Talk:Emoji/Archives/2017/September
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Emoji Domains?
Would someone mind adding a reference to emoji domains under Implementation? Jon90210 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jon90210: Done. I also saw that Emoji domain needed a ton of cleanup, so I did so. --Dan Harkless (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
"Emoji dialects"
I have issues with this claim in the cultural influences section, but didn't want to remove it because it is, more or less, what the source says:
Furthermore, as emoji continue to develop and grow as a "language" of symbols, there may also be the potential of the formation of emoji "dialects".
The paragraph directly above it makes claims about regional variation in use of emoji which quite clearly spell out that emoji dialects (regional variations in usage) already exist. BTW, I have a source from 2015 (Marcel Danesi's book The Semiotics of Emoji) - written before that Michigan study - which makes a lot of the same claims about happy/sad emoji patterns. The same source also points out on p31 that some of the symbols used in emoji already had different meanings in different cultures to begin with - a thumbs up sign means something completely different in Russia to what it does in the US, for example. So saying emoji dialects are going to evolve "as emoji develops as a language" seems overly simplistic, emoji are by and large representations of cultural symbols and there was already tons of "dialectal variation" in cultural symbols before emoji existed.
I know Wikipedia loves making over-simplistic claims about "languages" and "dialects" but would anyone object to me removing this sentence, and explaining it better using the actual data we have on regional / cultural variation? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Filelakeshoe: I can't agree with "Wikipedia loves making over-simplistic claims about 'languages' and 'dialects'", though there may well be many editors with a tendency to do so. But other than that, your point makes a lot of sense, so no, no objections here. --Dan Harkless (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)