6) A video can be a good supplement to text.

Thoughts: 1) Good videos can be helpful, but very few of those linked are good. 2) You already address link-only. 3) Searches can't find information contained in a video. 4) People are sometimes unable to view videos (may be blocked, may be in a setting where it would disturb others, etc.). 5) Videos don't lend themselves to replicating the steps. The user needs to transcribe them or reproduce them as notes. So that content should be included in the question.

This answer raises a good point (actually several). If the answer is just a link to a driver, it's a bad question. I agree that it's an on-topic question in cases where an actual solution is required. For example, there is no driver available, but the driver for a different printer might work, or the OP didn't properly install the driver and the solution is instructions on how to do it right, or there is some other workaround to explain. But the OP needs to include a good explanation of why it isn't just a request for a link.

It sounds like even if they're the same, they're referred to differently in different environments. Some readers scanning the main page looking for questions of interest wouldn't see the tag they're familiar with if they're synonyms. It might reduce answers for one tag. About 60% of the [httpd] questions are double-tagged with [apache-http-server], but that still leaves about 45 questions that aren't. Might the community be best served by keeping the tags separate? Just asking since this is out of my area.

There is no V6 tag yet. You can't just create a tag, it needs to be associated with at least one question. I checked for existing Powershell questions and found only one so far that contained a reference to V6: superuser.com/questions/1320481/powershell-6-missing-cmdlets‌​. You can create one on that question or wait for the next V6 question and add it there. At least one more question needs to be tagged within 6 months or the tag turns into a pumpkin.

This is some impressive detective work! :-)

The fact that it solved the OP's problem makes me wonder how much effort or research the OP put in before asking. The OP got his problem solved, and you got a little rep for your effort, but I still think the question, at least as-is, is a low-quality question, and basically not a good fit for the site.

We get a number of questions asking for a detailed tutorial on how to install XYZ. I don't think we want to be a tutorial repository for every application, and asking people to write them a tutorial isn't a good fit for the site. It's different if someone describes a specific issue in trying to install something. That OP alluded to experiencing problems, provided no specifics about anything, and asked for a tutorial. In this case, you were able to give a one-command answer. (cont'd)

@Scott, "I don't understand" doesn't say anything explicit about the poster, only yourself. "Your writing is hard to understand" is a statement about the poster that could potentially be taken defensively. Looks like somebody has been skipping PC (political correctness) training. :-) Flip side: I've seen comments saying "I don't understand...", to which the poster replied "Are you stupid? It's perfectly clear to anyone with a brain". But at least you've taken the high ground.

The system generally shows only the most common close reason if multiple reasons have been used. Also, the canned comment for each close reason sometimes isn't a good explanation for a specific case. Some questions can be a bad fit for the site for multiple different reasons and reviewers pick one basis. At least my own close vote was because the question wasn't on-topic for the site (which I elaborated on in a comment on the question).

@Scott, true, but after investing time in the edit, that would have been the practical solution. Few people are likely to kill the edit they just worked on, accept the proposed one, and then redo their own edit. Simultaneous edits don't happen all that often, so stuff like this occasionally happens.

@Scott, a slightly revised scenario: they were both working on it simultaneously. At Save time, the OP became aware of the suggested edit, perhaps because the original was open on another page or they got the automated warning of the conflicting edits. The OP then incorporated the other edits into their own.

Haven't you heard that size doesn't matter? :-)