TopAnswers Meta
or
I'm interested in asking and answering question about several topics. I'd like to [propose them as sites](https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=211) but am unsure what level of granularity to propose:

1. Computing (Superuser + ...)
1. Programming (Software Engineering + ...)
1. Coding (Stack Overflow + ...)
1. Language X (tighter scope than anything on SE)

My inital question(s) might be Lua (for example). Should I consider getting some Lua folks involved and propose per-language sites (this would quickly run into scope overlap and other issues) or just go ahead and propose a general programming site and use tags to scope to a language?

Another case study might be my interest in a site to ask questions about [The SILE Typesetter](https://sile-typesetter.org/). I've actually considered proposing that the SE LaTeX site expand their scope to cover it because conceptually it is similar, but the expertise is also different so its kind of a grey area.

Should I propose:

1. A site about publishing in general?
1. A site about typesetting?
1. A site about LaTeX and derivaties (including conceptual ones that share no code)
1. A site about SILE in specific?
Top Answer
CC0 1.0 or laterJack Douglas
The precise detail of community scope will be up to each community, as it takes expertise to decide on all the edge cases, but broadly:

**We don't want a general 'coding' SO-like mess on TopAnswers.**

> Language X (tighter scope than anything on SE)

This sounds much more like what we will be aiming for, especially bearing in mind that [the top 4 tags on SO](https://stackoverflow.com/tags?tab=popular) each have well over a million questions. `javascript` alone is >10% the size of the whole of SO, so still *much bigger* than [any non-SO site on the SE network](https://stackexchange.com/sites#questions).

> My initial question(s) might be Lua (for example). Should I consider getting some Lua folks involved and propose per-language sites (this would quickly run into scope overlap and other issues)

Scope overlap isn't a problem here or on SE — as long as each topic is coherent enough that experts can coalesce around it.

---

*An aside:*

We'd also like to help people contribute across communities here is ways that aren't so easy on SE — for example opt-out profile settings to show questions from related communities where appropriate. Not like HNQ where it is indiscriminate (though there may be some cope for that too in a more limited fashion), but where there is significant overlap of expertise between two communities. A theoretical example might be `javascript` and `typescript` (or it might not but hopefully you get what I mean — perhaps `SILE` and `TeX` are better examples).
Answer #2
CC0 1.0David
The case for "Computing.TA" | As OP opined....

> I'd like to [propose them as sites][1] but am unsure what level of granularity to propose:
> 
> 1.    Computing (Superuser + ...)

And this "answer" is simply to state my own hope that a "Computing.TA" site might spring to life sooner rather than later. **Why?** I have two main factors in mind:

1. **Likelihood of meaningful activity** | TA is coming along nicely, but it's main *raison d'être*—getting good ("top", even!) answers to some question—is not yet quite being realized. In the SE ecosystem, "Superuser" (referenced by OP) occupies a place pretty near the top of that network:  
   
![__0-se-rank.jpg](/image?hash=c20a38825598383631bfa545618c486cf6e396fb833e797481ca3f4da84c6b9e)
   
  At time of typing, SU is ranked:
  - **2nd** by "traffic" and "number of users"; and
  - **3rd** by "Questions" (asked) and "Answers" (total).
  
2. **Breadth of scope** | All this activity relates to the range of "user" type questions relating to hardware, software, and network usage, while remaining software package, OS, etc. agnostic (for terms of "scope"). Although SU excludes "recommendations" (because SoftwareRecs and HardwareRecs exist as SE sites), my own hope and inclination would be to *include* recommendations on a new "Computing.TA" type site.

And a third: I have questions I would like to ask in such a community that don't fit into the more granular programming or OS-specific sites (only \*nix.TA available at the moment, of course) currently available in the TA framework.

I post this here, rather than in the "[propose a new community][1]" Q&A, because I don't think of this as a *formal* proposal, but rather an opportunity to gauge others' sense of whether a new site at this level of breadth would make sense at this moment in TA's development. I'm thinking, too, of the question about [how TA might best be promoted][2]: my hunch is that a "Computing.TA" site would contribute to that effort. FWIW!

[1]: https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=211
[2]: https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=595
Skillmon replying to Caleb
```  
\documentclass{standalone}  
\usepackage{ducksay}  
\begin{document}  
\ducksay{Oh, a duck!}  
\end{document}  
```
Caleb
```latex  
\begin{tikzpicture}
\duck[crazyhair=red,beard=blue]
\begin{tikzpicture}
```
Skillmon replying to Caleb
we're discussing that in https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/193903/duck-overflow (I hope you still have an SE account).
Caleb replying to Skillmon
If I didn't know about the TeX community's obsession with ducks you shouldn't be considering inviting me in the first place.
Skillmon replying to Caleb
I have to ask you whether you like ducks, before I'm allowed to tell you where we currently discuss this :) (there is a strange obsession with ducks in the TeX community)
Skillmon replying to Caleb
Not really. In that case Ti*k*Z through LaTeX would still be on-topic. But Ti*k*Z through SILE wouldn't. Similar to how I'd say Pandoc with (La)TeX-backend is on topic.
Skillmon replying to Jack Douglas
yes, we intend to do so, but we're currently not sure how and if we should advertise this to others. I hope we'll have a consensus by next week.
Caleb replying to Skillmon
What if SILE fully implemented TixZ/PGF? We've looked at it a couple times and at one point I even wired in a bastardized version that did ... something. It's not a released feature yet but might be someday. Would that change your stance on that question?
Caleb replying to Skillmon
Please do add me. If you need PII to send an invite to just ask.
Jack Douglas replying to Skillmon
You mean here on TopAnswers? If you want to have a private 'beta' community here you can get a hands-on feel for how it would work (including importing content from SE if that's something you plan).
Skillmon replying to Caleb
There are currently 5 users (including me) who are willing to start a community here, All of them were at some point in time active on TeX.SX, but some of them resigned from there for various reasons. I'll see if I can add you to our chat.
Skillmon replying to Caleb
we had our uproar a lot earlier, the Monica-affair didn't affect us as much, earlier decisions by SE were already enough to make us disappointed in them, and led to a few of our top-contributors leave. The problem is that there is no real competitor right now, many of us answer questions in smaller sites which are in our mother tongue. But since the majority of users ask on TeX.SX, that's where the majority of our free time is spent. The consensus being that we want to help the new users, not SE, and hence stay there because we're needed.
Skillmon replying to Caleb
One reply for all the "is this on scope"-comments: None of the current "friends" should be dropped (ConTeXt is a format, LuaLaTeX is LaTeX atop another engine, etc.), Pandoc is one of the borderline things, which can be out of scope and can be in scope, depending on the used backend. Ti*k*Z must stay, there is only one implementation of Ti*k*Z/PGF available and that is in TeX, it is one of the most used packages of LaTeX next to the core-packages.
Caleb
@Skilmon Also how do you feel about the current Pandoc questions fielded by TeX.SE? Tikz?
Jack Douglas replying to Caleb
the issue there is what room to attach
Caleb replying to Jack Douglas
That sounds bloody confusing to me. Just brainstorming here but what about having a "build your own site" option much like "following tags" but much more exhaustive. Calculate rep per user per tag and show totals for users based on the tags YOU wanted to be in scope. I could have my "LaTeX + all friends" site and @Skilmon could have his 'ConTexT only' site.
Jack Douglas replying to Skillmon
yes, full control at the user level — communities just set their defaults (which would only apply to new users — that's the pattern here, eg with licenses/fonts)
Caleb
Would you advocate any of the current "friends" being dropped? ConTexT? LuaLaTeX? LaTeX3?
Caleb
From what I saw that community was is one of the ones with the least reaction to the recent SE scandal(s).
Caleb replying to Skillmon
Who else is talking about a (La)TeX community here? I'd love to be in on that discussion as I'm an avid user.
Skillmon replying to Jack Douglas
how fine grained would the control then be? E.g., if TeX had related communities SILE and MathML, could I disable SILE linking for myself but keep MathML? I'm not sure whether I like the idea.
Jack Douglas
cc @Caleb 
Jack Douglas
in other cases the link would not be there by default and but you can opt in (that might be the better option with SILE/TeX, I don't know — each community should decide it's own defaults)
Jack Douglas replying to Skillmon
I'm thinking about ways of cross-linking communities so we can keep a tight scope without losing the benefit of having people see related topics. One idea I've had is to have an optional profile setting for showing new questions from related communities on the home page of another community. In other words (for example), SILE questions would appear on the TeX homepage by default, clearly labelled, even though in other ways the communities are separate (independent rep etc) — and you can opt out if you don't want that.
Skillmon
@Caleb As a frequent contributor to TeX.SX I don't like the idea to include conceptually similar but very different software like SILE in the scope (and some people currently discuss whether we want a (La)TeX community here, too, for which I'd also like SILE to not be included in its scope). The scope of TeX.SX is already big enough with the "friends" coming along with TeX.
Skillmon
(see below)
Jack Douglas
yes, one of the biggest issues is loose scope I think
Caleb
You're right about the most logical splits being community related as much or more so than topic though, but communities also form up around whatever divisions get drawn.
Caleb
The overlap between programming language questions on SO ("How do I do X in  bash?") vs on U&L ("How do I get X job done in any of sed/perl/awk/tr/...?") is a lot more palatable than the loose scope on Superuser / Apple / Ubuntu.
Caleb
Also there has always been some weird overlap with Superuser fielding "newbie" shell scripting questions and desktop app usage questions, not to mention all the BSD and shell related stuff that found a home on the Apple gig.
Caleb
I think the Ubuntu vs. U&L split makes even less sense today than it did when those sites first got rolled.
Jack Douglas
eg the ubuntu community is not really the same as U&L despite the topic being a strict subset
Jack Douglas
I imagine a vim site should include neovim though — the judgement call is whether it is mostly the same people or a hard fork of the community itself
Jack Douglas
there are already people who feel passionate about them
Jack Douglas
that's why vim and emacs work on SE
Jack Douglas
I think what matters most is not topic (even though that's how a site is defined), but pre-existing community
Caleb
SO is a behemoth and I agree that's probably my biggest gripe with it — my questions frequently get  lost there. But it's not hard to figure out how it got to be that way.
Caleb
iOS? But that's Swift right? So what about swift on MacOS? All Apple-y tech under one site? Isn't that going to get confused witht _user end_ questions? What about Swift for Linux servers?
Caleb
Or Android? Is that it's own thing? Or is it Java? Dare I mention Kotlin?
Caleb
What about toolkits? Should GTK get it's own site or does it get mixed in with Vala and C++ and Rust and Python and every other language it has bindings for?
Caleb
A site per language isn't as easy to define as it sounds at first. Should `fluent` get its own site, or should it go in `javascript` since that's what the reference implementation is in, or in `rust` because that's what most people want int production or `lua` because that's the implementation I wrote, or what?
Jack Douglas
…but it might
Jack Douglas
but I am not sure that means site-per-language
Jack Douglas
the glaring exception (to my mind) is SO — if we want to cover coding, I think we need a tighter scope than SO
Jack Douglas
overlap of topic has proved to be 'not always bad'
Jack Douglas
I think overall SE haven't done too badly on this
Jack Douglas
@Caleb this is an incredibly helpful question