Talk:Yahoo!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yahoo! article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
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 within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Diversified services

Yahoo offers diversified services; it provides vertical search services such as Yahoo! Image, Yahoo! Video, Yahoo! Local, Yahoo! News, and Yahoo! Shopping Search. As of August 2007, Yahoo is the second-most used search engine, after Google. As of December 11, 2007, Google and the Microsoft search engine "store personal information for 18 months" and Yahoo and AOL (Time Warner) "retain search requests for 13 months".[41]

Can someone correct me if i am wrong, but yahoo has been ranked as number 1 by alexa.com http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/yahoo.com 76.10.148.2 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft and Yahoo

In the event or during the event of Microsoft acquisitioning Yahoo, I suggest that we should all lock this article from newbies, unregistered users and vandals. Hopefully, locking it will stop fanboy-sim and not start a riot.

Someone would probably listen to your comment if you signed. 58.168.186.98 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole finance drama has moved into hostile takeover territory now. It's funny when I read that Microsoft will go to the shareholders directly "in hopes of electing a new board and moving forward with the merger talks". It makes it all sound so cordial! Taking an unsolicited bid offer directly to shareholders is a prospective takeover bid and the true meaning is that Microsoft is positioning itself and making attempts to OUST the board. All the legalese and semantics in the world can't hide that fact. If nothing else, it is an interesting saga and I wonder how it's all going to play out. I have mixed feelings toward the boys over in Redmond. I love my Yahoo POP email account though and a pox on anyone who screws that up!!! LOL! Anyway, I guess we will know sooner or later...Although it was a LBO still the corporate takeover of RJR Nabisco comes to mind as far as vital business newsworthiness . . . LA-TONIA DENISE WILLIS, Seattle, WA

[edit] Vandalism

This article has just been vandalized with millions of copies of the words, "YAHOO HAS PORN!!!" I noobs ahowy.

Yahoo is the leading webserver of child porn image hosting through it's Yahoo Groups section. All attempts to hold Yahoo accountable have failed. Many sites within Yahoo that have these images are paid to Yahoo at the rate of $500 per year, per slot on the little known sites within Yahoo. Not a bad price to pay for hiding illegal images

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

Where exactly was "Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web" located? Does Archive.org have a copy of the homepage atleast, or is there a copy elsewhere?

[edit] Improve Products and Services section

I reorganized the article by merging the article on History of Yahoo! with the section History and Growth, created a new section Products and Services, and deleted the News section. I hope people can help elaborate and expand on the main products and services, perhaps later on we can add other sections like Yahoo!'s revenue model etc.

I also find the important events section a bit too exhaustive and unneeded in this main article about Yahoo!, perhaps transfer the list to another page and add some proses on the main important events in this article.

--wil osb 09:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism, lock the article?

There have been multiple instances of vandalism recently, i would suggest locking the article for editing, but since i'm rather new here i don't really know how, anyone? --wil osb 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --moof 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo!7

There's no mention in the article of what it is, and the name redirects here. Could someone add an explanation somewhere? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Night Gyr. Yahoo!7 is the Austrailian version of Yahoo!. I will do my best to mention this in the article. Involinstance 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I posted that under the section "Yahoo! International. Please extend it if you can. Involinstance 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)...

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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 much72.144.252.2 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

79.72.6.201

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

[edit] SVG or PNG?

I don't see any reason to use a PNG here. You can't change the image without prior discussion and then let everyone know that in order to undo your change they need to discuss on the talk page first. Yonatan talk 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Logo

I have uploaded and added a new photo of Yahoo!'s current logo. I have done this because the other one was not appearing on the screen, thus needing a later file to work. I hope that this helps the article,  Xeysz  ☼  23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The official logo is purple. Look at any Yahoo building, any annual report, anything but the main page. Please stop changing the logo to the red one, as it is incorrect. We had a long discussion about this last year. --Keeleysam 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Quit screwing around. http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/photos_logos.cfm --Keeleysam 15:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any purple logo on this page. Get your mates to spam me up and threaten me, please, it is not annoying at all! /sarcasm I added the red one because there is no purple one. Now this is my question: Which is best? A) No logo. B) A space for a purple logo which appears nothing. C) Red logo

If you wish to have the purple one on there, why don't you put it?  Xeysz  ☼  00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unlimited lies

This article repeats, as though it were true, the absurd marketing lie that Yahoo will offer unlimited email storage in May 2007... Wait, it is already May! Does that mean that this impossible miracle has already happened? Are we in heaven yet?

Since this is an obvious bald-faced lie, it can not be used as a basis for presuming that they will actually be offering any more storage than anyone else. At least the other people are offering a real amount of storage, that they might actually let you use.-69.87.203.220 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether Yahoo! will have this or not, it is a fact that the corporation says they will. That I think justifies it being stated in the article. Toyalla 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Customer Service

I changed the name of this section from Lack of Customer Service, and cut out much of it that was far from NPOV. I have doubt that what remains should be kept, but will leave it to someone else to act on that. Toyalla 04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Documentary

I'd like to add a video to the external links of a Stanford Channel original documentary that tells how Filo and Yang met and created Yahoo while Stanford grad students. The link is http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2629&fID=345 (this does not automatically open the video). Please let me know what you think. (ResearchChannel 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

OK I've added it - it complements the text link about the same thing. Graham87 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

This timeline is ridiculous. If it is really deemed necessary to enumerate every single act this company takes in the course of running its business, then split it into a different article. Otherwise, I'm going to cut it since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to Timeline of events for Yahoo!. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:YahooBeta20070426.png

Image:YahooBeta20070426.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Yahoo! Products

I was wondering if we should include a full list of Yahoo! products, rather than just the few listed. Products such as Yahoo! Answers are also in Wikipedia, maybe they should be gathered into this article. Involinstance 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Yahoo! Green;

new article. it may be about to be deleted. please help, at Yahoo! Green. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! Notepad should redirect to somewhere but I don't know where...

But most people watching this article must be experts on this website, so I was wondering if the experts can help me. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! Notepad is currently part of Mail Classic. IMHO, it should redirect to that product. D3vi1 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backronym removed

I deleted the sentence that casually mentioned the backronym "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle". This is not the origin of the name, and the reference was to a single piece of Yahoo spin that didn't claim it as the origin either. Earthlyreason (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Once again on this page, we have the tall story that Yahoo stands for / was once named "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle". Current page says, ‘In April 1994, "Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web" was renamed "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle" otherwise known as "Yahoo".’

But we already state that Yang and Filo insist on the contrary (and obvious) origin, ie. that Yahoo! the company comes from the word ‘yahoo’.

We are in danger of perpetuating what Michael Quinion would quickly dismiss as a folk etymology. Back formations like this are often created as the supposed origin of a word. Especially, the word ‘officious’ sounds out of place in any original name. Neither is Yahoo an ‘oracle’. And anyway, this was pretty much the first hierarchical index of webpages. It certainly wasn’t following a trend to justify the 'yet another' tag.

The original reference given for this name was a chatty PR webpage [4] by Yahoo that carefully avoided actually claiming that this was ever the real name. It seems it was just mentioned it to try to sound hip, and stir up exactly this kind of urban myth.

In the current reference[5], Steven Levy suggests that the long form was created, and then, miraculously, Yang and Filo noticed that it could be shortened to something snappy (which again contradicts their own explanation). He wrote, ‘They named it "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle," wisely choosing to shorten this to its acronym.’ It is also true that the story has legs – there are many online sources that claim it, such as this one [6] (which seems to think that ‘officious’ has something to do with office workers.) But I strongly suggest that this is nothing more than a back formation from ‘Yahoo’.

This Google Answers discussion [7] includes Yang’s own words on the subject from a 1997 speech (the original link [8] is unfortunately dead.) He said, “We looked in the dictionary and chose Yahoo! because of, surprisingly, the literary roots.”

Please can we keep this tired urban legend off the page, without irrefutable evidence to justify it. Until then, perhaps any alternative views could be aired here. Earthlyreason (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I do note the following, which at least links the long form to the two founders. Yet it still indicates that the name was most definitely ‘Yahoo’, and the long form was a follow-up invention. Can anyone find evidence that the long form was ever used other than as a whimsical ‘explanation’ for the name?

according to Yang and Filo, they pulled it out of a dictionary. … “’Yahoo’ means people who are very uncivilized and rude, and if you get to know us, that’s certainly true,” said Yang. The two men also developed a creative description from the letters: “Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle".

