Talk:Exclamation mark

Arabic "!"

Despite arabic has a mirrored "?", then why there is no variation for arabic "!"? I think this such an odd thing to explore some of trivial stuff. Correct me if i am wrong . 2404:8000:1027:85F6:2981:C491:8BDE:92FA (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The exclamation mark is verically symmetric, so it's not necessary for it to be mirrored, unlike the question mark. Jan Eten (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No mention of ðe diagonal exclamation mark?

In some Japanese media, such as dialog boxes in the game Super Mario World, exclamation points are written diagonally (visually like .ᐟ). I am gobsmacked at the lack of mention of the diagonal variant. Jan Eten (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So find a reliable source that says it has wider use and then go ahead and add it, citing that source. [Note that examples of use are not valid citations.]

But on the face of it, it seems to be artistic licence or perhaps a kind of emoticon. Manga has always played around with typography. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Is "Carson Park Design" a WP:RS?

A page on the Carson Park Design website is heavily cited in this article.

• "The exclamation point — "a sign of failure"". Carson Park Design. Archived from the original on April 13, 2023. Retrieved April 13, 2023.

But, at least as far as I can tell,

• the website is for a small (two person) website-design business, though it looks better than average. So WP:SPS applies
• the page is a blog post, so WP:blogs is relevant
• more positively, it does give its sources

This to me says that it fails to meet the WP: RS criteria. So it should be phased out in favour of the sources it cites, when someone has time. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Should be good now. Abaciscus (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't actually anywhere near the worst of the dubious citations but I think I have cleaned those up now. Apart from the Ninja Turtles one! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"Exclamation mark!" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Exclamation mark! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 5 § Exclamation mark! until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

History: rendering the I over the o

The current rendering is worse than useless (| o) [sic]. I will remove it for now and leave it to the reader's imagination. t may be possible using CSS but "not my field". Anyone else? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The nearest thing I can think of—not knowing any style tricks—is I̥ (I with the IPA voicelessness symbol) but the ostensible o is disproportionately small (& below the baseline) and it may not be visible to all readers. Perhaps it could represent a later state, though, on its way to becoming a dot. At any rate it’s scarcely difficult for a reader to picture without an illustration.—Odysseus1479 02:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Possible new date for the creation of the exclamation point

Hi, I noticed that some sources say the exclamation point was created in the 1360s, a more specific date than what's shown on the page. The sources in question are of Italian origin. Most of them are particularly recent.

The sources in question are:

I'm new to this whole issue of reliable and unreliable sources, so it would be a great help if a more experienced editor could analyze the reliability of the sources. Nijun167 (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Certainly the Treccani Enciclopedia dell'Italiano looks to be a good source. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

However, that source says

• Tonani, Elisa. "Punto esclamativo" [Exclamation point]. Enciclopedia dell'Italiano (in Italian). Istituto Treccani. Ignoto ai greci e ai romani, il punctus admirativus o exclamativus nasce nel contesto dello sviluppo dell'oratoria ad opera degli esponenti dell'ars dictandi bolognese nei secoli XIII e XIV e degli umanisti nel Quattrocento. Iacopo Alpoleio da Urbisaglia, intorno al 1360, nel De ratione punctandi (una Ars punctandi attribuita a Petrarca fin dal Quattrocento), lo include tra gli otto segni da lui inventariati e ne rivendica l'invenzione. [Unknown to the Greeks and Romans, the punctus admirativus or exclamativus arose in the context of the development of oratory by the exponents of the Bolognese ars dictandi in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and by the humanists in the fifteenth century. Around 1360, in his De ratione punctandi ("On the method of puctuation") attributed to Petrarch since the 15th century), Iacopo Alpoleio da Urbisaglia includes it among the eight signs he inventoried and claims its invention.]

which seems to reaffirm the 1360 date and which is already cited. It is not at all obvious (let alone precise enough) that the "13C and 14C" reference is specific to this symbol in writing . What did you have in mind? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Linguists

There is a dispute about how the the #History section should begin. Do we really need to explain the word linguist?

To me, it insults the reader's intelligence. First, the word is wikilinked and second, for readers who don't already know the word, the context makes clear that it is about the evolution of the mark. So MOS:FORCELINK is not really relevant, you don't have to know what the word means to understand what is being said.

As a compromise, I considered "People who study the evolution of language" but that is even worse.

Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts.

"To me, it insults the reader's intelligence" – defining a word to help with understanding a sentence is not, in any way, insulting the reader. If anything, it helps a reader feel less unintelligent, because they don't have to figure out the sentence and be confused.

"for readers who don't already know the word, the context makes clear that it is about the evolution of the mark. So MOS:FORCELINK is not really relevant" – as MOS:FORCELINK says, for readers that can't click links, it is still needed. Also, context is needed for the term "linguists", but not the evolution itself, so you're correct in saying that "the context makes clear that it is about the evolution of the mark", but the context for "linguists" is still needed.

Of course, this is just what I think. Thanks for making this discussion, by the way. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 23:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Exclamation mark is British?

The article is supposed to be written in American English, but the title uses the British version, with the American version in parentheses after the mention of the British version. Should this be changed? I don't know how to edit the title of an article. Thanks. BlaqWiedow (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I put the templates there to reflect the English variety of the article. Exclamation point already redirects here, so I don't think that's a problem. Abaciscus (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The topic was previously discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exclamation_mark/Archive_1#British/American .

As things stand, we have "equality of misery", both factions are equally unhappy, best to leave it at that. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Bang path notation as an origin for use in fandom

Never started a new topic before, and only ever edited Wikipedia for spelling mistakes (this is a shared IP, so other people might've with the same IP) but I figured this was missing. Anyway, I'm fairly sure the use of exclamation marks in fandom like variant!character comes from bang path notation. I don't have any citeable references, but I've always been told that was the case, and it makes sense, as bang-path notation has a vaguely similar function. As bang-path notation started with host1!host2!host3!user, it slowly drifted, or was misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with it, as a kind of nested structure of specific!vague!broad, which could then be applied to fandom in terms of a specific variant of a character followed by the kind of superstructure character. The current origin for its use in fandom only talks about its possible origin with TMNT. I don't really know anything about that, but anyway, I'm fairly sure it started with bang-path notation. I'm not experienced with Wikipedia enough to try and add that whole bit without either breaking things or writing in the wrong style, so feel free to ignore this. ~2026-12573-68 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia - why not create your own account?. Unfortunately we can't use anecdote and personal experience (per WP:no original research). You will need to find a reliable source first, I'm afraid. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Chess annotation is not part of chess notation

As the Wikipedia article on chess notation states, annotation is not technically part of chess notation (chess notation, without annotation symbols, is used to record games; annotation symbols are used by commentators in articles, chess books, etc.); therefore, the term 'notation' was used somewhat loosely and the change to 'chess annotation' seems appropriate and desirable~2026-26908-87 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

True, thank you. Please check Exclamation mark#Chess to validate the corrections I have made. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you use the wording below instead of the wording currently being used ( I have added a closing bracket, which is missing in the current text). I should mention that I do work for chess publisher.

('annotation' here refers to the addition of punctuation marks to chess notation after a game has finished, e.g., by the authors of chess books). Exclamation marks, and other punctuation marks, are not part of standard notationchess notation and they are not used by players when they write down the moves of games during tournament play, nor when moves are automatically recorded by digital-board software or by software when games are played online.

I have never come across the term ‘post – March’ and I could not find examples of it when did a search on the Internet. ‘Post-move’ seems strange as it suggests fairly soon after the move; in fact, annotation symbols are added by commentators some time after the entire game has concluded. Almost all important in-person tournaments use DGT digital boards; moves are recorded instantly by the software. Likewise, this is the case for games played online, so I think it is worth mentioning this, but this information can be omitted if it makes the entry too long. ~2026-26970-00 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I should have written '... when I did a search' NOT '... when did search'. I would also change 'More information: chess punctuation' to 'More information: chess annotation'. 'Chess punctuation' is not used often and when you click on the link, you get a redirect to chess annotation anyway. ~2026-26970-00 (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Now I think I understand what you meant by 'post-move', namely that 'they are placed to the right of moves that are annotated', which I think is a more spontaneous way to word it. I suppose 'post-move' is OK if you prefer it, but I think it is more immediately understandable without 'post-march', which, as I mentioned, is not a term I am familiar with or could find on the Internet in this context. ~2026-26970-00 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That looks to me like a typo for “post-match”. But rather than specifying post-move, post-game, post-tournament or whatever, IMO it should just say something like later or after the fact.—Odysseus1479 18:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have changed to "after-the-fact". As the article is about the exclamation mark, not chess, it is wp:UNDUE to get into details of one usage. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I now agree that keeping it short is a good idea, and the new text is fine in my opinion. I still think that having 'More information: punctuation (chess) is not advisable. As mentioned, the user is redirected to the article on chess annotation, so why not use that term? ~2026-26970-00 (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not put in the closing quotation mark; I intended to writ 'More information: punctuation (chess)' ~2026-26970-00 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

On reflection, I prefer your earlier idea of 'post-match', which I did not understand at the time because of the typo error 'post-march'. 'after the fact' does not strike me as so natural in this context. I have also added the closing bracket. ~2026-26970-00 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Onomatopoeia inclusion

Would it be incorrect for it say "loud sound or Onomatopoeia (e.g. Bang!)" to incorporate that word into the article Edart6 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)