Talk:Yahoo

"Y@h00!" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Y@h00! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Y@h00! until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

157.50.16.153 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

AGAJGP

 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. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"Web services provider"

The linked article on web services does not remotely describe what Yahoo is or ever was. Yahoo is an online news, information and advertising platform. According to its press release boilerplate: "Yahoo serves as a trusted guide for hundreds of millions of people globally, helping them achieve their goals online / Yahoo Advertising offers omnichannel solutions and powerful data" 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could make it clearer. Maybe someone else could take a look. 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What Shadow meant was that you should write (in this exact format): "Change [original text in article] to [new text] because [your reason]", and also providing reliable sources to back up your claims. I'm guessing you want a more detailed description of Yahoo in the lead section? If that's the case, please read WP:SUMMARY and MOS:LEAD. The lead section, especially the first sentence, should only briefly describe the defining characteristics of the subject. Liu1126 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for it to be more detailed. I'm asking for it to be minimally accurate. Secondary-source answers to "what is Yahoo's business?" are hard to come by because it's such a well-established brand as to require no introduction. Meanwhile, the current incorrect description has no source either. While Yahoo may indeed provide web services that companies use to purchase ad placements, describing its business that way is like describing Walmart as a logistics firm rather than a retailer. 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The point being made is that you are using Wikipeida's Edit Request procedure. (as necessary for an unconfirmed user and a semi-protected page) As such, your request MUST be in the form outlined above by Liu1126 - "Please change these exact words in the article to these exact other words as supported by this specific reference." If it isn't, the procedure is to not act on your request. PianoDan (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not required to use any specific form. I am only required to communicate the change clearly. I have indicated what wording should be changed, and to what it should be changed to. The opening sentence is fundamentally inaccurate as to what business Yahoo is in, and it is unhelpful to delay the point as if this were a court of law where exact forms must be followed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, etc. 2601:642:4600:BE10:4859:BD9C:88BC:D3ED (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: You are not required under threat of punitive action to follow the process as described in WP:EDITXY, but as mentioned by 2 other editors the process is then that any edit may decline your edit request - as I am doing now - as not actioned.

This is not a binding denial, in that your concern - that the linked article on web services does not remotely describe what Yahoo is or ever was - cannot be addressed . Any editor is free to address such concern. This "denial" simply means your request will be removed from the queue of requested edits. You may not add this request back into the queue unless you address concerns in the original denial or are requesting a different change. Such action may be interpreted as disruptive and may result in editors requesting administrator review.

This appears bureaucratic, and to a degree it is, but all this process does is place upon you the same burden of effort that would exist if you were able to edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

Request change:

"Previously, the company has discontinued China Yahoo! Mail on August 20, 2013"

to:

"Previously, the company had discontinued China Yahoo! Mail on August 20, 2013"

(fix incorrect tense) 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:6C60:9A06:95F:9D95 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done "Previously, the company discontinued China Yahoo! Mail..." sounded even less awkward to me, so I did it that way. PianoDan (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2024

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: moved. Consensus to move. While some editors objected to a subset of the moves in addition to those who objected generally, these objections were insufficiently supported, either by vote count or by weight of policy, to prevent a consensus from forming here.

Editors may attempt a bold move of articles that were not covered by this RM but do use Yahoo!; if disputed a new RM should be opened.

