Talk:Yahoo! Screen

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Removal of service of Yahoo! Video

Details can be found here: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/video/notices/ugc-notice-07.html;_ylt=AkInwdZQoGeq8jfWoVIqsjr6XyN4 -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.203.12 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empty headers

What's with all the headers but no info? Was someone planning on filling these out? -Fez2005 07:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why these were left empty here for three months, but I have removed them. -- Satori Son 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Screen

Given the fact that none of the programming from Yahoo! Screen appears on Yahoo! View, how exactly is this the "de facto" successor?. All Screen material is on Yahoo! TV. View is completely unrelated. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2019

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 as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! View → Yahoo! Screen – Both services are dead now, but the majority of the content of this article is on Screen, with a mere four sentences verifying View's existence and demise. It's not even entirely clear View was really the same thing as Screen anyway. Article title should go back to the more famous / notable phase of the service, which was Screen. Note that Screen produced original programs ( List of original programs distributed by Yahoo! Screen ) while View was just Yet Another TV Bundle. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I could have sworn there was a guideline related to this exact situation (for defunct entities, consider the common name over the whole span of its existence, applying less extra weight to recent sources than would otherwise be dictated by WP:NAMECHANGES), but I can't find it at the moment. Even if it's not written down anywhere, I think it's a sensible strategy that aligns with WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:NATURALNESS. Colin M (talk) 02:21, 4 December 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.

Should we split all of Yahoo's video services into their own pages

NOT SPLIT

No consensus to split after three months. -2pou (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

they arent all the same like Yahoo! Video and Yahoo! Screen are completely different services. They should be split into their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyanbox782 (talk • contribs)

Tentative oppose. The only reason given is "completely different services" which in itself isn't compelling enough. Had the page been large or unwieldy, sure. Now it's so small I see little reason to create three even smaller pages. CapnZapp (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2020 (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.