Talk:Yes

message: I think the current version of the page  is essentially a dictionary definition. The disambiguation page should be moved back to here, IMO. older ≠ wiser 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not a dictionary 

message: 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)
thread_title: deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Impossible?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: 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)
replies: text: Shouldn't information about aye be noted in the article itself? John Anderson  (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aye aye 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Yes is a common English word indicating agreement or acceptance" 

message: 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  .  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)
thread_title:  "Yes" and the King James Bible 

message: Earlier today, the article was tagged with , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Go for it! A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Prod 

message: I thought "yea" was just a variant spelling of "yeah".
Ewthmatth 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Yea" is archaic? Excuse me?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fact 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Referenced page only visible to OED subscribers 

message: What is "Speedy Keep?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.162.88 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Speedy Keep

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clothing brand