Post History

I've noticed that the photography.codidact meta tagging system differs from what seems more conventional. For example, it appears that there no tags are mandatory (here at least one of [bug] [feature-request] [discussion] [support] appears to be) and that the colour of [status-completed] there is not pink. Here most status tags are pink, I think to indicate that they may only be applied by moderators or others with special privileges.

I appreciate that each site is being granted as much discretion as is achievable without greatly enhancing complexity and that if the software is to be used outside of Codidact versatility in such matters may be desired.
However, the 'rules' (or guidelines) across Codidact are presently very complicated and poorly documented (as yet) if at all. Furthermore there has not really been enough time so far deeply to establish conventions.

I am not bothered by how photography.codidact manages its own community but I am concerned at the possible impact of inconsistency across sites of features that might reasonably be expected to be uniform. Hence this post here rather than on photography.codidact's meta.

Where users are involved in several communities within the Codidact family, and some already are, there are bound to be mistakes made due to confusion, if rules that might reasonably be expected to be uniform actually differ across sites. Mistakes that will add to moderation demands and very probably generate ill will in the process. This is a high price to pay for what seems, for the examples, at best a paltry increase in flexibility.

**Please ensure cross-site uniformity for the basics of tagging** unless there are very significant benefits (which I think do not exist for the examples provided from photography.codidact) from tailoring tagging for specific sites. Specifically mandatory and 'mod only' tags but also, for example: lower case, character number limit, tag number limit, no spaces, and disallowed characters.

(I'd also suggest preference for plural forms.)