Talk:Yahoo! Sports/Archives/2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. This one was close, but I feel the arguments based on sourcing are stronger on the side supporting the move, and Wikipedia prefers what reliable sourcing uses, with consistency being secondary to that. Additionally, SMcCandlish presented a strong argument based on the MOS that was not addressed by those opposing a move. As a whole, I feel on the strength of the arguments and the numbers, there is enough of a consensus for a move. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo! Sports → Yahoo Sports – Used in reliable sources.^[1] Hurrygane (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Zero precedent with other related articles, as well as the company, which is still named "Yahoo!"_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I think they've omitted the exclamation mark in their social media handles because some of them don't allow an exclamation mark. DrStrauss talk 17:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Per
  The Times-Picayune or this one from New York Daily News would be some third-party sources, but they still use the exclamation mark. Zzyzx11 (talk
  ) 18:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support – tons of sources use the plainer styling, and sports.yahoo.com omits the bang in their html page titles. Nothing is lost in going without the decoration here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent and per the fact that third-party sources still include the exclamation mark.
  Lepricavark (talk
  ) 12:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I normally don't like to say per precedent but there definitely is some here. Especially since the companies name is Yahoo!. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support as far as I can tell, they style it as "Yahoo Sports" everywhere except where they use the corporate "Yahoo!" iconography. The social media isn't a good source, but their news reporting such as [1] demonstrates their house style. Third-party usage is mixed.
  π, ν
  ) 04:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I do agree that multiple other pages are subject to the same argument (I checked and
    π, ν
    ) 04:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per
  MOS:TM; the "!" is unnecessary stylization, and the company itself only seems to use it in logo materials; WP does not mimic logos, ever. We only permit extraneous characters or other typographic shenanigans like this when reliable sources do it with near-total consistency when referring to the subject (thus Deadmau5 and iPod and k.d. lang, but not "Ke$ha" for Kesha, "P!nk" for Pink (singer), "SONY" for Sony, etc., etc., etc. – the exceptions were permit to normal orthography are very rare. Yahoo! itself should be RMed next; many RS publishers refuse to include the aggressive-marketing "!" nonsense when referring to the company or its products/services.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
   >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Many, many sources avoid repeating the commercial boosterism of the exclamation mark. It is arguably POV to slavishly repeat ! on Wikipedia, just as all-caps boosterism has been avoided in titles. Tony (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per sources and the parent article Yahoo!.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Yahoo Sports itself excludes the exclamation point,[2] except where they include the "YAHOO!" logo (which is caps, not "Yahoo!"). External sources consistently exclude the exclamation,[3] and it's not needed for pronunciation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per others and it is clear that the "!" is not commonly used for their sports division. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 02:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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.