![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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 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)
::::
, 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)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
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've just finished working over the Alibaba.com and Ma Yun (Jack Ma) articles. Given the magnitude of this deal, can others please check my work here and there and make sure I've not made any simple mistakes. The original figure quoted on Alibaba.com was 35%, but all of the news stories I see say 40% [3] - Harmil 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The article has the following:
I am pretty sure that when Yahoo dropped Google they immediately used the Yahoo! Search results, that were based on the revised Yahoo! Slurp crawler. I beleive that's the case, since they kept using Google well after they acquired other search engines. They waited, till their new technology was fully ready. Before Google, I think they used Inktomi. I don't think they ever had their own crawler-based original search engine, before they bought companies that already had them. So, I'm not clear on what they're "returning" to "after a long time". I wouldn't count the always present ability to search for sites within the Yahoo directory as a "search engine". Anyway, maybe somebody can clarify what happened. -- rob 13:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Just thought this post would trigger more contribution. [4]
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)
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)
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)
According to alexa's rank [5], yahoo is the #1 most visited site on the WWW. I didn't see that in the article. Isnt it worth adding? -- Shell 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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?
I added blo.gs and dialpad as yahoo-owned sites but there're a lot more services that were missed in the article
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)
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) .
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)
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!
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
States:
Likewise, avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:
- avoid: Macy*s
- instead, use: Macy's
As far as I'm aware, (most) people don't shout when they talk about Yahoo. Furthermore, if you look at Google News, the exclamation is almost always ommitted whenever Yahoo is mentioned. ed g2s • talk 14:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It is actually always incorrect to omit the exclamation point when referring to Yahoo!, no matter how awkward it may seem to you. It is not "purely decorative," it is part of the trade mark. This is quite different than the "Macy*s" example given in the manual of style. Your change should be reverted.
Jeffrey McManus
23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
a) This is the end of a sentence b) You should be shouting now -- 149.167.175.99 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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 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)
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 result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yahoo! → Yahoo — The "!" is superfluous decoration, and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) we should write trademarks according the normal rules of English and not merely ape the decorative formatting preferred by the trademark holder. Yahoo is perfectly well recognized without insisting on a "!" to draw attention to the name. Dragons flight 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments:
why it is the new logo of yahoo! ?
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)
I propose merging Peanut Butter Manifesto into this article. Please discuss. Powers T 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
_ _ Article says (lks omitted here)
Whatever may be the case, my recollection is
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)
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
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 is Kittycat0143 ( 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.
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.
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
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)
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)
There's no mention in the article of what it is, and the name redirects here. Could someone add an explanation somewhere? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Night Gyr. Yahoo!7 is the Austrailian version of Yahoo!. I will do my best to mention this in the article. Involinstance 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I posted that under the section "Yahoo! International. Please extend it if you can. Involinstance 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
If you wish to have the purple one on there, why don't you put it? Xeysz ☼ 00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
This timeline is ridiculous. If it is really deemed necessary to enumerate every single act this company takes in the course of running its business, then split it into a different article. Otherwise, I'm going to cut it since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- ZimZalaBim talk 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I 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)
new article. it may be about to be deleted. please help, at Yahoo! Green. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [19] 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 [20], 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 [21] (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 [22] includes Yang’s own words on the subject from a 1997 speech (the original link [23] 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)
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?
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 [24]
Earthlyreason ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
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 regards Monkeytheboy ( talk) 15:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was The result was no move. Renata ( talk) 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahoo! → Yahoo — Removal of the decoratively used exclamation mark, in order to avoid undue emphasis on the brand/company name, giving preference to standard English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)). The form "Yahoo" has appeared in other established general purpose publications, [25] [26] 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)
*'''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.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)
Well, despite requests to do so, nobody opposing this notion has presented such sources to support their position, while Fatsamsgrandslam, Croctotheface and yours truly have listed quite a few. And I certainly respect everyone's opinion, but I would really like to see some of then being provided in a more productive fashion, with less from-the-gut arguments and more in the context of our existing policies and guidelines, as well as arguments presented by fellow editors. This would certainly make these proceedings more of a discussion and less of a vote, which they are not even supposed to be. – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You raise a number of points here.
The first I'd like to deal with is how these discussions are supposed to take place. This one is, frankly, a mess. The survey is cluttered with comments and discussions. This defeats the whole purpose of separating them, which is to make it easier for the closing admin to follow the discussions.
Please note the instructions in
WP:RM: If the discussion does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow, although it is convenient to use the heading ==Requested move==
, because this is assumed by the template in step 3. The template {{
subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} can be used to create a framework for a poll, but be aware that
polling can be divisive. (Emphasis copied from original.) So you don't need to create separate survey and discussion sections, and as you don't seem to want to use them yourself, it seems strange to provide them for others to use. And in this case, the result as I've said is a mess.
So that's suggestion one if you want to improve the discussion. Too late for this move, but it might help in future.
