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.
We're not in Japan, the plural for emoji is emojis
I've never since the dawn of emojis heard an English speaker refer to multiple emojis as "emoji." Why does this Wikipedia page insist on calling them emoji instead of emojis? Dapperedavid (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
If you do a text search through the article, you'll find examples of both uses. I don't think there's an established style either on Wikipedia as a whole or in this article specifically.
As for why "emoji" is sometimes used as an invariant plural (cf., two fish/two fishes), per the Unicode Consortium's emoji FAQ:
“
A: Both “emoji” and “emojis” are considered acceptable pluralizations of the word emoji in written English. Unicode uses “emoji” as the plural due to the Japanese origin of this word. Other publications such as the Associated Press Stylebook recommend “emojis” as the English plural.
As for this article specifically, as I said, it uses both. As for why, I cannot speak for other article contributors who might have used either formulation. What I can say is that I've personally tended to either use "emoji" as an invariant plural or bypass the issue with "emoji characters" in my own edits, since that seemed more appropriate (both due to being a Japanese word, and due to -i normally being a plural suffix already in English, such that a plural ending in -is feels wrong). Though I might not be representative of a typical speaker since:
(b) I'm half-Japanese (though English is my sole "mother" tongue, and I'm born, raised and situated in England) and continue to speak of /ɛmɔd͡ʒi/ rather than /ɪmə͡ud͡ʒi/, for example.
