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)

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)