We were able to add tags in a post using a special syntax, like this [tag:example].

For older posts, they don't appear as tags anymore. Instead they are rendered as hypertext links. This bug is "fixed" if the post is edited and saved again.

This is now: tag displaying as link, this is the usual effect: tag correctly rendered

This can be seen on:

  • Unable to repro Commented May 21 at 12:53
  • 2
    @αλεχολυτ what about the linked page?
    – pinckerman
    Commented May 21 at 12:54
  • The "special syntax" doesn't seem to render here as intended. One way is to escape [ and ] with backslash. Commented May 21 at 12:56
  • The post you reference looks right to me, but perhaps it has been edited and saved. Is there another one that still displays this symptom that hasn't been edited? Or is it possible the issue is happening to you specifically due to a local stylesheet/userscript? Commented May 21 at 13:13
  • 6
    In this post the bug can be seen also in the "question".
    – pinckerman
    Commented May 21 at 13:19
  • 1
    I can also see the [tag: ... markdown being rendered as a regular link, both in the answers to the post in this question and in the question of the last comment. Commented May 21 at 13:27
  • 2
    Tag info also has this issue, so it's not only questions/answers.
    – 0stone0
    Commented May 21 at 13:38
  • 1
    Strangely it renders correctly on the [revisions page(gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/17105/revisions)].
    – vandench
    Commented May 21 at 13:39
  • 4
    For some reason the rendered html coming from the server doesn't have the classname s-tag on the class attrubute while it does have the post-tag. manually adding the s-tag in the DOM via the developer console resolves the issue. No idea what the root cause is but it is something on the SE server side. See i.sstatic.net/YABCbyx7.png
    – rene
    Commented May 21 at 13:47
  • 14
    The HTML for a post is rendered once at the time that the current version is saved and is then cached, until a new version is created. It's that cached version which is displayed in question pages. You can see the current revision re-rendered by the backend by going to the edit history (revisions) page and clicking the "Link" link. The HTML for the answers to the question linked above has all the tags with class="post-tag" while the current HTML render produces class="s-tag post-tag". The current CSS requires both the s-tag and post-tag classes. (sigh. ninja'd)
    – Makyen
    Commented May 21 at 13:48
  • 15
    Probably related to CSS changes for this update to the tag labels. Commented May 21 at 13:54
  • 1
    I'm not wholly sure why they needed to introduce s-tag in the first place. Sure, consistency with Stacks naming conventions, but I think this consistency foolish. They've already stepped back from the (quite flawed, very popular) class-only CSS framework concept, instead choosing to write CSS (!!), so why not preserve HTML semantics while they're at it?
    – wizzwizz4
    Commented May 21 at 14:52
  • @wizzwizz4 because it became so complex and unmanaged, that it's out of control. Commented May 22 at 7:25

1 Answer 1


The issue has been resolved. Tags were rendering with improper styling when only non-Stacks tag classes (.post-tag, .moderator-tag, .required-tag) were present. We missed that posts are pre-baked HTML that would need to be rebaked to include the added .s-tag class. This may take a bit of a lift to perform, so we’ve decided to include .s-tag styles on .post-tag and related classes when they don’t include .s-tag.

  • Is there a plan to re-bake the HTML eventually, or is adding back .post-tag etc class styles considered a long-term change?
    – Robotnik
    Commented May 28 at 4:51
  • 2
    @Robotnik long term, I'd like to see the HTML rebaked. It’ll take a while though since it requires coordination between product teams, a refactor of the JavaScript that references these legacy classes, investigation of what we need to rebake, and only then a rebake (which I’ve been told is a time-consuming process).
    – Dan Cormier Staff
    Commented May 28 at 21:18
  • @DanCormier understandable, thanks for the followup :)
    – Robotnik
    Commented May 28 at 23:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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