Talk:No (word)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This is ridiculous!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (in time machine 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)
replies: text: That's rather underhanded to say "it's in multiple guidelines" when you just changed the guideline  to say so. SchmuckyTheCat 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 thcomp so du talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
no can also mean yes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.46.156 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 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)
thread_title: (How) can the no article be improved?

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

message: In what other languages you found "No" i know Spanish does  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.132.102 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No in other languages? 

message: This article currently contains no encyclopedic information directly relevant to its topic. The only information that isn't dictionary info is the reference to refusal skills and a campaign slogan that happens to contain the word "no", but those are really separate topics with their own articles. It's highly unlikely that anyone will be able to ever expand this without adding more dictionary information (definitions, variants, etymology, etc) worded with encyclopedic prose. It would make a lot more sense if the contents of no (disambiguation) was moved in here instead.
Peter Isotalo 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there needs to be a general article on refusal. The refusal skills stuff would then naturally go there. Without that, there's no no article, and you would be better redirecting to wiktionary. I checked the stats, the article gets very little traffic for such a common word, which is actually kind of gratifying, because it's a shitty article.- Wolfkeeper 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond dicdef 

message: No 50.89.41.98 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mo