Template talk:Yes

RfC on the colour of Template:No

should the colour of Template:No be the current lighter #FFC7C7 or the original darker #99? Gooduserdude (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

#FFC7C7	Link
#F99	Link

Gooduserdude (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• #F99, Clearer Gooduserdude (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• #F99 is a better companion with the color of Yes. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• #FFC7C7 is better. It must be at least  #FFA4A4  to meet the accessibility guidelines when paired with blue links (unvisited links to other articles and links to references in the same article). Reference links and links to other articles are basic features of wikitext and can be used with this template, so this combination occurs in many articles.  #F99  is too dark for that, it does not reach WCAG AA with blue links.  #FAA  (what I proposed above) is almost the same thing as  #FFA4A4 .  #FFC7C7  is fine based on the previous discussion. WCAG compliance can be easily verified using the WebAIM contrast checker. AA level is a contrast ratio of 4.5 or more, AAA is a contrast ratio of 7 or more. The accessibility guidelines say that level AA is the minimum to be achieved on Wikipedia and that level AAA is recommended whenever possible. From our previous discussions:

Description	Web color	Examples of use		WCAG level of contrast with blue links
Old color of {{no}}	#F99	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.17 (not compliant)
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA	#FFA4A4	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.5 (AA)
Color I proposed for {{no}}	#FAA	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.7 (AA)
Color the community chose for {{no}} after discussion	#FFC7C7	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	5.78 (AA)
Color of {{no2}}	#FFE3E3	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	7.04 (AAA)

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• #FFC7C7 Per above. Red, but not too red... Comatmebro (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, the darker version is actually better for colorblind people, as a colorblind User:Tesseran pointed out in the discussion "Symbols, Darker background, or Standard text" further above on this talkpage, so the current background is not as accessibility friendly as Ftrebien claims Gooduserdude (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sampling bias, selection bias and confirmation bias. Please follow the accessibility guidelines as agreed by consensus, not just an isolated opinion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's not a good reason to have low contrast which hurts people with poor sight. Accessibility guidelines recommend not using colour codes to convey meaning, using always different symbols instead. Editors who want high accessibility should be preferably using the No X or No O templates. Diego (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• F99 FFC7C7 (invited by the bot) Better contrast with text for both general reading and apparently for accessibility. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

North8000 I don't follow your reasoning, F99 (the darkest) is the lowest contrast option between text and background (bad legibility). Are you sure you mean that option, and not the lightest, high contrast? Diego (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Diego Moya Thanks for catching my error. I fixed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Anything but F99 per Ftrebien: higher contrast is better. Accessibility guidelines must be followed, they are created by experts based on scientific evidence; therefore the noncompliant low contrast hue must be avoided. I would prefer FFE3E3 as the only value with 'good' contrast, but the intermediate medium-contrast #FAA could be acceptable for better aesthetic match with the current green hue of Yes. Diego (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the colour of Template:No (more options)

what colour should be used for Template:No? Gooduserdude (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Description	Web color	Examples of use		WCAG level of contrast with blue links
Old color of {{no}}	#F99	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.17 (not compliant)
The darkest shade of red reaching WCAG AA	#FFA4A4	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.5 (AA)
Color User:Ftrebien proposed for {{no}}	#FAA	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	4.7 (AA)
Color the chosen for {{no}} after former discussion	#FFC7C7	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	5.78 (AA)
Color of {{no2}}	#FFE3E3	Regular text	Unvisited link to article	7.04 (AAA)

Survey

• #F99, Clearer Gooduserdude (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA - not too light, but meets the WCAG AA standard. Remagoxer ^(talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA Just based on personal preference. #F99 is too dark. Some1 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA and #FFC7C7 are fine with me. #FAA is closer to the original color and more distinct from #FFE3E3, while #FFC7C7 is more accessible (closer to WCAG AAA) without being completely indistinguishable from #FFE3E3. #FAA and #FFA4A4 are practically indistinguishable, so I see no reason not to prefer a shorthand hexadecimal option which even slightly improves contrast. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• FAAor lighter. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FAA solves the contrast issue and is not too light. Pikavoom ^Talk 07:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• #FFC7C7 is better. There is little difference between #F99 and #FAA, with the latter being just a few decimal places above the first. Longer templates like {{eliminated}} or {{active fire}} which share the same color, as well as {{no}} tags with customized text, will greatly benefit from the improved readability of the less saturated background (compare examples with longer text below): Diego (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a longer example of text	and links with darker, low-contrast background
This is a longer example of text	and links with lighter, higher-contrast background

• #FAA is not too light but not too dark. Thingofme (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• #ffc7c7 In addition to better contrast than the currently favored #ffaaaa, it looks more aesthetically appealing, too. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Nah, I changed my mind; #ffaaaa is easier to distinguish from {{no2}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Converting to templatestyles

I've created Template:Yes/sandbox/styles.css which has all the colours required. I've tested this at User:Matrix/sandbox. Should we convert these template to templatestyles for dark mode compatibility? Thoughts? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 10:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is any way that this family of templates could share some or all of their template styles, so that we didn't need to edit 100 templates when another MediaWiki change comes along, that would be great. If not, I still support this update. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that according to mw:Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis § Target night mode using standard media query as well as HTML classes, the dark mode rules have to be replicated to handle the case where the user has chosen to follow the OS setting. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Prompted by a VPT discussion, I put the templatestyles into the table cell, where it can be normal wikitext, instead of having it interpreted as table markup. Does it work? See the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jonesey95, looks good to me. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Usage for merged cells

How can I use this template in merged cells? Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)