Stack Exchange uses Markdown, but unlike so many other sites (e.g. GitHub, Discourse, Slack) that use Markdown, we don't support Emoji. I'd like to be able to write :smile:, :thumbsup:, :heart: or even :poop: and have it render correctly on all Stack Exchange sites.


See the Emoji Cheat Sheet for more examples.

To clarify - I'm not asking for emoji character support. We can already do emoji with Unicode characters, like this: ☺️ πŸ‘ ❀️ πŸ’©

I'm asking specifically that the markdown engine recognize the emoji tags like :smile:. It would be great if it rendered with better graphics, but rendering with their text equivalents would also be acceptable.

  • 17
    We are not a social forum.
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:24
  • 71
    Not supporting emoji seems like a pretty cool feature to me
    – Bart
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:24
  • 2
    What benefit would emoji provide? That just sounds like additional noise.
    – resueman
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:25
  • 3
    Sorry, but I don't see how adding a poop icon will make any question or answer better. We're writing answers, not rebus puzzles.
    – Catija
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:26
  • 3
    @Catija wrong
    – user146787
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:26
  • 17
    If we get this, does that mean that I can πŸ’© on bad questions?
    – Mysticial
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:27
  • 3
    Come to think of it, the fact that unicode works basically means that this is [status-completed]. ☺
    – Mysticial
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:30
  • @resueman - here is an article about the benefits of emoji. #'s 3,4 & 5 are all applicable to S.E. (IMHO). Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:32
  • Also consider that we can already use Emoji via Unicode, as Mystical showed in comments above, and how Rightfold showed in the answer below. I'm just asking for markdown support, and for better looking renderings. Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:33
  • 6
    @MattJohnson "7 Reasons to Use Emoticons in Your Writing and Social Media, According to Science". This isn't a social media site. So it doesn't apply.
    – Mysticial
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:34
  • And I would be hard pressed to believe that SE would be interested in a custom markdown to support emoji. If anything, going the CommonMark route may be a better option?
    – Bart
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 20:36
  • SE already supports emoji, as anyone can see.
    – tchrist
    Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 22:22
  • 1
    Given that emojis can already be added, using Unicode characters, why not support them in Markdown?
    – Alf Eaton
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 12:11

5 Answers 5


No. 🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌


Why, why oh why?

ASCII is so beautiful, so neat, fast, clean, elegant.
Noise is not welcome.

  • 30
    If noise isn't welcome, should we ban Perl questions?
    – user146787
    Commented Jul 14, 2015 at 7:30
  • 1
    I need to remind myself to upvote this. :-)
    – Oskar Skog
    Commented Jul 27, 2017 at 16:57
  • 1
    I have to force myself to downvote this answer, not because it is wrong (yes, I like beautiful, neat, fast, clean, elegant, and I don't like noise), but because this doesn't show an attempt to take a perspective of the other. Read more: perspective-taking, Socratic questioning, naïve realism.
    – Ooker
    Commented Mar 17, 2019 at 9:07

I don't buy the argument that emoticons are noise, or that they should be unique to social media, but I really don't see the point of having them on Stack Exchange. In questions and answers, you can already include inline images in the normal way if you really want emoticons (not that I would recommend it). And comments are disposable. Adding emoji markup seems to suggest the opposite. You can already use ASCII emoji which should be enough to convey that meaning.

  • 18
    πŸ‘‰ You πŸ‘ˆ πŸ’‘πŸ’‘thinkπŸ’‘πŸ’‘ πŸ‘ΊemojiπŸ‘» 🚫🚫aren't🚫🚫 πŸ‘πŸŽ‰noiseπŸŽ€πŸŽΆπŸŽ§πŸ“£πŸ“’? πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜πŸ˜πŸ˜πŸ˜ IπŸ‘€ 😩pity😩 yourπŸ‘€ FaceπŸ‘¦πŸ‘§πŸ‘¨πŸ‘©πŸ‘±πŸ‘²πŸ‘³πŸ‘΄πŸ‘΅πŸ‘ΆπŸ‘Έ BookπŸ“’πŸ““πŸ“”πŸ“•πŸ“—πŸ“˜πŸ“™ friendsπŸ‘«πŸ‘¬πŸ‘­πŸ‘ͺ, thenπŸ•“πŸ••πŸ•˜.
    – Wildcard
    Commented Feb 7, 2016 at 8:19
  • 21
    @Wildcard no, I don't. Don't get me wrong, your comment is noise (in the sense you meant it to be), but it's not because of emoji, it's because you included so much irrelevant gibberish it overwhelms the text and makes it nearly unreadable. One doesn't need emoji to do that.
    – David Z
    Commented Feb 7, 2016 at 19:33

If you use Windows, you can use AutoHotKey and add emojis via Markdown with this script.

There are cases where I see emojis are useful. For example, in Software Recommendation there is a feature request to have checkbox. Or when the conversation seems to be heated, an emoji can reduce the heat, and the recipient can focus on the information rather than let the emotion overwhelming.

Some other useful AutoHotKey scripts I recommend too: LaTeX, AutoCorrect, Quick Type HTML Tags


If emoji's were "noise", then using that same logic, it could be said smiling in public to others is also "noise". And seeing in color is "noise".

I understand ASCII art conveys meaning, and I'm not downplaying its use. However, ASCII is black and white. And our brains are wired to process images much quicker, with deeper meaning, than ASCII text. Our brains can extrapolate more meaning, quicker using pictures than text.

Emoji's convey meaning in a color, graphical way which our brains can process quicker with deeper meaning. It seems to me, that alone should encourage their use on StackOverflow. But, I'm not a Stack Overflow developer, nor moderator. So... :shrugs:

  • 1
    The "opinion" of the mods and user base seems to be "we don't like emoji's, so it is wrong to use them". I laugh at your authoritative logic.
    – MikeyE
    Commented Apr 7, 2019 at 1:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .