:SMALLDETAILS as I personally believe Yahoo (Gulliver's Travels) should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the non-exclamation-point version of the word, being the original source of the word itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Page views are overwhelmingly on Yahoo!'s side here [8], more than 32 times more viewed than the Guliver's in the past 5 years! The very same article for Yahoo! clarfies that they didn't take the name from Guliver's too ("The word "yahoo" is a backronym for "Yet Another Hierarchically Organized Oracle" or "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle"). I see it as a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and we should respect the reader's interests. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  I also agree with everything that Voidxor has said above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  That makes no sense unless you also suggest moving Apple Inc. to Apple too, just because it's so popular, and moving Apple to Apple (fruit). This is the same situation. Obviously they based their name on the slang word "yahoo", but also made it an acronym - the claim that it is unrelated to the word is absurd._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, oppose, oppose come on. As ZXCVBNM says. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  You can do better than just "come on". The closer of this should disregard this vote as an absence of any argument. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  You are correct; votes without substance can be discarded per WP:NHC, especially if they contradict established policy. – voidxor 21:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  Such empty votes are unfortunately typical of this user [9][10][11][12][13][14] despite a long edit history on Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Kashmiri (talk · contribs) and why do you think that is? But I am fed up with the kind guideline defying nonsense behind this proposal and the dozens of similar ones made each month. I have my reasons which are grounded in policy and frankly who are you to demand that I expend my bytes talking down this kind of move? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  And I see it's your proposal. So tell me, are you aware of what a Yahoo with no exclamation mark is? Have you done a search in Gbooks of Yahoo without the exclamation mark? No? Would you like to do one now please? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support (copying my vote from yesterday's discussion) per my previous requested move. I feel the oppose argument was week then, and even more so now that Yahoo appears to be phasing out the exclamation point everywhere but their logo, which is simply a throwback to the Yahoo yodel ad campaign in the nineties. To summarize my point back in 2015, I don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME contradicts MOS:TMRULES at all. The former says to use the most common name for subjects with more than one (which is not the issue here); the latter says to omit trademark stylization like the exclamation point. – voidxor 20:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The exclamation point isn't used on their main site, their social media, and in the majority of sources that write about Yahoo. It doesn't seem like it exists anywhere prominently but the logo, which makes it a stylization that can be safely dropped. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I totally support. I said it more than once over the last God knows how long that the exclamation point is no longer in the official brand name other than the logo. MatthewS. (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Ortizesp: @Nohomersryan: @MatthewS.: can you please comment on this. What do these ! mean in the running text of these books? Is it that these books are just old? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Just because less formal grammar appears in publications is not a reason to copy it on this encyclopedia. See WP:COMMONSTYLE. – voidxor 21:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Have "Yahoo" point to Yahoo (disambiguation). "Yahoo! Japan" still exists as separate company. Also at the rate Yahoo! (US) is shrinking, it probably won't be around in another few years or so. "WP:CrystalBall" I know. But Yahoo! US is no more important than Yahoo! Japan in the eyes of Wikipedia, so it should goto the Disambiguation page. CaribDigita (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the company's name has been Yahoo Japan Corporation[15] since 2015. Three months ago it was again renamed to Z Holdings Corporation[16]. Yahoo! Japan is now only a brand. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word "yahoo" predates the company and has many more meanings. The company itself uses the styling "Yahoo!". JIP | Talk 11:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if the company has deaccentuated the exclamation point, it is a unique identifier. You are simply messing with a machine that works for no predominant or persuasive reason. I suggest the logo makes for a clearer connection and picture. Reader will find it better this way. This is not about policy (you want a policy-based argument), but it is a matter of fact, and it is about being able to find the article. But if you move it, then for God's sake put in a redirect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Kashmiri is right. In common parlance, the company's name is almost always written without an exclamation mark. WP:COMMONNAME certainly gives us good cause to make this change. IvoryTower123 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The legal name of the company had the exclamation point throughout its history using the name, as shown in their SEC filing here, many others. For companies we follow the official corporate name, minus any "Inc.", "Ltd.", "plc", similar, (see The Coca-Cola Company, The Travelers Companies, others) over WP:COMMONNAME, and should here too. In addition, now that the company is no longer, the brand still uses the exclamation point (see here, here, others). UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposes above. The name commonly includes the exclamation mark in both official usage and in many other sources, and it's correct to include it. However, I also oppose any suggestion that this is not the primary topic for Yahoo, and that should certainly continue to redirect to Yahoo!.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

FRP Bypass APK

FRP Bypass APK Download All Samsung Oppo Lenovo Huawei FRP Bypass — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalikShahidAkhtar (talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New CEO after Mayer

In the History section, I was expecting information about the new CEO after Mayer resigned in 2017 (there is already somewhat detailed information about at least 4 CEOs).

--Mortense (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

The sentence containing "dismissed him" is partly incomprehensible.

--Mortense (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:BOLD — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aabaco - Yahoo! Small Business

A search of this Article for "Aabaco" yields nothing. Why? Charles Juvon (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Yahoo! Korea into Yahoo!