He is quoting from another source, which is given but not visible in this Google Books version. Can anyone go back further?

‘Jerry Yang And David Filo: The Founders of Yahoo!’ by Michael R. Weston [9]

Earthlyreason (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I personally find it hard to believe that someone would contradict Newsweek, one of the most respected publication in the US. I would also like to note that, even though I LOVE wikipedia, it is less reliable than Newsweek. Which is why through my edits, I try to find REPUTABLE sources. (In this case I used Newsweek). I'm also having a hard time understanding what your problem is with this acronym. Perhaps if it not true, we can point it out. Maybe write something such as "Contrary to the popular belief that Yahoo! was an acronym for..." and lay it to rest there IF IT IS NOT true. However, I would like to keep it until there is a reputable CITED source out there that says to the contrary.

Best regardsMonkeytheboy (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and move to resolve this. But even Newsweek can be wrong - especially when it contradicts a biography of the founders, quoting their words on the matter. You ask about my 'problem', which is that this backronym surely isn't an acronym, just happening to be the initials of this contrived description? Do we have any evidence that "Yet Another ..." was ever used as a name? Does anyone remember it - it was only 10 years ago?
I hope we can agree (common sense, anyone?) that "Yet Another .." came from the name Yahoo! (selected by Yang and Filo from the dictionary - say countless sources), and not the other way around. Then we only have to consider a) whether it was the founders themselves who came up with the long form (the Weston book says so, but I haven't found any others yet), and b) is it significant enough to mention under the real change of name, from "Jerry's ..." to Yahoo!? Earthlyreason (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if it very common misperception, we can mention something such as "Contrary to pupular belief, the name Yahoo was chosen because... and did not stand for any type of acronym" and then cite your source.Monkeytheboy (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a key consideration: whether there is a widely held view that the backronym is some kind of 'official meaning' of 'Yahoo'. If so, we may need to refute it; if not, we can just ignore it. I'll do some research on that, if no one else does. Any other inputs on this, anyone? Earthlyreason (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Yahoo! itself says

See http://docs.yahoo.com/info/misc/history.html: “The Web site started out as "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web" but eventually received a new moniker with the help of a dictionary. The name Yahoo! is an acronym for "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle," but Filo and Yang insist they selected the name because they liked the general definition of a yahoo: "rude, unsophisticated, uncouth." Yahoo! itself first resided on Yang's student workstation, "Akebono," while the software was lodged on Filo's computer, "Konishiki" - both named after legendary sumo wrestlers.” —teb728 t c 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian users

Why was the section deleted? Because Yahoo! Answers is the source?! What`s wrong with that? You can't source the registration page! 80.93.228.139 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither are suitable sources. If there is no WP:Reliable sources then the information can't be included per wikipedia WP:Verifiability requirements. If this was really a big issue then I would presume it would have been covered in some reliable sources, such as Serbian ones Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
People on those sources say that they are from Serbia. But if you want 'real' Serbian sources, here they are. http://www.elitemadzone.org/t296716-Registracija-mail-na-Yahoo-problem http://www.tolkien.co.yu/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19806 80.93.253.35 (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Registered Editor but unable to correct hyperlink, which has been modified.

Reference link 11 has now been changed to http://blog.cre8asite.net/bwelford/2004/04/a-rose-by-any-other-name/

Link listed gives 404 error.

Hope someone can make the change. Bwelford (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest IM Community?

Overall this is a very well written article, but I couldn't help noticing that this paragraph isn't factually accurate though:

"On August 27, 2007, Yahoo released a new version of Yahoo Mail that makes it possible for users to send instant messages to the largest combined instant messaging (IM) community including users of Yahoo Messenger and Windows Live Messenger, to send free text messages to mobile phones in the U.S., Canada, India and the Philippines.[25]"

What about users of multi-IM programs such as Trillian and Pidgin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillian_%28software%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin_%28software%29

The number of users you can reach with either program far exceeds the scope of just Yahoo Messenger and Windows Live Messenger.

Trillian has been able to link users of Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, and AOL's IM programs for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.175.15 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the multi-IM programs allow communication across protocols. ie, a user logged in with a Yahoo! account cannot communicate with a user logged in with an MSN account. At least one of the users must be logged in on both services. What the Yahoo!-MSN (as also the Google-AOL) agreement enables is communication between a Yahoo! user and an MSN user without the need for any user to sign in, or even have an account on two services. (Bluesmoon (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] History/Incorporation?

Does anyone have information regarding the state of incorporation? I can't seem to bring up the cited link from American Heritage, but I think it's an important bit of information, esp. regarding the buy offer by Microsoft. To wit, Delaware requires the Board to maximize share price at sale, whereas other states allow them to consider other factors, such as employees' continued employment and what's best for the company. --Jophus00 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo Fails to Uphold Promise to Ban Ads for Essay Writing Services

Are there any circumstances under which the following petition URL may be referenced on the main article page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo? I find Yahoo's failure to abide by its own guidelines disgusting.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/boycott-yahoo-essay-writing-services

At the very least, I think that Yahoo's attempt to garner public support by publicly taking the "moral high ground" in claiming to ban ads for certain products--but not actually following through with removing the ads (thereby continuing to earn revenue from such ads)--is something that speaks to the general business practices of the Yahoo corporation.

TeachingAllDay (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was The result was no move. Renata (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! → Yahoo — Removal of the decoratively used exclamation mark, in order to avoid undue emphasis on the brand/company name, giving preference to standard English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)). The form "Yahoo" has appeared in other established general purpose publications,[10] [11] so we would not be inventing a new format. The company's preferred typeset should still be mentioned in the article lead and illustrated with the graphic logo. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 naming conventions.
  • Oppose - Under the "General Rules" section in the guideline, it appears that the glyphs to avoid are peripherals used purely for decorative purposes such as macy*s. The exclamation mark is actually used in terms of punctuation and grammar. 75.82.17.225 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If the exclamation mark in "Yahoo!" was actually used for punctuation and grammar, sentences would end after every instance of the company name (and with a sense of urgency). Yet they don't and I might add that the stylized, possessive apostrophe in "macy*s" does serve a grammatical purpose, hence we keep it, albeit in a non-stylized fashion. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, sentences wouldn't. If the company, Yahoo! would be at the end of a sentence, it would be Yahoo!. That includes the full stop and exclamation mark. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose yahoo is a word, without the exclamation point, it would be an ambiguous title. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yahoo already redirects here, so there does not seem to be scope for ambiguity. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a dab page for Yahoo, therefore, it is a potentially ambiguous title, and as Yahoo! is significantly less ambiguous, means that this is currently the best name for the article, since it's also a correct name. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • None of the third party sources listed below contain footnotes with helpful clarifications like "The Internet services company, not the savage creatures from Gulliver.", so it should be save to assume that there is no genuine scope for ambiguity. And for making 110% sure that the reader is aware of the identity of the article's subject, a dablink, a graphic logo and a note in the article lead about the trademarked typeset still seem more appropriate for a neutrality pursuing general purpose publication, than putting an eye-catching emphasis on a company name every single time it is mentioned. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think it is POV to refer to a company (not just a brand, which is covered by MOS:TM) by its legally incorporated name, "eye-catching" or not. Confusionball (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
            • By that logic we would also have to stick with "adidas", "FOX" and "NVIDIA" (the list goes on). Picture Wikipedia honoring the official typeset of any company name out there, then their brands and products (WP:NPOV necessitating a fair approach towards all types of subjects) and so forth. And while we will be busy doing other people's brand management on Wikipedia: The World's Largest Billboard the business section of, say, The New York Times would still be readable, due to its editors being sensible enough not to have every second corporate entity visually and semantically scream at the reader. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems that many external sites use the term "Yahoo" without the "!". e.g. bbc.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, nytimes.com. Sam Staton (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It is purely decorative. "Yahoo! reported earnings of..." would be grammatically incorrect (exclamation mark in the middle of a sentence, new sentence beginning with a small letter 'r'). Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per the spirit of WP:MOS-TM regarding decorational text, and multiple sources below by Fatsamasgrandslam. Yahoo already redirects, so, the uniqueness provided by the ! is not necessary for user's to easily find the article. Given the history of the name, YAHOO would also be marginally acceptable as an acronym; but, I think the normal-case version suits everyone just fine. Neier (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, existing use, and grammatical practicality. ENeville (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The exclamation mark is part of the correct spelling of the name. It is unsurprising that many spell the name without the exclamation mark – it is a difficult name to spell, after all, and the exclamation mark is the difficulty. No matter how many sources spell Shia LaBeouf as Shia LeBeouf, we are not going to move the article, because we keep articles at their correct spelling. Fatsamsgrandslam, "Yahoo! reported earnings of ..." is no more grammatically incorrect than "Oklahoma! is the first musical play written by ...". The de facto Wikipedia standard is to keep the exclamation mark, as in the articles Oklahoma!, Oklahoma! (film), Oliver!, Oliver! (film) and Keating!. Timeineurope (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Timeineurope. Unlike the star for a hyphen in Wal-Mart or substituting a star for the apostrophe in Macy's, as mentioned above, the exclamation point in Yahoo! is not merely decorative typography but a part of the actual name of the company. As annoying and silly as it is (IMO), I think the title should remain "Yahoo!". Confusionball (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. the "!" is included in the company name, But redirecting Yahoo to Yahoo! is a good solution.  A M M A R  19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Fatsamsgrandslam. Tigeron (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose What, this proposal again? "!" is no decoration, it's a constituent part of the name of this company, as per countless sources and per the company itself. Húsönd 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What countless sources are you referring to? The ones presented in this discussion so far all dismiss the exclamation mark at least to some degree. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comments: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)#I_.E2.99.A5_Huckabees_and_Yahoo.21 is the discussion on the MoS talk page about this topic; Talk:Yahoo!/Archive_1#Requested_move is last year's discussion on this article's talk page. AFAICT, no new ground is being trod here. --moof (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Something new I see here is that Fatsamsgrandslam has specifically identified news sources that use "Yahoo" (below). Something notable from the cited previous discussions is a Bill Walsh essay, "What's in a nAME(cq)?". ENeville (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Aside from the sensible arguments of User:Cyrus XIII and the precedents listed by User:Fatsamsgrandslam (both below), I would follow WP:COMMONNAMES. We are not bound by "its legally incorporated name" when we are dropping the 'inc.' as per the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). Do like most articles do (and, apparently, Businessweek as well -- thanks to FatSam for pointing this out): locate the page at Yahoo, and put "Yahoo! inc" in bold in the lead sentence. Thereafter, use the plain "Yahoo" throughout the article. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia is the most prominent reference source that I can find that uses the exclamation point. CNN does not use it. The Associated Press does not use it, even though they partner with Yahoo to do public opinion polls. The New York Times does not use it. The Washington Post does not use it. All of these organizations have been able to omit the exclamation point, which is just decorative, without harming their readers with "ambiguity". It's unnecessary, it runs afoul of the manual of style, and if it is used in the text itself, it gunks up the prose by putting end punctuation in the middle of sentences. We are much better off without it. Croctotheface (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OpposeThe ! in the word Yahoo! is not punctuation nor is it decorative it is part of the name.IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I was neutral before I read this request, but when I saw "...Yahoo!." with an exclamation point followed by a full stop (below), I made up my mind. The only way to write a sentence like that correctly would be to omit the exclamation mark (omitting the full stop changes the way the sentence is read). Also User:Cyrus XIII's remark about accessibility issues is a great thought I had not considered. 14days (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I always put in the exclamation mark in written English, as do the vast majority of those with whom I correspond. Suspect that resentment of the Yahoo! octopus (and I agree, having never forgiven them for what they did to eGroups) is behind some of the support, but they're here and prominent, like it or not, and that's what they're called. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So does that mean you are putting your own personal preference before the verifiable lead of reputable third-party sources here? – Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, it just means that my opinion counts too. Disagree that you have presented a verifiable lead of reputable third-party sources, but this would be better discussed in the appropriate section. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, despite requests to do so, nobody opposing this notion has presented such sources to support their position, while Fatsamsgrandslam, Croctotheface and yours truly have listed quite a few. And I certainly respect everyone's opinion, but I would really like to see some of then being provided in a more productive fashion, with less from-the-gut arguments and more in the context of our existing policies and guidelines, as well as arguments presented by fellow editors. This would certainly make these proceedings more of a discussion and less of a vote, which they are not even supposed to be. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, yes "Yahoo" is generally used in news articles, but consider that they have to use that version for grammatical purposes. Second the current system of having the title as it is, and using "Yahoo" in the article works fine. Maybe at the top write "(Yahoo)" just for those who are picky. Æon 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What "current system" are you referring to? The current article arbitrarily mixes both styles, which is quite at odds with the very first paragraph of WP:MOS. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Yahoo!" is the company's name (it's even in their logo) and there's no compelling reason to remove the exclamation point. In prose we can sometimes do without it, but the title should retain it. Biruitorul (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Husond; the ! is an iconic part of the name. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose changing the company's name for them after all these years. It's their company. —SusanLesch (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose within Australia they are registered as Yahoo! Inc. I imagine this is consistent with other regional registrations for the company. The company's name is 'Yahoo!', not 'Yahoo'. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it is too much of a slippery slope... For example does that mean for example that the article named "AT&T" should follow Wikipedia naming conventions and become "AT and T", or article Cable & Wireless (C&W) would need to became "Cable and Wireless"? or how about Excite@Home would that need to be renamed Excite-at-Home, all simply because they are too close to the company name? CaribDigita (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that these two examples compare well to "Yahoo!", as none of them really use punctuation and their special characters appear in mid-name, as well as figuring into pronunciation. A look at outside sources might still have merit for both of them, but judging from a quick glance at the available references, the ampersand in "AT&T" is usually preserved, while the lone (and rather dated) CNN source in the Excite article uses "ExciteAtHome". – Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose in "!" in Yahoo! is a part of the company name. Neovu79 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
Exaples of "Yahoo" without exclamation mark in reliable sources: New York Times, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Los Angeles Times, CNet, USA Today, Wired, BBC. Perhaps best example is Businessweek, which uses no exclamation mark in headline, uses it in opening reference, and then defers again to standard usage without exclamation mark in remainder of article. Seems to be a good model to follow here? Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Any difficult-to-spell name will appear misspelt in a lot of sources, that proves nothing. The New York Times has spelt Alberto R. Gonzales as Gonzalez at least 14 times since 2001, still we would never contemplate moving his article to that spelling. As for the Businessweek article – are you serious? Are you really suggesting we can learn something about the spelling of Yahoo! from someone who can't even manage to spell it consistently throughout an article? Timeineurope (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary. The inconsistency is not an editorial mistake; but, a style decision which openly promotes the removal of decorative text (just like Wikipedia's guidelines) while also not completely ignoring the company's text that is used in press releases, etc. I would expect our article to follow the same convention, to relay the company's preferred and/or registered title, while using the standard spelling the rest of the way; similar to what is already done in articles like TIME and adidas. - Neier (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's not confuse spelling with punctuation. "Yahoo!" is not spelled with an exclamation mark, it is punctuated with one – regardless of grammatical context – by the trademark holders and publications who choose to emulate them. It is one thing if Mr. LaBeouf's and Mr. Gonzales's names are genuinely misspelled by inattentive editors and another if a publication consciously decides that conventions of the English language, such as capitalization and punctuation take precedent over corporate identities. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, 'Yahoo!' is in fact spelt with an exclamation mark; the exclamation mark clearly doesn't function as punctuation here any more than it does in '!Xu'. In the sentence 'It was Yahoo!.', the full stop is the only piece of punctuation – just compare it to the equivalent sentence 'It was Microsoft.'. Timeineurope (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In !Xu the exclamation point functions as pronunciation, representing the clicking sound pronounced in that language. ENeville (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, not all spelling differences are reflected in pronunciation... take tel and tell for example, or any number of homophones really. Secondly, I pronounce Yahoo! in a significantly different way to Yahoo. Perhaps the difference is less well defined than say the difference between run and runt but it's there. Andrewa (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Another thought that just occurred to me: How do screen readers for visually impaired people treat the "Yahoo!" exclamation mark? I have no hands-on experience with that kind of software myself, but I assume it could result in several ill-placed pauses and thus be detrimental to the overall experience. Conversely, limiting the official typeset to the proposed note in the lead would make the page more WP:ACCESS-compliant. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point if true... but it seems speculation. Does anybody know whether it's a problem or not? Andrewa (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not the point. While it's true that news paper articles tend to leave out the "!", but if the company officially has the "!" on every piece of writing they publish themselves, this arguement is neglegible. Neovu79 (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From survey above

Well, despite requests to do so, nobody opposing this notion has presented such sources to support their position, while Fatsamsgrandslam, Croctotheface and yours truly have listed quite a few. And I certainly respect everyone's opinion, but I would really like to see some of then being provided in a more productive fashion, with less from-the-gut arguments and more in the context of our existing policies and guidelines, as well as arguments presented by fellow editors. This would certainly make these proceedings more of a discussion and less of a vote, which they are not even supposed to be. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You raise a number of points here.

The first I'd like to deal with is how these discussions are supposed to take place. This one is, frankly, a mess. The survey is cluttered with comments and discussions. This defeats the whole purpose of separating them, which is to make it easier for the closing admin to follow the discussions.

Please note the instructions in WP:RM: If the discussion does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow, although it is convenient to use the heading ==Requested move==, because this is assumed by the template in step 3. The template {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} can be used to create a framework for a poll, but be aware that polling can be divisive. (Emphasis copied from original.) So you don't need to create separate survey and discussion sections, and as you don't seem to want to use them yourself, it seems strange to provide them for others to use. And in this case, the result as I've said is a mess.

So that's suggestion one if you want to improve the discussion. Too late for this move, but it might help in future.

Second I guess is that you seem to want to challenge or discount my vote. In terms of WP:NC, why? Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the introduction of WP:NC (emphasis mine):
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
To achieve that, it only seems sensible to follow a) standard English orthography for consistency and a clear prose and b) other general purpose publications, such as large-circulation newspapers, in order to get an idea on how said conventions are commonly applied to the subject at hand. And indeed, further down the policy page we have a section called "Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise", which in turn links to WP:MOSTM for specifics.
It may seem to you that this is only sensible, but not everyone agrees, and as a result the simple principle you advocate here is generally supported neither by policy nor by practice, for example in the many long discussions regarding diacritics.
As for your "vote", I'm not challenging or discounting anything, I just fail to see how citing the formatting habits of your personal correspondence is of any merit to this discussion – especially if at the same time, you choose to not address any of the numerous outside sources provided here so far, along with our Manual of Style for trademarks and the policies and guidelines (WP:SOAP/WP:NPOV) it derives its rationale from. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought this information was most helpful to the then state of the discussion. I'm sorry you didn't find it helpful. I suggest a careful reading of this policy, and please read the policy, not just react to the title... I'm not suggesting that you will just react to the title, nor that you're atacking me in the normal use of the term, just that I've been caught with others in the past. The policy is not primarily about saving people's feelings (although that is important too IMO) but about reaching consensus and avoiding polarisation. Perhaps I should say reducing, we'll never avoid it completely.
Nor is consensus helped when you react to every vote against your proposal by starting a discussion in the survey section which you have created, as I pointed out above. Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What I'd like to know is how we are supposed to collaboratively reach a consensus, when certain arguments regarding the issue at hand are repeatedly dodged by participants of the discussion; which, I'm sure you will agree, is just a tad more pressing than the specific placement of comments (I am, by the way, not at all a fan of interwoven talk page posts). – Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The process works remarkably well when people give it a go. That's not to say you'll agree with every decision reached, any more than I do. If you're seeking a place where you can unilaterally decide anything at all, this is not it.
I'm not at all sure I agree. Why are these arguments so pressing? Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
While pressing may not have been the exact word to use, I agree that squabbling over where the comments are placed is far secondary to the main issue, and the various points that have been put forth without any counterpoints. Husond claimed above that countless sources exist with the ! added, but, when asked for these sources, nothing is provided. On the other hand, countless sources without the ! are already described above, and, we should not discount them without due cause. In the exchange above, I note that you provided one first-hand reference (your own preference), and some second-hand references (people you correspond with), but, no reputable sources that Wikipedia can use, such as the NYT, IHT, and other papers. We can't build the encyclopedia with opinions. We also can't build the encyclopedia without a base set of rules, of which the MoS constitute a (flexible) subset. The debate here is whether Yahoo! violates the MoS while at the same time whether Yahoo is an acceptable name. We can't make up spellings, capitalizations, or punctuations on our own; but, in this case, we have a broad spectrum of sources which support a name which also fits our guidelines. Neier (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't mean to squabble. If you find my suggestions on procedure unhelpful, by all means ignore them. As to whether I have answered all of the opposing arguments, of course not, some have been answered by me, others by others, and others not at all. Nor have all of my arguments been answered. Discussion is like that. We move on. Andrewa (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.