Talk:Yahoo

Today Yahoo is more about tabloids and gossip on its website. With some services thrown in.

Its hardly about Yahoo Search anymore and now seems to aire lots of gossip, fake news, and trashy tabloids aired to stir up scandals. It seems like the lead section is far removed from what the portal has become. CaribDigita (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Partical Research

Article about volcanic eruption and also use the approches of Literature the traditional review of Literature the conceptual review and we need tha citation the in text citation APA in paragraph ~2026-10194-71 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@ ~2026-16152-08 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request: Duplicate content from Criticism of Yahoo

Hi! I'm a COI editor for Yahoo through my employer, Porter Novelli. I'm working on some proposed updates for this article, but first wanted to raise a more general question about how much this article should overlap with Criticism of Yahoo.

WP:SPINOFF states that Summary sections are used in a broader article to briefly cover the content of more detailed subarticles. However, the Similar Page Checker tool shows that this page is 46% similar to Criticism of Yahoo, and Duplication Detector identified numerous paragraphs that are verbatim between the two articles, including:

• the entirety of the Criticism section, except for the two sentences under "DMCA notice to whistleblower" and "Censorship of private emails affiliated with Occupy Wall Street protests" – the other 23 paragraphs are verbatim copies
• commentary on the 2010 Yahoo! Groups remodel
• 3 paragraphs on Scott Ard's lawsuit
• the paragraph on paid inclusion in 2004
• the first paragraph on data breaches
• the paragraph on the Flickr redesign
• the paragraph on the Fox IT malware attack

This seems to have initially come about as part of a plan to merge the two articles, but Criticism of Yahoo passed its AFD nomination, resulting in the redundancy. The overall effect, with a Criticism section almost as long as the History section, feels WP:UNDUE, which is I suspect why the content fork to the designated Criticism article was first created.

I propose converting the itemized content above into summary format and incorporating it into the History section rather than keeping it in a designated WP:CSECTION. Happy to take a pass at drafting this if other editors are aligned, but wanted to flag here first in case I was missing something about the duplication of content. Alternatively/additionally, I could rework "Criticism" as "Reception" (per WP:POVFORK, If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative), moving select items into History as appropriate.

Would love any feedback here to help ensure this article reflects best practices. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@LWG, Homo ergaster, Pats322, and Finell: Pinging some folks who have worked on this article in the past few months, in case you'd like to weigh in on the above. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My only involvement with this article was to excise a slew of ChatGPT text that was added a while back. I don't plan to be further involved here at this time. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply 4-JUL-2026

  Please use WP:NPOVN, WP:WPTECH or WP:RfC  

• The {{Edit COI}} template is for specific, actionable requests that a reviewer can singly respond to.
• The COI editor appears to be seeking generalized feedback from other editors, in which case, other, more appropriate tools can be used, including:

1. The neutral point of view noticeboard
2. One or more relevant WikiProjects, such as WP:WPTECH.
3. Requests for comments

Regards,  Spintendo  10:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Lost market share to Facebook?

This is quoted prominently but I think it’s over-egging it. Lost market share to Google yes but to Facebook less so. Does anyone have a decent citation for the Facebook claim? SirSiliconBones (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Duplicate content from Criticism of Yahoo

How much should the contents of Yahoo duplicate Criticism of Yahoo? Per a diff of the latest version of each article and Duplication Detector, the two articles currently contain 29 closely paraphrased or identical paragraphs, including all of the Criticism section except for the "DMCA notice to whistleblower" and "Censorship of private emails affiliated with Occupy Wall Street protests" subsections. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Flagging that I'm a COI editor for Yahoo through my employer, Porter Novelli. I'm opening this RfC at the suggestion of Spintendo above, following attempted outreach to past editors of this article, WP:NPOVN, and WP:WPTECH. As I mentioned above, the duplication of content seems to have initially come about as part of a plan to merge the two articles, but Criticism of Yahoo passed its AFD nomination, resulting in the redundancy. I appreciate any input on how to address this. Thank you!

Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Why do we need an RfC? I see no evidence anyone disagrees with you. Seems like what's needed is for an editor to actually do the work. Agree? JerryGraf (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe so, but I hadn't really heard feedback either way, and I didn't want to overstep in unilaterally proposing a rewrite, given my COI. Sounds like I'm on the right track, so I can put together an edit request with condensed/reorganized language, barring objection from anyone else. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not that interested in this topic, but if you made the edit request straightforward, I'd be happy to make it. JerryGraf (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)