Talk:Emoticon

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emoticon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Emoticon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Emoticon at the Reference desk.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 16, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 19, 2004, September 19, 2005, September 19, 2006, September 19, 2012, and September 19, 2018.

Internet culture High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011.

===Usage===

Different smilies can be made using parameters. For instance, {{Smiley|sad}} produces . The default (no parameter) is a simple smile.

The size of the smiley can be changed using the |size= parameter. For example, {{Smiley|size=15px}} produces , which is a little smaller than the default. If |size= is not specified, the default size is 18px.

The default title text, shown as a tooltop when hovering over the smiley, can be changed using |title=. For example {{Smiley|title=I'm happy}} produces . This parameter will be over-written if an invalid size parameter is specified.

The full list of smilies is as follows. Some are duplicates — for instance, the value 10 or any of the words cry, crying, or tears will produce .

Smiley	Code						Redirects	Image
	1	smile	:)	:-)			`{{(-:}}`, `{{(:}}`, `{{-)}}`, `{{=)}}`	Face-smile.svg
	2	frown	sad	:(	:-(		`{{):}}`, `{{=(}}`, `{{frown}}`	Face-sad.svg
	3	wink	;)	;-)			`{{wink}}`, `{{;)}}`	Face-wink.svg
	4	blush	:$	:-$			`{{blush}}`	Face-blush.svg
	5	grin	:D	:-D			`{{=D}}`	Face-grin.svg
	6	surprise	:O	:-O			`{{O:}}`	Face-surprise.svg
	7	tongue	:P	:-P			`{{=P}}`	Face-tongue.svg
	8	confused	%)	%-)			`{{=S}}`	Face-confused.svg
	9	shades	shade	8)	8-)		`{{shades}}`	Emblem-cool.svg
	10	crying	tears	cry	:'(	:'-(	`{{)':}}`	Cry.png
	11	lightbulb	idea					Lightbulb.png
	12	wink2						Smile_eye.png
	13	wink3						Wink.png
	14	big-grin	biggrin					Face-grin.svg
	15	devil-grin	devil	evil				Face-devil-grin.svg
	16	kiss						Face-kiss.svg
	17	smirk						Face-smile-big.svg
	18	big-cry	bigcry	sob				Face-crying.svg
	19	glasses	nerd					Face-glasses.svg
	20	angel	0:)	0:-)				Face-angel.svg
	21	ttth						Face-hand.svg
	22	awesome					`{{awesome}}`	718smiley.svg
	23	vsmile						Emoticon_=v=.svg
—	24	dontpanic	dp					Don't panic.svg (deleted)
	25	teeth						Teeth.png
	26	angry						Face-angry red.png
	27	raspberry						Ras.gif
	28	very-confused						Confused.png
	29	sarcastic						Sarcastic.gif
	30	kitty					`{{kitty}}`	Kitty emoji.png
	31	plain					`{{meh}}`	Face-plain.svg
	32	holidays						Face-smile-christmas.svg
	33	upsidedown						Face-upsidedown.svg
	34	troubled	smh				`{{smh}}`	Face-troubled.svg

Redirects

Template:P
Template:Face
Template:SMiley
Template:Smilie (Not be confused with {{Smile}})

Archives

Archive 1 - 2003–2004
Archive 2 - 2005
Archive 3 - 2006
Archive 4 - 2007
Archive 5 - 2008
Archive 6 - 2008–2013

:-~ is smoke. Can anybody add this to the table?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

--= APh =-- (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also :-? and :-Q --= APh =-- (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion: First usage that is earlier than other mentions in article

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dante's Paradiso, Canto XXIII. Some discussions: Discussion one and Discussion 2. Dante uses the letters "omo" to represent a face - the eyes being represented as 'o' and the 'm' from shapes of the nose and eyebrows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.156.219 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

K

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In Common Western examples, is the "vampire face" =K really relevant? I don't recall ever seeing this one in my life and I don't know a lot of situations in which it could be used. Perhaps it used to be more popular or something. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Women

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages"^[1] Benjamin (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

References

^ http://news.rice.edu/2012/10/10/women-use-emoticons-more-than-men-in-text-messaging/

Additional Historical Materials/References

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A possible additional historical occurrence of what might be considered an "emoticon" — on page 22 (page 27 in the Archive.org PDF) of the 1939 book "Artyping" by Julius Nelson, there are examples of "cartoon faces" including:

o o
 w
---

— BrianKrent (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@BrianKrent: Nice find. I'd be on board with you adding that to the article between the 1936 and 1940s paragraphs. Perhaps {{quote frame}} would be a less "noisy" way to add it to the article, as in {{quote frame |<tt>o o<br> w <br>---</tt>}}:

o o w ---

--Dan Harkless (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Combining Characters

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article mentions the use of combining characters in a couple of places, but at least for the so-called "lenny face", the use of code tags around the 'moji is preventing it from actually combining: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) vs. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). I'm not sure if there's a way to get the boxed effect of code tags without forcing it to be monospaced, but if anyone does know, it'd be a good idea to do that. Felice Enellen (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out, Felice. I looked for awhile to see if there was a template that replicated the boxed style that <code> uses but without the monospacing, but I couldn't find one, nor did I find a boxed text template that allowed enough flexibility with parameters to match the style, so I just did it with HTML and CSS:

<span style="background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 1px solid #eaecf0; padding: 1px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom">{{nowrap |( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)}}</span>

renders as ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (cf. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)). Anyone know of a less manual way to do that? Perhaps a new template is called for. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

No One Really Draws the Nose Anymore

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article says "the version omitting the nose is also very popular". I'm not sure if it's just my social circle, but it would be more correct to say that that version is *more* popular instead of very. I would even call it predominant/canonical. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It may be that that phrasing was written when there were still people using both. As someone present for both eras, I would say say that omitting the nose has just about entirely taken over as the de facto standard method for text emoticons. I don't remember the last time I saw a fresh one with a nose, and I probably never will again, given that Unicode emoji have now taken over in almost all major online social settings. Felice Enellen (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can I Change Korean Emoticons in Korean Style?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am Korean. So I want to change the Korean Emoticons in Korean style. Please. :) Darkdamager (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you be more specific about what it is you think should be changed? --Dan Harkless (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add an emoticon?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i use :T (similar to :/ but can also mean chewing in some cases) quite a lot on social media, and so do lots of other people. Would this be able to be added to the official list of emotions? Jabster28 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Have the brazilian emoticons ever been confirmed to really exist?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've never seen these brazilian emoticons ever before. Are they actually commonly used in Brazil? I couldn't find any sources to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noimnottheone (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Odd/Wrong Wording?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"...XD, a visual representation of the Face with Tears of Joy emoji or the acronym LOL."

XD predates 😂, and so it seems odd to describe XD as representing 😂.

Also, XD and 😂 are not the same expression, try X'D and 😂 or XD and 😆

source for first claim

"The Unicode Consortium's 6.0 emoji set release was the birth of many official emojis used today, including the "Face with Tears of Joy" emoji."

 -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_with_Tears_of_Joy_emoji 2A00:23C7:7983:F501:51C5:809A:B239:88DF (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

"∑:3" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ∑:3 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#∑:3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Emoticons as a Time-Saving Methods

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states that emoticons are used "to express a person's feelings, mood or reaction, or as a time-saving method." I question the line "or as a time-saving method." When can an emoticon be used as a time-saving method without expressing feelings, mood, or reaction?

This part of the sentence is especially gross when you also consider the double "or." It should be removed, if no such examples of emotion use exist. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It was a little bit awkward and didn't really convey how time could be saved. See what you think of my edit? Felice Enellen (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

"8==D" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect 8==D 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 {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should I add this picture to the article?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Early emoticons published in the March 30, 1881 issue of Puck.

I'm really not sure, since there already exist one very much like it in the article already. But on the other hand, it might give more insight in a more understandable language. It'd be nice to have both, but I the likeness was so striking that I felt I had to ask first. SweaTheSerg (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The image matches the mention in the body of the article and it was Puck before. See Special:Diff/1112498070. I suppose it was changed because of the apparent publication precedence. But the text in Polish acknowledges it comes from two other periodicals (not explicitly named, unfortunately). So probably the only advantage of using it is that it shows two variations. Besides the captions of the individual smilies, the text gives no further insight in any language and is just a distraction at this point of the article; it might be better without it like it was before the change. Someone should ascertain what the earliest appearance of those was, though. – MwGamera (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply