Template talk:Yes

→ moved from Image talk:Yes-Logo.png

Better icons available?

Personally, I find this icon to appear washed-out. I would prefer somthing more similar to Wikimedia Commons:Symbol_kept_vote.svg or Wikimedia Commons:Symbol_support_vote.svg, which seem much more clear to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I donno, I kinda like it. The "washed-out-ness" kinda matches with Biro's newer prof icons doesn't it? -- ab.er.rant 03:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's so pale where it's used that it looks more like a green ball rather than a checkmark ... see List_of_weapon_upgrades#Prefix_bonuses. To me, the ones I linked to above would more clearly convey the meanings. If those are too dark, there's also Wikimedia Commons:Image:Pictogram_voting_support.svg which has a wahed-out-ness appearance while being clearer to me than what we currently use. Granted, the ones I'm linking to are .svg and would need to be converted to .png format before we could use any of them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This was never intended to be used in those tables, but rather in notice templates like {{user image}} (I originally created them with the intent that they would be used for build notices - viable and unviable, etc). The original {{yes}} had a different image but someone switched it to this one because there wasn't a corresponding no. If Biro were to create a tango yes and no and properly scale them, then that would be much better. The old image used for {{yes}} was just a green tick. - BeX 04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be sharper, but I really don't mind how it looks right now, I kinda like the subtleness of it :P -- ab.er.rant 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Subtle is one thing - washed out and indistinct like the one used here is another thing entirely. Like I posted above, to stay subtle yet still be more distinct, either of these work fine: pictogram plus symbol or pictogram checkmark ... while the associated "no" can be flagged with either pictogram x-mark or pictogram dash. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree looks terrible when it's scaled low and when the yes template was changed I was thinking ugh, why did they use this image? I would actually prefer an image without the circle around it. It takes up too much room in tables. This dicussion should really be taking place on the yes template talk page though. :P - BeX 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I discovered this discussion! ... You said these logos weren't originally meant for use in tables and that you'd prefer an image without a circle around it ... Well I've been developing "checked" and "unchecked" images for use in tables and thought they might be of interest in connection with this discussion. At the moment they are designed to match LordBiro's profession icons (and in particular the Image:NA-icon.png icon), but I'd be happy to redesign them in the Tango fashion to match the new profession icons if/when they are introduced.

If they are liked, they could replace these templates' images so that your logos can return to being used for what you intended them.

Anyway, the icons can be seen at User:Pullus/Checkmarks.-- pullus talk 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would rather have an X for the unchecked one.. poke | talk 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I like v2 and the X. - BeX 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I prefer v2 too ... and I prefer the white tick, but it looks like I'm being out-voted on that score! This change was a chance suggestion more than by design, but if we think its worth pursuing shall I flag this discussion in RFC ... see if we can get more than three opinions? -- pullus talk 22:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Tango versions I promised, I think they're an improvement again on v2 ... I'll stop moving the goalposts every day now and let this discussion come to a consensus ... sorry. -- pullus talk 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tango ones look great. Perhaps make an X that is white. I think it was the fact that it was a tick, not the colour that was making it unpopular. - BeX 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my vote to the Tango versions, and I prefer the "x" for the no - although I think I would be indifferent between a red or a white "x". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like a white one, because the red is very disruptive on pages with a lot of yes/no templates. The contrast is very intense considering the information it is meant to represent. - BeX 04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a white X, and put together a little table for comparison purposes. I think I'm still leaning towards the two ticks ... but I agree that a white X is a better alternative than a red. -- pullus talk 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I strongly support the green tick and the white X. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented this for the time being because it is better than what we currently have available. I had to change the naming scheme because "no.png" was too short to upload. This means we can also upload the red cross and white tick, and someone who knows how to use parser can add them as options to the template (e.g., {{no|red}}). - BeX 04:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW this page looks awesome now: Artisan - BeX 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the {{no}} template to allow people to use the red X or the white tick and included a note to say that the agreed default for main-space articles is the white X (and the template defaults to the white X). If someone wants to reword or highlight that warning more strongly somehow that mightn't be a bad idea ... I just wasn't sure what the conventions were. -- pullus talk 11:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sortable

I've added a 'sort' option, but I'm not entirely happy with the result.  It might work better if the hidden text was placed after the image rather than before...  Apologies to the vandal patrol.  I had to try several times to get it to work as well as it does. 

Thank you Poke, that is better.      mtew 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem ;) But on that topic, is the sortkey-parameter for {{no}} the templates (now both :D) really needed? I mean is a different sortkey in any yes/no list needed? (just asking) poke | talk 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking there might be 'unknown' or 'maybe' values in a list with 'yes' and 'no'.  It might also get used in other situations where a different sorting order might be useful.  In particular the weight of a yellow 'yes' or a red 'no' might be different.      mtew 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm, that is possible, still we generally don't need to implement such options just in case they might be used in future, huh? But well, now it's in ;) poke | talk 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the project status reports.  Being able to sort on the item columns would be nice and icons would reduce the need for translation, but more than two levels are needed.      mtew 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

yellow tick

Ok, so this might be a noobish question, but I was wondering what the difference between a green tick and a yellow tick is, or whether it's just personal preference (unlikely? Also wow, that grammar was creative...). My first thought would be that a yellow tick would be a "sort of", while a green tick is a definitive "yes". I ran into these while looking at the Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/NPC models; on the Kournan page, for example, General Kahyet has a yellow tickmark, while General Bayel has a green one. I was further confused by the fact that the yellow tickmark redirects to the green one, implying that they are the same. What would be the distinction there? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Ailina 15:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Across the wiki, there's no consistency. For any particular article, there should be a legend or key that specifies. If a project page doesn't specify, use of several colors of {{yes}} could have been unintended. Or there might be clues on the project talk page (or on a subpage).

Guild Wiki uses a single template for tick marks, which probably helps standardize usage. I believe that many presentations of character progress use multiple values of {{yes}} and/or {{no}}. 75.36.183.226 15:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Projects are usually encouraged to do the planning in whatever way they want, that also includes the meaning of colored ticks. For most projects I know your idea of "sort of" vs. "definite yes" should be correct; in doubt it would probably be the best to simply ask on the project's talk page, and to add a legend to the lists then. In case of the render projects, I think the yellow tick meant unofficial render (done by some user).

In articles, the use of ticks should actually be pretty consistent and defined by our formatting guidelines. poke | talk 16:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your incredibly quick responses! I'll ask on the project page about specific examples. However, should there be a note on this page that there is (or isn't, or may be, etc) a difference between the yellow and green (and gray) ticks, as opposed to a simple redirect? Ailina 16:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

People are usually free to use any image template (or just the image directly) in any way they want to; I don't think there is a need to state this explicitely in this template; removing the redirects from the images to the template would probably be a good idea though.. poke | talk 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)