Template talk:Yes

...

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. Radiant_>|< 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)

Rock band

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)

Color blindness

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

Okay... So evidently someone doesn't like the colors I chose. Darkening does indeed help a color blind person; I am one. Can you suggest some different colors that are easily distinguishable? I don't consider the ones I used particularly dark, but reverting back to the original colors sets us back at the original problem. -- mattb @ 2006-11-29T06:39Z

Personally, I don't take any guff from anonymous editors that don't provide edit summaries (or anyone else, for that matter). ¦ Reisio 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The darkened colours are ugly. Could colour-blind people rely on the text instead? —Ashley Y 00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ugly" is subjective. My only point was that if we're going to have colors at all, can't we at least make them accessible to everyone? That's why I brought it up here first; if you have some other colors to suggest, by all means do so. -- mattb @ 2006-12-03T02:24Z

I don't see why not, unless it produces some sort of conflict. Indeed, everyone could simply use the text--the template should be used where a pattern of "yes" and "no" cells is valuable to be able to pick out, and unless it's particularly onerous I don't see why we should exclude that usefulness from colorblind users (especially very common red-green colorblindness: about 10% of males are so affected, presumably 5% of users). The map at Use of capital punishment worldwide has shades of red and green that are supposed to be easily distinguished by red-green colorblind viewers; they're too saturated for this purpose but if I get some time soon I will experiment with them and suggest a few alternatives on this talk page. Demi ^T/_C 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In large comparison tables where these templates are most used, I find it irritatingly difficult to read nearby text that lacks a similarly dark background, without being distracted by these new garish colours. I am sure I am not alone in this. Further, before simply editing the Yes and No templates, will you please take into consideration the multitude of pages that actually use these templates, and the fact that many make use other similar templates such as Template:Partial (or indeed simply custom colourised cells) that currently do not fit well at all with these new saturated colours. -- Southen 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I let my question sit for several days before I changed anything. I feel I exercised sufficient restraint and planning. There's always the option of removing the background color altogether... -- mattb @ 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)

I won't revert your changes, but I feel that you're ignoring a fairly large segment of the reader base simply because of your own perceptions of what colors are "ugly". As was mentioned above, RG colorblindness affects about 10% of the male population, and you could at least make an attempt to choose other shades of red and green that might not present a problem. -- mattb @ 2007-02-27T00:31Z

The important thing is the text, and a garish background is distracting and makes it more difficult to read. —Ashley Y 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To you, yes, to me, no. See how this can go both ways? I'd request more people to weigh in on this, but it's really not worth the time. -- mattb @ 2007-02-27T01:15Z

Spare a thought, then, for us poor trichromats who are distracted by the bright colours, even if we are a mere 95% of the population. —Ashley Y 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

BTW, the text is not included for the colorblind - that is standard. The rich color is included for almost everybody to more easily navigate the charts. And as you stated before, if you want you can override the colors in your own preferences if they are seriously bothering you. Althepal 07:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The pale colours are original. As you can see from the page, they go with most of the other templates, which are also pale. Please leave them alone. —Ashley Y 08:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Most"? Even if that's true, a bad precedent isn't a good excuse. -- mattb @ 2007-02-28T17:22Z

Originally the templates had no colour. Since then, some pale non-distracting colour has been added, but it's supposed to be entirely secondary to the text, and should not distract from it in any way. —Ashley Y 18:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm looking at the Comparison of raster graphics editors. Although I can still get the yes and no information, it doesn't stand out as much. The yes and no are easier to read with a darker background. The only reason that the other templates aren't as dark is because things like ? and Partial are not as sure or strong, so it is left closer to no background. Althepal 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The "yes" and "no" templates are not unique, and the other templates certainly do count (including two pairs of variant "yes/no" templates). They're all supposed to have the same amount of brightness, as they do now and originally did. Matt B changed only two of them for some reason, distracting from the original purpose of the templates, which is to display legible text. —Ashley Y 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think you are just 100% wrong. Does it state anywhere that all templates should be pale? I strongly prefer the way it has been for a while. Althepal 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And I think you're just 100% wrong. All the templates have been pale since colour was added (purely as a quiet non-distracting decoration), except for these two which were briefly garish. I strongly prefer the way it was originally and is now. —Ashley Y 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's agree to disagree, and lets be friends. I see your point, and I hope you see mine. But let neither one of us decide upon the color - lets have some other people chime in. :) ? Althepal 23:55, 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)

We are using these templates on the Template:MapleStory Versions content. Originally, we used the check marks and crosses, but they were too big. These seemed like a logical replacement since they kept the quick access to information (color) while being smaller. If the standard Yes/No are supposed to have light non-distracting colours, why not add have some templates with color (yes/no3 anyone?). -- Prod-You 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Because being consistent is better than getting your way. I'm not going to make my own versions of the templates for my articles just because I disagree with Ashley's position. -- mattb @ 2007-03-02T03:29Z

Why not? If the templates are useful, and simplify markup for lots of pages, why not use them? -- Prod-You 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

It's not so easy to tell from the history, but how long after the template was made was it changed to dark, and how long after that was it reverted? Since I was on wikipedia (several months), I never noticed the template being pale until Ashley changed it. Althepal 20:49, 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)

I apologize, Southern. It's just that instead of just saying "I want it dark" or "I want it light", you gave a lengthly explanation. I just scanned through it and didn't pick up anywhere that you said one way or another. I sincerely apologize. Althepal 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to the 'oh noes the saturations don't match!' "problem" - change them all. ¦ Reisio 18:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Section break for easy editing

I'd personally vote for accessibility. The problem with colors is that there are so many different screens out there, and they tend to show color saturation differently — especially lower-end LCD screens. While screens usually include color profiles for reproducing the same colors universally, I don't think web browsers generally honor them (and the profiles are usually not installed in the first place). I can vaguely recall that some versions of IE used to honor them only for images. So, while the "non-pale" colors might look bad on Ashley's screen, I find them OK, and if mattb says it makes them more accessible, then that's a reason to support them.

For reference, here's what the colors looked like before, and what they look like now:

Now	Yes	No
Before Ashley Y's edit	Yes	No
intgr's colored text experiment	Yes	No
Green check yes
Nice check and x

-- intgr 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One possible compromise that I just thought of, is to bold the text, and make the text itself colored on the pale background. I have updated the table above, for reference. Can mattb confirm that the text colors are discernible? Feel free to add more rows to the table if you've got more ideas. -- intgr 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Intgr, your experiment color is harder to see than both other options. It should be regular, black text. Althepal 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can discern the red/green bolded text colors, but I think background coloring is much more straightforward. -- mattb @ 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)

Check out and . -- Prod-You 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Maybe the check could be a little bigger and have more shadows like the x so it would be more distinguishable. Sure, it's a little out of the box, but I think it's great! Althepal 20:16, 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)

Not to be sarcastic, but if these changes would "upset a lot of people", they probably would have voiced their opinion here when I changed the color saturation. In fact, this is a fairly uncommon template if you take a look. -- mattb @ 2007-03-07T20:47Z

Well, it's kind of hard to put "Partial" in a symbol. How do you know that others would be annoyed and upset? Let's take a vote and find out. Althepal 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Again, your subjective use of "ugly". And if more people vote to have checks and crosses than to have text, it would be unlikely that there would be an uproar. Even if there would be, they could just change it back. It wouldn't be so harmful. And just to defend mattb, this template was dark for a very long time before you edited it. If it was simply matt's experiment, how come it was left like that for so long, if everybody was looking at it and thought it was ugly? Althepal 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and No background color, contents

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)

You know what, the yes/no tables in MapleStory are much easier to get around than the tables in Comparison of raster graphics editors, since the current yes and no template colors are so similar. Changing the background color or switching to symbols would make it easier to get along. I mean, the way it is now, it is just TOO HARD to get an idea of the differences between the things being compared when the colors are so close. Sure, you can still find the information, but it is hard to get a general feel for the differences. That is bad for Wikipedia. I actually find it easier, less of a strain, on the eyes to look at the versions with more contrast. Althepal 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Color blindness is mostly common in males.

Symbols, Darker background, or Standard text

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).

Arguments

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.

Straw poll

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

• Symbols Dark background While the symbols are nicer to look at and would get the point across very easily, it would be a little unusual in a table if footnotes are added to them, the dark backgrounds would be more standard and still very easy to quickly use in a table. (Symbols would be my second choice. If other templates below are included on the discussion, I would vote for them to be Symbols or Standard text.) Althepal 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker Background It's clearer than the light background and you are able to add some text in the textbox so the use is greater, Daimanta 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Standard Text The symbols remind me way too much of Microsoft Windows icons, and since they don’t conform to the rest of Wikipedia, the discrepancy is jarring. Personally, I think the paler background is easier on the eyes than the darker background. Although I can see how it would be an issue for colorblind users, I think that the text in the boxes — not the background color — is ultimately what matters. By reading, I’m sure that people will be able to figure out which column is the ‘Yes’ column and which column is the ‘No’ column. —BrOnXbOmBr21 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For reasons I've explained. -- mattb @ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
• Symbols - The green check and the red 'X' each have only one interperetation to the viewer. This reduces the role to a logical binary state, allowing the viewer's brain to easily separate definite yes and definite no answers (which will be symbol-based) from categories that require more mental attention - answers such as "Partial", "N/A", "Depends", "Included", and "Dropped" (all of which are real table-template options currently available on Wikipedia). This data simplification fosters quicker navigation and reduced fatigue, and is more disability-friendly for users and editors with reading impairments and/or visual impairments (I have both).

BrOnXbOmBr21, this template is not specifically for tables with a separate yes column and no column, but rather applies to any column where a yes, no, depends, etc. answer could apply. See Comparison of webmail providers for a decent example, though I think this vote would apply to the seccond table on the page especially.

Of significance is how many yes/no cells contain text in addition to "Yes" or "No". This text elaborates on the exact condition of compliance or non-compliance (for example: "Own Domain" vs. "Using identities", "Sophos Anti-Virus" vs. "Norton AntiVirus"). Note how difficult reading the tables would be for a user with disabilities, which is what led me here. If the binary choice of Yes/No can be visually distinguished from the elaboration text within the same cell, I might actually be able to read that table one day. -- Proud Wikipedian Museerouge 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So it looks like you are saying that having an x or a check along with text when needed would be better than "Yes" with text when needed? I think it would be slightly unusual to have a symbol with text, but it really wouldn't be so bad, and maybe it would be easier than "yes" with qualifying words. Althepal 06:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Darker background For the reasons above. General Fris' Kahn 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background I'm colorblind, but I'm able to distinguish the darker colors. (Sure, it's a selfish reason, but helping colorblind people is one of the pros of this option.) Tesseran 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For all the above reasons. D0t 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background for a different reason. We need a "strong yes" and a "strong no". A "weak yes" and "weak no" can use {{yes2}} and {{no2}}. I'm not sure if a darker color helps the colorblind. If a colorblind cannot distinguish green and red, does it matter if the colors are more saturated or pale? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am no medical expert. The black text should be visible to the colorblind whether the background is pale or darker. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment {{no}} should be able to take 1 parameter like {{yes}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment actually having it a darker colour apparently does help, see below Nil Einne 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While a strong/weak yes might be nice, I disagree that "yes" and "yes2" should be subverted for this purpose--editors have used them under the assumption that they're the same color. It'd seem better to adopt NEW templates (perhaps "weakyes" or "strongyes"/"yesyes") to achieve what you want). --Karnesky 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background Clearer for first-glances. Symbols ONLY IF the bg color of the cells are white or near-white. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols seems best for the above reasons (clearest, simpliest, still accessible). Alternatively Darker background is okay. Nil Einne 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - Checkmarks and x's will give it a bit more of a fresh new look.
  • Please sign in to vote. Althepal 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Standard text - It's fine. Definitely not symbols, they will be horrible in a column where some cells are text and some yes/no. NicM 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
• Darker background - For clarity, and accessibility in case it would aid the color blind. The colors should be enough to distinguish the choices without a need for symbols, and would reduce the graphics clutter on the pages. -- Northgrove 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - Makes for a more refreshing look. The way for the future! (IMO) --Tahren B 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Standard text for now. There isn't enough text-to-background contrast in the dark version (and, thanks to a friend, I know this contrast criticism applies to at least some people who are colorblind and some people who aren't). Perhaps a gradient or border could be used (see below). Karnesky 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - It is not annoying like the darker background and doesn't use words (I think symbols are more pleasing then words for most people). Mike92591 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For all the above reasons. PatrickSt 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background Kmorozov 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols -- Those ones are a little too glassy -- they don't match Wikipedia's look. However any icon is better than colours or text. I am against colours beause they get confusing when there're more options than just Yes/No. And text is not easily distinguishable, especially on big tables which use small fonts. --Doc aberdeen 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not vote here. Vote below

Additional comments

Eventual conclusion

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)

Where's the fire? ¦ Reisio 02:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. No rush, it's just that I don't want somebody to change the templates as soon as they think there is a solid vote for one option, when others might want to wait longer before making changes. I want there to be some written, predefined way to decide when the vote has concluded, so there will be a clear end. Althepal 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Reisio and Althepal. This is a good cause, and "Weighty Questions ask for deliberate Answers." But there must be an end that can be agreed upon. I move that after 100 unique votes or 14 days (whichever comes first) the issue be put to rest. --Museerouge 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. If others are okay with the two week or 100 posts thing, I'll go along. Althepal 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion submitted. Can we get any Wikipedians who have voted or posted in this talk page already to seccond the motion? --Museerouge 04:18, 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)

While 100 is a little long, remember there is a time limit as well. I think 100 is a resonable level and I support this motion but remember this isn't a vote. Nil Einne 08:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion, template text

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)

Wouldn't you consider 60% people voting one way a consensus, esp since there are three choices? Some people are strong in their opinion, so without a vote, it would be hard to come to a consensus. Anyway, Standard text (the current version) only has the support of 20% of the Wikipedian's support so far, and should for sure not remain the template. Althepal 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CON to see how the process is meant to work. A supermajority is not necessarily sufficient for consensus. A trite (though (unfortunately) common) example is if many of the 60% came from new/anonymous wikipedians or even if they merely ignored WP policy to arrive at a poor conclusion. Polls should promote dialog & it isn't uncommon for an insightful comment to shape the opinion of all subsequent votes. Even if this change doesn't shift the majority away from the opinion of initial votes, it is important to acknowledge it.

Given that the status quo only has one less vote than the next candidate, I don't think you can discard it this early. --Karnesky 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Just keep in mind that there is no rule that something can't be edited, even if there is not a complete consensus. Besides, the current pale color was only recently re-introduced - an edit that most people evidentially disagree with. That is not a consensus, and it has been reverted a couple times already, only to be replaced by a single editor. But if we see that most people like one option, and the template is made to that option, and people don't revert it after that, then we have a consensus. I don't think people would revert after seeing that most people are in favor of a certain option. Right? Althepal 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Karnesky, we are well aware of the difference between polling and discussion here. It is for this reason that this page is actively supporting both. --MuséeRouge 03:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to have any implication of bad faith. This comment was mainly in response to Al's eagerness to make the change when a 2/3 majority with only five votes on a choice & the ensuing discussion of what to use for a majority decision. I'm also not the only person to remind people of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY concerns on this page! --Karnesky 03:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Text contrast with dark backgrounds

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)

Perhaps we can have a gradient background or a dark border with the light background in order to both maximize contrast and provide a stronger visual cue for the colorblind? I'm sure that many who prefer the status quo will object that no other table cells have special borders or gradients, but I'd really like a way where colorblind people can distinguish the colors and the contrast is strong enough to actually read the text. --Karnesky 15:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a gradient would be more distracting. I have no problem reading text on a saturated background. Althepal 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And neither of have problems telling the difference between pale green to pale red. The fact is that a darker background decreases contrast. Why should we ignore this? --Karnesky 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the contrast decrease is minute, and the colors themselves tell the story. Althepal 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You've made this argument that text isn't important because of color a few times on this page and I don't buy it. Not only do people explicitly substitute something other than "yes" or "no" in the templates, but they append footnotes or other information to them. Text visibility is still important. --Karnesky 01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The contrast ratio dropped from ~16:1 to ~9:1. This is hardly "minute," but I will note that 9:1 is still strong enough to pass web accessibility tests. Maybe I just need better monitors. --Karnesky 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Other stats: The brightness difference dropped from 237 to 177 (threshold 125). The color difference dropped from 697 to 543 (threshold 500). Again, the readability has diminished, but not to below the suggested thresholds. --Karnesky 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Colourblind

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)

Reading the discussion at the top, it appears the answer is yes, at least for mattb Nil Einne 08:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's easier to imagine for a non-color blind person by trying to picture watching two different hues in a black & white picture. The more desaturated and lighter they get, the harder they are to distinguish, while deeper colors would at least provide a better hint to the color difference, with the B&W analogy making one more noticeably closer to the black than the other. -- Northgrove 09:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are different types of colorblindness, but in general red/green colorblindness is set off by light hues. -- mattb @ 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)

Vote on the future of this template text

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)

Sorry. ;) I just wanted to get more opinions. Althepal 19:07, 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)

Does anyone have knowledge/experience on implementing any alternative or workaround to the vote information on the template? I am unable to think of any off the top of my head.

Obviously, if people are seeing the notice on the template it means that the template itself is having a noticable impact on their Wikipedia experience. They have a right to be informed of the changes suggested, wether it be via the current notice or through some other means. If there are equally effective alternatives they should certainly be discussed, but until then we must stick with what works. --MuséeRouge 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Other templates

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)

The thing about the other templates is that you can't get all the information about it just by looking at the color, and a symbol might be difficult to use to sum up "Depends" or "Partial". I guess maybe you could make all the backgrounds more saturated or with some kind of symbol. Maybe the ? template could have a nicer picture of a question mark. But you know, the yes and no templates are really the main things that this discussion pertains to. Althepal 01:02, 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)

Whoa, talk about double edits! lol ;) Althepal 02:53, 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

Include in Decision

• Yes and No. Decide Unknown, Partial and Depends, but separately. (I would vote to have all except Yes and No to be either Standard text or Symbols. Yes and No could be Dark background or Symbols.) Althepal 03:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

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)

"But yes" and "but no" are in Template:Table cell templates. Please replace them above. They are used for when "yes" is a bad thing (for instance, is an audio codec patented?). —Ashley Y 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But they are not in this class of templates and it is unreasonable to have a dark background or symbol for those as that would be very confusing. Althepal 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They are in this class of templates. They are in Template:Table cell templates and they are used together with the others. Please put them back above. —Ashley Y 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! I missed them. Sorry! But still, unless there you can find some reason why a symbol or darker background for them might be useful, why should it be put back? Althepal 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They get used together, so people ought to decide whether the others should be consistent. Please put them back in. —Ashley Y 03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine.  :\ But I must warn you, a strong red will make people think "no", and a strong green will make people think "yes". (I think this whole thing is getting too confusing when not focusing on just Yes and No.) Althepal

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 C ;) Althepal 03:57, 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)

Any ideas? How about making a separate vote where people can specify what they prefer for each choice?? Or do you think we can bunch all options aside from Yes and No into a second vote??? Althepal 03:57, 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)

I guess they could decide for themselves whether it is good or bad... but a strong color could throw people off... Symbols for all might actually work... ?Althepal 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw in another option: Symbols on dark background. I hope it doesn't make the whole thing hopelessly confusing, lol. It for sure cannot be one option for all, though. Maybe a WHOLE NEW vote section type? Althepal 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that symbols on dark background are sickingly bad except for Unknown, Partial and Depends, and I may remove it if anybody says so. I think that the colorblind people will just have to decide for themselves whether a "but yes" and "but no" template is bad or good. You can't have a strong color on a strong color. Althepal 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it not the policy of Wikipedia - indeed, all encyclopedias - to avoid "good" and "bad" judgements in favor of displaying facts? The colors are present to help identify the state of the information as yes, no, etc. (factually measurable data) - not as being inherently "good" or "bad" (subjective opinions about what the measured data means). I urge everyone, please consider carefully the situation you propose.

To aid you in the consideration, I present the following pair of hypothetical situations: an article on gay marriage (or maybe capital punishment) uses a table listing the nations of the world with a column heading of "Is Gay Marriage (or alternatively, The Death Penalty) Legal There?". In both situations your strong-red "but yes" and strong-green "but no" cells create the implication that either gay marriage or the death penalty being legal in a nation is a bad thing, and being illegal in other nations is a good thing. --MuséeRouge 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the "but yes" or "but no" templates on those hypothetical pages. ANY shade of red or green implies a bias. An uncolored yes or no would be more appropriate to remain NPOV. Ashley's view of the templates seems better--the "but yes" is used when "yes" is bad. Karnesky 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Does plain yes imply it is good? If so, people can just write "Yes" in the places where they don't want to imply that something is good or bad. Or there can be a neutral yes template? Althepal 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was actually Ashley Y's view that first aroused my concern. Nonetheless, I repeat: there is no situation in an encyclopedia where yes or no may be implied to mean "good" or "bad". --MuséeRouge 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the pages mentioned in this discussion have been in Category:Software comparisons. In such cases, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a positive connotation associated with a particular product having a particular feature. --Karnesky 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is kind of you to offer to make up the entire world's mind for it about what "features" are positive or not, judgement calls are not facts and can not be presented in the factual context of an article. The point has been made in spades, and I apologise if I am a tad cranky. --MuséeRouge 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:But_yes and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:But_no, I agree the templates are use inconsistently and often abused to apply bias. I'm tempted to put them up for deletion, or at least to remove the color to make them more neutral. I do think you're fooling yourself if you think color carries no connotation, though. What kind of fuss would be raised if we made the "yes" template red and the "no" template green?!?! --Karnesky 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having red on a Yes template on a controversial issue is a bad idea, but green on a yes and red on a no template on the same issues wouldn't be taken the wrong way (the colors wouldn't infer "good" or "bad"), since green is connected with yes and red is connected with no, and everybody knows Wikipedia is npov and that that is just the way the templates are. Althepal 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point precisely: "green is connected with yes and red is connected with no". However, with the ridiculous concept of But_Yes and But_No, green ceases to be connected with "yes" because the But_Yes is made red to connote "Bad"; red ceases to be connected with "no" because But_No is altered to be green so that it can imply "Good." --MuséeRouge 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. 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 what do you know, Ashley, the person who reverted these templates to be pale and the one who keeps pushing on adding these backwards templates to the equation, is the one who created these templates in the first place. And ONLY 7 articles exist that use these templates! And where the templates are use, they seem to be used incorrectly. For example Comparison_of_media_players#Features says that it is good that GOM Player is remote controllable, but bad that iTunes is. ??? If anybody seconds my opinion or makes a bot to replace the use of these templates, I would tag those templates for deletion. Althepal 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of user disabilities, with mine I find the symbols on a dark background to be the most accessible way for the information to be displayed. I must admit that the particular motif of symbol-on-dark-background is somewhat lacking aesthetically. However "function follows form" as they say, and it is a small price to trade a bit of prettiness for information accessibility to all. --MuséeRouge 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On the specific issue of red-green colorblindness, I agree that these would be the most distinguishable. However, foreground-background contrast is also an accessibility concern & I think for the most usual case ("yes" or "no"), there is definitely not enough contrast. Perhaps black symbols? --Karnesky 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not a bad idea. I think the main selling point of the yes/no symbols is that they don't look similar to anything else. As long as the standard check-for-yes & cross-for-no shapes are used on the appropriate background color, tweaking the hue of the symbol itself for optimun contrast should not hurt meaningful recognition. --MuséeRouge 06:53, 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)

Template straw poll

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.

{{yes}}

Lighter background: 4;

Darker background: 13;

Symbols: 6;

Symbols on dark background: 0

Lighter background	Yes
Darker background	Yes
Symbols
Symbols on dark background

• Darker background (or Symbols both) bring the information easily. Althepal 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker Background It's clearer than the light background and you are able to add some text in the textbox so the use is greater, Daimanta 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background The symbols remind me way too much of Microsoft Windows icons, and since they don’t conform to the rest of Wikipedia, the discrepancy is jarring. Personally, I think the paler background is easier on the eyes than the darker background. Although I can see how it would be an issue for colorblind users, I think that the text in the boxes — not the background color — is ultimately what matters. By reading, I’m sure that people will be able to figure out which column is the ‘Yes’ column and which column is the ‘No’ column. —BrOnXbOmBr21 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For reasons I've explained. -- mattb @ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
• Symbols - The green check and the red 'X' each have only one interperetation to the viewer. This reduces the role to a logical binary state, allowing the viewer's brain to easily separate definite yes and definite no answers (which will be symbol-based) from categories that require more mental attention - answers such as "Partial", "N/A", "Depends", "Included", and "Dropped" (all of which are real table-template options currently available on Wikipedia). This data simplification fosters quicker navigation and reduced fatigue, and is more disability-friendly for users and editors with reading impairments and/or visual impairments (I have both).

BrOnXbOmBr21, this template is not specifically for tables with a separate yes column and no column, but rather applies to any column where a yes, no, depends, etc. answer could apply. See Comparison of webmail providers for a decent example, though I think this vote would apply to the seccond table on the page especially.

Of significance is how many yes/no cells contain text in addition to "Yes" or "No". This text elaborates on the exact condition of compliance or non-compliance (for example: "Own Domain" vs. "Using identities", "Sophos Anti-Virus" vs. "Norton AntiVirus"). Note how difficult reading the tables would be for a user with disabilities, which is what led me here. If the binary choice of Yes/No can be visually distinguished from the elaboration text within the same cell, I might actually be able to read that table one day. -- Proud Wikipedian Museerouge 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Darker background For the reasons above. General Fris' Kahn 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background I'm colorblind, but I'm able to distinguish the darker colors. (Sure, it's a selfish reason, but helping colorblind people is one of the pros of this option.) Tesseran 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For all the above reasons. D0t 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background for a different reason. We need a "strong yes" and a "strong no". A "weak yes" and "weak no" can use {{yes2}} and {{no2}}. I'm not sure if a darker color helps the colorblind. If a colorblind cannot distinguish green and red, does it matter if the colors are more saturated or pale? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am no medical expert. The black text should be visible to the colorblind whether the background is pale or darker. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background Clearer for first-glances. Symbols ONLY IF the bg color of the cells are white or near-white. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols seems best for the above reasons (clearest, simpliest, still accessible). Alternatively Darker background is okay. Nil Einne 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - Checkmarks and x's will give it a bit more of a fresh new look. Fr0 09:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background - It's fine. Definitely not symbols, they will be horrible in a column where some cells are text and some yes/no. NicM 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
• Darker background - For clarity, and accessibility in case it would aid the color blind. The colors should be enough to distinguish the choices without a need for symbols, and would reduce the graphics clutter on the pages. -- Northgrove 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - Makes for a more refreshing look. The way for the future! (IMO) --Tahren B 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background for now. There isn't enough text-to-background contrast in the dark version (and, thanks to a friend, I know this contrast criticism applies to at least some people who are colorblind and some people who aren't). Perhaps a gradient or border could be used (see below). Karnesky 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - It is not annoying like the darker background and doesn't use words (I think symbols are more pleasing then words for most people). Mike92591 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For all the above reasons. PatrickSt 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker Background for the same reason as PatrickSt Brooza 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background Kmorozov 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols -- Those ones are a little too glassy -- they don't match Wikipedia's look. However any icon is better than colours or text. I am against colours beause they get confusing when there're more options than just Yes/No. And text is not easily distinguishable, especially on big tables which use small fonts. --Doc aberdeen 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background Yes/No symbols would be the only symbols that everyone could understand without a legends box, and the dark background is a bit too strong for my taste. --Gwaur ^(Spokening) 14:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

{{no}}

Lighter background: 4;

Darker background: 14;

Symbols: 6;

Symbols on dark background: 0

Lighter background	No
Darker background	No
Symbols
Symbols on dark background

• Darker background (or Symbols both) bring the information easily. Althepal 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker Background It's clearer than the light background and you are able to add some text in the textbox so the use is greater, Daimanta 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background The symbols remind me way too much of Microsoft Windows icons, and since they don’t conform to the rest of Wikipedia, the discrepancy is jarring. Personally, I think the paler background is easier on the eyes than the darker background. Although I can see how it would be an issue for colorblind users, I think that the text in the boxes — not the background color — is ultimately what matters. By reading, I’m sure that people will be able to figure out which column is the ‘Yes’ column and which column is the ‘No’ column. —BrOnXbOmBr21 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For reasons I've explained. -- mattb @ 2007-03-08T02:25Z
• Symbols - The green check and the red 'X' each have only one interperetation to the viewer. This reduces the role to a logical binary state, allowing the viewer's brain to easily separate definite yes and definite no answers (which will be symbol-based) from categories that require more mental attention - answers such as "Partial", "N/A", "Depends", "Included", and "Dropped" (all of which are real table-template options currently available on Wikipedia). This data simplification fosters quicker navigation and reduced fatigue, and is more disability-friendly for users and editors with reading impairments and/or visual impairments (I have both).

BrOnXbOmBr21, this template is not specifically for tables with a separate yes column and no column, but rather applies to any column where a yes, no, depends, etc. answer could apply. See Comparison of webmail providers for a decent example, though I think this vote would apply to the seccond table on the page especially.

Of significance is how many yes/no cells contain text in addition to "Yes" or "No". This text elaborates on the exact condition of compliance or non-compliance (for example: "Own Domain" vs. "Using identities", "Sophos Anti-Virus" vs. "Norton AntiVirus"). Note how difficult reading the tables would be for a user with disabilities, which is what led me here. If the binary choice of Yes/No can be visually distinguished from the elaboration text within the same cell, I might actually be able to read that table one day. -- Proud Wikipedian Museerouge 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Darker background For the reasons above. General Fris' Kahn 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background I'm colorblind, but I'm able to distinguish the darker colors. (Sure, it's a selfish reason, but helping colorblind people is one of the pros of this option.) Tesseran 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For all the above reasons. D0t 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background for a different reason. We need a "strong yes" and a "strong no". A "weak yes" and "weak no" can use {{yes2}} and {{no2}}. I'm not sure if a darker color helps the colorblind. If a colorblind cannot distinguish green and red, does it matter if the colors are more saturated or pale? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am no medical expert. The black text should be visible to the colorblind whether the background is pale or darker. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background Clearer for first-glances. Symbols ONLY IF the bg color of the cells are white or near-white. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols seems best for the above reasons (clearest, simpliest, still accessible). Alternatively Darker background is okay. Nil Einne 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - Checkmarks and x's will give it a bit more of a fresh new look. Fr0 09:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background - It's fine. Definitely not symbols, they will be horrible in a column where some cells are text and some yes/no. NicM 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
• Darker background - For clarity, and accessibility in case it would aid the color blind. The colors should be enough to distinguish the choices without a need for symbols, and would reduce the graphics clutter on the pages. -- Northgrove 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - Makes for a more refreshing look. The way for the future! (IMO) --Tahren B 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background for now. There isn't enough text-to-background contrast in the dark version (and, thanks to a friend, I know this contrast criticism applies to at least some people who are colorblind and some people who aren't). Perhaps a gradient or border could be used (see below). Karnesky 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols - It is not annoying like the darker background and doesn't use words (I think symbols are more pleasing then words for most people). Mike92591 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background For all the above reasons. PatrickSt 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker Background for the same reason as PatrickSt Brooza 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background Kmorozov 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Symbols -- Those ones are a little too glassy -- they don't match Wikipedia's look. However any icon is better than colours or text. I am against colours beause they get confusing when there're more options than just Yes/No. And text is not easily distinguishable, especially on big tables which use small fonts. --Doc aberdeen 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background Yes/No symbols would be the only symbols that everyone could understand without a legends box, and the dark background is a bit too strong for my taste. --Gwaur ^(Spokening) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Darker background The light color is too pinkish and completely ruins lists especially in the astronomy department (see List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets). Completely ruins the colours for the ESI templates. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

{{but yes}}

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 (or Symbols both) bring the information easily. Althepal 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background text I vote light on this only because I vote dark on the regular yes. This light color can easily distinguish from the regular yes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{but no}}

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 (or Symbols both) bring the information easily. Althepal 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background text I vote light on this only because I vote dark on the regular no. This light color can easily distinguish from the regular no. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{unk}}

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 (or Symbols both) bring the information easily. Althepal 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background (no symbols) since the colors aren't as representative of anything, and the symbols would require a legend or something. -- Prod-You 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background text Light color is soft on the eyes. Text is more unambiguous than symbol. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{partial}}

Lighter background: 3;

Darker background: 0;

Symbols: 0;

Symbols on dark background: 0

Lighter background	Partial
Darker background	Partial
Symbols
Symbols on dark background

• Lighter background (or Symbols both) bring the information easily. Althepal 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background (no symbols) since the colors aren't as representative of anything, and the symbols would require a legend or something. -- Prod-You 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background text Light color is soft on the eyes. Text is more unambiguous than symbol. By the way, I changed the light color above from fffdd to ffffdd. fffdd is presumably a typo. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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 NoJohncosgrave (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

{{depends}}

Lighter background: 3;

Darker background: 0;

Symbols: 0;

Symbols on dark background: 0

Lighter background	Depends
Darker background	Depends
Symbols
Symbols on dark background

• Lighter background (or Symbols both) bring the information easily. Althepal 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background (no symbols) since the colors aren't as representative of anything, and the symbols would require a legend or something. -- Prod-You 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lighter background text Light color is soft on the eyes. Text is more unambiguous than symbol. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong place for votes on other templates

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)

I think that Ashley's comments are relevant to the discussion's scope, as the way the templates fit together impact aesthetic choice (and, in your simplified summary, aesthetics was one of the two paramount concerns). "but yes" is currently related to "no" in the background, "yes" in the foreground and "but no" as an antonym.

I agree that breaking up the polls is harmful.

• "yes" and "no" are used to such a great extent & were the only two which were receiving initial comment. The poll should be reverted back to just those two. Ideas for what the other templates might look would still be relevant, but not central, to discussion.
• Alternatively, we could just call the current polls/discussion a lost cause & start fresh on Template talk:Table cell templates. --Karnesky 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those seem to be our only two choices if we want a legitimate polling to take place. Fortunately, the yes/no poll at least can continue on right here with few or no changes. --MuséeRouge 07:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I realized that the Yes and No templates are the most important ones and that the others are likely to be ignored in the voting. That's why I broke it up and said, "Any templates with fewer than 15 votes or no option in the majority by that time should be left as is." I think that is a good way for people to have the option to vote on them, while at the same time, not force them into the discussion. Althepal 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not about importance, it's about procedure. There is nothing wrong with polling about templates other than the "Yes" template on this talkpage (ie - the "Yes" template talkpage), but the results from here would not be considered to be binding on those other templates.

However, a simple solution would be that if any template other than the "Yes" or "No" templates receives considerable attention in the polls here (say, if they receive the proposed 15 votes?), then we would know that it would be worthwhile to start up an official vote on that template's official talkpage. --MuséeRouge 08:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Text vs symbols

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)

I wouldn't say that. There is a lot more support for symbols than for light backgrounds. And people could quickly get used to the depends symbol, esp if there would be a nice image key. Althepal 20:29, 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)

Nobody here has engaged in edit warring. That characterization isn't at all apt for the small disagreement about advertising this discussion in the template itself. -- mattb @ 2007-03-09T14:20Z

I know. But we could... —Ashley Y 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

So which of these makes clear that salmon is safer than fugu? —Ashley Y 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Both. In this example the big red X on the "but no" does make it more confusing, but that is ONLY if you don't look at the titles in the X column. Note that I am slightly in favor of not using symbols for the but yes and but no templates, but anyway, tables are rarely worded with a No being good. (For example, when making this table in a real article, I would expect that the writer would write "Non-toxic" to avoid double-negatives.) Althepal 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Not poisonous" is a single negative, not a double negative. Just to simplify things:

	Poisonous
Salmon

Does this say "salmon is poisonous" or "salmon is not poisonous"? —Ashley Y 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not poisonous. Okay, but instead of saying, "No, it is good that the salmon is not poisonous," the more likely table setup would read, "Yes, it is good that the salmon is non-toxic." Which makes more sense, and do you see what I meant by double-negative? True, I didn't use double-negative in the best way, but now I explained myself. Althepal 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A big red X, and no text, unambiguously says "not poisonous" to you? And there's no double negative here. "salmon is poisonous" is a positive. "salmon is not poisonous" is a single negative. —Ashley Y 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By using "but no", that introduces something into your sentence: "No, it is good that salmon is not poisonous." If you would just go with a plain "no" template instead of this more unusual one, there would be no adding of "it is good that..." or "it is bad that..." to your sentences. Althepal 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And the x does mean it is not poisonous, since the header says "poisonous" the the X means no. What is your question? Besides, I don't know why you want to spend all this time bothering with the but yes and but no templates, since it is doubtful that anybody would want to do anything to them. Althepal 23:17, 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.

Key: = Yes; = No; = Partial

(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)

Are you really suggesting fiddling with everyone's tables by introducing double negatives such as "not non-toxic" everywhere? —Ashley Y 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Non-toxic" is considered an adjective. I don't think that everyone's tables would need "fiddling" - I think that most tables are worded properly. And "no" is generally negative, "yes" is generally positive. Althepal 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"No" is indeed a negative. "Non-toxic" is an adjective with a clear negative in it. That's why people prefer to say the positive "toxic" to the double negative "not non-toxic". In general, switching the sense of the column around will create additional confusion, for instance switching "patented" to the negative "patent-free". That's why we need text, so we can actually know what the cell is saying, rather than trying to guess from a symbol that could mean "good no" or could mean "bad yes". —Ashley Y 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, "but yes" and "but no" templates are bad ideas. Further, I'm saying those templates should have text. And, the X or check mark would, even in those cases, would indicate that there is no patent. Even though the green background would hint to it, in an encyclopedia, people don't need to be told if something is good or bad, since that depends on who you are. I am tempted to put the but yes and no templates for deletion and have a bot replace them all, but I won't. Althepal 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete "but yes" and "but no" anybody?

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)

Why do you think green means yes and red means no? It's much more common that green means "OK" and red means "warning". —Ashley Y 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Green means "go", red means "don't go"; one is positive and one is negative. I agree with Althepal about "but yes" and "but no". Mike92591 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I third the motion for deletion of "but yes" and "but no". --MuséeRouge 08:00, 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)

Even though both the symbol and the colour are commonly associated with warnings, and there's no text, it's unambiguous to you that it means "salmon is not poisonous"? —Ashley Y 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

yes Mike92591 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes --MuséeRouge 07:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a warning book. Everybody knows that there are no warnings on eating fish: just information. X means no, not "bad". It means that the answer to the question "Is salmon poisonous?" is "Negative." How can you think that your example means that this is a warning that salmon is poisonous??! Althepal 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a big red "X". In the real world, big red "X"s almost always mean "warning" or "forbidden" and never "no, you're fine". Without text this is dangerously ambiguous. Your assertion that "red" always means "no" is ill-founded. —Ashley Y 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See the red icon with the X at the top of your internet browser window? Does that mean, "Cancel the program," or "Clicking this will crash your computer."? Althepal 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It means "stop", "close", "end". That's rather different from "no". —Ashley Y 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What a warning. Althepal 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More a warning than a "no", though. —Ashley Y 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that saying "Danger" more than it is saying "Cancel"? Althepal 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it saying "No" more than it is saying "Cancel"? —Ashley Y 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, let us say that the big red "X" means what it means in a browser:

	Poisonous
Salmon	Stop, Cancel

Does this suggest "stop, the salmon is poisonous", or "no, the salmon is not poisonous"? —Ashley Y 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your example is not standard in tables, and that is not my point. My point is that X does not always mean warning. (Did you notice the name of the image of the red x?: Crystal Clear action button cancel.png - Where's the warning?)

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)

Discussion advertising

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)

DECISION

The yes and no templates shall have a darker background. Althepal 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Shading

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)

color: black

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)

Switch to /doc

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)

Spanning columns (and perhaps rows)

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).

Documentation

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).

Consistency

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)

Request for edit

{{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)

Sorry I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Could you be a little more specific, perhaps by putting your proposed code in Template:Yes/sandbox. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The common code for all table cell templates was changed to

 style="background: #abcdef; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: {{{align|center}}}; {{{style|}}}" class="xxx table-xxx"|xxx

Each of the unprotected templates have roughly the same markup (the main differences being background color, default text and links to counterparts on other language wikis). I'm requesting that the protected templates be changed to conform to the new common code. I've posted the proposed change to the sandbox as you asked. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Template:N/a is protected and needs to be changed as well. Almost forgot that one. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Think I've got them all. Please check and let me know if there is any problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll let you know if something breaks. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rh is now no longer consistent with Template:Rh2, making tables that use most if not all of the aforementioned templates (eg.Comparison of BitTorrent clients, DVD ripper etc.) appear to have bad/broken Row header formatting. I for one preferred the old look (left text alignment) of Template:Rh. Surely the row header should have a unique appearance compared to the rest of the row, and shouldn't final appearance/formatting take precedence over commonality of code? (I note that the article Comparison of video editing software appears to use template free row headers with both left & centre alignment. I wonder if these differences of opinion is going to turn into a debate as to what the standard should be, or is there already a well respected standard on this issue of table formatting to which we could all agree?)--202.168.102.96 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rh now defaults to left aligned, as it previously did. There is still a slight spacing difference between Rh and Rh2. Perhaps Gyrobo is intending to standardise these? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I defaulted {{rh2}} to left aligned. The slight spacing differences were because rh2 had a left padding and uses a bolder font weight. I've removed the padding and left the bolder weight untouched, but if someone feels the weights should be identical between rh and rh2, I wouldn't be opposed to changing it. I don't really have very strong opinions about how the cell templates should be written, but someone started changing them a month ago. I'd just like to see them all set to some kind of consistent standard. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make this work with style tags

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)

Is something like this acceptable? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The example in documentation requires double quotes for 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)

• The point being that documentation should reflect this. -Mardus (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite a bug, but...

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)

Background

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)

"Limite"

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)

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

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)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Linkable yes?

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)

No change

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)

Ironically it seems that there is consensus to use the darker colour. But the light color is too pinkish and completely ruins lists especially in the astronomy department (see List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets) Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

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)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: A mistake was made; you may want to review your edit. I'm tracking it down currently. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This happens when I misunderstand the syntax of {{tls}}, which I do from time to time. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's the newline, which shouldn't be transcluded. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was scratching my head at what the error was, and hoping it wasn't just some weird caching thing on my end. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As Pppery just mentioned, it's the newline between the two </noinclude> <noinclude> tags that needs to be fixed. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just delete the

</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)

 Done by BethNaught Amortias (T)(C) 23:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 April 2018 (2)

Please revert todays changes ASAP. Tim (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Already discussed in the previous header. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert first, fix later; is the proper protocol on an error that breaks a large % of the site (every compare table) --Tim (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tim@: If we have a fix, reverting vs. fixing will make no difference, as apparently no administrator is noticing the error. The mistake was caused by a misplaced <noinclude>. I've posted the fix above. The administrator mistakenly introduced a newline. I don't know how to get more urgent help, but if I could, I would, it is very unfortunate that the template was edited without care. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That was silly of me; I should have posted to AN to begin with. If I am in a situation like this again, I will post to AN ASAP.

@Tim@: If there's ever a problem like this, just post in to AN, and they'll fix it. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of AN.

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

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)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

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)

To editor Fernando Trebien: gotta say, I don't see much difference (speaking with 72 yo eyes) with the black text to contrast. Can you show examples for yes and no templates where a blue link is used instead of a black non-link? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 02:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've created side-by-side comparisons complete with blue links on the Template:Yes/testcases page. I see a very tiny difference, and not enough that it would affect any accessibility issue. Even though my color vision has always been pretty spot on, I'll leave it to other editors to decide. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 07:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: For {{Yes}} the difference is really small. Even for normal vision, it may only be noticeable on certain screens and lighting conditions. My goal is to have the WebAIM contrast checker output a WCAG AAA Pass whenever the change is small. For {{No}}, I'm aiming for the AA Pass level (which is the minimum recommended by MOS:COLOR) to avoid too big a change in the current shade, an AAA level would require a much lighter shade which would be almost exactly the same as {{No2}} (actually a little bit lighter), which would make the two indistinguishable. I simply set the foreground color of the contrast checker to the blue link color (#0645AD) and the background color initially to the current color, then I move the lightness slider to find a lighter shade that passes one or both of the checks. Here's a comparison of the shades against blue links (links to other Wikipedia articles) and against regular text with reference links:

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

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that this would indeed be an accessibility improvement for some number of people. Presumably for any two levels of color contrast, there are people who can see contrast clearly at one point but not at the other. Thus, shooting for defined accessibility standards seems reasonable, even if the difference is minor. Speaking as someone with bad eyesight (bad enough that I have to change 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  On hold for a few days. If no one turns up to argue that this make things worse, I'll go ahead. Courtesy ping Blablubbs, who I've seen speak passionately on color contrast before. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and Tamzin: This is not about perception of the colors, and the personal impression that they are 'somewhat lighter' or that 'I can hardly see the difference'. Ftrebien is working by the W3C contrast rules ([1], Web colors § Color contrast) that give the contrast quality by a calculation (an algorithm if you like) with the two color(-RGB number values) as input. Given the resulting contrast number, two treshold values determine the accessability level: >treshold 1="AA" (OK for large texts), or "AAA" (2, =better): ok for small & regular font. So these are objective. Other improvements, such as wrt color blindness, are different topic, and are not hindered by this contrast rule.

So, since the proposed colors at last provide an AA quality of contrast, this is an absolute improvement as dscribed in WP:ACCESSABILITY #Color. It does not depend on opinions. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

More options

More color options and checks

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

To editors DePiep, Tamzin and Fernando Trebien: was able to get the Yes value to pass the tests; however, the lowest No background hex value to pass all tests was #FFE3E3. Should we go with that rather than the OPs lower value, which passed all tests except the test for normal-size text? I have inputted #FFE3E3 #FFC7C7 into the No/sandbox and the result is now on the Template:Yes/testcases page. #FFE3E3 is the lowest value of the No template's background hue that passes all the tests. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 08:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Compliments for this action, Paine Ellsworth! So it's:

Checking {{No}} cell for w3c contrast, using Webaim:

fontcolor: #0645AD Wikilink blue

background OP: #FFAAAA  #FFAAAA  contrast ration 4.7:1 = AA, fails AAA

background PE: #FFE3E3  #FFE3E3  contrast ration 7.04:1 = AAA

-DePiep (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My opinion: ouch, way too light (I first thought it was a mistake, showing grey). Cannot change this much without a revolution (at our 20th birthday).

For this reason, "too light", I support darker red, the option PE mentions. For now we can accept the OP darker red color, and accept AA-level not AAA; AA is OK for regular font anyway, so most often used as table cell. Other tweaking can be done later on. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggest splitting it about down the middle with #FFC7C7:

1.  #FF9999  4.2 AA -- current, '2021', fails regular font
2.  #FFAAAA  4.7 AA
3.  #FFC7C7  5.8 AA
4.  #FFE3E3  7.0 AAA

That #3 bg color still does not pass the AAA for normal text, however the contrast is greater than with the darker #FFAAAA. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) In that case, when tweaking more, we can add "aligning the red & green by using same SV in their HSV" (say, same pastel-texture apart from hue). -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I don't have enough time to develop more: I support using #FFC7C7 red, because old red fails in regular use so any 1st step improvement is required asap (per WP:ACCESS). Also, this red does not deviate too much from old red, and it has same teinture as the green (see column D above). More improvements can be developend & discussed later. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 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)

RfC on the colour of Template:No

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)

Survey

• #F99, Clearer Gooduserdude (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• #F99 is a better companion with the color of Yes. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• #FFC7C7 is better. It must be at least  #FFA4A4  to meet the accessibility guidelines when paired with blue links (unvisited links to other articles and links to references in the same article). Reference links and links to other articles are basic features of wikitext and can be used with this template, so this combination occurs in many articles.  #F99  is too dark for that, it does not reach WCAG AA with blue links.  #FAA  (what I proposed above) is almost the same thing as  #FFA4A4 .  #FFC7C7  is fine based on the previous discussion. WCAG compliance can be easily verified using the WebAIM contrast checker. AA level is a contrast ratio of 4.5 or more, AAA is a contrast ratio of 7 or more. The accessibility guidelines say that level AA is the minimum to be achieved on Wikipedia and that level AAA is recommended whenever possible. From our previous discussions:

Description	Web color	Examples of use		WCAG level of contrast with blue links
Old color of {{no}}	#F99	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.17 (not compliant)
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA	#FFA4A4	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.5 (AA)
Color I proposed for {{no}}	#FAA	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.7 (AA)
Color the community chose for {{no}} after discussion	#FFC7C7	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	5.78 (AA)
Color of {{no2}}	#FFE3E3	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	7.04 (AAA)

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• #FFC7C7 Per above. Red, but not too red... Comatmebro (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, the darker version is actually better for colorblind people, as a colorblind User:Tesseran pointed out in the discussion "Symbols, Darker background, or Standard text" further above on this talkpage, so the current background is not as accessibility friendly as Ftrebien claims Gooduserdude (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sampling bias, selection bias and confirmation bias. Please follow the accessibility guidelines as agreed by consensus, not just an isolated opinion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's not a good reason to have low contrast which hurts people with poor sight. Accessibility guidelines recommend not using colour codes to convey meaning, using always different symbols instead. Editors who want high accessibility should be preferably using the No X or No O templates. Diego (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• F99 FFC7C7 (invited by the bot) Better contrast with text for both general reading and apparently for accessibility. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

North8000 I don't follow your reasoning, F99 (the darkest) is the lowest contrast option between text and background (bad legibility). Are you sure you mean that option, and not the lightest, high contrast? Diego (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Diego Moya Thanks for catching my error. I fixed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Anything but F99 per Ftrebien: higher contrast is better. Accessibility guidelines must be followed, they are created by experts based on scientific evidence; therefore the noncompliant low contrast hue must be avoided. I would prefer FFE3E3 as the only value with 'good' contrast, but the intermediate medium-contrast #FAA could be acceptable for better aesthetic match with the current green hue of Yes. Diego (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the colour of Template:No (more options)

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	Unvisited link to article	4.17 (not compliant)
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA	#FFA4A4	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.5 (AA)
Color User:Ftrebien proposed for {{no}}	#FAA	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.7 (AA)
Color the chosen for {{no}} after former discussion	#FFC7C7	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	5.78 (AA)
Color of {{no2}}	#FFE3E3	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	7.04 (AAA)

Survey

• #F99, Clearer Gooduserdude (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA - not too light, but meets the WCAG AA standard. Remagoxer ^(talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA Just based on personal preference. #F99 is too dark. Some1 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA and #FFC7C7 are fine with me. #FAA is closer to the original color and more distinct from #FFE3E3, while #FFC7C7 is more accessible (closer to WCAG AAA) without being completely indistinguishable from #FFE3E3. #FAA and #FFA4A4 are practically indistinguishable, so I see no reason not to prefer a shorthand hexadecimal option which even slightly improves contrast. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• FAAor lighter. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA solves the contrast issue and is not too light. Pikavoom ^Talk 07:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FFC7C7 is better. There is little difference between #F99 and #FAA, with the latter being just a few decimal places above the first. Longer templates like {{eliminated}} or {{active fire}} which share the same color, as well as {{no}} tags with customized text, will greatly benefit from the improved readability of the less saturated background (compare examples with longer text below): Diego (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

• #FAA is not too light but not too dark. Thingofme (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• #ffc7c7 In addition to better contrast than the currently favored #ffaaaa, it looks more aesthetically appealing, too. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Nah, I changed my mind; #ffaaaa is easier to distinguish from {{no2}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Converting to templatestyles

I've created Template:Yes/sandbox/styles.css which has all the colours required. I've tested this at User:Matrix/sandbox. Should we convert these template to templatestyles for dark mode compatibility? Thoughts? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 10:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is any way that this family of templates could share some or all of their template styles, so that we didn't need to edit 100 templates when another MediaWiki change comes along, that would be great. If not, I still support this update. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)