Some broken emojis/emoticons/unicodes: missing some fonts?

[C7NhtpnK]

Dear all,

here on Leap 16.0:

gunnersson@tulicube:~> zypper se -s -i *-fonts
Repository-Daten werden geladen...
Installierte Pakete werden gelesen...

S  | Name                         | Type  | Version             | Arch   | Repository
---+------------------------------+-------+---------------------+--------+---------------------------
i  | adobe-sourcecodepro-fonts    | Paket | 2.038-160000.2.2    | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i+ | adobe-sourcesanspro-fonts    | Paket | 2.045-bp160.1.1     | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i+ | adobe-sourceserifpro-fonts   | Paket | 3.000-bp160.1.2     | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i  | adwaita-fonts                | Paket | 48.2-160000.2.2     | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i  | cantarell-fonts              | Paket | 0.303.1-160000.2.2  | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i+ | dejavu-fonts                 | Paket | 2.37-160000.3.1     | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i  | google-noto-coloremoji-fonts | Paket | 20240424-160000.2.2 | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i  | google-noto-sans-fonts       | Paket | 20240901-160000.2.2 | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i  | hack-fonts                   | Paket | 3.003-bp160.1.1     | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap
i  | liberation-fonts             | Paket | 2.1.5-160000.3.2    | noarch | openSUSE-Distribution-Leap

    Hinweis: Für eine erweiterte Suche inkl. nicht momentan aktivierter Remote-Ressourcen bitte
    'zypper search-packages' verwenden.
gunnersson@tulicube:~> 

I experience some broken emojis/emoticons/unicodes (see screenshot): am I missing some fonts?

TIA!

[C7NhtpnK]

Well…

Now, just some minutes later, these icons are displayed properly.
(I guess they are rather images (like PNG or SVG than unicodes…)

I have no clue.

[C7NhtpnK]

@C7NhtpnK

Now, just some minutes later, these icons are displayed properly.

Not anywhere!

Still missing some…

@C7NhtpnK

(I guess they are rather images (like PNG or SVG than unicodes…)

Duh, I 'm not sure, indeed. Maybe a unicode, indeed. Where in source of a page do one find this (to check it explicitly)?