Talk:Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Oath Inc.)

Updating article[edit]

Hi page watchers, I've worked up a draft that updates this article now that the Yahoo! acquisition is complete. The article is still written in places as it was before Oath was fully formed. The article says Oath "will serve" as the umbrella of its content sub-divisions AOL and Yahoo! It already does. It also says, "AOL and Yahoo will maintain their respective brands following the completion of the transaction." The transaction is complete, and the two do maintain their respective brands. My draft makes a number of other changes: I have attributed the meaning behind Oath's name to CEO Tim Armstrong; I changed Headquarters to Operations, including how Oath fits into Verizon Communications, headquarters and other office locations, chief executive, and number of employees; a brief History section with the origins of Oath; and reorganized Brands.

You'll see my full draft in my user space. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make these edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LABcrabs:: Thanks for updating! VZBob (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added "Reception" section[edit]

Hi page watchers. On September 24, LABcrabs wrote Reception, which includes two sentences: One a critique by a competitor's CEO because Verizon held an earnings call on April 20; and another about a press release issued by the competitor criticizing Verizon. In my opinion, this section is unencyclopedic and I ask that editors consider its removal. As per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION, this critique does not seem notable enough for inclusion here, let alone its own section. The competitor's criticism was a one-day news story, and it did not garner much coverage to begin with. As for the second sentence, it is sourced to a press release by the competitor, not a reliable secondary source.

To help address some of this article's outdated aspects, I have posted an edit request above for a full draft in my user space.

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look make these edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VZBob. Even though you work at Verizon, I understand your concerns with the lack of content in the "Reception" section. I am also one who agrees that T-Mobile US should not be the sole source in that section, and I'd like to add more content in the near future. Doing a Google News search, however, I only see the 2013 breach in the news — which happened well before Verizon's involvement. Nevertheless, Todd Spangler from Variety writes: "Yahoo Disclosure of 3 Billion Hacked Accounts ‘Taints’ Verizon’s Oath Unit: Analyst"
Here are a few other articles that I've found after a quick search:
I'm sure that something can be sorted out to prevent too much weight by T-Mobile US while also incorporating media publications' thoughts. --LABcrabs (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LABcrabs: Thanks for removing the content sourced to a competitor's press release.
It’s not so much that I’m concerned with lack of content than feeling like the company may not warrant a Reception section yet, and details about reaction to its founding, if important to include, should be in the History. I look forward to hearing what you and other editors think. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:VZBob, I agree with you and have removed the criticism reception section. I do think that the other links that LABcrabs posted above are very appropriate for this article and it would be good to integrate them in. However, the criticism section as it stood with just the one trivial quote was not good enough to constitute an entire "reception" section, in my opinion. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoi: Thanks for reviewing and removing the content. VZBob (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/after-q3-slide-verizon-s-oath-says-it-won-t-meet-its-previously-set-revenue-target-for-2020

Oath Inc recent quarterly statements has came out.

Edits regarding Oath's status as a subsidiary of Verizon[edit]

I made the following changes to the article:

  • Changed the "type" parameter in the infobox from "Subsidiary of Verizon Media" to simply "Subsidiary." The "type" parameter describes what kind of company Oath is (e.g., publicly traded, privately owned, etc.). It's not the place to note that a parent company. In fact, there is a separate parameter for noting Oath's parent company lower in the infobox, which duly notes that it is owned by Verizon.
  • I changed the opening statement to reflect simply that Oath is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications. The source provided simply stated that Oath operates as part of Verizon's Media and Telematics division, which is *not* necessarily the same as the entity called Verizon Media LLC. I could not find any source that states that Oath's parent company is "Verizon Media." Getting really specific about Verizon's legal structure would be diving into a dark rabbit hole anyway, given that Verizon is really a giant holding company with a hugely complex legal corporate structure.
  • I added the ref about Oath's operation as part of the media and telematics division to the "operations" section, which seemed more appropriate. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan[edit]

"Manhattan, New York": is that really Wikipedia's official style? Not "New York City"? or simply "New York"? Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_based_in_New_York_City — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.111.134 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AO L, Yahoo/Oath New Terms of Service & Privacy Policies 4/18 to Users[edit]

alir1@aol.com50.105.73.98 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)I've been an AOL user since its inception.[reply]

ON April 26, 2018 AOL users received an online message that AOL is now conjoined along with Yahoo and other internet brands as Oath, Inc. It further goes on to warn users that if continued to use any of its subsidiaries that the user will automatically be agreeing to Oath's New Terms of Service and Privacy Policies.

I admit I didn't make it through reading all these 2 new policies as I had read enough with just the opening lines stating that by continuing to use any Oath-including AOL or Yahoo- that the person/user GIVES UP THEIR RIGHTS TO TRIAL , INCLUDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS AND IS FORCED TO USE ARBITRATION INSTEAD. That appears to be an illegal clause by Oath and is against the Constitution of the United States of America which guarantees all people the right to TRIAL.

Barring use of service if one doesn't give up their protected right is equivalent to saying you can live in this town unless you give up your rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Right then they broke United States Law.

And all this comes, by knowing they had 1 billion persons affected by data breach in past, so it includes barring users from Class Action Lawsuits. All done before the upcoming Congressional U.S. elections scheduled for November, 2018.

</AOL Warning Online Warning Pop UP of April 26, 2018 to Users (https://policies.oath.com/us/en/oath/terms/otos/index.html)

Hi, thank you for your comments. I wanted to note a couple of things
* This is nothing new. The old AOL terms of service included an arbitration clause -- [1].
* Whether this is illegal or unconstitutional or not is beyond the scope of this article because there are many organizations that include binding arbitration clauses in their terms of use. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clunky and Needs Editing[edit]

I am having trouble understanding the following in the article:

" As a result, Verizon lowered its offer for Yahoo! by $350 million to $4.48 billion.[19]

Two months before closing the deal for Yahoo!, Verizon announced it would place Yahoo! and AOL under the Oath umbrella.[20]"

If the offer was lowered shouldn't the dollar amount decrease? From $350 million to $4.49 billion is an increase. Or does this mean that the offer went from 354.48 billion dollars down to 4.48 billion dollars? By the way 354.48 billion dollars is a lot of money. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qewr4231: I believe the statement is supposed to mean that Verizon's initial offer was $4.83 billion, but was lowered to $4.48 billion. I think you're confusing $350 million with $350 billion in your statement. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  17:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Oath Inc. → Verizon Media – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. feminist (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rationale appears to be that a name change took place over the last few days. However, SportsFan007, please introduce evidence in accordance with such policies and guidelines as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, and WP:OFFICIAL if you would like to change the title of the article. If no evidence is supplied this might be procedurally closed. Dekimasuよ! 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oath -> Verizon Media [2] Retimuko (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the name Verizon Media meets the requirements of WP:OFFICIAL per the firm's website. is the proper title per WP:NAMECHANGES. Although initial media reports indicated the company would be rebranded "Verizon Media Group", it appears the word "group" was ultimately dropped from the company title, with the most recent secondary sources omitting the word altogether published after the name change was made using the name "Verizon Media". [3][4] (satisfying WP:NAMECHANGES). Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose for no rationale. Would support move to Verizon Media if a move has to take place. ONR (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Verizon Media since the new name has been confirmed by Verizon directly. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose due to press coverage and the recognizability of Oath, Inc.--FrankTursetta (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy move to Verizon Media the Oath website says that Oath is now Verizon Media. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Verizon Media since the new name has been confirmed by Verizon directly and Oath Inc. has no brand recognition. Part of the reason the name was changed was due in part to low recognition. The Oath Inc. website clearly states that the switch has been made so there is absolutely no reason to keep the Wikipedia page called Oath Inc. I was the original creator of the Oath Inc. Wikipedia article and I fully support the move.

User talk: Thunderbolt.wiki 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose They're still using the Oath name. They have not yet rebranded. When logging into Yahoo properties and things like mail, etc. you are shown this screen for approval that starts: "New Privacy and Terms Yahoo is now part of Oath, the media and tech company behind today’s top news, sports and entertainment sites and apps. By choosing “I accept” below, you agree to Oath’s new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Below is a summary of some of the key updates. To learn more about our approach to privacy, click here." It also displays the Oath logo. Centerone (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Verizon Media It says on the Oath Website that it is now Verizon Media. The brand is now known as Verizon Media according to the company and news reports which refer to the recent lay offs as by Verizon Media. This is the name they go by. The name should be changed. TheUSConservative (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why Is This Move Protected?[edit]

It's official that they have been renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Justin Giebel (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a currently ongoing move request. ONR (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're still using the Oath name. Centerone (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brands[edit]

"Brands" is outdated, so I wanted to offer an updated list for page watchers to consider. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here. Is it possible to update the current brands listed in Brands? I propose adding various Yahoo! brands and BUILD, changing "Rivals.com" to "Rivals" and "MAKERS Women" to "MAKERS", and removing Kanvas (which is not a Verizon Media brand), as shown below:

Some of the digital brands under Verizon Media include:[1]

References

  1. ^ "Our brands". Retrieved November 12, 2019.
  2. ^ Krouse, Sarah (January 23, 2019). "Verizon To Lay Off 7% of Media Group Staff". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 22, 2019.

I understand that Wikipedia editors prefer third-party sources for information, but the use of Verizon Media's website seems like the best way to ensure this information is accurate, rather then putting together a list piecemeal using sources that may or may not be up-to-date. Of course, I will defer to Wikipedia editors to make that determination. However, I did add additional sourcing within the list where needed.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LABcrabs and Aoi: You reviewed requests of my former colleague. Would you care to look at this request to clean up the top of the Brands section? VZEric (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@VZEric: I won't have ready access to a computer until about December 3 and can't do any heavy editing aside from vandalism fighting until then. If no one has reviewed this by December 3, I'll be happy to look at it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoi: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoi: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of employees[edit]

The infobox and Operations contain an outdated number of employees. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I won't be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, so I will propose edits here. Is it possible to update the figure in both places based on reporting by CNN?

  1. Update Number of employees in the infobox to 10,350 (2019)[1]
  2. In Operations, update "As of December 2018, the company employed about 14,000 people" to "As of December 2019, the company employed about 10,350 people[1]"

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my request and make editors on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Flynn, Kerry (December 10, 2019). "Verizon Media plans to lay off 150 people this week". CNN. Retrieved December 11, 2019.

Reply 12-DEC-2019[edit]

  Edit request implemented  

  • Please note that the ref tag label "Employees" was already taken by another reference. Kindly ensure that ref tag labels are uniquely created by reviewing each and every instance in the future. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  16:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spintendo: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Acquisition[edit]

Today the acquisition of Verizon Media by Yahoo! is now complete, i should rename the page, but it doesn´t have a move buttom, i dont sknow how to put it, so if its possible that if some one can do it, rename the page, its now officialy tht his name has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Ovalle (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me what the new name of the article should be, especially since the page Yahoo already exists to discuss the Yahoo website and webservices (and should probably stay at that location). It's also not clear to me what the legal name of the renamed company is -- their website seems to imply that it's "Yahoo Inc." but I haven't been able to find any primary or secondary sources that confirms this. Perhaps Yahoo (company)? Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2021[edit]

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. Moved to Yahoo (company) with no objections. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Media → ? – See the discussion above. A majority share of Verizon Media has been sold to Apollo Funds and the company has been renamed simply "Yahoo", as reflected in the article. The article name Yahoo currently discusses the Yahoo website and associated web services, so this article will need to be given a different title. My immediate thoughts were "Yahoo (company)" (the press release simply calls the company "Yahoo" without an exclamation point) or "Yahoo Inc." (the company's website URL implies, but does not confirm, that this is the name of the new company). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move to Yahoo (company) (which would be a move-over-redirect). Yahoo should be changed from a redirect to a disambiguation page, and hatnotes should be put at the top of this page and at the top of Yahoo!. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2021 (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.

Oath Inc., Verizon Media and Yahoo! are all the same company[edit]

The articles related to Yahoo! portal and AOL are describing Oath Inc, Verizon Media, and the current incarnation of Yahoo! as separate companies. All those names refer to the same company: the post-2017 Yahoo! that Verizon Communications bought. It just has had different names and been rebranded. I did some editing to clarify this but it needs some work. I would even suggest that there might even be three Yahoo!'s. The original Yahoo! Inc. from 1995-2017, the Oath/Verizon Media from 2017-2021 wholly owned by Verizon Communications, and the current incarnation of Yahoo! Inc. managed by Apollo with Verizon Communications as a minority stake. cookie monster 755 06:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Gowrappan Internal Link[edit]

Hi! My name is Kelly, I work at Yahoo and am new on Wikipedia. Can editors wikilink Guru Gowrappan's name in the "Operations" section of this article? A new article for the former CEO has just been created via Articles for Creation. @SL93: Since you assisted with the AfC, are you interested in this request? I am looking forward to working with the editors on Wikipedia! Thank you for considering! KPYahoo (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 March 2022[edit]

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~StyyxTalk? 20:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo (2017–present) → Yahoo (company) – The year is best used to represent the previous company but for the current using (company) is way better. DownTownRich (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: No clear rationale provided (just "way better"), and Wikipedia is not just for current information. There is no clear indication that the current company is dramatically more notable than the 1995–2017 company. The target term should be disambiguated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the parenthetical (company) which is incomplete disambiguation. Consider natural disambiguation by legal name, Yahoo Inc. – if this is sufficiently different from Yahoo! Inc. to not cause confusion. Apparently the original company included the exclamation point in their legal name, while the current company does not. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2022 (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.

"Yahoo! Inc." listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Yahoo! Inc. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 24 § Yahoo! Inc. until a consensus is reached. Conifer (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yahoo!_Inc._(2017–present)&oldid=1211011137"