Talk:Yahoo!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yahoo! article.
Peer review Yahoo! has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Main Problem

I think the main problem with the article is that it is very badly organized. Some aspects of Yahoo! receive very thorough coverage, while other important aspects of Yahoo! receive very little coverage in the article.

For example, there is way too much information on the history of Yahoo! Besides the "History" section, there is a section on important events in Yahoo!'s history. The "Criticism" section should be near the end of the article, and it does not even mention the Yahoo! trolling phenomenon - which is instead mentioned in the wrong place - the "History" section! "Yahoo! Research Labs" should not be under the "Important Events" section. Then you see a tiny "Yahoo! Next" section - it could be merged with Yahoo! Research Labs to make a "Future of Yahoo!" section.

Now, read the following two articles I wrote: Google Groups and Homerun. In the Google Groups article, the "Interface features" section is the most comprehensive. In the Homerun article, the "Plot" section is the most comprehensive. What about Yahoo!? If I read an article about a company, I would expect the most comprehensive section to be the one about the range of products or services the company sells or provides. The Yahoo! article, however, provides a long list of "Yahoo!-owned sites and services". Could you provide some prose, rather than a list?

If the organization/structure of the article is improved, I'll nominate it for Good Article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Might we also remove the reference to the link-word "mafia," as it adds no value to the article? Whatever Yahoo! may be as an entity, they are not involved with organized crime as defined by the reference.

--J.S.B. 08:08 GMT-8, 19 August, 2006

Agree with JLWS, and thanks for taking the initiative to point out the problem and willingness to help improve this page, i would like to help out as well but don't think i'll be able to write essays on major sections, instead someone can start any major topic and i'll try and improve it by adding content.

--wil osb 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not even a single mention of the all important Project Panama!!--Gkklein 02:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times article

Should that New York Times article really be linked? It requires payment. I didn't want to just take it out -- thought I'd bring it up for discussion instead. -Anon

I just checked the site and the sign up page says it's free. Theresa Knott (Hot net streak!) 22:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merger requests

I notice Urthogie has gone round lots of Yahoo!-related pages, tagging them as candidaes for merger. While I agree that some of them - such as Yahoo! Launch and Yahoo! Movies - are unlikely to ever amount to much, others - such as Yahoo! Groups - have significant scope for expansion, having significant historical details if nothing else. There are also some others listed and linked that are equally unnecessary, but which you haven't tagged. I therefore think a distinction should be made between:

  1. articles which only seem likely to contain one sentence, of the form "Yahoo! <service> is a <service> service provided by Yahoo!, set up in <year>" (which should be merged). I would include on this list:
    as opposed to:
  2. articles which, though they may be very stubby now, could potentially contain interesting facts about that service, such as rival services acquired to create/enhance it, and its impact on the internet at large. At the very least, I would argue for expansion rather than removal of:
    • Yahoo! Groups (a whole string of acquisitions, and now effectively a monopoly-holder in its field)
    • Yahoo! Messenger (one of the "big 4" IM systems, certainly in the UK, and well worth a proper technical article)

Perhaps consideration should go into which of the other currently-seperate articles should just be merged, and which we should hope to improve. - IMSoP 19:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah-I tagged all of them because my Yahoo! Games article was tagged, and it has a good amount on it, and also has a potential for enhancement. I assumed that since mine was tagged, the others should be too. - Urthogie
Well, that's something for you to discuss with the person who tagged it - Poccil, by the looks of it. Generally, there's no "should" round here without discussion; if you disagree with somebody's judgement about what is and isn't worth some "space" in the 'pedia, never shy away from discussing it with them. In this case, I would suggest leaving a note on the user's talk page, and another on the article's; in fact, I consider it mildly rude/lazy of Poccil not to leave a note themselves inviting discussion, or even fill in the edit summary. Nothing wrong with being bold, of course, but its always a good idea to have to justify oneself - it makes one stop and think, and lets us all learn from each other's work. [OK, I'm beginning to sound like some kind of wiki-preacher now; this place does that to you after a while...;-)]
I have to say, though, in the particular case of Yahoo! Games, I would tend to agree on instinct that it isn't worth its own page. To be worth keeping on its own, I'd want to find some reason why it was noteworthy in terms of: a)history; b)its place within Yahoo!; c)its place within the Internet; or d)something else I haven't thought of, but that basically makes this more than "the bit of Yahoo! where you can play Games". But that's just my opinion, obviously. - IMSoP 00:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since there are other game servers it competes with that might be an interesting thing to research independantly of the Yahoo! page. Not like im attached to it--im just new here and was assuming he knew more than me. Do whatever you think is best and I hope i can learn. - Urthogie
Well, I've left a note to the user who added the first tag, and put a link to this discussion on the talk pages of some of the larger pages affected, removing the {{merge}} tags until we decide what to do for each. Never assume anyone round here "knows better"; mostly, it's just a matter of confidence. Everyone's input is welcome, so your opinion is just as valid as Poccil's or mine.
As for the particular case of Yahoo! Games, I wonder if your effort might be better spent by starting with a more general description of these kinds of services, perhaps by improving/rewriting the Internet game article; then, any services whose features, history, or general importance seem to stand out could expand into their own articles, explaining what is unusual/important about them. That may or may not mean going back to having a separate article for Yahoo! Games, depending whether it turns out to seem notable once you've described the general concept somewhere. But obviously, that depends what you want to spend yor time editing, so this is only a suggestion.
(BTW, tip of the day: put ~~~~ at the end of comments on a discussion page to give them an automatic "signature", complete with date/time; or just ~~~ for just your name. Also, to avoid talk pages filling up with headers, use the normal "edit this page" link if you're replying to somebody else's comment, and indent yours with colons to seperate it (e.g. this paragraph begins ::::, to put it at four levels of indentation; of course, eventually, you have to go back to none, else it would go off the screen!) - IMSoP 15:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yahoo! Mail is definitely not an article to merge, simply because of it's popularity. If Hotmail and GMail can have their own articles, Yahoo! Mail can too. It's as simple as that. Jam2k 17:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think all the contens regarding yahoo.com should be merged into one so that it is easy for users to get it and they dont have to search more if its availbale on the same page

