Should we have a “META” category to discuss this discussion forum, announce new categories, guidelines, etc?
I want to follow new categories yet to be created…
That is exactly the purpose of the Site Feedback category
Why has a ~non-standard term like Site Feedback be preferred over meta? In Rust and the majority of the discours our customer page there is a meta category.
(not really important, just wondering)
It is the default name when discourse is setup for the first time. For me the main reason not to change the name, is that meta has another meaning in Julia (e.g. metaprogramming).
There was some discussion about this in the beginning Discussion categories - #12 by jameson
2 Likes
Thank you!
I suppose you and Jameson are ‘deep into Julia’ and think about meta-programming when hearing meta. A (relative) new Julia user might think of the meta forum category when hearing meta.
If I had noticed the previous discussion I would have argued for a ‘meta-programming’ and a ‘meta’ category. Now it’s probably too late/unimportant to change. Or most people prefer ‘Site Feedback’.
1 Like
I vote for renaming Site Feedback to Meta.
I reworded the description of this category to highlight that it is for meta-discussion, I think that the argument against the name Meta is valid and I have not heard any outstanding reasons why Site Feedback is bad and a rename would be worth the trouble.
5 Likes
@vchuravy I feel that Site Feedback doesn’t translate the intention of discussing new categories and other meta topics. I find it strange, it sounds like a default place where no one searches. For instance, I never imagined it was the place to discuss meta like in StackExchange websites.
1 Like
@vchuravy: sorry, but I disagree. You write in the description “to come together and discuss all things Julia”. This is exactly what I understand as meta. Why not call the category what it is?
- Site Feedback for me is much more limited in scope. Besides I did not find this term used even once when I looked at the discourse customer pages I linked above. There was (one time) a Forum feedback category or else meta (or nothing).
- There is a blog post from Jeff Attwood about the importance of meta. The examples he gives fit the meta categorization but not always the site-feedback categorization (imho)
- (In the ‘official discourse forum’ there is a meta (and not a site-feedback) category. A bit confusingly they mention site-feedback though)
In the previous discussion linked by you, @jameson was critical towards meta, on the other hand @StefanKarpinski was in favour of a meta category and wanted to rename ‘Site Feedback’. There was not really an extended discussion about meta; maybe Jameson would have agreed that meta is commonly used as a ‘meta-category’ for discourse instances? And that meta-programming would work well? I don’t know.
Would a rename be worth the trouble? If more people are in favour of meta I do think, yes. No need to not be (or become) mainstream here.
2 Likes
I second that, we could have a meta category and a metaprogramming category without ambiguity.
1 Like
Are we renaming Site Feedback to Meta?
Done just now. <20 chars>
3 Likes