Talk:Yahoo!/Archive 1

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)

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)

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: 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)
 * 1) articles which only seem likely to contain one sentence, of the form "Yahoo! is a service provided by Yahoo!, set up in " (which should be merged). I would include on this list:
 * 2) * Yahooligans!
 * 3) * Yahoo! Finance
 * 4) * Yahoo! Launch
 * as opposed to:
 * 1) 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:
 * 2) * Yahoo! Groups (a whole string of acquisitions, and now effectively a monopoly-holder in its field)
 * 3) * Yahoo! Messenger (one of the "big 4" IM systems, certainly in the UK, and well worth a proper technical article)


 * 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 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

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)

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 and  for the companies' and users' benefits. -- Sundar 04:36, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

If the blog entry is not reliable, then try to find another reliable source. The blog entry may have been used as source by the editor and as such, must be left alone till another more reliable source can be found. If you can't trust the source, well, then the info may not be entirely accurate. Much of this article's sources is on the web. Good references will mean a reliable article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. And please sign your posts. Aeons 09:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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% -Harmil 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

timeline and search engine
The article has the following:


 * February 19 2004: Yahoo dropped Google-powered results, returning to its own results after a long time.
 * March 2004: Yahoo launches its own search engine technology.

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)

Yahoo and China quagmire
Just thought this post would trigger more contribution. 
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

Most visited
According to alexa's rank, 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)

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?

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

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)

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).

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)

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!
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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&#39;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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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: 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 &bull; talk 14:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * avoid: Macy*s
 * instead, use: Macy's

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)

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 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 (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 &bull; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Yahoo! → Yahoo — The "!" is superfluous decoration, and according to 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)

Survey
Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~. — CharlotteWebb 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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.-- Hús  ö  nd  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.-- Hús  ö  nd  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, and they do not use the question mark. CNN does, however, use exclamation points in an article about "Jeopardy!" , 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! — Mets 501 (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)

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 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 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, CharlotteWebb suggested moving Yahoo (literature) to Yahoo: Talk:Yahoo (literature). 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, Reuters , Business Week , CNET , the Washington Post , Information Week , the Los Angeles Times , and even Scientific American . (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", 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. 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: . 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.

NEW LOGO
why it is the new logo of yahoo! ?

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)

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

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)

News

 * In late 2006, Yahoo began a campaign to upgrade their maps, to compete better with Google Local and other online map companies. Several of the maps used in the survey were similar to Google maps. The online survey is here. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Backronym
_ _ Article says (lks omitted here)
 * "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle" is a backronym

Whatever may be the case, my recollection is
 * Hierarchically Organized

I haven't done the Google check, but unless my version is both a memory slip and very rare, it should be covered. _ _ It also says "backronym, but" where i think logic calls for "backronym, and"; perhaps it will be convenient to discuss that question along with consideration of the other. --Jerzy•t 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No longer #1?
I noticed this article says the Yahoo portal is supposedly the number one visited site worldwide, but the cite link for it (Alexa) says that Yahoo is actually number #2... is there a reason the article hasn't been updated, or did I miss something? 71.112.240.171 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC). In 2007 Microsoft attemped to buy Yahoo for something like 7 million

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] yahoo is yet anothere hirerichal officious Oracle

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) It isKittycat0143 (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that Alexa is measuring traffic to Yahoo.com and not to to search.yahoo.com, so while the overall traffic to Yahoo! may be number one then the google _search_ traffic is still the prevailing.

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

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)

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

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. Invol instance 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Graham 87 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this to Timeline of events for Yahoo!. -- Zim Zala Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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. <font fontname="Courier New" fontsize="14" color="red">Invol <font fontname="Arial Black" fontsize="14" color="blue">instance 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 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, 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 (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 includes Yang’s own words on the subject from a 1997 speech (the original link  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)

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

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)

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)

Include folk etymology of "backronym" for Yahoo on page
I came to the article because I had heard that Yahoo's name originated from the acronym for "yet another... yadda yadda yadda", but I had to dig through a lot of discussion here to find out that this is not substantiated fact but just a rumor. Nonetheless, I would really like to see this included in the entry with a disclaimer such as Monkeytheboy suggests, e.g. "contrary to popular belief." If it's a persistent rumor - which it must be, since I have finally encountered it and I'm usually the last one to hear something like this - then Wikipedia should set the record straight upfront, not buried in the discussion pages. Cheers, 216.165.126.18 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 Manual of Style (trademarks)). The form "Yahoo" has appeared in other established general purpose publications, 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)

Survey

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

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)
 * 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. Hús  ö  nd  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_%28trademarks%29 is the discussion on the MoS talk page about this topic; Talk:Yahoo%21/Archive_1 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 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)
 * 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)
 * See below. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 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. <font color="Black">Æ <font color="ForestGreen">on  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)

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)

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, because this is assumed by the template in step 3. The template  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.