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to merge. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

---

I don't see much additional information here to support a standalone article. Good to enough to merge. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support there's not enough content to justify a stand-alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Mostly a list of services. We do not need such a list by country. Huge update problems without added value. The content, btw, is a takeoff on List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services but the redirect should be as suggested by nom. gidonb (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Verizon Media - Apollo Global Management have successfully stuck a deal, and the parent company has now changed from Verizon to Apollo Jkbbumblebee (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

The Criticism section of this article is fully 2/3 of its current content, which seems to run well afoul of WP:UNDUE. It needs to be trimmed way down to the most notable examples instead of the laundry list of minor grievances currently there. ♟♙ (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll give people about a week to respond and thereafter I'll just start boldly editing most of the stuff out. ♟♙ (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with trimming it down. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Is yahoo a web services provider ?

I think they are a news media company that edits stories to spin a narrative. Not allowing free speech and picking and choosing what you read makes them a tabloid news company with no ability for its readers to challenge their narrative PAPERS PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4500:CB00:380C:E7FC:9ECE:5C3E (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Updates in relation to spinoff

There’s a bunch of stuff in the info box (subsidiary, parent company, etc) that is outdated post the now completed semi-acquisition by Apollo. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/09/02/apollo-verizon-yahoo-name/1841630594905/

I have never gotten the hang of info boxes or I’d just fix, but wanted to ping others. CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge Yahoo Australia, Maktoob and YahooXtra

The following discussion 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.

---

These are international variants of Yahoo that are mainly just discontinued joint ventures and acquisitions. All they really need is a few sentences on the main Yahoo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyanbox782 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the other articles are unnecessary and should be merged.
• Support Indeed articles should be merged as they are international versions. DownTownRich (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose both, as both have independent histories and were collaborative ventures with respective national companies. Both pages are independently referenced, so notability isn't a concern. The Yahoo! Australia is extensively linked in article space and serves as a useful standalone for readers. So, the current structure is fine. talk:Klbrain (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree about the few sentences on the main page part, but like Klbrain said, they have independent histories, and so they deserve their own article, although a mention on the main Yahoo page could be a solid idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:C300:4470:710C:2147:A9DE:5E20 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per talk:Klbrain. Emphrase (talk) 06:40, 23 January 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.

Proposed Chief Executive Officers update

Hi editors! My name is Spencer. Since I work for Yahoo, I am posting suggestions for this article here so that other editors can review. The "Chief Executive Officers" subsection is missing the three most recent CEOs who have led Yahoo.

I wrote something that could be added to the top of the existing subsection. Let me know what you think!

Eleven chief executives and interim leaders have led the Yahoo companies since 1995. They are:

• Jim Lanzone, CEO of Yahoo Inc. (2021–present)
• Guru Gowrappan, CEO of Oath Inc., Verizon Media, and Yahoo (2018–2021)
• Tim Armstrong, CEO of Oath Inc. (2017–2018)

References

Thanks for your help! Spencer at Yahoo (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Implemented. ––FormalDude talk 08:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Thanks for implementing! I will be posting additional requests for updates over the next few weeks. If you are interested in reviewing other requests for this article, I can ping you to review. 170.250.187.180 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, please feel free to ping me for future requests. ––FormalDude talk 23:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Partnerships and sponsorships

Yahoo has established notable partnerships and sponsorships that are not included in the article. In fact, I was surprised to see the most current sponsorship listed is from 2012. There are numerous other partnerships that could potentially be added to this article, citing independent sources. These include collaborations with BetMGM, Levi Stadium, Pramac Racing, NBC Sports Group, Conde Nast, NBA, NFL, WWE, ABC News, CNBC, Paley Center for Media, Rebecca Minkoff and New York Fashion Week to name a few.

Since Yahoo's partners have grown since 2012, would an editor be willing to update this section and include the word "partnership" in the section heading? I broke down the partnerships and sponsorships below in chronological order and put together some sourcing to support.

Partnerships and sponsorships

NBC Sports Group aligned with Yahoo Sports in 2012 with content and program offerings on mobile and desktop platforms.

Yahoo announced television video partnerships in 2013 with Condé Nast, WWE, ABC NEWS, and CNBC. Yahoo entered into a 10-year collaboration in 2014, as a founding partner of Levi's Stadium, home of the San Francisco 49ers.

The National Basketball Association partnered with Yahoo Sports to stream games, offer virtual and augmented-reality fan experiences, and in 2018 NBA League Pass. Yahoo Sportsbook launched in November 2019, a collaboration with BetMGM.

Buzzfeed acquired HuffPost from Yahoo in November 2020, in a stock deal with Yahoo as a minority shareholder. The NFL partnered with Yahoo in 2020, to introduce a new "Watch Together" function on the Yahoo Sports app for interactive co-viewing through a synchronized livestream of local and primetime NFL games. The Paley Center for Media collaborated with Verizon Media to exclusively stream programs on Yahoo platforms beginning in 2020.

Yahoo became the main sponsor for the PRAMAC Racing team and the first title sponsor for the 2021 ESport/MotoGP Championship season. Yahoo, the official partner for the September 2021 New York Fashion Week event also unveiled sponsorship for the Rebecca Minkoff collection via a NFT space. In September 2021, it was announced that Yahoo partnered with Shopify, connecting the e-commerce merchants on Yahoo Finance, AOL and elsewhere.

@FormalDude and DatraxMada: Are you interested in reviewing? A reminder that I have a COI, so I am posting the request to the talk page. Thanks for your help! Spencer at Yahoo (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Approved. Minor adjustments for wording and I also removed the Inquisitr source per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Inquisitr. ––FormalDude talk 03:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Thanks for your help! Spencer at Yahoo (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)