Second I guess is that you seem to want to challenge or discount my vote. In terms of WP:NC, why? Andrewa ( talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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 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)
::::
, 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)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
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've just finished working over the Alibaba.com and Ma Yun (Jack Ma) articles. Given the magnitude of this deal, can others please check my work here and there and make sure I've not made any simple mistakes. The original figure quoted on Alibaba.com was 35%, but all of the news stories I see say 40% [3] - Harmil 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The article has the following:
I am pretty sure that when Yahoo dropped Google they immediately used the Yahoo! Search results, that were based on the revised Yahoo! Slurp crawler. I beleive that's the case, since they kept using Google well after they acquired other search engines. They waited, till their new technology was fully ready. Before Google, I think they used Inktomi. I don't think they ever had their own crawler-based original search engine, before they bought companies that already had them. So, I'm not clear on what they're "returning" to "after a long time". I wouldn't count the always present ability to search for sites within the Yahoo directory as a "search engine". Anyway, maybe somebody can clarify what happened. -- rob 13:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Just thought this post would trigger more contribution. [4]
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)
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)
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)
According to alexa's rank [5], yahoo is the #1 most visited site on the WWW. I didn't see that in the article. Isnt it worth adding? -- Shell 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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?
I added blo.gs and dialpad as yahoo-owned sites but there're a lot more services that were missed in the article
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)
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) .
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)
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!
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
States:
Likewise, avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:
- avoid: Macy*s
- instead, use: Macy's
As far as I'm aware, (most) people don't shout when they talk about Yahoo. Furthermore, if you look at Google News, the exclamation is almost always ommitted whenever Yahoo is mentioned. ed g2s • talk 14:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It is actually always incorrect to omit the exclamation point when referring to Yahoo!, no matter how awkward it may seem to you. It is not "purely decorative," it is part of the trade mark. This is quite different than the "Macy*s" example given in the manual of style. Your change should be reverted.
Jeffrey McManus
23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
a) This is the end of a sentence b) You should be shouting now -- 149.167.175.99 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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 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)
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 result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yahoo! → Yahoo — The "!" is superfluous decoration, and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) we should write trademarks according the normal rules of English and not merely ape the decorative formatting preferred by the trademark holder. Yahoo is perfectly well recognized without insisting on a "!" to draw attention to the name. Dragons flight 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments:
why it is the new logo of yahoo! ?
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)
I propose merging Peanut Butter Manifesto into this article. Please discuss. Powers T 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
_ _ Article says (lks omitted here)
Whatever may be the case, my recollection is
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)
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
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 is Kittycat0143 ( 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.
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.
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
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)
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)
There's no mention in the article of what it is, and the name redirects here. Could someone add an explanation somewhere? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Night Gyr. Yahoo!7 is the Austrailian version of Yahoo!. I will do my best to mention this in the article. Involinstance 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I posted that under the section "Yahoo! International. Please extend it if you can. Involinstance 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
If you wish to have the purple one on there, why don't you put it? Xeysz ☼ 00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
This timeline is ridiculous. If it is really deemed necessary to enumerate every single act this company takes in the course of running its business, then split it into a different article. Otherwise, I'm going to cut it since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- ZimZalaBim talk 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I 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)
new article. it may be about to be deleted. please help, at Yahoo! Green. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [19] 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 [20], 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 [21] (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 [22] includes Yang’s own words on the subject from a 1997 speech (the original link [23] 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)
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?
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 [24]
Earthlyreason ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
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 regards Monkeytheboy ( talk) 15:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was The result was no move. Renata ( talk) 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahoo! → Yahoo — Removal of the decoratively used exclamation mark, in order to avoid undue emphasis on the brand/company name, giving preference to standard English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)). The form "Yahoo" has appeared in other established general purpose publications, [25] [26] 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)
*'''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.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)
Well, despite requests to do so, nobody opposing this notion has presented such sources to support their position, while Fatsamsgrandslam, Croctotheface and yours truly have listed quite a few. And I certainly respect everyone's opinion, but I would really like to see some of then being provided in a more productive fashion, with less from-the-gut arguments and more in the context of our existing policies and guidelines, as well as arguments presented by fellow editors. This would certainly make these proceedings more of a discussion and less of a vote, which they are not even supposed to be. – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You raise a number of points here.
The first I'd like to deal with is how these discussions are supposed to take place. This one is, frankly, a mess. The survey is cluttered with comments and discussions. This defeats the whole purpose of separating them, which is to make it easier for the closing admin to follow the discussions.
Please note the instructions in
WP:RM: If the discussion does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow, although it is convenient to use the heading ==Requested move==
, because this is assumed by the template in step 3. The template {{
subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} can be used to create a framework for a poll, but be aware that
polling can be divisive. (Emphasis copied from original.) So you don't need to create separate survey and discussion sections, and as you don't seem to want to use them yourself, it seems strange to provide them for others to use. And in this case, the result as I've said is a mess.
So that's suggestion one if you want to improve the discussion. Too late for this move, but it might help in future.
Second I guess is that you seem to want to challenge or discount my vote. In terms of WP:NC, why? Andrewa ( talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)