Talk:History of Yahoo!/Archives/2013

Yahoo's original name
Wikipedia article's on Yahoo give the original name as been "Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web".

However, Yahoo's corporate sites are now putting it forward as "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web" ( http://yodel.yahoo.com/about/ and http://docs.yahoo.com/info/misc/history.html)

Does anyone have definitive evidence about the correct form?

86.212.55.212 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Ronan Murphy


 * It was definitely called "Jerry's Guide ..". The name "Jerry and David's Guide .." was suggested, and may even have been used briefly (this book  says it was).  Earthlyreason (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

URL Changed
Due to a change in URLs the #3 reference should be http://blog.cre8asite.net/bwelford/2004/04/a-rose-by-any-other-name/ but I cannot open up the list in the Edit mode to make the correction.

Perhaps someone can make the correction.

Thanks

Bwelford 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It changed again over the years, it's now here. I'll update the article accordingly. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This content appears to be mostly a previous (and less complete) version of the History section in the Yahoo! article.

I suggest that it is removed, after extracting and transferring any extra material of value.

Although the Yahoo! page is identified as a bit long (38 kB), this won't make much difference to it. Earthlyreason (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support merge - I don't see any good reason for this to remain a separate page. It's not a notable enough subject by itself, and there's enough room in the Yahoo! article for it to fit in there. Terraxos (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the merge as well. The article simply doesn't have enough content to merit a separate page.-- TBC !?!  05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tree Biting Conspiracy (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. This page should just be expanded ... possibly entirely re-done. The information is out there to make a full article.Jesuschex (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's enough content in the Yahoo! article, and this is a logical piece to break out. Royal broil  14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I actually think that History of Yahoo! should be expanded, because it can easily be done if someone spends time to do the research. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree on expanding History of Yahoo!, rather than diluting Wikpedia by merging articles. —IncidentFlux (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hear the opposing voices that a history of Yahoo! article is justified. But at the moment the page simply offers an out-of-date copy of the section in the main Yahoo! article, which is itself being updated. Either we re-merge it (for now, at least), or someone needs to summarise the history in the main article, and move the new copy to the 'history' article. The present situation is untenable. Earthlyreason (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation has (articles have) changed tremendously since September 2008 (4.5 years ago). Also, since September 2008, no further comments have been added to this discussion. For these reasons I'm closing this discussion. Feel free to suggest a new merge proposal in a new section if you still believe an article merge/removal is necessary. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Excessive Lead section
I have slightly amended the Lead section as it was too long, even for a company as significant as Yahoo! I also added citations and a tag for information that I was unable to find a source for. However, if I have been unreasonable in my editing then I am open to reversions.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)