Talk:Yahoo!/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Main Problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New York Times article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference removed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alibaba 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yahoo and China quagmire 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yahoo and MSN Messenger unified? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yahoo! Sports hacked? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LICRA vs. Yahoo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Most visited 

message: 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)
replies: text: It wasn't incorporated in Mountain View, but Santa Clara: the incorporation filing --moof 01:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Foundation (Not the Isaac Asimov novel) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Yahoo! look 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yahoo! owned by mafia or alliance of organized criminals? 

message: The article states that Yahoo! Chat was closed in 2005 due to fears of preying on underage children. Is this correct or was it just briefly shut down? It appears to be working as of today (3/13/2006).
Noooo! It's Yahoo User Chat room that is closed!
:>x<ino 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahoo! Chat closed? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rights cannot be restricted by private parties 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another Service? 

message: yahoo changed its appearence few minutes ago --217.184.13.246 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and add it yourself, remembering to cite a reliable source. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  useful info? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History - pronunciation of "Yahoo!" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web 

message: States:
Likewise, avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:
*avoid: Macy*s
*instead, use: Macy's
As far as I'm aware, (most) people don't shout when they talk about Yahoo. Furthermore, if you look at Google News, the exclamation is almost always ommitted whenever Yahoo is mentioned. ed g2s • talk 14:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)]] 

message: The exclamation mark in Yahoo! is often omitted when referring to Yahoo! and its services on various online forums. However, this is unacceptable on Wikipedia, which should strive to be a professional encyclopedia. The exclamation mark is part of the company name and trademark. Someone had already trademarked "Yahoo" (for barbecue sauce?), so the Yahoo! co-founders decided to add the exclamation mark, partially because "Yahoo!" is an interjection.
I am currently going through Yahoo! related articles, and adding the exclamation marks where neccesary. I do not add the exclamation mark when referring to URLs or when the article references the Yahoo.com web site.
I have recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yahoo! to encourage Wikipedia users to add the exclamation mark in Yahoo! to Yahoo!-related articles where neccesary.
Go Wikipedia!
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Macy's have a trademark on "Macy*s" too, doesn't mean we should use it. Once it has been made clear the "!" is part of the official title, there is nothing incorrect about using the common usage throughout the rest of the article, in fact one of Wikipedia's naming policies is based on common usage (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), so the purpose is not to be "technically correct" throughout. Furthermore, I would hardly call the BBC "various online forums". The majority of major news outlets use the commons usage, not the full trademark. ed g2s • talk 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yahoo!]] Add exclamation mark to Yahoo! when missing. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm deleting the third photo of Yahoo! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stable versioning tested on this article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: A good sample to use for such a page would be the List of Google products page. Stev0 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: 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)
replies: text: True dat!--Johnhardcastle 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If more people express their support for this the redirection should be reversed.--Waldir 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why blo.gs redirects to yahoo? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the very least: Moving Criticisms section to the end 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Strong oppose. The exclamation point is always used when "Yahoo" is used in a non-generic sense, just like Jeopardy! (game show) or Tora! Tora! Tora! (film) or Panic! at the Disco (music group) or Sorry! (board game). Why would a web site be any different? If the site "Yahoo!" was less notable, the Gulliverian meaning might be the primary topic for this title, and it would probably be accompanied by something like 
  — CharlotteWebb 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Please read WP:PR. Very little of our scotch-tape-and-piano-wire guidelines should be enforced. Septentrionalis 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Panama 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yahoo and Ronald Coleman? 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  News 

message: _ _ 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)
thread_title:  Backronym 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No longer #1? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diversified services 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Microsoft and Yahoo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improve Products and Services section 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --moof 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism, lock the article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yahoo!7 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SVG or PNG? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Quit screwing around. http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/photos_logos.cfm --Keeleysam 15:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Logo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unlimited lies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Customer Service 

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

message: This timeline is ridiculous. If it is really deemed necessary to enumerate every single act this company takes in the course of running its business, then split it into a different article. Otherwise, I'm going to cut it since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to move this to Timeline of events for Yahoo!. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Yahoo! Notepad]] should redirect to somewhere but I don't know where... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update 

message: 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)
thread_title: What Yahoo! itself says

message: 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)
thread_title: Include folk etymology of "backronym" for Yahoo on page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Serbian users 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Registered Editor but unable to correct hyperlink, which has been modified. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Largest IM Community? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History/Incorporation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yahoo Fails to Uphold Promise to Ban Ads for Essay Writing Services 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose - Under the "General Rules" section in the guideline, it appears that the glyphs to avoid are peripherals used purely for decorative purposes such as macy*s. The exclamation mark is actually used in terms of punctuation and grammar. 75.82.17.225 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In !Xu the exclamation point functions as pronunciation, representing the clicking sound pronounced in that language. ENeville (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion