Template talk:No

D'oh, that was a lot simpler than I was thinking.. :< - BeX 11:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you had me wondering what you were planning :P -- pullus talk 11:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought up the idea of switching before I renamed the images. Didn't even occur to me afterwards. ~_~ - BeX 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...I think {{no|red}} would do better as simply {{no}} because {{yes}} is green so the opposite of green is red and the opposite of yes is no. Did that make anysense to any of you?--§ Eloc § 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion over at Template talk:Yes and it was decided the contrast between the green and the red was too strong when (as in most cases) there were many {{yes}}'s and {{no}}'s in tables of information. Using a white X means your eye is drawn to the green {{yes}}'s, which is after all the information you want to convey. -- pullus talk 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

no no

Rather than any form of x, which there is already {{x}} for, I believe it would be best if we used the ingame no, as we do for {{yes}}. A pale cross is hardly intuitive for a new reader. Backsword 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

These {{yes}} and {{no}} templates are meant for use as checkmarks in a table above anything else (such as Artisan), so in that context what could be more intuitive than an x? It's also important they aren't so visually strong and bright that they detract from the information they portray in the table ... the beauty of the white x is that your eye is naturally drawn to the green ticks, which is after all the information that the checkmarks are there to give you. I see what you mean about the two x's ... though it's unlikely you'd find them occurring on the same page isn't it? -- pullus talk 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is rather that currently if you want to convey a pale x, there is two ways, but if you want to convay no in an intuitive way, there is none. I'd also say they're too generally named to be formated after their use on a specific page. They certainly see more use than that. Backsword 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fine as it is.--§ Eloc § 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As do I. There are other appearances of this template (i.e. |red) - whatever other uses this might be required for can be added, but this was primarily created for and used in tables with repeated instances of it, so the main image was designed purposefully not to be visually jarring. - BeX 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pullus meantioned that. And for that table, I agree they are just fine. On that page, no means 'no yes here'. I don't think the weapon tables should change, that's not what I'm trying to convey.

The thing is, with generic names, as 'Yes' and 'No' are, these templates have seen use all over the wiki. Thus they must be considered in light of that. And in other cases, different effects will often be desired. Mostly, there is just one or a few usages, in which yes and no are of equal importance. There might be tables where the 'no's are the important thing.

It's an important point you bring up with alternate uses. Me, I prefer the use of such over multiple templates. It seems the easiest solution to this. I do think {{yes}} and {{no}} working in the same way would make it easier for editors here. Backsword 02:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Could we not have constant changes to a template transcluded to so many pages? They are all updated every time. Backsword 04:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that exactly?--§ Eloc § 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to many changes, maybe a discussion before readding/removing (from all sides) would be a good idea? - anja 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I made the comment. Backsword 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And changed it again? - anja 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the timestamps. This was added as an afterthought. Backsword 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop duplicating that functionality. It is completely unecessary and is not an improvement because it isn't adding anything the template cant already do! All it does is make the code untidy. You can still use palex when you put it on your page, it's going to default to the white cross anyway... - BeX 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't even think where it would be used at.--§ Eloc § 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cancel/Crosshatch

I'm sure this is out there, but I can't seem to put my hands on it... there's an icon used in the UI to represent Cancel. It shows as a red crosshatch (circle with a slash through it). If someone would be so kind as to point me to it (as a template, such as the no?), I would appreciate it so that I can update the Asuran Bodyguard page with the appropriate symbol for the Veteran Asuran Bodyguard section. Adeira Tasharo 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't use the icons directly in the game. We some people here to make custom icons just for GWW. {{No|red}} will work just as fine as the cross with the / going inbetween.--§ Eloc § 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really the place to ask about this; template talk pages are mostly about the implementation. This could easily be added if we had a consensus for using the ingame version, which we don't. If you fell doing so would be preferable, the best place to bring it up is probably on some formating page, with a note on GWW:RFC. Backsword 10:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another good place to ask more questions would be at here — ク Eloc 貢 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)