If it doesn't support SVN or Mercurial I don't see a need to try and be abstract. At a minimum it needs to use the word Git because that page is inscrutable.
Great! Now let's see if someone really cares enough to make a pull request or whether these complaints are just superficial to have something to complain about.
"Forgejo hosts source code repositories, lets you track and manage issues (and review code changes), and provides all the integrations you'd expect with CI/CD and similar tooling."
This seems to be a good tagline for a HN audience that kinda clicks a link blind and wants to figure out what it is quickly and move on.
But it’s unclear to me why the Forgejo website should care about this type of visitor? Being a “forge” is likely well understood by anyone that is interested in installing this type of software (or they will figure it out because of the context that linked them to the page). None of the features you mention is a good discriminator, as essentially all forges have these features in one form or another, so an interested use will have to look at the details anyway. Being: “self-hosted, lightweight, easy to maintain” those are very important quick discriminators if you are looking at this type of software.
I don't see why it's so critical to not mention Github. That would instantly convey what it is to basically everyone, and it doesn't mean it doesn't have its own identity or anything.
"A platform to host your git repositories including collaboration features like issues, discussions, and a projects page to track important parts of your code base. All able to run on your server local and private."