Note that due to the number of moves required it may take some time to implement them.(closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Yahoo! → Yahoo
• Criticism of Yahoo! → Criticism of Yahoo
• Yahoo! data breaches → Yahoo data breaches
• History of Yahoo! → History of Yahoo
• Yahoo! litigation → Yahoo litigation
• Timeline of Yahoo! → Timeline of Yahoo
• List of corporate directors of Yahoo! → List of corporate directors of Yahoo
• List of mergers and acquisitions by Yahoo! → List of mergers and acquisitions by Yahoo
• List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services → List of Yahoo-owned sites and services
• Yahoo! Answers → Yahoo Answers
• Yahoo! Assistant → Yahoo Assistant
• Yahoo! Auctions → Yahoo Auctions
• Yahoo! Australia → Yahoo Australia
• Yahoo! Axis → Yahoo Axis
• Yahoo! Briefcase → Yahoo Briefcase
• Yahoo! Buzz → Yahoo Buzz
• Yahoo! Calendar → Yahoo Calendar
• Yahoo! Consumer group → Yahoo Consumer group
• Yahoo! Cricket → Yahoo Cricket
• Yahoo! Directory → Yahoo Directory
• Yahoo! Finance → Yahoo Finance
• Yahoo! Gallery → Yahoo Gallery
• Yahoo! Games → Yahoo Games
• Yahoo! Go → Yahoo Go
• Yahoo! Green → Yahoo Green
• Yahoo! Groups → Yahoo Groups
• Yahoo! HotJobs → Yahoo HotJobs
• Yahoo! Internet Life → Yahoo Internet Life
• Yahoo! Japan Search Awards → Yahoo Japan Search Awards
• Yahoo! Japan → Yahoo Japan
• Yahoo! Kickstart → Yahoo Kickstart
• Yahoo! Kids → Yahoo Kids
• Yahoo! Kimo → Yahoo Kimo
• Yahoo! Labs → Yahoo Labs
• Yahoo! Live → Yahoo Live
• Yahoo! Livetext → Yahoo Livetext
• Yahoo! Mail → Yahoo Mail
• Yahoo! Maktoob → Yahoo Maktoob
• Yahoo! Maps → Yahoo Maps
• Yahoo! Mash → Yahoo Mash
• Yahoo! Meme → Yahoo Meme
• Yahoo! Messenger → Yahoo Messenger
• Yahoo! Movies → Yahoo Movies
• Yahoo! Music Jukebox → Yahoo Music Jukebox
• Yahoo! Music Radio → Yahoo Music Radio
• Yahoo! Music Unlimited → Yahoo Music Unlimited
• Yahoo! Music → Yahoo Music
• My Yahoo! → My Yahoo
• Yahoo! Native → Yahoo Native
• Yahoo! News Underground → Yahoo News Underground
• Yahoo! News → Yahoo News
• The 9 on Yahoo! → The 9 on Yahoo
• Yahoo! Personals → Yahoo Personals
• Yahoo! Philippines → Yahoo Philippines
• Yahoo! Photos → Yahoo Photos
• Yahoo! Pipes → Yahoo Pipes
• Yahoo! Podcasts → Yahoo Podcasts
• Yahoo! Public License → Yahoo Public License
• Yahoo! Publisher Network → Yahoo Publisher Network
• Yahoo! Query Language → Yahoo Query Language
• Yahoo! Research Berkeley → Yahoo Research Berkeley
• Yahoo! Screen → Yahoo Screen
• List of Yahoo! Screen original programming → List of Yahoo Screen original programming
• Yahoo! Search BOSS → Yahoo Search BOSS
• Yahoo! SearchMonkey → Yahoo SearchMonkey
• Yahoo! Search → Yahoo Search
• Yahoo! Site Explorer → Yahoo Site Explorer
• Yahoo! Smart TV → Yahoo Smart TV
• Yahoo! Sports → Yahoo Sports
• Yahoo! Tech → Yahoo Tech
• Yahoo! 360° → Yahoo 360°
• Yahoo! Time Capsule → Yahoo Time Capsule
• Yahoo! Toolbar → Yahoo Toolbar
• Yahoo! Travel → Yahoo Travel
• Yahoo! Voice → Yahoo Voice
• Yahoo! Voices → Yahoo Voices
• 2012 Yahoo! Voices hack → 2012 Yahoo Voices hack
• Yahoo! Widgets → Yahoo Widgets
• Yahoo!Xtra → Yahoo Xtra

– WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TM. The ! is a stylization that, while present in Yahoo logos, is commonly dropped in independent sources. See, for example, a Google News search for intitle:yahoo -inurl:yahoo or a Google Ngrams search for Yahoo!, Yahoo. Similarly, Wikipedia prefers to drop stylizations and our title policy is not based on usage in the company's own publications (which do often drop the ! in text these days) but rather in independent sources. Nominating as a mass move because prior RMs for just the Yahoo! page have included calls for all to be considered at once for WP:CONSISTENT titling. SilverLocust 💬 17:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Notifying @Rusalkii, MaryGaulke, Doomsdayer520, Zzyzx11, Iwaqarhashmi, and Crouch, Swale from discussion of Yahoo! Finance. SilverLocust 💬 17:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Is this a situation like Google+ where internet publications called it "Google Plus" for SEO purposes? Schierbecker (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Schierbecker no, this is different because the '!' is not pronounced and therefore should not be included if I understand MOS:TMRULES correctly. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be interested in some analysis of whether print media also calls it "Yahoo". Schierbecker (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Schierbecker lots of examples here from The Guardian with no exclamation mark. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  But The Guardian has not been "print first" for a number of years I presume? Schierbecker (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know about print first, but it certainly has a print edition with a large circulation. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Per my response above. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The exclamation mark is only a stylisation for branding purposes (logotype) and is not part of the company's name, per the company itself[1][2]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support the common name in online sources does indeed appear to be "Yahoo". Schierbecker (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose A clear WP:TRAINWRECK as this move appears to seek to retroactively change the names of articles where the common name was indeed "Yahoo!" because the product existed before the exclamation point was phased out in common parlance, such as Yahoo! Buzz and Yahoo!Xtra among others. The nominator needs to do a bit more research vis a vis what exactly is commonly called "Yahoo" sans the exclamation point, we shouldn't be playing time machine and rewriting history to suit our whims. I also have a hunch that the Gulliver's Travels characters could be an equivalent primary topic by longterm significance, as they have entered mainstream usage as a term. Their article appears heavily underdeveloped. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning support as noted it seems that even primary sources sometimes don't use the exclamation mark however it is often understood as being part of the name though and even if some of the sub topics should be considered on their own merits its probably best to have a central discussion here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, except for the legacy or discontinued products/services that still ought to have the exclamation point.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• I'm also under the impression that this could turn out to be a WP:TRAINWRECK. For example, the request refers to "the company", but Yahoo! Japan has not ever been part of the company that is covered by most of the articles nominated here. It was originally run by Yahoo! Japan Corporation (missing from the list of nominated articles) and affiliated with Softbank Group), and is now run by LY Corporation (jointly run by SoftBank Group and Naver Corporation alongside the Line (software) app). Yahoo! Kids is also part of the Japan company although the article there mixes information on it and the defunct service associated with the American company. I don't know how many other articles in the proposal have similar issues, but it appears that the usage and purpose of the exclamation point may vary widely among the cases. Oppose moving articles associated with the Japanese company. Dekimasuよ! 20:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  This !vote also applies to Yahoo! Auctions, which is primarily a Japanese service. Dekimasuよ! 04:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: All of the red links have been made into redirects. Yovt (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose these need to be looked at individually. Yahoo!xtra is used here for example: [3] Traumnovelle (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• (One further comment, though I try to avoid bludgeoning my own RMs.)

I consider it reasonable, as suggested above, to try to reach a general consensus about

1. Whether to move Yahoo!,
2. Whether to move current services (like Yahoo! Finance),
3. Whether to move defunct services (like Yahoo!Xtra),
4. Any other exceptions people think to raise here, like Yahoo! Japan (a service that is no longer owned in part by Yahoo).

If this discussion results in moving some of the articles, and people find that particular pages should have been included or not included, it would be simple enough to have a follow-up RM for more individual consideration.

(It's more helpful, in my view, to declare a Trainwreck retrospectively – when closing a discussion and explaining why you couldn't find a consensus for anything – rather than preemptively predicting no consensus. And somehow I expect that if I had opened a move request for just one of them, people may have suggested a combined discussion.) SilverLocust 💬 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is asking you to nominate them one by one, just to be 100% sure which ones SHOULD be moved rather than nominate them wholesale without research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is primarily the barrier to participation that is required by trying to sort out which category each of the many nominees falls into. Meanwhile well-meaning editors who do not recognize the concerns may support or oppose on the basis of the topline move suggestion. Dekimasuよ! 04:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Most of the sources avoid using exclamation mark. Azuredivay (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support i am nervous that this many moves might break something or there might be some areas of exception but overall I think that this is a good idea and obeys our policies on naming pages. Jorahm (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2024 (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.