Post History

Categories should be used for broad *categories* of posts. For example, see how Writing separates [the main Q&A](https://writing.codidact.com/categories/1) from [writing challenges](https://writing.codidact.com/categories/20), or how Cooking separates [its Q&A](https://cooking.codidact.com/categories/17) from [recipes](https://cooking.codidact.com/categories/29), or how Meta separates [Q&A](https://meta.codidact.com/categories/3) from [blog](https://meta.codidact.com/categories/30). A reasonable question to ask to indicate whether a separate category might be useful is: will this content be *handled substantially differently* by the community? Having too many categories can be problematic; [Photography](https://photography.codidact.com/) has five, and even that seems rather a lot.

What you list seem to be topic areas or areas of expertise, which is what tags would be for.

Also, tags are created when they are first used; there is no separate process to create tags beforehand. If you have questions that would benefit from these tags, then just post them and use those as tags.

However, I personally fail to see the utility of, say, a "distribution-specific" tag. Who is going to search for all distribution-specific questions, or be able to say "I'm an expert in distribution-specific things". Tags for specific distributions, such as for example "debian", "freebsd", "aix", or "kali", would seem to be more useful. I've found such a litmus test for tags to be useful in general; just because someone can say about a tag "I'm an expert in XYZ" doesn't necessarily make it a *good* tag (it can, for example, still be too broad, or redundant), but if you can't even say that, there's good reason to think that it'll make a *bad* tag.