Talk:Yes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yes page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 January 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Not a dictionary

I think the current version of the page [1] is essentially a dictionary definition. The disambiguation page should be moved back to here, IMO. older ≠ wiser 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a dictionary definition. There are a lot of things about "yes", such as, its etymology, the words "aye" and "yea", how English doesn't use a different word for negative statements like some languages do etc. Voortle 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but etymology and usage are part of standard dictionary definitions. Unless there is something very notably encyclopedic to say about the word "yes" as a word, this should remain as a disambiguation page. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (no pun intended), there are notably encyclopedic things to say about yes as much as there are about we and you. Some of these notable things are in the article. Voortle 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

Wasn't this deleted a while ago, being replaced for a disambiguation? I'll look about it on VFD 207.7.187.135 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC) This page is an example of what is wrong with wikipedia. This page is totally ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm not saying that we should delete this page though--rather, I think the existence of this page is strong grounds that we should not be deleting all the other, legitimate pages out there that are frequently recommended for deletion. Cazort (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.82.168 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television company

im trying to look for the Israeli television company which is also called yes, can someone tell me what i need to type in or something? ~anonymous~

Impossible?

This article says that the phrase "Yes, I don't want any" is impossible and won't be used by native english speakers. Well... "You said you want none of it, right?" "Yes, I don't want any" If someone can figure out how to properly fit this in, that'd be great. Spencer.Luke 10:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that construction is properly rendered: "Yes; I don't want any." As in "Yes, I said that. I don't want any." with an implicit sentence break in between. --GenkiNeko 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

The second-last paragraph here needs to go, IMO. It suggests that a "yes" response to a question such as "don't you want this" gives a clear indication if intent, while it does not, and usually prompts a request for clarification. Freedomoy 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            - Well then, please fix it. :)

Re: Sandbox

I know what you're doing.

Aye aye

Actually, 'aye' means 'yes' in the naval sense. 'Aye aye' means "I heard the order, understand it, and will obey it"68.233.246.246 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Oops, I wasn't logged in.LorenzoB 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LorenzoB is correct in the use of "aye" and "aye, aye".

Shouldn't information about aye be noted in the article itself? John Anderson (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes is a common English word indicating agreement or acceptance"

shouldn't an encyclopaedia have "agreement or acceptance" articles instead of this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.72.129 (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Yes" and the King James Bible

Before I edited it, the article claimed that the King James Version of the Bible never used the word "yes", but rather used "yea". This is not true, as can easily be verified [2]. I'm not a Christian and I don't care about the Bible, but I do care about checking facts. Stuff like this is why many people discount Wikipedia as a credible source of information. El charangista 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Prod

Earlier today, the article was tagged with {{prod}}, and it was detagged shortly after. Please share your thoughts on the encyclopedic value of this article. — jmorgan (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my Encyclopedia Britannica has no entry for 'Yes' and my Oxford English Dictionary has considerably more detailed information on etymology, usage, et cetera. Very similar info can also currently be found at wikt:Yes. So... 'yes', I'd say it is a dictionary entry. --CBD 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The no page (currently almost entirely disambiguation) is a lot better. Maybe an AFD is in order. -- Plutor ^talk 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yea" is archaic? Excuse me?

I thought "yea" was just a variant spelling of "yeah". Ewthmatth 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opposite. "Yeah" is a variant spelling of "yea" (according to the Online Etymology Dictionary), and the latter has become somewhat archaic. There's also a difference in pronunciation, I think: "yea" is pronounced more like "yay" whereas "yeah" is pronounced as "yeh." "Yes" is believed to be derived from "yea." marbeh raglaim 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etimology

Can anybody add etimology here?--Dojarca 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See wiktionary: wikt:yes wikt:yea

Fact

Yes was the name of the first bungee jumper to jump and die in the seas of Japan in 1845 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.152.71 (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced page only visible to OED subscribers

The reference to the OED contains a link to a page only available to subscribers. This violates the respective guidelines. Then again, without any link, the reference as such is questionable... — 77.25.8.173 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so I'm removing the reference. It's common knowledge that yea is an older form of yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.56.49 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond dicdef

I can't see what part of this article goes beyond dictionary information (semantic definitions, etymology, usage information, linguistic variations, translations and listings of various compounds). I'm also having a lot of trouble seeing how this article could ever be expanded without adding even more dictionary information. Why are we keeping this again...?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dab page should really be moved here... this is just a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That will probably take another AfD, consensus at the previous was that this is a valid article. Taemyr (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to delete the pagename, so an AFD is unneeded. Maybe an RFC... but really, if this can be expanded beyond a dicdef, people can do that... but the track record so far shows that it can't be. --Rividian (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably delete half the article right now, since much of the information is about mere synonyms. I say we move the dabpage in. If someone manages to find encyclopedic information on the word itself, they're welcome to start an article. But two years of wallowing in this state is not reason enough to uphold an AfD decision that was devoid of constructive policy discussion.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do need to delete the page. Copy-paste page moves are a bad thing. Taemyr (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a deletion, just a move that involves a history merge. AFD is not for discussing moves. --Rividian (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we feel that it's necessary to merge the history of yes (disambiguation) with this page?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to add information to this page, and I see that it essentially no longer exists, i.e. has been transformed into a disambiguation page. Here's the information I would like to add:

In English, "Yes" by itself is ambiguous as a response to a negative question: does it mean the opposite of "No", i.e. that the positive form of the statement is true, or does it mean that one agrees with the questioner, i.e. that the negative form of the statement is true? To resolve this ambiguity, in English, the verb is normally echoed along with the word "Yes", giving responses such as "Yes, it is", "Yes, I have", etc.

In some languages, such as Japanese, the equivalent of "Yes" in answer to a negative question indicates agreement with the negative form of the statement. In some other languages, such as Welsh, there is no word for "Yes", and repetition of the verb is used to indicate agreement: "It is."^[1]

Could we please change it back to a regular page so this material can be added? Alternatively, could someone suggest where else this material could go? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Shopen, Timothy (1995). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge University Press. pp. 190–191. ISBN 0521276594, 9780521276597. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

wiktionary:yes#Usage_notes. Although note that your claim contradicts what is currently stated there. Taemyr (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it contradicts it. There are subtle distinctions; for example, I said "normally". Are you suggesting that I put the material on Wiktionary, and not anywhere on Wikipedia? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that content such as usage notes for words belong on wiktionary. It's contradictory in the sense that wiktionary currently states that yes by itself is not ambiguous, but this is a discussion to take there. Taemyr (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was misunderstood. The position I intended to express above was that I wanted to change this page back from a disambiguation page into an article, so that the material I had found could be included. However, now I see that the article Yes and no contains similar material, so I withdraw my request. I continue to support the inclusion of such material somewhere in Wikipedia, however; I don't think a dictionary normally contains such extended and wide-ranging discussion. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep

What is "Speedy Keep?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.162.88 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about deleting an article normally run for at least seven days. "Speedy keep" means the discussion was stopped early because it was obvious that the article should be kept. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep for more. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yes (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing brand

Yes is also a fairly large Korean clothing brand. Recently it was accused of misdoings in Mexico: http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-rescues-129-workers-abused-korean-firm-212651990.html 211.225.34.159 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Shopen, Timothy (1995). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge University Press. pp. 190–191. ISBN 0521276594, 9780521276597. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]