The discussion centers on a feature request to introduce “group groups” or categories for organizing Discourse groups, similar to how badges are categorized into Bronze, Silver, and Gold. tophee initiates the thread, suggesting that since groups can be defined by various criteria (geography, occupation, interest), they should be displayable in sections or on separate pages (e.g., /groups/country) to improve accessibility. Mittineague questions the feasibility of a “one size fits all” scheme but suggests a parent-child approach similar to categories or simple ordering. tobiaseigen supports the idea, noting that their site currently uses naming conventions to achieve a similar effect.
Several users propose technical implementations. scombs suggests adding search filters, tabs, and a “Group Types” field in the admin panel. mcwumbly prefers a search box functionality similar to the users or logs pages. tophee clarifies that the core goal is visual organization into sections rather than just searchability, citing Namati’s groups page as an example.
The conversation shifts to the structural nature of these categories. sam acknowledges the merit of the idea but raises the question of whether groups should belong to multiple “groupings” (tags) or a single category. MarcP and tophee advocate for a tagging system for flexibility. rogerco distinguishes between tags (many-to-many) and categories (one-to-many/enforced hierarchy), suggesting categories might be a simpler first step. Hooksmith shares their forum’s use case, involving skill, community, language, and staff groups, and offers to collaborate on a plugin.
Finally, satonotdead asks about the initiative’s status, and awesomerobot confirms that while discussion is open, the feature is not currently a priority for the core team.