[edit] Logo should be larger, anti-aliased

Shouldn't the logo for Yahoo! be larger and smoother? Just as the one currently used in the website. It would be a good idea if someone could manage to change the current logo with a better one. Anyone?--Logariasmo 22:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/yahootogo/buttons.html
I've made the logo better. It is directly from the Yahoo homepage. --madh 15:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


Random anti aliasing thought! IT's highly entertaining to force on anti aliasing in uber old 3d games like quake lol Caleb09 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is their relation with SBC Global?

My internet provider, a while back ago, changed its name to Yahoo! SBC DSL or something like that. I really have no idea why, and we have GeoCities as our web hosting provider now (gee, thanks a lot). And I still don't know why they did this, my ISP has changed names and affiliations so many times it isn't even funny: I am on a pacbell.net domain instead of an sbcglobla.net domain, and SBC appears to be owned by Prodigy (or the other way around), and I have no idea where Yahoo! comes into all this except maybe to confuse customers even more as to who exactly is responsible for the internet provider.

Does SBC Global own Yahoo? Does Yahoo own SBC Global? Funny thing is I've never seen anything about this in the media or press before they just dropped it on us with a three-month warning to "upgrade" (yeah right) our accounts to the SBC-Yahoo accounts.

What was SBC's motive? What was Yahoo's motive? --I am not good at running 23:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SBC Yahoo! DSL is a partnership venture between SBC and Yahoo! (neither of them owns the other). Under the new arrangement users get the broadband connection plus value added premium services from Yahoo! I can't comment on the companies' motive, though it is readily apparent that both companies benefit out of this venture. See [1] and [2] for the companies' and users' benefits. -- Sundar 04:36, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference removed?

There is one odd reference to a blog entry. I think it should be removes. i don't see its relevance here.

[edit] Alibaba

I've just finished working over the Alibaba.com and Ma Yun (Jack Ma) articles. Given the magnitude of this deal, can others please check my work here and there and make sure I've not made any simple mistakes. The original figure quoted on Alibaba.com was 35%, but all of the news stories I see say 40% [3] -Harmil 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] timeline and search engine

The article has the following:

I am pretty sure that when Yahoo dropped Google they immediately used the Yahoo! Search results, that were based on the revised Yahoo! Slurp crawler. I beleive that's the case, since they kept using Google well after they acquired other search engines. They waited, till their new technology was fully ready. Before Google, I think they used Inktomi. I don't think they ever had their own crawler-based original search engine, before they bought companies that already had them. So, I'm not clear on what they're "returning" to "after a long time". I wouldn't count the always present ability to search for sites within the Yahoo directory as a "search engine". Anyway, maybe somebody can clarify what happened. --rob 13:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yahoo! had its own search technology or perhaps through acquisitions earlier than Inktomi. But, when it dropped using Google, you're right in telling that it started using the technology that came from Inktomi acquisition (though heavily upgraded after the acquisition). -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo and China quagmire

Just thought this post would trigger more contribution. [4]

Why was the change from 'Google' to 'Google China' made in the Y! article in the 'censorship' section? Why differentiate Google's China subsidiary, but not Y!'s? --moof 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo and MSN Messenger unified?

Microsoft, Yahoo to link up instant messaging services Just something to watch out for when they release a factual Press Release or announce officially that they are unified. CaribDigita 03:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Unified would be too strong a word to use here. They've basically agreed to let the users of one network chat with those from the other. The messenger clients namely Yahoo! Messenger and MSN Messenger themselves will remain distinct. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! Sports hacked?

User:Kingturtle has added that Yahoo! sports news is hacked for a few keywords. I don't see that here or here. I haven't found any reference to it on Google news as well. So, I'm revert[ing] it. Feel free to cite sources here and revert me. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if the event has been recorded or covered by others. But I witnessed it. And I took some screen shots of it. Kingturtle 02:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you upload your screenshots somewhere and link to it? Lest it might become original research or personal commentary. Even if you've witnessed it, I'm not sure if it can be put as an event notable enough for an encyclopedia when it's not widely reported. In any case, I leave it to you to remove it or retain it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LICRA vs. Yahoo

Hey all. I translated an article on the LICRA vs. Yahoo case. If you could fit a link in somewhere appropriate that would be great. Thanks. Deco 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most visited

According to alexa's rank [5], yahoo is the #1 most visited site on the WWW. I didn't see that in the article. Isnt it worth adding? --Shell 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo assistant?

This is listed as a "Yahoo! site or service" while the article it links to says "this is renamed to Yahoo! Assistant after Beijing 3721 Technology was aquired by Yahoo!。" In other words, it's a browser hijacker/malware.

Should this really be listed as part of the services that Yahoo! provides?

[edit] Yahoo!-owned sites addition

I added blo.gs and dialpad as yahoo-owned sites but there're a lot more services that were missed in the article

[edit] Foundation (Not the Isaac Asimov novel)

By "Foundation", is it meant where it was first incorporated (which would be Mountain View), or where it was first developed (which would be Palo Alto)? Stev0 16:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't incorporated in Mountain View, but Santa Clara: the incorporation filing --moof 01:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weird. I believe it, but that was their third headquarters address after becoming a company, in 1997 if I remember correctly. Stev0 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Yahoo! look

Although there is already a new look on the main article I came across this one as well. --Thorpe | talk 11:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

THat would save their ass, I think the one they have now sucks.

-Personally I think Yahoo! now is just the same as Google, a search engine and that's all. It's impossible to really search for quality information now. I liked Yahoo!'s old directory system far better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.202.67.252 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Yahoo! owned by mafia or alliance of organized criminals?

The Yahoo! article stated that Yahoo! was owned by the mafia or an alliance of organized criminals. Is this true and is there any way to verify it? I removed the information just in case. :P J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As YHOO is traded on the public stock market, this would be difficult at best. The edit was just twaddle. --moof 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
User:62.173.76.141 readded the allegations without providing sources for them. I removed them, and notified him/her. Bjelleklang - talk 14:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! Chat closed?

The article states that Yahoo! Chat was closed in 2005 due to fears of preying on underage children. Is this correct or was it just briefly shut down? It appears to be working as of today (3/13/2006).


Noooo! It's Yahoo User Chat room that is closed!

>x<ino 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG v. GIF logos

In the past, I reverted a low-pixelage GIF to the original SVG format (Yahoo.svg). Now, again, the logo has been changed to a low-quality GIF. In my opinion, if we have an SVG of the logo, there is no logical reason to use an unscalable graphic. Are there any objections to using the SVG? Sean Hayford O'Leary 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to revert it again and for some reason it was turned back into a gif. There should be no objections as there is no reason for a gif. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rights cannot be restricted by private parties

In the section on mail certification, it says:

This decision is opposed by people that claim it to be a "tax on speech", which would eventually restrict freedom of speech as companies implementing similar decision would be tempted to increase the amount of mail classified as spam in order to encourage users to pay, preventing non-profit organizations to freely communicate with their members, among other things. (emphesis added)

However, just by the definition of what a right is, it is not correct to say that Yahoo is restricting anyone's freedom of speech. Free speech is a prohibition on the government--namely, it prohibits the government from barring an individual's speech. Free speech does not entail a positive duty of one private party (Yahoo) to provide a service (free email) for another private party (a non-profit organization). Thinking that private entities can restrict rights is a common mistake; but this mistake should not be attributed to people who criticize mail certification on the (legitimate) grounds that it will inhibit some peoples' ability to communicate (e.g. non-profit organizations).

In other words, people who argue against the mail certification policy of Yahoo are appealing to Yahoo's sense of fairness; they are not actually making a rights argument. Yahoo could censor any email it wanted and, though it'd be wrong and undoubtedly bad for business, it would not infringe on anyone's rights, by definition.

By the same token, a tax is a fee levied by a government--it is not proper to call a fee levied by Yahoo a 'tax'. However, the phrase "tax on speech" is in quotes, and so if someone actually said that phrase in making their argument against mail certification, it will have to stay in. Or maybe they are scare quotes, in which case I would keep it in. But maybe say, tatamount to a "tax on speech".

In any case, someone correct me if I'm wrong about this. Maybe this section would be better if someone could find an actual source for this bit of controversy, and quote someone summarizing their opposition to Yahoo's policy.

24.7.99.151 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Service?

I noticed that Yahoo can load a (100%?) random webpage by typing in http://random.yahoo.com/bin/ryl Cabd33 20:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't work for me, just goes to www.yahoo.com every time.

[edit] useful info?

yahoo changed its appearence few minutes ago --217.184.13.246 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Yahoo and Current TV as partners! That's pretty new and exciting also and should prob. get a mention in this article somewhere. 65.209.165.170 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and add it yourself, remembering to cite a reliable source. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History - pronunciation of "Yahoo!"

The article stated that "Yahoo!" should be pronounced with emphasis on the first syllable, because Filo and Yang chose the name after Swift's Gulliver's Travels. However, the OED's entry makes specific reference to the word "Yahoo" being invented by Swift, and states that it should be pronounced with the emphasis on the second syllable; moreover, no mention is made of an alternative pronunciation with stress on the first syllable.

As such I have removed the false claim from the article. Soobrickay 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web

An interesting story. At first, it was called "Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web." Eventually Jerry Yang got tired of David Filo not sharing in the credit, so he renamed it "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web." The reclusive Filo hated this, so he quickly proposed that a name change was needed. The rest of the story you know (this story is hinted at here: http://www.mediamente.rai.it/biblioteca/biblio.asp?id=357&tab=bio ); the rest is, unfortunately, original research (I heard it from Jerry Yang himself). Stev0 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)

States:

Likewise, avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. 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:

  • avoid: Macy*s
  • instead, use: Macy's

As far as I'm aware, (most) people don't shout when they talk about Yahoo. Furthermore, if you look at Google News, the exclamation is almost always ommitted whenever Yahoo is mentioned. ed g2s • talk 14:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


It is actually always incorrect to omit the exclamation point when referring to Yahoo!, no matter how awkward it may seem to you. It is not "purely decorative," it is part of the trade mark. This is quite different than the "Macy*s" example given in the manual of style. Your change should be reverted. Jeffrey McManus 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yahoo! Add exclamation mark to Yahoo! when missing.

The exclamation mark in Yahoo! is often omitted when referring to Yahoo! and its services on various online forums. However, this is unacceptable on Wikipedia, which should strive to be a professional encyclopedia. The exclamation mark is part of the company name and trademark. Someone had already trademarked "Yahoo" (for barbecue sauce?), so the Yahoo! co-founders decided to add the exclamation mark, partially because "Yahoo!" is an interjection.

I am currently going through Yahoo! related articles, and adding the exclamation marks where neccesary. I do not add the exclamation mark when referring to URLs or when the article references the Yahoo.com web site.

I have recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yahoo! to encourage Wikipedia users to add the exclamation mark in Yahoo! to Yahoo!-related articles where neccesary.

Go Wikipedia!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Macy's have a trademark on "Macy*s" too, doesn't mean we should use it. Once it has been made clear the "!" is part of the official title, there is nothing incorrect about using the common usage throughout the rest of the article, in fact one of Wikipedia's naming policies is based on common usage (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), so the purpose is not to be "technically correct" throughout. Furthermore, I would hardly call the BBC "various online forums". The majority of major news outlets use the commons usage, not the full trademark. ed g2s • talk 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont think that the name of a company should overrule the laws of english... Reading an exclamation instantly points out that

a) This is the end of a sentence b) You should be shouting now --149.167.175.99 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation is not decoration. The exclamation mark conveys no meaning; indeed, it conveys a misleading meaning as ^^ points out. Obviously, the common name of Yahoo is "Yahoo"; try referring to "Yahoo-exclamation-mark" in conversation or typing www.yahoo!.com into your browser, and see what you get.--Saint gerald 01:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JLWS on this one, Yahoo! is the proper name for the company and thus should be used whenever mentioned. Yes the exclamation mark conveys no meaning but it is part of the name and the trademark of this company, so when written in an instructive article in an encyclopedia or any reference work for that matter it must be included as well, pronouncing it in colloquial language is another thing. Meaningless or misleading or not is another issue which is irrelevant, because the bottom line is writing Yahoo when referring to Yahoo! is wrong, period.--wil osb 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm deleting the third photo of Yahoo!

The third photo adds nothing to the two that I already took and added months ago. And it's taken at an awful angle and/or cropped too much. Also, the uploader, User:Mana.ustad, was just blocked by Yamla for uploading too many photos of questionable provenance. I'm taking it out. --Coolcaesar 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stable versioning tested on this article.

Stable versioning is being tested on this article. This means that all editing will be made on Yahoo!/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page. If you disagree with the current version, please let me know. Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose making a stable version of this article. I sent Yahoo! for Peer Review hoping to make it a good article. I have responded to some of the suggestions in the Peer Review, but plenty more needs to be done to make Yahoo! meet Good Article standards. In the past couple of months I was overwhelmed by real-life issues and facing Wikistress, but in the following few weeks I can continue working on the article. If anyone wishes to collaborate with me to make Yahoo! a good article, please let me know - we could become potential Wikifriends. Once we Peer Review this article again and the Good Article nomination passes, the article should be made into a stable version. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split?

I know a lot of Wikipedians hate articles that are just lists; however, I'm not one of them, so I can't see why Yahoo-Owned Sites and Services can't be expanded and split into its own article. Stev0 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services several months back. Unfortunately, as I'm not thoroughly familiar with most of Yahoo!'s services, most of the descriptions I provided are very poor. Perhaps you could help me by improving the summaries and descriptions of each Yahoo! service in that article? We could then remove the list from this article and create a new "Products and services" section in the Yahoo! article, summarizing what Yahoo! offers, with a link to the main article List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
A good sample to use for such a page would be the List of Google products page. Stev0 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why blo.gs redirects to yahoo?

I know that yahoo has purchased blo.gs, but yahoo is more than that. The entry on blo.gs should only be about blo.gs (of course, with a pointer to Yahoo).

--202.69.36.44 10:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

True dat!--Johnhardcastle 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If more people express their support for this the redirection should be reversed.--Waldir 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At the very least: Moving Criticisms section to the end

