Jump to content

Talk:eBay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:100e:b123:2252:1ae6:9744:e0ef:420 (talk) at 07:21, 30 December 2015 (→‎Logo style). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Open Source Alternative

anyone know of, or what open source model may break Ebay's monopoly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.3.213 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly on what? Even if eBay has a "monopoly", it's not because of their architecture; it's because of their real strong point, marketing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

searching for things on ebay

why is there no info on ebay search tools, or do we just use google to search for things on ebay these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.0.231 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Why No Mention of e-Bay.com

eBay was originally one of many companies with the a x-bay.com address. We had an account with e-bay.com we were told the new address and all e-bay.net accounts will be ebay.com and that you could keep your old account name or change it. We changed ours as the name we had chosen was not something we expected to keep for decades to come and was not quite PG Rated. I am seriously wondering why this is not mentioned in the article as surely it was not a subject that was taken lightly, the -bay.com was a place of commerce, porn, and other very popular websites. 2602:306:CF5B:6C80:7DFF:2257:B79E:7C63 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Still Doc Ock[reply]

Point us to some reliable sources discussing the phenomenon you describe, and perhaps it can be included in the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of eBay with Ebay to create a more NPOV article. if the article becomes to long we can use topics and content to make subarticles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on EBay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logo style

I've again reverted this addition from the lead, since the contributing editor has declined to do it, or discuss. My problems with this addition twofold;

  • time relative expressions are to be avoided. Using the expression "currently" means nothing to the reader because they have no idea when it was written. It also may be read as speculation that there may be future change, again at some unspecified point in time. Essentially the lead loses nothing by removing this word entirely.
  • It is not clear why an old stylisation is of such significance that it needs to be mentioned in the lead sentence. Is it of any real importance? Does it radically affect the reader's understanding of what ebay is presently? I don't think so.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP-only user whose address is currently 174.23.172.2 (talk) says the following:
  • Fine. I'm here. Why is it so "inappropriate" (according to you guys)? It explains that there's the difference between text-only "eBay" and the actual logo that's more like "ebay," but also the distinction between that same lame text-only "eBay" and how it used to be styled, which was "ebaY" until late 2012. I've seen other articles that refer to the stylization in the lead, but I can't remember which ones. Why should it be so... "Hahhh, terrible, HAHH!" just to have that here too? Is it really THAT "terrible" to have those few additional words there? What is the BIG FREAKIN' DEAL?
  • How about Kesha? That mentions a former style in the lead too. If that's okay to have there, then why supposedly "not" (according to you) here?
FYI you can sign your comments automatically by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comment. I'm out for now, but I look forward to the responses from the other users when I return. Thanks everyone for coming and discussing here, should make things much easier. Prodego talk 11:08 pm, Today (UTC−8)
174.23.172.2 (talk) says:
I already KNOW how to sign. That is HOW I did that up there already (except that I just typed "~~~" instead of "~~~~" so that the cluttery date junk wouldn't come into my opening there)!
Kesha's name was written differently in text, but "ebaY" only refers to a logo stylization. That seems beyond the scope of the WP:LEADSENTENCE. AFAIK the company has always been "eBay" or "eBay Inc" in writing. Qzd (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? Ebay's name was always "eBay," which is written differently in text than its logo shows too! Kesha's "logo" was "Ke$ha." What's so "terrible" about having the distinctions for ebay? Is your lead really that "sacred"? What about the band "fun."? Why don't we go and remove all the stylization notes from the leads of all of those that have them, especially if they're just former?

And what about X Clan? And why don't THESE two articles need absolute time references either? Should I go look for some more? There are several more examples I can certainly use if these "aren't good enough" for you for some ridiculous reason!

Again, those are stylizations to the name in writing, not only the logo design. WP:REALTIME and WP:LEADSENTENCE are established guidelines, so it's not very productive to argue against them by cherry-picking other articles. The question is: is it appropriate for this article? Qzd (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you even know that for sure? Where's your source? And even if so, then what? Minor difference. "Big deal." What's so "hellaciously wrong" with showing the differentiations between them here at the lead of this article too, if it doesn't really add more length than those other mentions do? Why must it be so damned "sacred" to you? 174.23.172.2 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unimportant clutter. The lead sentence is all about hitting the reader with the key facts about the article subject. An obsolete stylisation of their logo is not one of them. I've inviting you a number of times to explain why it is so significant, but you seem determined to pick arguments instead. Reverting repeatedly, accusing others of sockpuppeting and vandalism, SHOUTING and demanding "why not!" is not how you establish consensus. As for other articles; just because they may (or may not) fail to follow the manual of style is no reason for this article to do likewise. So please, calm down, and give us a reason why it should. A number of people have already explained "why not", now you tell us why. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. eBay has always been known as eBay, Ebay, or EBay, regardless of the exact logo style. Unlike Ke$ha, the differences between them are simply capitalization, so there is no chance of confusion. eBay has not prominently featured a specifically capitalization, it is not essential to their brand. Therefore, I don't think it belongs in the lead, though I do think we should have an image of the old logo somewhere in the article (though perhaps not call out the specifically capitalization explicitly).
Also, since I have become involved here, I will not unprotect the page, I'll leave that to another admin when they believe consensus has developed. Prodego talk 06:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is no problem with this being discussed within the article. It simply is not anything like important enough to feature so prominently in the lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I actually *DID* give an explanation, but you chose to ignore it. And I said that *you* were being a vandal just like you said that I was being one. Just because you don't like my reasoning doesn't mean I was being a vandal. Yes, it is actually specific to their brand. Would they change their logo for nothing? Why is it any "worse" for ebay's stylization, former or not, to be mentioned in the lead than for any other article where stylization is mentioned in the lead for any other reason? 75.162.217.153 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think the consensus is clearly against adding this material to the lead. Wikipedia works on consensus, and we've had several editors weigh in. Prodego talk 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP refuses to work collaboratively in the community. I don't know anymore. It's up to the admins to deal with this combative behavior. SlightSmile 04:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If, by "refuses to work collaboratively," this combative user really means "refuses to be shut completely out" because he insists on reverting past the middle ground of having only the current stylization mentioned in the lead, which is actually what he and at least two others of you had already been reverting to, instead of just reverting to that again, then yeah, I refuse, of course!

But if, on the other hand, this combative user actually means what he says, then that's a bold-faced lie! I am here talking this out, am I not? I am proposing compromises that don't completely go in one direction or the other, am I not? This is collaboration! So if, amongst all the earlier reversions, you guys were happy to only revert to the way that it was before with the current stylization still mentioned in the lead but not the former one, then why are you so adamant to dig deeper now and eliminate both? What's making you now feel like you MUST go farther than the 2 points that you, including escape orbit, were already happy with before? --Still mobile for now, 2600:100E:B123:2252:1AE6:9744:E0EF:420 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EBay&oldid=697399726"