Talk:No

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 3/11/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] This is ridiculous!

This is ridiculous! Study the history of this article since the beginning. Starting at the second form of the article, there was a link to the word "no" that comes from Wiktionary. Then, in April 2004, Timwi removed it and asked "What is that external link doing here??" Now, somebody put the same link back on?? Any consensus about what to do?? Georgia guy 19:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • well, I had a look at the word "yes" and decided that was even better. having no disambiguation for one of the most commonly used words in the language would be ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat 20:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no?

There is not a page for just "plain" no. You could just make a page and add the defination

[edit] Requested move

NO --> No, because the case sensitive version being the main page and not the redirect is hurting my ears. SchmuckyTheCat 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose -- this was decided in 2003, and most/all the abbreviation pages are at the all caps page listing. It's in multiple guidelines. And the odd move that Schmucky did from No to Nope (which has no references) needs to move back (the edit history is about No and Nobellium), and probably reflects a misunderstanding about how moves and resulting redirects work. --William Allen Simpson 14:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
That's rather underhanded to say "it's in multiple guidelines" when you just changed the guideline [1] to say so. SchmuckyTheCat 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given by WAS --Philip Baird Shearer 09:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: it's a disambig page, not an abbreviation page. Jonathunder 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed move seems unnecessary to me. --PFHLai 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] (How) can the no article be improved?

What should an article about "no" contain, apart from definition/etymology (which is not enough for a wikipedia article)?. I think the yes and no articles should be present on wikipedia, containing explanation and links to the act of saying no in different cultures, in the arts, psychological research et cetera.--Brz7 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No is

No is the opposite of yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.3.26 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)