# Wording for private/secure categories

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/wording-for-private-secure-categories/75643
**Category:** UX
**Created:** [December 7, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/wording-for-private-secure-categories/75643 "2017-12-07T19:48:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![alehandrof](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/alehandrof/32/119526_2.png) [@alehandrof](https://meta.discourse.org/u/alehandrof)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/wording-for-private-secure-categories/75643/11 "2017-12-08T18:10:45Z")

</div>

> [@tophee](#):
>
> When I ask people to post in a specific category I tend to provide a link to the category to avoid any confusion.

I do as well, but point taken. We should provide less flippant examples.

> [@tobiaseigen](#):
>
> I almost wish discourse groups had a different, special name (like flock of geese or murder of crows? rainbow of unicorns?)

I appprove.

🌈:unicorn: is certainly better than Usergroups 🙂

But @erlend_sh is on to something.

The confusing bit is that the groups don’t have a built-in conversation space. I was hoping that group messages would fill this gap, but they’re [not quite there yet](https://meta.discourse.org/t/suggestion-hide-show-group-inbox-via-user-preference-or-group-admin-setting/70463).

So, for the moment, I use a [plugin to make groups & watch categories](https://meta.discourse.org/t/make-members-of-a-group-watch-a-category-by-default/22127/69). It would be useful if that plugin I just linked to (originally by someone from the Discourse team and then hacked by yours truly) was expanded into a plugin with a UI, or even built into core.

But even that would not resolve the tension in having groups without a designated place for them to talk. Maybe there should be a way to link a group with a category. So, that for example, you could see the group’s category as a separate tab on the group’s page. That sounds like it would work for my case, but I don’t know if it would make sense for other systems.

In other news, I’ve settled on “private categories”, although my main collaborator objects to the “category” vocabulary. Maybe @HAWK was right all along 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/wording-for-private-secure-categories/75643)._