Talk:😊

Emoji indication:
I would say that this emoji indicates manily embarrassment rather than just a wide smile on a face. TMLN123 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I see a blush in the font that I have, but the name is just SMILING FACE WITH SMILING EYES, and it might not look embarrassed in other fonts. It's almost impossible for us to find usable citations proving emoji use at the moment. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2018
This entry was not created yet, but maybe it should, if we can find a few citations for it.

Searching citations for symbols is inherently hard, but apparently this is a very common symbol so maybe there's some hope. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what I've understood the CFI clause about "in common use" to refer to. Words that are hard to cite, but everyone is familiar with. I know the more common consensus is that it just refers to words that are easily citable, but I kind of wish that wasn't the case, as it keeps out a lot of informal language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the people that understand the CFI clause about "in common use" as "words that are easily citable in three independent durably-archived sources". As you said, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. But, naturally, feel free to disagree with me on the interpretation of the rule if you want. If the consensus about the "in common use" rule is unclear, it probably should be discussed further, eventually. Apparently, that rule was never even voted in the first place.
 * I believe probably all emojis fail that criterion, the way I see it. I oppose creating entries for emojis on the basis of the "in common use" rule without the need for citations.
 * Here are two existing emoji entries, with one citation each: 😀 and 😉.
 * Apparently, emojis are "internet slang". They may be used a lot on the internet, but if we created entries for some or all emoji just because they presumably exist online, without the need to check for attestation, then on the same basis we would have a precedent for creating entries for some or all internet abbreviations and informal internet speech with the same lack of standards. For a list of these items, see Appendix:English internet slang and Appendix:Portuguese internet slang. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Daniel Carrero -- I kind of wonder why you're even bothering to ask this, since your similar request on ⚤ eight months ago turned up plenty of information, but somehow none of it was acceptable to you... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, plenty of information? In the discussion about ⚤, you just linked to one Wikimedia Commons category and one Wikipedia article, and I linked to a non-durably-archived SMBC comic, right? As I pointed out in that discussion, just linking to other Wikimedia projects doesn't count, and the article had three sources which, apart from being on the internet and thus being non-durably-archived too, are mentions (lists of symbols and their meanings) instead of actual uses.
 * By contrast, ♀ and ♂ have a number of CFI-compliant citations for certain senses.
 * I intend to create a few more RFVs for symbols at some point, not only to see if they are actually attestable, but also to see to what extent our current CFI rules work for them.
 * I'm not saying I personally agree with all our current CFI rules (I agree with some rules, others I would rather propose to be changed). This is not simply a matter of I, personally, considering some information acceptable or not. Even if I really wanted to say "RFV passed, the symbol already appears in some internet lists!", that is not proper procedure to close an RFV.
 * Actually, I'd rather propose a few changes to our CFI rules to relax our criteria for symbol entries. But that's a matter for the BP. (I created this RFV as a result of this ongoing BP discussion: link) Also, hopefully past and future RFV results can be used as a precedent to be discussed there too, to revise the rules if needed.
 * For now, my question is naturally whether 😊 passes CFI under our current rules. That is an important question, whether the answer is yes or no. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Is the RFV still in progress? 😊 does exist and has no RFV tag. Category:Emoticons block and Category:Miscellaneous Symbols block have more emoticons and symbols which would be hard to cite. As an example, could ☭ be attested by commons? -91.6.199.79 10:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)