The first topic Main Problems does a good job of describing the problems with this page. But I think at the very least, we should move the Criticisms section to the end, as is generally done. I am doing it. AmritTuladhar 07:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Yahoo! → Yahoo — The "!" is superfluous decoration, and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) we should write trademarks according the normal rules of English and not merely ape the decorative formatting preferred by the trademark holder. Yahoo is perfectly well recognized without insisting on a "!" to draw attention to the name. Dragons flight 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Strong oppose. The exclamation point is always used when "Yahoo" is used in a non-generic sense, just like Jeopardy! (game show) or Tora! Tora! Tora! (film) or Panic! at the Disco (music group) or Sorry! (board game). Why would a web site be any different? If the site "Yahoo!" was less notable, the Gulliverian meaning might be the primary topic for this title, and it would probably be accompanied by something like
For the web site, see Yahoo!. — CharlotteWebb 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: When we are talking about conforming to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, citing the existence of other problem areas or articles currently not compliant with the Manual of Style guidelines is absolutely not a reason for supporting or opposing a move. -- Renesis (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's an excellent reason, in that it illustrates that the manual of style is not in tune with actual usage, and needs to be re-written or least be taken less seriously. — CharlotteWebb 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it speaks to a need to enforce the MoS. If you are arguing that because the style of some articles does not align with the Manual, the Manual should be ignored ("taken less seriously"), then literally anything would be acceptable, and there would not no consistency whatsoever from article to article. Croctotheface 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:PR. Very little of our scotch-tape-and-piano-wire guidelines should be enforced. Septentrionalis 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The only mentiones of "guidelines" I saw there are sentences such as "this article should follow the guidelines". Perhaps "enforced" is the wrong word and I should have said "applied", but if the conclusion we are reaching here is to discard the Manual, then just about anything could go in terms of style in the rest of the encyclopedia. Croctotheface 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The exclamation point is purely for decorative and branding purposes, and MoS:TM frowns on usage of symbols for decoration. There would be no trouble finding the article without the exclamation point. Having an end sentence mark such as the exclamation point in the middle of a sentence is needlessly distracting. Croctotheface 22:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Using topics' proper names is not decorative. Using a CSS hack to display the title in a red font followed by a smiley face, now that would be decorative. — CharlotteWebb 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The exclamation mark is part of the official name of the company.--Húsönd 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: if Wikipedia used nothing but "official names", articles would read very much like press releases. I'll quote User:Ptkfgs from over in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks): "If we use the styles dictated by trademark holders, we're going to end up with a bunch of unreadable crap like 'SPAM® Luncheon Meat' instead of just 'Spam', 'LEGO® Bricks and Toys' instead of 'Lego', 'Macy*s®' instead of 'Macy's', and so forth. Trademarks are often designed to be as loud and obnoxious as possible. When you're trying to brand a product, I suppose stabbing the reader in the retina with your trademark over and over is a good thing. Here, it's not." Croctotheface 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a straw man argument. No reasonable person is suggesting that "®" or "™™ be added to this or any other title, not even for Chicago (band) despite its use of "Chicago®" in album art. — CharlotteWebb 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it's more of a reductio argument. As I see it, "official name" is synonymous with "what the entity chooses to call itself". Extending that logic, we should copy a company's usage exactly, regardless of the effect it has on the prose. If Yahoo did not use one exclamation point but fifty, and wrote their company name "Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", would you still support using their style? What about if they used 500? If you would not, how is it different? Croctotheface 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Let's not use the Chewbacca defense. If "Yahoo!" had decided to include fifty exclamation marks in its name then it probably would've never been a successful company and no WP article about it would exist in the first place.--Húsönd 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
            • How does speculating about how successful a company with such a name would be refute my point? My take on the situation is different: if a company chooses to spell their name that way, but they become successful because they have superior products or services, then popular usage would drop the silly part of their name. My point is that if you accept the "official name" argument, you must accept any and every outlandish decoration and style choice. If you don't accept any and every outlandish decoration and style choice, then you don't really believe that only "official names" should be used. Croctotheface 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Also, your characterization of my argument as the "Chewbacca defense" is simply untrue. According to the article, that involves "overwhelming nonsensical arguments", where I simply made one reductio ad absurdum argument. You have yet to explain how my argument is flawed. Croctotheface 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The exclamation mark is part of the trademark and company name. It seperates the "dot-com corporation" from the "character in Gulliver's Travels". I read that Yang and Filo added the exclamation mark to the name because there already was a company named "Yahoo" without the exclamation mark. If that company rose to notability, we would have much more disambiguation work to do. In addition, while many people omit the exclamation mark when referring to Yahoo!, reliable sources, such as newspapers, usually include it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: speculation about a company that may or may not rise to prominence and thus may or may not present a disambiguation issue does not strike me as a compelling reason to oppose or support a move proposal. Croctotheface 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support If the end-line punctuation (? or !) is not pronounced, it should not be considered part of standard usage. It's decorative. And disambiguation is not a factor; there have been no problems arising from the trademark names Apple, Fox, or Time, all of which are extremely common words. This is not an anti-Yahoo crusade; similar articles such as Sorry!, Jeopardy!, and Guess? should all be changed (dropping the punctuation) to reflect this style as well. My research has shown that mainstream media outlets are mixed; some use "Yahoo!" and others use "Yahoo." The Associated Press appears to use "Yahoo," and that's what I support for Wikipedia. I have more detailed comments over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). BJ Nemeth 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Has it crossed your mind that same the changes that satisfy your need for "MoS enforcement" may be perceived as glaring inaccuracies by outside observers, you know, "readers" if you will? At some point you have to realize that guidelines are a reflection of content, not the other way 'round. — CharlotteWebb 05:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, the readers have done more than just "cross my mind." They are the primary factor in my recommendation. If someone sees Yahoo without the exclamation mark as a "glaring inaccuracy," then CNN, Fox News, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and countless others are all guilty. (I've provided links in the Discussion section below.) Those mainstream news organizations have decided to drop the exclamation mark, presumably for the sake of their readers, because end-line punctuation in the middle of a sentence is extremely disruptive, confusing, and misleading. I'm suggesting the same reader-friendly (rather than corporate-friendly) standard for Wikipedia. "Yahoo!" should be listed as an alternate usage. BJ Nemeth 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So, what about the others, which you also recommended changing for the sake of, um, MoS enforcement? — CharlotteWebb 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Similar terms (such as Guess?, Sorry!, and Jeopardy!) are more difficult to search for in news items because they represent combinations of common words with less newsworthy companies/products. However, a search at CNN.com shows that Guess shows up in a few articles about Anna Nicole Smith [6], and they do not use the question mark. CNN does, however, use exclamation points in an article about "Jeopardy!" [7], but it's always surrounded by quotation marks. Unfortunately, even a search for "Sorry" and "game" couldn't find any relevant news articles. Based on these two additional examples, it appears that CNN's style doesn't allow (!) or (?) in company names, but does allow them in TV show titles (and probably other artistic works that would be surrounded by quotation marks). Is this the type of information you were interested in, Charlotte? BJ Nemeth 07:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yahoo's ad agency and their house style could change tomorrow; English usage won't. The only reason I do not make it strong support is that it does disambiguate from Yahoo (literature), which may be primary. Septentrionalis 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The official name is Yahoo!, and the company always uses Yahoo!, so the page should be at Yahoo! —Mets501 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "!" is part of the name. Peter O. (Talk) 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I'm particularly disturbed by those throwing around the word "official". That could set a terrible precedent for Wikipedia. -- Renesis (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The company is regsitered as Yahoo! Inc., not Yahoo. It isn't decorative, it's the name. *Sparkhead 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So? We use common names on Wikipedia, not offical names. United States, not United States of America; North Korea not DPRK. Yahoo added an ! to their brand to call attention to it. I think we should want no part of that kind of branding, even if it is what they designate as their official name. Dragons flight 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This is an excellent point. It appears that, based on news outlets, "Yahoo" is undoubtedly the common name/usage. Croctotheface 16:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Sparkhead. --mh 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yahoo! is the company's registered and trademarked name. The exclamation point within the name is in no way decorative, but rather an identifier to distinguish the company. As has already been pointed out, there are quite a few other examples of articles with exclamation points in the titles that are not using them decoratively. This is no exception. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The company is amazingly vigilant about always using the ! at the end; see also serial number 75047949/registration number 2040222 at uspto.gov if you're so inclined. --moof 09:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But Yahoo's vigilance ends at the water's edge, so to speak. Most major news outlets use "Yahoo" rather than "Yahoo!" in their reporting. Yahoo even has an official relationship with CNN.com ("Yahoo!" powers CNN's news search), but CNN drops the exclamation point in all of their news stories. So Yahoo's "vigilance" is pretty weak, applying to nothing but their own press releases. According to the "vigilance" argument, Yahoo is no different than companies that always CAPITALIZE their own names in press releases. BJ Nemeth 14:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think there's a difference between ® characters and !. The former is denoting copyright, trademark, whatever. The latter is a part of the name itself. If my last name were D'Arcy, would you take the apostrophe out of it? --Wolf530 01:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's another contrived, irrelevant example. The apostrophe in D'Arcy has a function (at least historically). The exclamation point in Yahoo is purely decorative. – flamurai (t) 03:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • "Decorative" in what way? "Darcy" and "D'arcy" sound exactly the same to my ears. --Wolf530 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC) /// Sorry... let me clarify -- you're saying the exclamation point is decorative. I'm saying that the apostrophe could be considered just as decorative. Can you give some example of how the apostrophe in D'Arcy has a function? Especially historically? I'm completely in the dark as to what you mean here, and I can't see any distinction. --Wolf530 03:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Darcy is often read "dar-cee". D'Arcy is often read "da-ar-cee", or even "dee-ar-cee". Maybe you don't read them differently, but many people would. Dragons flight 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I can't even believe this argument is being made. Let's try it from a different angle so we don't even have to consider pronunciation when it comes to punctuation: "It's" and "Its." The first is a contraction ("It's hard to believe!"), while the second is a possessive pronoun ("Love rears its ugly head.") Either way, they're spoken exactly the same, with very different meanings. So again, go back to my original argument: does punctuation mean nothing here? Hardly -- it's important, and not arbitrary. Whether you say "da-ar-cee" or "dar-cee", or you print "Its" or "It's", the point is that you can't just go dropping punctuation because something is better known one way or another. If you gather a bunch of people with low IQ, their "common usage" of the word "its" would probably be what most intelligent people use "It's" for. That doesn't mean that when we're catering to a stupid crowd, we change the rules of punctuation and grammar for them. --Wolf530 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Another completely irrelevant example. One use of punctuation is part of the standard rules of the English language, the other is a company's deliberate misuse of those rules in order to make its name stand out. E. E. Cummings understood the difference. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding the difference and insist on defending their points with examples that don't apply to this situation. Pronunciation is irrelevant. Function is relevant. What is the function of the exclamation point? It is decorative. It is designed to make the company name stand out. Relevant examples would have punctuation that serves the same purpose. Anything else is just a smokescreen. – flamurai (t) 05:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
              • What, pray tell, is the reasoning behind keeping the hyphen in Wal-mart then? --Wolf530 06:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                • "A hyphen ( -, or ‐ ) is a punctuation mark. It is used both to join words and to separate syllables." Wal-Mart is joining Wal(ton) and mart. – flamurai (t) 06:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Clearly :) But nonetheless, it is just as arbitrary as the !. I am well aware of Sam Walton and his "Mart" (I live in Arkansas, afterall.) My point is that "Walmart" and "Wal-Mart" are essentially the "same difference" as "Yahoo" and "Yahoo!" --Wolf530 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • No, one uses punctuation within the standard rules of the English language. The other does not. – flamurai (t) 07:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • That's actually incorrect. "Yahoo!", if you assume "Yahoo" is a verb, can be a perfectly acceptable one-word sentence -- a command issued. And, as such, can be followed just as correctly by an exclamation point. Being that Yahoo!'s motto is (was?) "Do you Yahoo?", we can safely say that the company uses "Yahoo" as a verb. And, therefore, "Yahoo!" is well within the standard rules of English. Care to try another baseless argument? --Wolf530 07:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • Yes, you are correct, but once again it's an irrelevent point. "Yahoo!" is standard English. "Yahoo!" is an exclamation, and therefore a complete sentence. The exclamation point is used to signal the end of a sentence. It has no other widely accepted use. So "Yahoo! is the most visited website on the Internet today" is not standard English, unless you think "is the most visited website on the Internet today" is a complete sentence. – flamurai (t) 07:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Okay :) This is all just semantics and circular logic at this point, and you've failed to make any convincing argument that the ! should be removed. That said, I'm made my point more than well enough, and have no further need to argue this. --Wolf530 07:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • What point did you make? It all comes back to a single issue: Do you believe that we should allow the use of punctuation in company names outside the rules of the English language? Simple. The irrelevant examples that have been presented are the source of most of the confusion. – flamurai (t) 08:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                              • If you're going to keep asking me questions, it's going to be hard for me to leave things as they are. But more than anything else, let me just say that neither I, nor anyone else, are required to justify our votes. They are what they are. So, following on that, I'll just say that the point(s) I made were in response to your challenge of my vote. They supported my vote. I think my original vote was very clear, and if you can't see that to answer your own question... well, then it's no wonder you've been arguing with me for so long :) --Wolf530 08:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
                                • Well, this isn't so much a vote as a discussion. To an extent you do need to "justify" your point of view because if your support is based on illogical reasoning or is otherwise against the spirit of Wikipedia, it is likely to be discounted. That said, it seems to me that the main question being discussed is whether or not Wikipedia should be allowed to do more than merely copy the style used by a company when writing about that company. If you believe that the exclamation point is essential and inexorable, I think that you have a difficult time accounting for the multifarious major news organizations that use "Yahoo" without the exclamation point. Those who believe that it would be somehow "inaccurate" not to use the spelling/usage/punctuation favored by a trademark holder should realize that Wikipedia (like all respectable publications) adopts different spelling/usages/punctuations all the time for numerous legitimate reasons. Even seemingly little changes like omitting "Inc" and "LLC" from company names are in some way departures from what is "official", but they're necessary to ensure readable prose. This is the same thing. Croctotheface 08:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • D'Arcy is a French name meaning "from Arcy". The "D'" is analagous to "van" in German or Dutch, "O'" in Irish and Scottish names, etc. – flamurai (t) 05:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

  • Comment: I have less of a problem with the exclamation point in the title than with it's use in prose. Constructions like Yahoo!'s are extremely awkward. I don't think titles of artistic works are an apt comparison here, as that's a different category of titles. The major difference is that the titles of artistic works are set of from the text in some way (italics or quotes). Thus it's clear the punctuation isn't a part of the natural flow of language. – flamurai (t) 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I provided several examples (from different fields) which consistently use the exclamation point, and could provide several more if it would help the discussion. — CharlotteWebb 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I was just about to make a similar case--Jeopardy! is considerably less disruptive because of the italics. Furthermore, to address the notion that "Yahoo!" is correct because it's the "proper name", by which I assume you mean the name that the company wants people to use, that argument is runs exactly contrary to the MoS in this case. The exclamation point is not pronounced; it only exists to call attention to the name, which makes it decorative. The prose, and by extension the reader, is better served without it. Croctotheface 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see how the italics affect would affect the level of alleged disruption, but ignoring that comparison... how do you feel about prose that refers to the non-italic trademark "Sorry!", or to the tiny town of Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!? — CharlotteWebb 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It shouldn't matter at all what a vote like this on a talk page decides. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) should either support this move or not. Why not build consensus on this issue there, where it belongs? -- Renesis (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The guideline on not using decorations has been in place for years, and everyone at the talk page for the guideline seems to agree that the "!" doesn't belong. So, as far as I am concerned there is already strong concensus on this issue and all that remains is to correct errors, such as the titling of Yahoo!, but guidelines are not absolute and the people here deserve an opportunity to argue their case, if they wish. Dragons flight 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Guidelines are not absolute, but if we disputed every application of style guidelines (even every major application) on the respective article's talk page, we'd get nowhere. This requested move is likely to fail, as will most other high-profile articles with punctuation in the title, and there will continue to be an inconsistency in what the style guidelines say and what is actually implemented. Guidelines are "guidelines" because there always may be rare exceptions not because as a whole Wikipedia is OK with inconsistency. If the Manual of Style really meant so little, Wikipedia would be a free-for-all with editors de-linking and re-linking dates, moving articles back and forth, changing from British to American spelling and back, etc.—and I don't think I need to explain why that would be bad for building a legitimate encyclopedia. -- Renesis (talk) 04:47, October 30, 2006
        Have a little faith. It's evenly divided after less than a day. I think you'll find that sensible guidelines usually win out in these discussions. Dragons flight 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Have no fear. This issue is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Once a decision is reached, the Wikipedia Manual of Style will be updated (if necessary), as will the affected articles (if any). BJ Nemeth 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on comments here, User:CharlotteWebb suggested moving Yahoo (literature) to Yahoo: Talk:Yahoo (literature)#Requested move. Dragons flight 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, that's a bad idea. Yahoo the company is far more well known than Yahoo the literary figure. (Bach redirects to Johann Sebastian Bach, and Bach (New Zealand) is dab'ed with parentheses, even though theoretically Bach (New Zealand) is the only thing that's just called "Bach", so we could move it there without ambiguity.) That said, I believe this is an attempt to create more false "precedent" to support keeping the exclamation point. See WP:POINT. – flamurai (t) 23:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I posted some examples at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) that I will repeat here. Many mainstream news organizations refer to Yahoo without the exclamation point. It's apparently legal, accepted, and preferred for USA Today [8], Reuters [9], Business Week [10], CNET [11], the Washington Post [12], Information Week [13], the Los Angeles Times [14], and even Scientific American [15]. (I believe it's also preferred for the Associated Press, but the AP articles I've found have all been published elsewhere, so it's possible the style was changed by the news outlet that published it.) Of course, there are some reputable news outlets that use "Yahoo!," but my point is that there is no media-wide standard, and there is clear precedent for dropping the exclamation point. I think this improves readability without affecting recognition, so end-line punctuation (! and ?) should be dropped from trademark names. BJ Nemeth 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • One more interesting link. CNN.com uses "Yahoo" [16], even though the two companies have some sort of business partnership. As I was searching CNN's archives, I noticed the phrase "Powered by Yahoo Search" next to CNN's search field. So CNN has a formal relationship with Yahoo, yet still drops the exclamation point in their articles. If your 24-hour news channel of choice is Fox News, you're in luck. [17] They don't use the exclamation point either. BJ Nemeth 01:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I really want to get an answer to this question that I posed up in the survey. To those people who support keeping the exclamation point on the grounds that it is "part of the name" or that we should use the "official name", I want to ask: would you make the same argument if there were 50 exclamation points? 500? Is there any corporate trademark that you would not copy exactly? Croctotheface 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • For one thing, it disambiguates the company. And 50 or more exclamation points would be rather jarring to readers, as opposed to a single exclamation point or even two. Peter O. (Talk) 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think one exclamation is already jarring to the reader, especially when written into the middle of sentences. Dragons flight 01:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As I say above, the example of 50 or 500 exclamation points should indicate that "official name" is not really a compelling argument: if you are willing to accept one exclamation point on those grounds, then by extension you have to accept any number, since it would be "official". I'd also like to point out that disambiguation should not be an issue: "Yahoo" already readirects here. Croctotheface 07:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I consider disambiguation to be a moot point in this discussion. There are many trademarked names that use much more common words than yahoo, and they get along just fine without any unusual punctuation: Apple, Time, People, Fox, etc. Context and capitalization (to distinguish proper nouns) goes a long, long way. BJ Nemeth 07:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding "Is there any corporate trademark that you would not copy exactly?": it isn't copying a corporate trademark, it's listing a corporate name. The Nike "swoosh" is a trademark. That's the difference and why the "!" should stay. *Sparkhead 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "You don't think "Yahoo" and the exclamation point are trademarks? Or, alternately, I'll use your language: is there no corporate name you would not copy exactly? If Yahoo did register their name with fifty exclamation points, you would use it? The Macy's article should be "macy*s" or something like that? It seems that Yahoo is registered as "Yahoo! Inc." Why are we omitting the "Inc."? It's part of the name, right? "Yahoo!" is not even commonly used, based on the Google link I posted above. It really seems that no major news organization uses the exclamation point. You don't pronounce the exclamation point. We don't need it, so we shouldn't use it. Croctotheface 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying it isn't "just a trademark". Macy's is incorporated as "Macy's" not "Macy*s". The comment about "Inc." is ridiculous. Yes, if a corporation could incorporate as "!%$@%@" I would argue that name should be what's used for the title of a page on that corporation (barring technical limitations). *Sparkhead 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That kind of name is a different situation, and I would likely agree with you there. My main issue is that you would want to use 500 exclamation points if that's how the company was incorporated, which would result in unreadable prose. Not to mention the fact that "Yahoo" is commonly used--it doesn't seem that any major news organization uses "Yahoo!" Croctotheface 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
But I'm not arguing their use in the body of a news release. I'm arguing about the title for an encyclopedic article about the company. *Sparkhead 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Yahoo's press releases DO use the exclamation point. News ARTICLES from CNN, Fox News, etc, do not. I would argue that an encyclopedia article is more analagous to news articles, where "Yahoo" is used overwhelmingly, than to what a company writes about itself, which is basically the only place "Yahoo!" is used. Croctotheface 18:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The name "Porsche" is pronounced incorrectly by the majority of people. That doesn't make the company's pronunciation of it any less correct. If this were some sort of audio encyclopedia I would expect the correct pronunciation at that article's entry. Same for typing the name of "Yahoo!". *Sparkhead 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not analagous. We're not talking about usage by people ignorant of the fact that Yahoo wants their name to include an exclamation point. We're talking about news organizations who have made the same fully informed decision to omit the exclamation point because they find it disruptive and unnecessary. Croctotheface 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Did these news organizations explicity state such? Can you point me to these statements? *Sparkhead 18:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's Bill Walsh, who is one of the Washington Post's copy chiefs: [18]. Do you have evidence that they're all omitting the exclamation point because they're ignorant of the fact it's "supposed" to be there? Croctotheface 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Most news organizations don't release their house style guidese out into the general public. But if CNN.com runs 15 stories about "Yahoo," and never uses the exclamation point, you can safely assume that IS their house style. I have already provided plenty of links in an earlier comment here from just two days ago. Are all these major news outlets "wrong" on this issue? BJ Nemeth 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Because they choose a form for convenience doesn't mean that an encyclopedic entry shouldn't be more exacting. *Sparkhead 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a journalism degree and have worked as a writer, editor, and journalist for several different publishers (books, magazines, and websites). I can assure you decisions like these are not made for the sake of "convenience." BJ Nemeth 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you differentiate between the name and the body of the text then? We could leave the ! in the title but remove it from the text. Dragons flight 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, not in this encyclopedic context. *Sparkhead 18:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree here--we should decide on one usage and stick to it. Croctotheface 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with Dragons flight's idea. We could leave the title as "Yahoo!," and mention that as the company's own preferred usage in the introduction, before transitioning to the "alternate usage" of "Yahoo" in the rest of the article. This is if, and only if, the exclamation point is officially part of the trademarked name, as several people have stated. BJ Nemeth 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] NEW LOGO

