When I first found out about Bitcoin, I was struck by a quote to the effect that "money is merely the first application of Bitcoin". The block-chain concept can do far more. There are more areas that can benefit from de-centralised, trust-free consensus. I had hoped Bitcoin would evolve to address them.

It hasn't. It won't. The Bitcoin community are too conservative, and its development has become moribund. Hence the torch passes to new coins that are designed with a more flexible architecture to address more areas.

I'm not a lover of Ethereum. A look at my signature will give you a clue where my interests lie. Both the 2.0 coins in it have developed lots.

I used to think that, too. They could be, but they won't be. Bitcoin will never adopt Proof of Stake, for example: I'll probably get mocked here for even suggesting it. If I were to write a Bitcoin node that supported multiple transaction types, nobody but me would run it. It'd be stuck on a lonely fork. In practice, only the core Bitcoin devs can make changes like that, and they aren't interested. They've not even fixed transaction mutability, despite it being a known problem (with known fixes) for months, if not years. All the interesting work with Bitcoin is being done on top of it, with wallets and the like, not with changes to the core.

No, this thread belongs to Meta, as I've already reported before my first post here. It's about where to put Bitcoin 2.0 discussion threads. But after a lot of off-topic replies (thread was in Bitcoin Discussion board at that time, I don't blame anybody) it turned to general Bitcoin 2.0 discussion thread. When you look at the OP, it's discussion about the Bitcoin Forum, fits Meta perfect.

You don't need to say what I should do.
We are equal here.

Why not call them what they are:  enhancements and extentions to Bitcoin.

I like "bolt ons"

If you must have a snazy maketing term then possibly "Next Gen" , "G2", etc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=752221.msg8500197#msg8500197

Just not "Bitcoin 2.0" since that indicates the next version of the actual Bitcoin protocol - and has been stated many times in this thread we have not even released "Bitcoin 1.0" yet, we are still in the beta phase at "Bitcion 0.9"

Earlier I suggested "second generation".

To me that suggests they are based on the Bitcoin source code. Most of them aren't. If they aren't, then they shouldn't mention Bitcoin at all, in my view. I tend to call them "coins" or "crypto-currencies". Most of them include something like a currency even if they aren't focussed on being money.