Template talk:!

Ooooh I think the new exclamation mark (vs the old:  ) looks ugly and because it's bigger (even with the resize) it looks a bit funny on articles. --Xasxas256 03:12, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmm, chaning to 8px is about the same height, but I don't know that it looks better than the old one. --Rainith 03:17, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * At 8px it's a little difficult to instantly recognise as an exclamation mark I reckon, it looks ok at larger sizes with it's highlighting effect but at smaller sizes it's not so good. Besides although the old one has no highlighting, it's got shadowing!--Xasxas256 03:19, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The big one looks awesome. I would rather have a simpler small icon, though. Detail is wasted on tiny images, and simple line-art-y stuff with high contrast and bright colors is best. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 03:22, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * I think either would need a dark border around the exclamation edges. I actually don't think I'd recognize the larger one as an exclamation at my resolution/brightness since the left edge just kinda bleeds into the white page.  --68.142.14.34 03:29, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I think it needs a black border, just a 1px one otherwise it blends &mdash; Skuld  03:44, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Indeed. High contrast is always good. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 03:46, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * Oh, this was my upload. I didn't realize there was one already here. I searched all over for it, Exclaim2.GIF is not a nice name. :) I personally think it looks better when larger, but at that 8px size the old one does look nicer.. --Midk 03:47, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * One problem arises on pages that use this template with text, like Profession as the ! is bigger than a line of text so it makes the line look strange. --Rainith 03:49, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Since MediaWiki resizes larger images quite poorly, if I created an 8px version of the new/larger one, it'd probably be quite recognizable as an exclamation point (instead of an awfully-pixelated greenish thing). It should also fit in much better with the lines. I didn't realize, either, that it was linked to from so many places. :) --Midk 03:50, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thats easy to fix Rainith, just change the link on and (with caching behaving) it'll just link to the pages with direct linking. I went through a while ago and changed everything with Exclaim2.GIF to, that one there must be the minority &mdash; Skuld   03:52, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * A slightly biggened version of &#9755; (that's HTML decimal character 9755) might make a good alternative for that particular list. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 04:00, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * Won't work for all people, that is a finger pointing to the right for me here at home, most likely it won't work at all on my work computer. --Rainith 04:02, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Or was the finger what you were going for, I should really read and comprehend before responding. :)  See here for all the pages that use this template.  --Rainith 04:04, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It was. Based on the fact that I mostly say this being used to emphasize things (e.g. primary skills) rather than actually warn people. Though that doesn't help with the questable skills, I now realize... &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 20:51, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )

Here's a new, resized, darkened version that might be easier to see.. dunno if this is what we want, but just throwing the idea out there. :) --Midk 04:12, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I &#X2661; it. Seventy.twenty.x.x 04:22, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Just listing for comparison:
 * image:QuestIcon.png|8px ... [[image:QuestIcon.png|8px]]
 * Image:QuestIconThumb.png ... [[Image:QuestIconThumb.png]]
 * image:Exclaim2.GIF ... [[image:Exclaim2.GIF]]
 * I see a few others too, but using different colors.
 * It's a shame .png resize so poorly. I'm guessing that a hi-quality .jpg would lose too much image quality, but it might be worth at least attempting it as in the wiki I've noticed that .jpg files do generally resize better than .png files, although at the cost of fine detail in some cases, and I don't believe that .jpg supports transparencies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:26, 13 July 2006 (CDT)