![]() |
Template:Yes is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:No redirects here. |
![]() |
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2018 April 5. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
This template was nominated for deletion, but consensus was to keep it. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005. However, as indicated by that discussion, please do not use this template for voting on anything. R adiant _>|< June 30, 2005 09:23 (UTC)
This template was proposed to contain a light and desaturated background or an image in place of the text, but consensus was for it to remain with text upon a saturated background. Althepal 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
User:BGC, as you can see, this template name has been used for a long time for a completely unrelated purpose - to consistently display "Yes" in Wikipedia, mainly in comparison tables. Your template would need a different name - probably {{yes band}} or something. User:logixoul 14:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that someone who is red-green colorblind (such as myself) may not be able to distinguish the color of this template from the color used in
Template:No. On most screens the colors look pretty much identical. Might want to try using different shades. --
mattb @ 2006-11-20T19:04Z
@ 2006-11-29T06:39Z
@ 2006-12-03T02:24Z
@ 2006-12-19T04:12Z
I'm going to change these back to match all the other templates. I think the templates should stay consistent. For colour-blind people, there is the included text "yes" and "no". In addition, since colour-blindness is user-specific, there's the option of a user stylesheet to override the colours. — Ashley Y 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-02-27T00:31Z
@ 2007-02-27T01:15Z
Ashley, I don't think that the darker colors are ugly. I actually found it easier to navigate when the colors are darker. This way, I don't have to look at the words - I can figure out if an area is a yes or a know just by glancing. I still can see the red and green, but it is not as obvious. The darker colors are not just to match with the words and the other templates. "Yes" and "No" templates are unique and do not have to match other similar templates. I think you are in the minority here, and I would revert the edits myself if I wouldn't think you would just re-revert to your edit. (On a side note, would color blind people be better off if the green was replaced with blue?) Anyhow, unless other people here agree with you or you give a real reason, I probably will revert to an early edit within a couple days. Was there a consensus somewhere that decided on pale colors? Althepal 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-02-28T17:22Z
Just because the colors had no color at first and that other templates are pale, that doesn't mean the yes and no templates should go along with it. Reason: For these unique templates, the color gives specific information. If you can't show a consensus that agrees with you, Ashley (other templates don't count), you have no right to make it so most people find it more annoying and harder to use. I know Matt agrees with me, I'm not sure what Demi and Southern's opinions are. Althepal 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ashley, you said, "I believe that neutrality is better served by editors proclaiming their opinions up-front rather than pretending that they become 'neutral' the moment they start editing." Instead of making edits and saying that that is the way it should be, lets take your advice and get some opinions from a few more outsiders. Then we'll all decide what is best. Althepal 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-02T03:29Z
Not all templates are pale. For example, the incorrect and the nonfree ones. Yes and No are "sure", while none of the other templates are, except the other non-pale ones. Althepal 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not pretend not to understand my stance in order to further your argument - it was made perfectly clear earlier in this talk page and by the edit history for the No template. A great multitude of comparison tables relied upon the lighter colours as evidenced by the use of style tags to provide consistent colours for cells containing "Yes/No" and "No/Yes" (when the presence of either of a specific ability provides a feature) and cells containing things entirely other then Yes or No ie: links or other useful information. The colours are also not simply about the brightness of content cells but the header cells must also be taken into consideration - the darkness of the grey used in them should also be consistent, or if anything stand out more then the content cells. I thoroughly disagreed when mattb made the original darkening edit to Template:No and reverted it, but could not come up with an amicable solution and did not want to digress into an edit war after it was darkened again. I have always maintained the colour should be entirely secondary to the content whether it be Yes, No, or a link citing sources, and should not garishly distract from the rest of the table's content. -- Southen 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-04T05:26Z
You know what, I'm just lazy. :) I don't want to have to read the word, I just want to glance at the color. lol. How about an obvious red X and a green √, both outlined in black? Here's an example for the "yes". The check could be better, more curvy, if you want. Althepal 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
These templates are intended to be textual. They're widely included on pages with that understanding, they match several other textual templates such as "Partial", "Depends" etc., and sometimes the text is customised. This is a very drastic change that will upset a lot of people and make pages look like a confusing mash of text, symbols and various colour saturations.
If you want templates with symbols, you need to create your own set and leave these alone. — Ashley Y 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-07T20:47Z
Which check do you like the best? Althepal 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's more than 250 pages, which will then have an ugly mix of symbols and text. I also object to your characterisation in your table above "Now" and "Before Ashley Y's edit". That should be "Original" and "mattb's experiment". I full expect people to complain after you change them, if you do, so I don't see how a vote now is going to help. — Ashley Y 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually would like to save over the templates for a minute just to look at some real tables and see how useful the symbols are. But then again, there would be one minute where everybody would be like, "WHAT?! What happened to the YES and NO??? (It's so wonderful now! Ahhh...)" lol ;) – Althepal 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Symbol has 100% of the vote! So there... lol ;)
Althepal
21:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Color blindness is mostly common in males.
Do not vote here. Vote below
Text is currently the only thing used in this series of templates, and most of these templates have pale backgrounds. However, there are some who think that the Yes and No templates are unique and don't have to conform with the other templates. There is currently a discussion regarding various options for this template, namely text on a pale background (Standard text), text on a saturated background (Darker background), or a saturated symbol on a pale background (Symbols).
Standard text
For: Conforms to other templates; aesthetic
Against: Difficult to quickly use for getting around comparison tables, especially for the colorblind
Darker background
For: Has been accepted for a long period of time; easy to quickly use in tables; some consider it easier on the eyes; saturated for the colorblind
Against: Unaesthetic; some consider it harder on the eyes; does not conform to others
Symbols
For: Contains easily recognizable symbols which are saturated for the colorblind; aesthetic background
Against: Very different from other templates; symbol is out of place on a comparison table; may upset Wikipedians; may be awkward to add text
Do not vote here. Vote below
Standard text | Yes | No |
Darker background | Yes | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
![]() |
See below for discussion on including other templates on the final decision.
Do not vote here. Vote below
Bold Standard text, Darker background, or Symbols, with a reason, followed by your signature. You may also leave a Comment. If you wish, indicate if you think any
other templates should be modified along with the Yes and No templates. If you change your mind, cross over your original text and place your new text to the right. Please append to the bottom of the list.
Record
Symbols: 5
Dark background: 11
Standard text: 3
@ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
Do not vote here. Vote below
By 23:59 March 21, 2007, OR 100 total votes
Can we agree to decide on whichever choice is the first to get at least 2/3 majority with at least five votes for it? Althepal 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
100 posts is a little long, but I second the motion. Can somebody third the motion? (BTW, if you would go with my original suggestion, I could just change my vote to dark background and be done with all the voting, lol.) Althepal 04:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I just remind people of WP:PNSD? While I don't object to this straw poll, the "Vote on the future of this template" text included on the template is more disruptive than anything else. I think there are other mechanisms to draw comments from people who haven't been following this talk page. -- Karnesky 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Accessibility is good, but I think there is too little contrast between text and the darker background color. Being able to read the text is important for the no2 template and other cases where one might use the no background color, but customize what the text is. -- Karnesky 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in my understanding that red/green colourblind people can usually recognise the difference between the green and red when they are saturated but not when they are light? Nil Einne 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-08T15:02Z
Why don't you guys do what the traffic lights do- mix colors. (yes, I'm American and don't spell "color" with a "U"!) The red isn't a true red. It's miked with, like, yellow or a bit of blue. I'm just sayin', it works for the government traffic dept. Habeouscorpus ( talk) 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does that text really have to be displayed everywhere the template is used while the vote is ongoing? It's incredibly ugly and disruptive. -- Daniel Klein 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
When the template was up for deletion, that was mentioned on the template. I have reintroduced the information about this vote (in a far less "ugly and disruptive" way) because I feel people have to know that there is discussion on what this template will be, and for such a discussion, we need lots of different people to put in their opinions. Althepal 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see people are not discussing what to do with other templates in the series, even though they are often used together with "no" and "yes". — Ashley Y 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::Maybe partial could be circle with a piece removed from it (like in pie charts)...
Mike92591
02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, never mind. Mike92591 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please edit this if you have a suggestion:
Template | {{ yes}} | {{ no}} | {{ unk}} | {{ partial}} | {{ depends}} | {{ but yes}} | {{ but no}} |
Standard text | Yes | No | Unknown | Partial | Depends | Yes | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Darker background | Yes | No | Unknown | Partial | Depends | Yes | No |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
What is "But yes" and "But no"? It doesn't seem like something that can have a strong background or symbol. And hardly anything uses those templates anyway, so it's not something to worry about. These templates are not even
Template:Table cell templates, so I'm removing them from the table. I'm adding
Template:unk to the table, though.
Althepal
02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it can look confusing, but the templates do get used together, so it's helpful to see what it will look like.
The way they are used in certain tables, green means "good" and red means "bad". That's not always "yes" and "no". — Ashley Y 03:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the issue IS more complicated when there is text other than "yes" or "no" are in the cells & think we need to address that complication! Karnesky 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If colorblind people find the pale backgrounds insufficiently distinguishable, how do they know the difference between "yes" and "but yes"? Karnesky 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to add a different type of vote section, just to think if there is a better way to vote. Althepal 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that this voting method below can remove the confusion? I know lots of people have voiced their opinions on the yes and no templates, but they can be incorporated into the area below. Should the "discuss" info on the yes and no templates direct to the vote below?? Althepal 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You may vote on the templates individually to remove the building confusion on the issue.
Popular vote should be taken as general agreement and applied to the templates by 23:59 March 21, 2007.
Any templates with fewer than 15 votes or no option in the majority by that time should be left as is.
Text is currently the only thing used in this series of templates, and most of these templates have pale backgrounds. However, there are some who think that the templates could be different. There is currently a discussion regarding various options for this template, namely text on a pale background (Lighter background), text on a saturated background (Darker background), a saturated symbol on a pale background (Symbols), or the symbol on a saturated background (Symbols on dark background). Leave your vote below, indicating whether you would prefer the template to remain as standard text, whether you think text should be on a darker background, or whether you think the text of these templates should be replaced by images.
Lighter background: 4;
Darker background: 13;
Symbols: 6;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Yes |
Darker background | Yes |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
@ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
Lighter background: 4;
Darker background: 14;
Symbols: 6;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | No |
Darker background | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
@ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
Lighter background: 2;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Yes |
Darker background | Yes |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
Lighter background: 2;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | No |
Darker background | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
Lighter background: 3;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Unknown |
Darker background | Unknown |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
Lighter background: 3;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Partial |
Darker background | Partial |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
It would be useful to have {{Y-N}} or {{Y&N}} as an alternative to {{Yes-No}} as Yes/No is much wider than just Yes or No Johncosgrave ( talk) 00:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Lighter background: 3;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Depends |
Darker background | Depends |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
The votes for all these other templates ( Template:no, Template:depends, Template:partial, Template:but yes, Template:but no) have gotten out of hand and beyond the scope of the original straw-poll. The original poll was started in order to decide wether to 1) alter the Yes template to help people with disabilities use tables more easily, or 2) leave the Yes template alone for aesthetic purposes. The obvious (and semingly harmless) jump to including the No template was made for simplicity's sake with the intent to kill two birds with one stone.
However, User:Ashley Y's persistent concern with having matching templates for all of the other templates in the series no longer falls within the scope of this discussion. This is a whole new can of worms, now.
Whatever the outcome of all these new polls might be, our time will have been wasted if we won't have a leg to stand on when it comes time to back them up. There is no way that the community would recognize the validity of multiple polls to alter multiple templates where the voting didn't even occur on the templates' own pages! This might as well be Blogger.Com for all the consensus that could be validly drawn from all these orphaned polls.
One poll per template pair (eg. Template:yes/ Template:no, Template:but yes/ Template:but no) is probably the extent that we could push this to per template page and still have it mean something when we have to defend our consensus. -- MuséeRouge 06:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there at least a reasonable consensus that the symbols are a bad idea? The one for "depends" means nothing at all... — Ashley Y 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I'd like to see more edit-warring over this. I think we might have a reasonable shot at WP:LAME. — Ashley Y 09:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-09T14:20Z
Which of these makes clear that salmon is safer than fugu? — Ashley Y 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Tasty | Poisonous | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon | Yes | No | Cheap |
Mackerel | Yes | No | Expensive |
Fugu | No | Yes | Expensive |
Babelfish | No | Partial | Expensive |
Tasty | Poisonous | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
![]() |
Cheap |
Mackerel |
![]() |
![]() |
Expensive |
Fugu |
![]() |
![]() |
Expensive |
Babelfish |
![]() |
![]() |
Expensive |
You didn't compare with a dark background. But to tell you the truth, the lighter background version with text means I have to look at the X and Y columns on the table and trace it to a square, where you then read the text. And in the symbol version, you can look at the X and Y columns and, with the strong symbols (or strong background), you can use your peripheral vision to see what the values are for the different layers. Althepal 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
Does this say "salmon is poisonous" or "salmon is not poisonous"? — Ashley Y 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Tasty | Non-toxic | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon | Yes | Yes | $4/lb. |
Mackerel | Yes | Yes | $20/lb. |
Fugu | No | No | $24/lb. |
Babelfish | No | Partial | $9,000/lb. |
Tasty | Non-toxic | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
![]() |
$4/lb. |
Mackerel |
![]() |
![]() |
$20/lb. |
Fugu |
![]() |
![]() |
$24/lb. |
Babelfish |
![]() |
![]() |
$9,000/lb. |
(And keys wouldn't hurt or be hard to do, even though most people wouldn't need them.) Althepal 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You see, in this example, where the table is worded in a likely and logical way, symbols (or dark background) makes it MUCH clearer to find the information that Salmon is the best.
Althepal
23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly am against the use of "but yes" and "but no" since an encyclopedia tells the facts, not whether something is good or bad. As I've said elsewhere, I would be for deleting those templates. And Ashley, the person who reverted the yes and no templates to be pale and the one who keeps pushing on adding these backwards templates to the equation is the one who created these but yes and but no templates in the first place. And ONLY 7 articles exist that use these templates! And where the templates are used, they seem to be used incorrectly. For example this comparison of media players says that it is good that GOM Player is remote controllable, but bad that iTunes is. ??? If it requires qualification, it should be No or Depends with a footnote, not "but yes" with a footnote. If anybody seconds my opinion, I would tag those templates for deletion.
Furthermore, "but yes" and "but no" templates take away the fact that green means yes and that red means no. It tries to make it so green means good and red means bad - very un-encyclopedic.
Any support on deleting those templates? Althepal 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, so supposing we get rid of these.
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
Does this mean "salmon is poisonous" or "salmon is not poisonous"? And you're not allowed to beg the question by fiddling with the "poisonous" heading. — Ashley Y 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That of course means that salmon is not poisonous. no, you're allowed. Mike92591 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here, let us say that the big red "X" means what it means in a browser:
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
Does this suggest "stop, the salmon is poisonous", or "no, the salmon is not poisonous"? — Ashley Y 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That suggests this(in dialogue form):
A: Is salmon poisonous?
B: Don't continue to ask this question.
Mike92591
19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See Templates for deletion Althepal 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon | Yes |
Nice, isn't it ?
Stop telling that green doesn't mean safe or ok and that red doesn't mean dangerous or bad, we know that this is wrong.
If theses colors are used, a comparison cannot be neutral. So we need something like {{yes neutral}} and {{no neutral}}.
Thomas Bertels
11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the need for people to advertise the existence of this discussion, but putting confusing links next to these tags which appear in hundreds of articles is not the way to go. I see that even my compromise was reverted back to the original version (with no link to this discussion). Perhaps you should post a comment on one of the WP:VP noticeboards instead.-- Konstable 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The yes and no templates shall have a darker background. Althepal 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made the background darker as per this discussion in a way I think the way it was before it was made lighter. But I'm not sure. Should it be like in {{|bg-green}} and {{|bg-red}}? Althepal 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say I've added "color:black" to all table style elements, as users may have "td {color:green}" or similar in their user style sheets. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've switched this template to use a /doc subpage pattern. When this template is used a lot, its important that the template use as little code as possible. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This template precludes having "yes" span columns (or rows). It would be easy to support this via an optional parameter (or two), so I'm looking for feedback on the idea. Feel free to suggest implementation ideas as well. I'm assuming it would be done for all templates listed at Template:Table cell templates. Thanks. 67.101.6.75 ( talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC).
Following Wikipedia:Template documentation, shouldn't Template:Table cell templates be moved to something like Template:Any/doc? Thanks. 67.101.6.75 ( talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC).
I have changed the non-protected table cell templates to use uniform code and style. I have not yet changed the background colors to those that I am proposing in Template talk:Table cell templates. Nevertheless, the protected template {{ no}}, {{ yes}}, {{ no2}}, {{ yes2}} and {{ rh}} should probably follow suit. — Christoph Päper 12:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The common code of
Template:Table cell templates was updated about a month ago (mostly to center cell text), and all of the unprotected cell templates were likewise changed for consistency. But the templates: {{
yes}}, {{
yes2}}, {{
no}}, {{
no2}} and {{
rh}} all have permanent protection and cannot be changed by non-administrators. Could someone please update those templates, or in some way make all the table cells consistent? --
Gyrobo (
talk)
23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
style="background: #abcdef; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: {{{align|center}}}; {{{style|}}}" class="xxx table-xxx"|xxx
There's a chart on the iPod/iPhone/iPad comparison page that gets difficult to read once the user scrolls below the headings. I'm trying to create a slightly larger border between the different products, but they won't work with {{yes}} or {{no}} templates. See the table and what I am trying to do with it in my sandbox. Chris3145 ( talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
style=
— like this: style="parameter:value;"
— whereas in actual practice the {{
Yes}} template only accepts additional CSS rules without quotes. -
Mardus (
talk)
02:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Looking at html source with yes and no in place, there is as extra space before each color after Yes. See the following, which should line up, but doesn't.
<td style="background:#ff9090; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;" class="table-no">No</td> <td style="background: #90ff90; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;" class="table-yes">Yes</td>
Can this extra space (x2) be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 ( talk) 17:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Can background be an optional color. I want to be able to pick yellow for the nested use I am thinking. I have an if/else (yes / no) situations where I want to specify a "maybe". All that needs to be done is #90ff90; replaced with {{{bgcolor|#90ff90}}}; -- とある白い猫 chi? 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose to add "limite", aside of "partial". The services I'am currently comparing have several actors providing services with limitations, such as (limited to) "6 users max", (limited to) "10 projects max", (limited to) "512Mo", etc, while competitors are provide unlimited services. Please confirm support so I/someone can move ahead and add it. Yug (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would be nice if this template accepted background color parameters. Not every article where this template is used or where "no" equates to something negative, or not as good. Take for instance the article Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java where Unified Type System for Java is no, but that isn't necessarily a negative thing, just a difference in design, and C# and Java both may be better for different applications in that regard. BlitzGreg ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
For many articles I've found a linkeable yes/no template would be useful - e.g. see the list of free and open-source Android applications or the list of Wikipedia mobile applications; in both of them yes/no could be linked to the specific site that the application can be found on (which also is a reference to the linked yes/no; note that many of such apps can not be found in the stores such as playstore and are only available on the programmer's website...).-- Fixuture ( talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Where and when was the consensus reached to change the colour of the no template to light pink?-- Twofortnights ( talk) 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add <noinclude>{{
subst:tfm|bad}}</noinclude>
, per a nomination by
E to the Pi times i
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It's the newline, which shouldn't be transcluded. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
</noinclude> <noinclude>
Then the new line will be in the noincludes, and it will be fixed. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 22:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert todays changes ASAP. Tim ( talk) 22:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{
subst:tfm|Available}}
, to the noinclude section at the top then change the |link=
parameter to point to the correct day , per a nomination by
E to the Pi times i
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
01:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Yes and
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace all code in {{ No}} and {{ Yes}} with sandbox code ( diff, diff)
Change: colors minimally tweaked to provide enough contrast against blue links - WCAG AA level for {{ No}}, WCAG AAA level for {{ Yes}}. Fernando Trebien ( talk) 03:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Current shade | Proposed shade | "No" #FFE3E3 | "No" #FFC7C7 |
---|---|---|---|
Yes[1] | Yes[1] | Yes[1] | |
No[1] | No[1] | No[1] | No[1] |
Link | Link | Link | |
Link | Link | Link | Link |
a:visited
in
my common.css because the shade of purple used is too similar to black for me), I do notice some improvent in the bluelinked {{
no}} change, although it's still hard for me to distinguish it from black text. The bluelinked {{
yes}} is a very small improvement but an improvement nonetheless; maybe 1 time out of 20 it would make a difference for me. Thus I'm inclined to action this, but I'm going to put this
More color options | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D (Y=B) | |
Current shade 2021 |
Proposed shade OP, 1st |
"No" #FFE3E3 access AAA |
"No" #FFC7C7 access AA +A/2 | |
Yes[1] #99FF99 | Yes[1] #9EFF9E | Yes[1] #9EFF9E | ||
No[1] #99FF99 | No[1] #9EFF9E | No[1] #FFE3E3 | No[1] #FFC7C7 | |
Link #99FF99 | Link #9EFF9E | Link #9EFF9E | ||
Link #99FF99 | Link #9EFF9E | Link #FFE3E3 | Link #FFC7C7 |
{{
No}}
cell for w3c contrast, using
Webaim:#0645AD
Wikilink blue#FFAAAA
#FFAAAA contrast ration 4.7:1 = AA, fails AAA#FFE3E3
#FFE3E3 contrast ration 7.04:1 = AAA Done. To editors
DePiep,
Tamzin and
Fernando Trebien: the background for the Yes template has been edited as proposed, and the #FFC7C7 has been chosen as background for the No template, at least for now. Happy New Year to you and yours!
P.I. Ellsworth -
ed.
put'r there
13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
should the colour of Template:No be the current lighter #FFC7C7 or the original darker #99? Gooduserdude ( talk) 15:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
#FFC7C7 | Link |
#F99 | Link |
Gooduserdude ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Description | Web color | Examples of use | WCAG level of contrast with blue links | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Old color of {{ no}} | #F99 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.17 (not compliant) |
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA | #FFA4A4 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.5 (AA) |
Color I proposed for {{ no}} | #FAA | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.7 (AA) |
Color the community chose for {{ no}} after discussion | #FFC7C7 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 5.78 (AA) |
Color of {{ no2}} | #FFE3E3 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 7.04 (AAA) |
what colour should be used for Template:No? Gooduserdude ( talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Description | Web color | Examples of use | WCAG level of contrast with blue links | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Old color of {{ no}} | #F99 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.17 (not compliant) |
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA | #FFA4A4 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.5 (AA) |
Color User:Ftrebien proposed for {{ no}} | #FAA | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.7 (AA) |
Color the chosen for {{ no}} after former discussion | #FFC7C7 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 5.78 (AA) |
Color of {{ no2}} | #FFE3E3 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 7.04 (AAA) |
This is a longer example of text | and links with darker, low-contrast background |
This is a longer example of text | and links with lighter, higher-contrast background |
![]() |
Template:Yes is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:No redirects here. |
![]() |
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2018 April 5. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
This template was nominated for deletion, but consensus was to keep it. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005. However, as indicated by that discussion, please do not use this template for voting on anything. R adiant _>|< June 30, 2005 09:23 (UTC)
This template was proposed to contain a light and desaturated background or an image in place of the text, but consensus was for it to remain with text upon a saturated background. Althepal 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
User:BGC, as you can see, this template name has been used for a long time for a completely unrelated purpose - to consistently display "Yes" in Wikipedia, mainly in comparison tables. Your template would need a different name - probably {{yes band}} or something. User:logixoul 14:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that someone who is red-green colorblind (such as myself) may not be able to distinguish the color of this template from the color used in
Template:No. On most screens the colors look pretty much identical. Might want to try using different shades. --
mattb @ 2006-11-20T19:04Z
@ 2006-11-29T06:39Z
@ 2006-12-03T02:24Z
@ 2006-12-19T04:12Z
I'm going to change these back to match all the other templates. I think the templates should stay consistent. For colour-blind people, there is the included text "yes" and "no". In addition, since colour-blindness is user-specific, there's the option of a user stylesheet to override the colours. — Ashley Y 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-02-27T00:31Z
@ 2007-02-27T01:15Z
Ashley, I don't think that the darker colors are ugly. I actually found it easier to navigate when the colors are darker. This way, I don't have to look at the words - I can figure out if an area is a yes or a know just by glancing. I still can see the red and green, but it is not as obvious. The darker colors are not just to match with the words and the other templates. "Yes" and "No" templates are unique and do not have to match other similar templates. I think you are in the minority here, and I would revert the edits myself if I wouldn't think you would just re-revert to your edit. (On a side note, would color blind people be better off if the green was replaced with blue?) Anyhow, unless other people here agree with you or you give a real reason, I probably will revert to an early edit within a couple days. Was there a consensus somewhere that decided on pale colors? Althepal 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-02-28T17:22Z
Just because the colors had no color at first and that other templates are pale, that doesn't mean the yes and no templates should go along with it. Reason: For these unique templates, the color gives specific information. If you can't show a consensus that agrees with you, Ashley (other templates don't count), you have no right to make it so most people find it more annoying and harder to use. I know Matt agrees with me, I'm not sure what Demi and Southern's opinions are. Althepal 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ashley, you said, "I believe that neutrality is better served by editors proclaiming their opinions up-front rather than pretending that they become 'neutral' the moment they start editing." Instead of making edits and saying that that is the way it should be, lets take your advice and get some opinions from a few more outsiders. Then we'll all decide what is best. Althepal 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-02T03:29Z
Not all templates are pale. For example, the incorrect and the nonfree ones. Yes and No are "sure", while none of the other templates are, except the other non-pale ones. Althepal 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not pretend not to understand my stance in order to further your argument - it was made perfectly clear earlier in this talk page and by the edit history for the No template. A great multitude of comparison tables relied upon the lighter colours as evidenced by the use of style tags to provide consistent colours for cells containing "Yes/No" and "No/Yes" (when the presence of either of a specific ability provides a feature) and cells containing things entirely other then Yes or No ie: links or other useful information. The colours are also not simply about the brightness of content cells but the header cells must also be taken into consideration - the darkness of the grey used in them should also be consistent, or if anything stand out more then the content cells. I thoroughly disagreed when mattb made the original darkening edit to Template:No and reverted it, but could not come up with an amicable solution and did not want to digress into an edit war after it was darkened again. I have always maintained the colour should be entirely secondary to the content whether it be Yes, No, or a link citing sources, and should not garishly distract from the rest of the table's content. -- Southen 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-04T05:26Z
You know what, I'm just lazy. :) I don't want to have to read the word, I just want to glance at the color. lol. How about an obvious red X and a green √, both outlined in black? Here's an example for the "yes". The check could be better, more curvy, if you want. Althepal 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
These templates are intended to be textual. They're widely included on pages with that understanding, they match several other textual templates such as "Partial", "Depends" etc., and sometimes the text is customised. This is a very drastic change that will upset a lot of people and make pages look like a confusing mash of text, symbols and various colour saturations.
If you want templates with symbols, you need to create your own set and leave these alone. — Ashley Y 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-07T20:47Z
Which check do you like the best? Althepal 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's more than 250 pages, which will then have an ugly mix of symbols and text. I also object to your characterisation in your table above "Now" and "Before Ashley Y's edit". That should be "Original" and "mattb's experiment". I full expect people to complain after you change them, if you do, so I don't see how a vote now is going to help. — Ashley Y 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually would like to save over the templates for a minute just to look at some real tables and see how useful the symbols are. But then again, there would be one minute where everybody would be like, "WHAT?! What happened to the YES and NO??? (It's so wonderful now! Ahhh...)" lol ;) – Althepal 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Symbol has 100% of the vote! So there... lol ;)
Althepal
21:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Color blindness is mostly common in males.
Do not vote here. Vote below
Text is currently the only thing used in this series of templates, and most of these templates have pale backgrounds. However, there are some who think that the Yes and No templates are unique and don't have to conform with the other templates. There is currently a discussion regarding various options for this template, namely text on a pale background (Standard text), text on a saturated background (Darker background), or a saturated symbol on a pale background (Symbols).
Standard text
For: Conforms to other templates; aesthetic
Against: Difficult to quickly use for getting around comparison tables, especially for the colorblind
Darker background
For: Has been accepted for a long period of time; easy to quickly use in tables; some consider it easier on the eyes; saturated for the colorblind
Against: Unaesthetic; some consider it harder on the eyes; does not conform to others
Symbols
For: Contains easily recognizable symbols which are saturated for the colorblind; aesthetic background
Against: Very different from other templates; symbol is out of place on a comparison table; may upset Wikipedians; may be awkward to add text
Do not vote here. Vote below
Standard text | Yes | No |
Darker background | Yes | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
![]() |
See below for discussion on including other templates on the final decision.
Do not vote here. Vote below
Bold Standard text, Darker background, or Symbols, with a reason, followed by your signature. You may also leave a Comment. If you wish, indicate if you think any
other templates should be modified along with the Yes and No templates. If you change your mind, cross over your original text and place your new text to the right. Please append to the bottom of the list.
Record
Symbols: 5
Dark background: 11
Standard text: 3
@ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
Do not vote here. Vote below
By 23:59 March 21, 2007, OR 100 total votes
Can we agree to decide on whichever choice is the first to get at least 2/3 majority with at least five votes for it? Althepal 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
100 posts is a little long, but I second the motion. Can somebody third the motion? (BTW, if you would go with my original suggestion, I could just change my vote to dark background and be done with all the voting, lol.) Althepal 04:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I just remind people of WP:PNSD? While I don't object to this straw poll, the "Vote on the future of this template" text included on the template is more disruptive than anything else. I think there are other mechanisms to draw comments from people who haven't been following this talk page. -- Karnesky 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Accessibility is good, but I think there is too little contrast between text and the darker background color. Being able to read the text is important for the no2 template and other cases where one might use the no background color, but customize what the text is. -- Karnesky 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in my understanding that red/green colourblind people can usually recognise the difference between the green and red when they are saturated but not when they are light? Nil Einne 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-08T15:02Z
Why don't you guys do what the traffic lights do- mix colors. (yes, I'm American and don't spell "color" with a "U"!) The red isn't a true red. It's miked with, like, yellow or a bit of blue. I'm just sayin', it works for the government traffic dept. Habeouscorpus ( talk) 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does that text really have to be displayed everywhere the template is used while the vote is ongoing? It's incredibly ugly and disruptive. -- Daniel Klein 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
When the template was up for deletion, that was mentioned on the template. I have reintroduced the information about this vote (in a far less "ugly and disruptive" way) because I feel people have to know that there is discussion on what this template will be, and for such a discussion, we need lots of different people to put in their opinions. Althepal 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see people are not discussing what to do with other templates in the series, even though they are often used together with "no" and "yes". — Ashley Y 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::Maybe partial could be circle with a piece removed from it (like in pie charts)...
Mike92591
02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, never mind. Mike92591 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please edit this if you have a suggestion:
Template | {{ yes}} | {{ no}} | {{ unk}} | {{ partial}} | {{ depends}} | {{ but yes}} | {{ but no}} |
Standard text | Yes | No | Unknown | Partial | Depends | Yes | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Darker background | Yes | No | Unknown | Partial | Depends | Yes | No |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
What is "But yes" and "But no"? It doesn't seem like something that can have a strong background or symbol. And hardly anything uses those templates anyway, so it's not something to worry about. These templates are not even
Template:Table cell templates, so I'm removing them from the table. I'm adding
Template:unk to the table, though.
Althepal
02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it can look confusing, but the templates do get used together, so it's helpful to see what it will look like.
The way they are used in certain tables, green means "good" and red means "bad". That's not always "yes" and "no". — Ashley Y 03:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the issue IS more complicated when there is text other than "yes" or "no" are in the cells & think we need to address that complication! Karnesky 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If colorblind people find the pale backgrounds insufficiently distinguishable, how do they know the difference between "yes" and "but yes"? Karnesky 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to add a different type of vote section, just to think if there is a better way to vote. Althepal 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that this voting method below can remove the confusion? I know lots of people have voiced their opinions on the yes and no templates, but they can be incorporated into the area below. Should the "discuss" info on the yes and no templates direct to the vote below?? Althepal 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You may vote on the templates individually to remove the building confusion on the issue.
Popular vote should be taken as general agreement and applied to the templates by 23:59 March 21, 2007.
Any templates with fewer than 15 votes or no option in the majority by that time should be left as is.
Text is currently the only thing used in this series of templates, and most of these templates have pale backgrounds. However, there are some who think that the templates could be different. There is currently a discussion regarding various options for this template, namely text on a pale background (Lighter background), text on a saturated background (Darker background), a saturated symbol on a pale background (Symbols), or the symbol on a saturated background (Symbols on dark background). Leave your vote below, indicating whether you would prefer the template to remain as standard text, whether you think text should be on a darker background, or whether you think the text of these templates should be replaced by images.
Lighter background: 4;
Darker background: 13;
Symbols: 6;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Yes |
Darker background | Yes |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
@ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
Lighter background: 4;
Darker background: 14;
Symbols: 6;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | No |
Darker background | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
@ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
Lighter background: 2;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Yes |
Darker background | Yes |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
Lighter background: 2;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | No |
Darker background | No |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
Lighter background: 3;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Unknown |
Darker background | Unknown |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
Lighter background: 3;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Partial |
Darker background | Partial |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
It would be useful to have {{Y-N}} or {{Y&N}} as an alternative to {{Yes-No}} as Yes/No is much wider than just Yes or No Johncosgrave ( talk) 00:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Lighter background: 3;
Darker background: 0;
Symbols: 0;
Symbols on dark background: 0
Lighter background | Depends |
Darker background | Depends |
Symbols |
![]() |
Symbols on dark background |
![]() |
The votes for all these other templates ( Template:no, Template:depends, Template:partial, Template:but yes, Template:but no) have gotten out of hand and beyond the scope of the original straw-poll. The original poll was started in order to decide wether to 1) alter the Yes template to help people with disabilities use tables more easily, or 2) leave the Yes template alone for aesthetic purposes. The obvious (and semingly harmless) jump to including the No template was made for simplicity's sake with the intent to kill two birds with one stone.
However, User:Ashley Y's persistent concern with having matching templates for all of the other templates in the series no longer falls within the scope of this discussion. This is a whole new can of worms, now.
Whatever the outcome of all these new polls might be, our time will have been wasted if we won't have a leg to stand on when it comes time to back them up. There is no way that the community would recognize the validity of multiple polls to alter multiple templates where the voting didn't even occur on the templates' own pages! This might as well be Blogger.Com for all the consensus that could be validly drawn from all these orphaned polls.
One poll per template pair (eg. Template:yes/ Template:no, Template:but yes/ Template:but no) is probably the extent that we could push this to per template page and still have it mean something when we have to defend our consensus. -- MuséeRouge 06:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there at least a reasonable consensus that the symbols are a bad idea? The one for "depends" means nothing at all... — Ashley Y 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I'd like to see more edit-warring over this. I think we might have a reasonable shot at WP:LAME. — Ashley Y 09:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-03-09T14:20Z
Which of these makes clear that salmon is safer than fugu? — Ashley Y 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Tasty | Poisonous | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon | Yes | No | Cheap |
Mackerel | Yes | No | Expensive |
Fugu | No | Yes | Expensive |
Babelfish | No | Partial | Expensive |
Tasty | Poisonous | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
![]() |
Cheap |
Mackerel |
![]() |
![]() |
Expensive |
Fugu |
![]() |
![]() |
Expensive |
Babelfish |
![]() |
![]() |
Expensive |
You didn't compare with a dark background. But to tell you the truth, the lighter background version with text means I have to look at the X and Y columns on the table and trace it to a square, where you then read the text. And in the symbol version, you can look at the X and Y columns and, with the strong symbols (or strong background), you can use your peripheral vision to see what the values are for the different layers. Althepal 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
Does this say "salmon is poisonous" or "salmon is not poisonous"? — Ashley Y 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Tasty | Non-toxic | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon | Yes | Yes | $4/lb. |
Mackerel | Yes | Yes | $20/lb. |
Fugu | No | No | $24/lb. |
Babelfish | No | Partial | $9,000/lb. |
Tasty | Non-toxic | Cost | |
---|---|---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
![]() |
$4/lb. |
Mackerel |
![]() |
![]() |
$20/lb. |
Fugu |
![]() |
![]() |
$24/lb. |
Babelfish |
![]() |
![]() |
$9,000/lb. |
(And keys wouldn't hurt or be hard to do, even though most people wouldn't need them.) Althepal 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You see, in this example, where the table is worded in a likely and logical way, symbols (or dark background) makes it MUCH clearer to find the information that Salmon is the best.
Althepal
23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly am against the use of "but yes" and "but no" since an encyclopedia tells the facts, not whether something is good or bad. As I've said elsewhere, I would be for deleting those templates. And Ashley, the person who reverted the yes and no templates to be pale and the one who keeps pushing on adding these backwards templates to the equation is the one who created these but yes and but no templates in the first place. And ONLY 7 articles exist that use these templates! And where the templates are used, they seem to be used incorrectly. For example this comparison of media players says that it is good that GOM Player is remote controllable, but bad that iTunes is. ??? If it requires qualification, it should be No or Depends with a footnote, not "but yes" with a footnote. If anybody seconds my opinion, I would tag those templates for deletion.
Furthermore, "but yes" and "but no" templates take away the fact that green means yes and that red means no. It tries to make it so green means good and red means bad - very un-encyclopedic.
Any support on deleting those templates? Althepal 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, so supposing we get rid of these.
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
Does this mean "salmon is poisonous" or "salmon is not poisonous"? And you're not allowed to beg the question by fiddling with the "poisonous" heading. — Ashley Y 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That of course means that salmon is not poisonous. no, you're allowed. Mike92591 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here, let us say that the big red "X" means what it means in a browser:
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon |
![]() |
Does this suggest "stop, the salmon is poisonous", or "no, the salmon is not poisonous"? — Ashley Y 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That suggests this(in dialogue form):
A: Is salmon poisonous?
B: Don't continue to ask this question.
Mike92591
19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See Templates for deletion Althepal 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Poisonous | |
---|---|
Salmon | Yes |
Nice, isn't it ?
Stop telling that green doesn't mean safe or ok and that red doesn't mean dangerous or bad, we know that this is wrong.
If theses colors are used, a comparison cannot be neutral. So we need something like {{yes neutral}} and {{no neutral}}.
Thomas Bertels
11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the need for people to advertise the existence of this discussion, but putting confusing links next to these tags which appear in hundreds of articles is not the way to go. I see that even my compromise was reverted back to the original version (with no link to this discussion). Perhaps you should post a comment on one of the WP:VP noticeboards instead.-- Konstable 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The yes and no templates shall have a darker background. Althepal 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made the background darker as per this discussion in a way I think the way it was before it was made lighter. But I'm not sure. Should it be like in {{|bg-green}} and {{|bg-red}}? Althepal 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say I've added "color:black" to all table style elements, as users may have "td {color:green}" or similar in their user style sheets. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've switched this template to use a /doc subpage pattern. When this template is used a lot, its important that the template use as little code as possible. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This template precludes having "yes" span columns (or rows). It would be easy to support this via an optional parameter (or two), so I'm looking for feedback on the idea. Feel free to suggest implementation ideas as well. I'm assuming it would be done for all templates listed at Template:Table cell templates. Thanks. 67.101.6.75 ( talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC).
Following Wikipedia:Template documentation, shouldn't Template:Table cell templates be moved to something like Template:Any/doc? Thanks. 67.101.6.75 ( talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC).
I have changed the non-protected table cell templates to use uniform code and style. I have not yet changed the background colors to those that I am proposing in Template talk:Table cell templates. Nevertheless, the protected template {{ no}}, {{ yes}}, {{ no2}}, {{ yes2}} and {{ rh}} should probably follow suit. — Christoph Päper 12:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The common code of
Template:Table cell templates was updated about a month ago (mostly to center cell text), and all of the unprotected cell templates were likewise changed for consistency. But the templates: {{
yes}}, {{
yes2}}, {{
no}}, {{
no2}} and {{
rh}} all have permanent protection and cannot be changed by non-administrators. Could someone please update those templates, or in some way make all the table cells consistent? --
Gyrobo (
talk)
23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
style="background: #abcdef; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: {{{align|center}}}; {{{style|}}}" class="xxx table-xxx"|xxx
There's a chart on the iPod/iPhone/iPad comparison page that gets difficult to read once the user scrolls below the headings. I'm trying to create a slightly larger border between the different products, but they won't work with {{yes}} or {{no}} templates. See the table and what I am trying to do with it in my sandbox. Chris3145 ( talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
style=
— like this: style="parameter:value;"
— whereas in actual practice the {{
Yes}} template only accepts additional CSS rules without quotes. -
Mardus (
talk)
02:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Looking at html source with yes and no in place, there is as extra space before each color after Yes. See the following, which should line up, but doesn't.
<td style="background:#ff9090; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;" class="table-no">No</td> <td style="background: #90ff90; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;" class="table-yes">Yes</td>
Can this extra space (x2) be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 ( talk) 17:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Can background be an optional color. I want to be able to pick yellow for the nested use I am thinking. I have an if/else (yes / no) situations where I want to specify a "maybe". All that needs to be done is #90ff90; replaced with {{{bgcolor|#90ff90}}}; -- とある白い猫 chi? 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose to add "limite", aside of "partial". The services I'am currently comparing have several actors providing services with limitations, such as (limited to) "6 users max", (limited to) "10 projects max", (limited to) "512Mo", etc, while competitors are provide unlimited services. Please confirm support so I/someone can move ahead and add it. Yug (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would be nice if this template accepted background color parameters. Not every article where this template is used or where "no" equates to something negative, or not as good. Take for instance the article Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java where Unified Type System for Java is no, but that isn't necessarily a negative thing, just a difference in design, and C# and Java both may be better for different applications in that regard. BlitzGreg ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
For many articles I've found a linkeable yes/no template would be useful - e.g. see the list of free and open-source Android applications or the list of Wikipedia mobile applications; in both of them yes/no could be linked to the specific site that the application can be found on (which also is a reference to the linked yes/no; note that many of such apps can not be found in the stores such as playstore and are only available on the programmer's website...).-- Fixuture ( talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Where and when was the consensus reached to change the colour of the no template to light pink?-- Twofortnights ( talk) 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add <noinclude>{{
subst:tfm|bad}}</noinclude>
, per a nomination by
E to the Pi times i
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It's the newline, which shouldn't be transcluded. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
</noinclude> <noinclude>
Then the new line will be in the noincludes, and it will be fixed. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 22:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert todays changes ASAP. Tim ( talk) 22:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{
subst:tfm|Available}}
, to the noinclude section at the top then change the |link=
parameter to point to the correct day , per a nomination by
E to the Pi times i
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
01:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Yes and
Template:No has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace all code in {{ No}} and {{ Yes}} with sandbox code ( diff, diff)
Change: colors minimally tweaked to provide enough contrast against blue links - WCAG AA level for {{ No}}, WCAG AAA level for {{ Yes}}. Fernando Trebien ( talk) 03:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Current shade | Proposed shade | "No" #FFE3E3 | "No" #FFC7C7 |
---|---|---|---|
Yes[1] | Yes[1] | Yes[1] | |
No[1] | No[1] | No[1] | No[1] |
Link | Link | Link | |
Link | Link | Link | Link |
a:visited
in
my common.css because the shade of purple used is too similar to black for me), I do notice some improvent in the bluelinked {{
no}} change, although it's still hard for me to distinguish it from black text. The bluelinked {{
yes}} is a very small improvement but an improvement nonetheless; maybe 1 time out of 20 it would make a difference for me. Thus I'm inclined to action this, but I'm going to put this
More color options | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D (Y=B) | |
Current shade 2021 |
Proposed shade OP, 1st |
"No" #FFE3E3 access AAA |
"No" #FFC7C7 access AA +A/2 | |
Yes[1] #99FF99 | Yes[1] #9EFF9E | Yes[1] #9EFF9E | ||
No[1] #99FF99 | No[1] #9EFF9E | No[1] #FFE3E3 | No[1] #FFC7C7 | |
Link #99FF99 | Link #9EFF9E | Link #9EFF9E | ||
Link #99FF99 | Link #9EFF9E | Link #FFE3E3 | Link #FFC7C7 |
{{
No}}
cell for w3c contrast, using
Webaim:#0645AD
Wikilink blue#FFAAAA
#FFAAAA contrast ration 4.7:1 = AA, fails AAA#FFE3E3
#FFE3E3 contrast ration 7.04:1 = AAA Done. To editors
DePiep,
Tamzin and
Fernando Trebien: the background for the Yes template has been edited as proposed, and the #FFC7C7 has been chosen as background for the No template, at least for now. Happy New Year to you and yours!
P.I. Ellsworth -
ed.
put'r there
13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
should the colour of Template:No be the current lighter #FFC7C7 or the original darker #99? Gooduserdude ( talk) 15:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
#FFC7C7 | Link |
#F99 | Link |
Gooduserdude ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Description | Web color | Examples of use | WCAG level of contrast with blue links | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Old color of {{ no}} | #F99 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.17 (not compliant) |
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA | #FFA4A4 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.5 (AA) |
Color I proposed for {{ no}} | #FAA | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.7 (AA) |
Color the community chose for {{ no}} after discussion | #FFC7C7 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 5.78 (AA) |
Color of {{ no2}} | #FFE3E3 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 7.04 (AAA) |
what colour should be used for Template:No? Gooduserdude ( talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Description | Web color | Examples of use | WCAG level of contrast with blue links | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Old color of {{ no}} | #F99 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.17 (not compliant) |
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA | #FFA4A4 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.5 (AA) |
Color User:Ftrebien proposed for {{ no}} | #FAA | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 4.7 (AA) |
Color the chosen for {{ no}} after former discussion | #FFC7C7 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 5.78 (AA) |
Color of {{ no2}} | #FFE3E3 | Regular text [1] | Unvisited link to article | 7.04 (AAA) |
This is a longer example of text | and links with darker, low-contrast background |
This is a longer example of text | and links with lighter, higher-contrast background |