There's no donkey or dumbass emoji :(
U+1FACF
Rejected emoji proposals
131–140 of 151 posts
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#132I like that they have stopped accepting flag proposals. They don't have any business trying to play geopolitics and they don't want to either, but as a result these legacy symbol must stay there for compatibility and new nations or those that didn't make the cut get no representation. We should use these flags a lot less anyhow— especially for language indicators.
Apple removed flags from macOS 12.4 Monterey, replacing them with ISO2A characters
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#133I like that they have stopped accepting flag proposals. They don't have any business trying to play geopolitics and they don't want to either, but as a result these legacy symbol must stay there for compatibility and new nations or those that didn't make the cut get no representation. We should use these flags a lot less anyhow— especially for language indicators.
To clarify, new national flags will still be added to the standard in line with changes to ISO 3166. So new countries will (as I understand it) still receive flags. This seems like a reasonable compromise, though it’s not without its risks either. But I agree generally that the addition of flags was, in retrospect, an unfortunate outcome.
Not sure how this is a compromise by any means as it still means abiding by some arbiter to decide who gets to be a country and who doesn't. Outsourcing the arbitration to the ISO doesn't make much of a difference.
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is far from the only country in which states/provinces/regions/etc have their own flags. Australia's six states (and its two self-governing mainland territories) each have their own flag. Canada's ten provinces and three territories have flags too. Mexico has 31 states, but only 7 have official flags. Germany has 16 states, all of which have a flag. Austria has 9 states, which all have flags. Switzerland has 2…
England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico). America had a much stronger flag culture than, say, Jersey. We see local and state flags flown at private residences. I’d certainly use my state if it was in Unicode.
> England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico).
With the exception of England, Scotland and Wales, all of that’s just due to following ISO 3166-1, which covers both countries and significant external territories; you might say that it treats the layer as if they were in some sense similar to the former. Sticking to 3166-1 excuses the Unicode Consortium from getting involved in the politically fraught question of which countries to recognise.
National subdivisions such as the countries of the UK or the states of the US are ISO 3166-2. 3166-2 flags, including US state ones, are in Unicode, but they are non-RGI-meaning vendors are permitted to implement them, but neither required nor recommended to do so, and users should not expect them to be supported except on specific platforms or configurations.
What about England, Scotland and Wales? I think there is a justification for that inconsistency: they are considered to be “countries” (including by 3166-2), even if “countries-within-a-country”. This is not purely a linguistic thing-some international sporting competitions treat them as separate countries, and they have lengthy histories of independence. By contrast, almost nobody considers US states to be “countries”, most never have been independent countries, and even the few of those who have been independent have almost all been so briefly (a few decades at most) rather than for many centuries. Hawaii arguably comes closest to qualifying, but very few Americans would call its contemporary incarnation a “country”. And note that Northern Ireland’s flag is non-RGI, but 3166-2 does not officially classify it as a “country”, and calling it that is politically extremely controversial (it appeals to some Unionists/Loyalists, but offends Nationalists/Republicans.)
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#135I like that they have stopped accepting flag proposals. They don't have any business trying to play geopolitics and they don't want to either, but as a result these legacy symbol must stay there for compatibility and new nations or those that didn't make the cut get no representation. We should use these flags a lot less anyhow— especially for language indicators.
Apple removed flags from macOS 12.4 Monterey, replacing them with ISO2A characters
I did not know this, and it's a really cool fact.
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#136Definitely click on the "Document" links for each emoji. I spent about a half hour reading through them and found them incredibly fascinating. A lot advocate for why something is important (for example, it's easy to laugh at a PMS emoji, but it's hard to disagree with "Currently, although menstruation is a core part of being a woman, it is felt to impose significant limitations on women when influenced by negative so…
The author of the PMS emoji proposal is Svenska Cellulosa AB, a forest industry company that's also in paper hygiene products. I see the SCA logo a lot in public bathrooms (e.g. paper towels). I suspect their marketing team was brooding on something.
>I suspect their marketing team was brooding on something.
Sure. Or, perhaps, they were simply well positioned to understand why that emoji was impactful
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#137I guess I should feel relieved that I don't at least have my work discussions littered with these ones. But they're not too different from the set of infantilizing pictograms that did make their way into the standard & that grown-ups are now expected to deal with.
The future is now old man UwU
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico). America had a much stronger flag culture than, say, Jersey. We see local and state flags flown at private residences. I’d certainly use my state if it was in Unicode.
> England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico). With the exception of England, Scotland and Wales, all of that’s just due to following ISO 3166-1, which covers both countries and significant external territories; you might say that it treats the layer as if they were in some…
I don’t see UKs “country” being much different from the US “states.”
In some ways US states are even more independent. England doesn’t have its own government or Capitol, nor does it want one.
Sure Scotland was independent, about 500 years ago, but I don’t think that’s very important to the Unicode consortium.
I suspect the concern is simply upkeep. There 50 state flags, and they are changed pretty frequently.
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#139Would have been nice if they did US state flags.
Life finds a way. I'm from Québec and I regularly use the Martinique flag emoji as an ersatz.
I use to do lots of work with addresses.
Quebec is funny because it has two abbreviations: the Canadian one and the American one.
One abbreviation is QE, the other QC. Forgot which is which.
Apparently Quebec residents can get a “Quebec” drivers license issue by NY state.
Re: Rejected emoji proposals
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
My issue is with those emojis is that they don't meet a few of their own criteria for a new emoji to be accepted. Their guideline: https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#selection_factors_i... For instance, they suggest using "elephant" to evaluate the usage: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all_2008&gprop...
The submission guidelines have changed over time. I would assume that, at the time, the proposals _did_ meet the guidelines.
The proposal has a section comparing the frequencies for "pregnant-man" and "pregnant-person" with "elephant". It was a criteria back then.
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20190r-swollen-belly-emoji....
Most (if not all) gender neutral emojis were proposed by the same person.