Talk:Face with Tears of Joy emoji

History
The current text states that emojis have a very short history, they don't -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley Alanthehat (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

– WP:COMMONNAME - the article title is usually the name ... of whatever ... the topic of the article is. The "emoji" in the title of these articles is superfluous; it makes the titles be descriptive rather than reflect the WP:COMMONNAME of each topic. There is no disambiguation issue: Pile of poo and Face with Tears of Joy already redirect to these respective articles; Pile of Poo is currently red. Note that emojipedia uses Face with Tears of Joy] and Pile of Poo В²C ☎ 17:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Face with Tears of Joy emoji → Face with Tears of Joy
 * Pile of Poo emoji → Pile of Poo


 * Oppose Weak oppose as those are necessary disambiguators, and they are always referred to with "emoji" when discussed (except for when listing in Unicode tables). The common name for Pile of Poo is "poop emoji". Only the listing in Emojipedia uses "Pile of Poo", the Emojipedia blog uses "pile of poo emoji" in text. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Disambiguators? Disambiguators from what?  There are no other uses for the terms without "emoji".  When referring to something in English, what-kind-of-thing-it-is is often added (emoji in this case), but that doesn't mean the what-kind-of-thing-it-is is part of the name. The fact that emoji is lowercase tells us it's not part of the name, so it should not be in the title. --В²C ☎ 21:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced those are actual titles more than they are descriptors (at least from the point of view of the reader). It's not clear what Unicode's stance on this is, they releases these characters as "1F4A9; PILE OF POO" (only ever referred to in allcaps), they are on top of that given the CLDR short name "pile of poo". Third party Unicode sites use the title case. As most Unicode character names are so general, I feel "emoji" is a natural disambiguation (in normal conversations you'd always say "yes, that is the pile of poo emoji") and that dropping it makes the scope of the article a bit ambiguous to a reader, as these are not obvious proper names. Here I feel it's most natural to have the title Poop emoji, Pile of poo emoji, or Pile of poo (emoji), and it would reflect the sources cited. – Þjarkur (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, since unicode merely establishes the WP:OFFICIAL name, that's not very important, especially if usage in reliable sources tends to go a different way. NY Times refers to them as "Pile of Poo" (and it links to emojipedia giving that reference in my nom more cred accordingly) and "Face with Tears of Joy", for example. That's far more relevant to us than the official name from unicode. --В²C ☎ 00:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * These are all the articles I could find in NYTimes and Guardian: NYTimes: poop emoji, poop emoji (in title case) ; the “Pile of Poo” emoji, poop emoji Guardian: poop emoji, the “pile of poop” emoji, poo emoji, the pile of poop emoji Others: poop emoji, "smiling pile of poop" emoji, poop emoji – Þjarkur (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've always known the latter as the Poop emoji, and consider that the WP:COMMONNAME regardless of what the official Unicode designation is. The first one doesn't have a name in my book, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME; these are not albums or novels, just the way of describing an emoji. Unless we are deliberately out to hide the articles removing emoji is about the most reader-unfriendly thing we could propose. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Like albums and novels, emojis have specific names, and each has a name that is most commonly used. As with other topics some emojis have multiple names and we can discuss which is the most commonly used name, but I see no justification at WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME or anywhere else to use a descriptive title, or a disambiguator, in the titles of the articles about these or any other named entities. --В²C ☎ 16:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IIO and Þjarkur and naturalness. These are not paintings, albums, or novels, and if I want to raise one of these topics for discussion in a conversation (unless in some form of extreme in-universe discussion such as a meeting of the Unicode Consortium), I would include the word "emoji" in the name of the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But we often include "painting", "album", and "novel" in discussing those items too. For example, In the Starry Night painting van Gogh's night sky is ..., or Tumbling across the centre of Van Gogh’s sky is the Starry Night painting’s most extraordinary feature .  Specifying the type of item after the name doesn't make the type part of the name. Such usage doesn't mean The Starry Night should be at The Starry Night painting. I really don't understand the distinction you guys are trying to make.  --В²C ☎ 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible to find usages such as this, but they sound as natural (or more natural) without the qualifier, e.g. Tumbling across the centre of Van Gogh’s sky is The Starry Night's most extraordinary feature. The same is not true with these emoji. "He ended the tweet with a Face with Tears of Joy emoji" sounds fine. "He ended the tweet with a Face with Tears of Joy" (or "with the Face with Tears of Joy" or "with Face With Tears of Joy") all strike me as bizarre. Colin M (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing. If the type of the named thing being discussed is clear from context, then the type qualifier is generally not used. And that's true for emojis as well as paintings and anything else. But the main point is that including the type qualifier does not make it part of the name of the thing. For example, when the names of emojis are listed, the type qualifier is not included. --В²C ☎ 21:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. A merger discussion can take place separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

– WP:COMMONNAME and lack of indication that emoji names are proper names. – Þjarkur (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Face with Tears of Joy emoji → Face with tears of joy emoji
 * Pile of Poo emoji → Poop emoji

As I mentioned above, I don't believe Unicode's names for the emojis are proper names, only descriptors. Emojipedia is a voting member on the Unicode Consortium and Emojipedia treats all its entries as proper names, including Three O’Clock and Large Orange Diamond. I don't believe 'large orange diamond' is a proper name any more than the left-to-right mark. Unicode itself only publishes using allcaps: &  and gives them the short names "face with tears of joy" & "pile of poo".

Now, the WP:COMMONNAME of the poop emoji does not appear to be "Pile of Poo" and it is rarely referred to as such. Here are all the instances I could find in a selection of 4 sources where the poop emoji is discussed: "Poop emoji" is at least commonly used in all of those sources, although variantions are seen.

Now, when it comes to Face with Tears of Joy there are so many different ways of referring to it that I had a hard time assembling such a list. But, these are the sources we cite in our article:


 * Agree with our title:
 * Oxford Dictionaries: "officially called the ‘Face with Tears of Joy’ emoji"
 * Time: “Face With Tears of Joy” emoji (speaking about Oxford Dictionaries' word of the year)
 * New York Magazine: “Face with Tears of Joy” (speaking about Oxford Dictionaries' word of the year)
 * Gizmodo: “Face With Tears of Joy” emoji (speaking about Oxford Dictionaries' word of the year)
 * Wired: Face with Tears of Joy (but uses "Tears of joy emoji" in title)
 * World Emoji Awards on Twitter (?): Face With Tears of Joy
 * Our title but in lowercase:
 * Guardian: “face with tears of joy” emoji
 * Adweek: Face with tears of joy
 * Slate: face with tears of joy
 * Some other name:
 * NYTimes: crying tears of laughter
 * Vice: laughing tears emoji
 * Wired: Tears of joy emoji
 * Guardian: ‘face with tears of joy’ symbol
 * New York Magazine: Laugh-Cry Emoji
 * The Verge: laughing with tears emoji
 * BBC: a face crying with laughter
 * Broadway World: Tears of Joy
 * Complex: Laughing Crying Face
 * Guardian: ‘tears of joy’ emoji

All right, so here many of the cited sources use it as a proper name, but many are quoting the "official name" Oxford Dictionaries mention in their press release. Most of our cited sources don't refer to the emoji using this "official name" and instead describe it, and three sources use "face with tears of joy" as a descriptor.

– Þjarkur (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Remember when Wikipedia used to be an encyclopedia? Merge to emoji. -- Netoholic @ 07:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to emoji. Yes,, I do remember that, with some nostalgia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to emoji. If only those times could continue... — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvalidOS (talk • contribs) 13:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Will point out that merging isn't really possible as there is no single emoji there that has its own section, meaning any merge will be a complete deletion. If you wish to delete these pages, they should go to AfD instead. --Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just really don't see the point in a move discussion, when its so hard to see encyclopedic value in any article about any single emoji. I'd also be fine with merging to List of emoji. -- Netoholic @ 18:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The bar for what constitutes "encyclopedic value" is far far far lower for a crowd-sourced on-line encyclopedia than for a traditional printed encyclopedia. Your argument sounds like you're trying to hold this online crowd-sourced encyclopedia to a much higher standard than is appropriate. These topics are covered in reliable sources. They easily meet WP:NOTABLE criteria, and far better than countless other articles on WP. Merging/deleting is completely unjustified by policy or conventions. --В²C ☎ 19:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These names are for specific emoji designs and are appropriately used as proper names. They can be descriptive too, but that's besides the point. I mean, just because Van Gogh's The Starry Night can and is described as Van Gogh's starry night painting does not mean we should move The Starry Night to Starry night painting. Of course, that's also why the lowercase emoji at the end of the title is unnecessary. --В²C ☎ 19:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Born2cycle puts it best: "These names are for specific emoji designs and are appropriately used as proper names. They can be descriptive too, but that's besides the point.". Also, strongly oppose merge, per reasons described above by B2C: "These topics are covered in reliable sources. They easily meet WP:NOTABLE criteria, and far better than countless other articles on WP. Merging/deleting is completely unjustified by policy or conventions.". Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ambiguity
Some Chinese people seem to use this as an awkward smile, alleging that the "laughing hard" semantics are a Western reinterpretation (blog post on Languagelog). Is there any evidence about how the emoji was originally used on Japanese cellphones? --2.204.224.18 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Though the nominator showed that there is some usage of the proposed title, consensus is that the current article title is the current WP:COMMONNAME. Participation was fairly light, so no prejudice to a subsequent RM if usage continues to shift. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Face with Tears of Joy emoji → Tears of Joy emoji – Following on from Pile of Poo emoji move discussion, I believe that "Face with" should be dropped from the title to a) simplify the format in line with other emoji related pages (e.g. Red Heart emoji and Eggplant emoji and b) due to WP:COMMONNAME. FelixFLB (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment and also Slight oppose I guess. I think the first point of it being in line is irrelevant bc articles don't have to follow the convention of other article titles unless it's something like an italicized title for a film or novel or something like that. Also, Man in Business Suit Levitating emoji is a longer non-simple title. I don't know if "Tear of Joy" is a common name for it either. I honestly think "Laughing crying emoji" would be the common or colloquial name here (22.9 million google search results; this is compared with "Tears of Joy emoji" and "Face with tears of joy emoji", which are both around the 4 million search result range). I'd have to go through each source on this page to compare how many call it "Face with Tears of Joy" vs simply "Tears of Joy" specifically, but I would vote to not move for now. Soulbust (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some fair comments, my concern however would be that Laughing crying emoji is maybe too radical at this stage, I was focusing on shortening the current title. A complete change too could also be confusing, as Oxford Dictionary did list this as its "word of the year" in 2015. At least when its shortened people can still compare the two (Tears of Joy vs. Face with tears of Joy) if it was Face with Tears of Joy vs Laughing Crying emoji are people going to connect the two or think they're completely different emoji? FelixFLB (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've spent sometime looking into how the media name this emoji. While the official name is used, it is shortened to the common name in both titles and the content itself. Examples of the shortened name "Tears of Joy" in titles in the past few years: Mashable, CNET, Indian Express.FelixFLB (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. I think these recent articles could possibly show a shift in how media outlets refer to the emoji, but I'd still opt to not move it. At least for now. And if it is moved, I do think "Laughing crying emoji" would be the better choice. I don't think it'd be too radical, in my opinion.
 * Another point I would want to add is that perhaps it's best to go by the official name with an emoji that has so many variants on what it's called (take this Vice article for example (also recent, having been written in 2021), which calls it the "cry-laughing emoji", while also referring to it by the official "Face with Tears of joy" emoji). Going by the official name is also safe here because at least in this case, it is commonly used. Soulbust (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: The current name is more official and is commonly used. I personally believe I have seen the current name more than the proposed one. Sources cited above by Þjarkur in a prior RM show that many/most independent reliable sources use the current name (with or without "emoji", but including "Face"). —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)