why it is the new logo of yahoo! ?

[edit] Panama

The link on the bottom for the search technology, I don't think it should link to the country..... 68.45.59.1 17:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge

I propose merging Peanut Butter Manifesto into this article. Please discuss. Powers T 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree.Sounds fine to me. I began the article after reading the cited articles, halfway thinking that "Peanut Butter Management" would become a new buzzword. We could easily merge this into the timeline, keeping the citations for future reference. Ezratrumpet 02:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. This article is inane and has no depth. It shouldn't really exist. Should we have an article about Britney Spears not wearing underwear? Or, like that story, is this already old, unimportant non-news? EW 11 December 2006

[edit] External links

Many of the Yahoo! properties listed in the #Yahoo!-owned sites and services section are self-redirects (Ask Yahoo!, Yahoo! Movies, etc.). Maybe we should create pages for these, even if just stubs, or remove links to them, so we know which pages exist and which don't. - Matthew238 07:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo and Ronald Coleman?

There's a 50's movie with Ronald Coleman, where he plays, believe it or not, a Middle Eastern king who is incognito. And the reigning ruler, looking upon him with great disdain, exhorts, "A king who does not act like a king, is nothing but a YA-HOO!" Only it's pronounced with a short "a", as in "yak", not as in "yawn". Okay, strange casting, but it does get your attention hearing a thoroughly-modern name in a vintage movie about ancient times. "Left Coast" Tim Marsh in "The O.C."70.165.36.34 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/a/h/Talk%7EYahoo%21_1711.html"