Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on What should we do about tagging in Site Proposals?

Parent

What should we do about tagging in Site Proposals?

+4
−0

We need to figure out tags in the "Site Proposals" category. I noticed that some proposals were tagged "suggestion" and some "new-communities" and started to replace the former with the latter, and then I stopped and said "wait, everything here is a suggestion for a new community!".

For technical reasons we need to have some tag right now, but what should the tag(s) there be? Adding a tag for launched communities makes sense, and maybe one for proposals we've agreed we're not going to do, but that doesn't help with the initial tagging.

Or maybe everything is a status-something tag -- proposals start at status-proposed, and then we might retag to status-something-else as it moves through the process?

Ideas?

Superseded by the new Proposals site.

I can't close this question as superseded, maybe because the target is an article or maybe because it's in a different category.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+3
−0

This answer builds on Peter's answer (thanks!).

I think we need to approach tags along two axes. One is tracking status of proposals, as suggested by Peter. We did this informally when I added "status-launched" to the Photography post, but we can and should track status through earlier stages too.

The other axis is proposals versus ideas. We've been getting both types of suggestions. Proposals are more fully worked out; ideas are more like "can we have a site about X?". Ideas aren't ready to move forward yet because we need to find out if there's a community behind them -- but how do we find out if there's already a community here if not through a post? So I suggest having two tags, "ideas" and "proposals", with a requirement to use one or the other. Ideas can gather support and be refined into proposals, and people can more easily see what stage each suggestion is in.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (2 comments)
General comments
Peter Cooper Jr.‭ wrote over 4 years ago

While I don't really object to this, I'm not completely convinced yet it's the best approach. I'd think that a "proposal" goes through stages of being refined, starting with an idea, getting more and more specifics and details added, and then (hopefully) eventually getting to the "accepted" state. Maybe this is just adding "status-idea" that would precede "status-proposed" for when it's just floating ideas around gauging interest. But maybe that's the same thing as you were saying after all.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 4 years ago

@PeterCooperJr the same division could be done with just a set of status tags, yes. I was thinking that having the two stages would make it easier to see at a glance (on the list) which proposals are in the "idea" stage and which are undergoing more active development. I admit it can be fuzzy. Part of my reasoning is that there's been some pushback on ideas that aren't yet well-developed, but we need a way to find out which ones have interest and support so we should be open to them too.