This article was nominated fordeletion on 31 March 2007. The result ofthe discussion waskeep.

This article was nominated fordeletion on 19 January 2008. The result ofthe discussion wasspeedy keep.

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope ofWikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize alldisambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you canedit the page attached to this talk page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project or contribute to thediscussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

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 ≠wiser15:14, 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.Voortle16:36, 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 seeWikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.older ≠wiser17:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (no pun intended), there are notably encyclopedic things to say aboutyes as much as there are aboutwe andyou. Some of these notable things are in the article.Voortle18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this deleted a while ago, being replaced for a disambiguation? I'll look about it on VFD207.7.187.135 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.—Precedingunsigned comment added by132.205.82.168 (talk)17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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~

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.Luke10:15, 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. --GenkiNeko19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Freedomoy03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            - Well then, please fix it. :)

I knowwhat you're doing.

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.LorenzoB03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

shouldn't an encyclopaedia have "agreement or acceptance" articles instead of this?—The precedingunsigned comment was added by87.194.72.129 (talk)07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Before I edited it, the article claimed that theKing James Version of theBible never used the word "yes", but rather used "yea". This is not true, as can easily be verified[2]. I'm not aChristian and I don't care about theBible, but I do care about checking facts. Stuff like this is why many people discount Wikipedia as a credible source of information.El charangista01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, the article wastagged with{{prod}}, and it wasdetagged 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 atwikt:Yes. So... 'yes', I'd say it is a dictionary entry. --CBD22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Theno page (currently almost entirely disambiguation) is a lot better. Maybe anAFD is in order. --Plutor ^talk16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I thought "yea" was just a variant spelling of "yeah".Ewthmatth16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opposite. "Yeah" is a variant spelling of "yea" (according to theOnline 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 raglaim15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody add etimology here?--Dojarca18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See wiktionary:wikt:yeswikt:yea

Yes was the name of the first bungee jumper to jump and die in the seas of Japan in 1845—Precedingunsigned comment added by59.183.152.71 (talk)13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the OED contains a link to a page only available to subscribers. This violates the respectiveguidelines. 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.—Precedingunsigned comment added by87.162.56.49 (talk)18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 havinga lot of trouble seeing how this article could ever be expanded without adding even more dictionary information. Why are we keeping this again...?

Peter^Isotalo14:44, 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^Isotalo07:04, 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 ofyes (disambiguation) with this page?

Peter^Isotalo13:26, 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]

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 articleYes 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]

What is "Speedy Keep?"— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.96.162.88 (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. SeeWikipedia:Speedy keep for more. --John of Reading (talk)07:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress onTalk:Yes (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.html211.225.34.159 (talk)01:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages