This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2013, when it received 13,470,174 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
RM, Yahoo! → Yahoo, not moved, 30 October 2006 (discussion)
RM, Yahoo! → Yahoo, not moved, 13 April 2008 (discussion)
RM, Yahoo! → Yahoo, not moved, 15 August 2013 (discussion)
RM, Yahoo! → Yahoo, no consensus to move, 4 March 2015 (discussion)
RM, Yahoo! → Yahoo, not moved, 9 May 2017 (discussion)
The contents of the Yahoo! Korea page were merged into Yahoo. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Latest comment: 10 months ago8 comments6 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The linked article on web services does not remotely describe what Yahoo is or ever was. Yahoo is an online news, information and advertising platform. According to its press release boilerplate: "Yahoo serves as a trusted guide for hundreds of millions of people globally, helping them achieve their goals online / Yahoo Advertising offers omnichannel solutions and powerful data" 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
What Shadow meant was that you should write (in this exact format): "Change [original text in article] to [new text] because [your reason]", and also providing reliable sources to back up your claims. I'm guessing you want a more detailed description of Yahoo in the lead section? If that's the case, please read WP:SUMMARY and MOS:LEAD. The lead section, especially the first sentence, should only briefly describe the defining characteristics of the subject. Liu1126 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not asking for it to be more detailed. I'm asking for it to be minimally accurate. Secondary-source answers to "what is Yahoo's business?" are hard to come by because it's such a well-established brand as to require no introduction. Meanwhile, the current incorrect description has no source either. While Yahoo may indeed provide web services that companies use to purchase ad placements, describing its business that way is like describing Walmart as a logistics firm rather than a retailer. 2601:642:4600:BE10:F868:3FAB:454B:AE16 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The point being made is that you are using Wikipeida's Edit Request procedure. (as necessary for an unconfirmed user and a semi-protected page) As such, your request MUST be in the form outlined above by Liu1126 - "Please change these exact words in the article to these exact other words as supported by this specific reference." If it isn't, the procedure is to not act on your request. PianoDan (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, I am not required to use any specific form. I am only required to communicate the change clearly. I have indicated what wording should be changed, and to what it should be changed to. The opening sentence is fundamentally inaccurate as to what business Yahoo is in, and it is unhelpful to delay the point as if this were a court of law where exact forms must be followed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, etc. 2601:642:4600:BE10:4859:BD9C:88BC:D3ED (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done: You are not required under threat of punitive action to follow the process as described in WP:EDITXY, but as mentioned by 2 other editors the process is then that any edit may decline your edit request - as I am doing now - as not actioned.
This is not a binding denial, in that your concern - that the linked article on web services does not remotely describe what Yahoo is or ever was - cannot be addressed . Any editor is free to address such concern. This "denial" simply means your request will be removed from the queue of requested edits. You may not add this request back into the queue unless you address concerns in the original denial or are requesting a different change. Such action may be interpreted as disruptive and may result in editors requesting administrator review.
This appears bureaucratic, and to a degree it is, but all this process does is place upon you the same burden of effort that would exist if you were able to edit the page yourself. —Sirdog(talk) 06:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago24 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move. While some editors objected to a subset of the moves in addition to those who objected generally, these objections were insufficiently supported, either by vote count or by weight of policy, to prevent a consensus from forming here.
Editors may attempt a bold move of articles that were not covered by this RM but do use Yahoo!; if disputed a new RM should be opened.
– WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TM. The ! is a stylization that, while present in Yahoo logos, is commonly dropped in independent sources. See, for example, a Google News search for intitle:yahoo -inurl:yahoo or a Google Ngrams search for Yahoo!, Yahoo. Similarly, Wikipedia prefers to drop stylizations and our title policy is not based on usage in the company's own publications (which do often drop the ! in text these days) but rather in independent sources. Nominating as a mass move because prior RMs for just the Yahoo! page have included calls for all to be considered at once for WP:CONSISTENT titling. SilverLocust💬17:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. The exclamation mark is only a stylisation for branding purposes (logotype) and is not part of the company's name, per the company itself[1][2]. — kashmīrīTALK21:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong oppose A clear WP:TRAINWRECK as this move appears to seek to retroactively change the names of articles where the common name was indeed "Yahoo!" because the product existed before the exclamation point was phased out in common parlance, such as Yahoo! Buzz and Yahoo!Xtra among others. The nominator needs to do a bit more research vis a vis what exactly is commonly called "Yahoo" sans the exclamation point, we shouldn't be playing time machine and rewriting history to suit our whims. I also have a hunch that the Gulliver's Travels characters could be an equivalent primary topic by longterm significance, as they have entered mainstream usage as a term. Their article appears heavily underdeveloped. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Leaning support as noted it seems that even primary sources sometimes don't use the exclamation mark however it is often understood as being part of the name though and even if some of the sub topics should be considered on their own merits its probably best to have a central discussion here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm also under the impression that this could turn out to be a WP:TRAINWRECK. For example, the request refers to "the company", but Yahoo! Japan has not ever been part of the company that is covered by most of the articles nominated here. It was originally run by Yahoo! Japan Corporation (missing from the list of nominated articles) and affiliated with Softbank Group), and is now run by LY Corporation (jointly run by SoftBank Group and Naver Corporation alongside the Line (software) app). Yahoo! Kids is also part of the Japan company although the article there mixes information on it and the defunct service associated with the American company. I don't know how many other articles in the proposal have similar issues, but it appears that the usage and purpose of the exclamation point may vary widely among the cases. Oppose moving articles associated with the Japanese company. Dekimasuよ!20:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Whether to move defunct services (like Yahoo!Xtra),
Any other exceptions people think to raise here, like Yahoo! Japan (a service that is no longer owned in part by Yahoo).
If this discussion results in moving some of the articles, and people find that particular pages should have been included or not included, it would be simple enough to have a follow-up RM for more individual consideration.
No one is asking you to nominate them one by one, just to be 100% sure which ones SHOULD be moved rather than nominate them wholesale without research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem is primarily the barrier to participation that is required by trying to sort out which category each of the many nominees falls into. Meanwhile well-meaning editors who do not recognize the concerns may support or oppose on the basis of the topline move suggestion. Dekimasuよ!04:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support i am nervous that this many moves might break something or there might be some areas of exception but overall I think that this is a good idea and obeys our policies on naming pages. Jorahm (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.