7

Proposal: Materials Modeling

This is partly copied from when this same thing was asked for what is now the Operations Research Stack Exchange.

Within the pre-existing community (the one that existed before this proposal was made here) we have discussed titles which may be better for the site. Some SE sites have more catchy names which can be more fun and perhaps less dull:

https://stats.stackexchange.com/ is called "Cross Validated" instead of Statistics.
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/ is called "Seasoned Advice" instead of Cooking.
https://apple.stackexchange.com/ is called "Ask Different" instead of Apple.

These catchy names are fun, memorable, and may even help get more people curious to support or join the site.

  1. Each answer below should contain a proposed site name only (and possibly a logo).
  2. Use the comments below each answer for discussion about the names.
  3. Up-vote the (one) name that you prefer.

It would be appreciated if everyone who votes writes a comment!

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
6

Proposed site name: Materials Modeling

1
  • 2
    This is not my original idea but the idea of @NikeDattani who created the proposal with this name. It might be less catchy. But I like this name as it is unambiguous on what the site is about.
    – rashid
    Mar 30, 2020 at 5:05
4

Proposed site name: Modelling Matters

8
  • 1
    This suggestion covers both molecular and materials modelling, as they're all modelling matter. It's not as clear as molecular/material modelling, neither are "ask different" or "seasoned advice" without the context of the site. As soon as you're there the name makes sense. I think it makes you stop and think what the site is about.
    – tmgriffiths
    Apr 5, 2020 at 15:15
  • 2
    I also like the double meaning. Our modelling is important, as well as that this site is about modelling matter (materials, molecules, proteins, etc)
    – tmgriffiths
    Apr 5, 2020 at 15:16
  • 2
    Also an option, Modelling Matter, the singular. I think "matters" is better though.
    – tmgriffiths
    Apr 5, 2020 at 15:19
  • 1
    Just thought of a third meaning: modelling matters, as in issues to do with modelling
    – tmgriffiths
    Apr 5, 2020 at 15:22
  • 1
    +1. I like it! I love double meanings. One worry might be that the SciComp (Scientific Computing) Stack Exchange might feel threatened that we're trying to take over all "modeling" questions, but if we make it clear enough that we are here to "model matter" not just "model" anything, we should be okay. Our url can still be mmm.stackexchange (mmm = molecular and materials modeling). Thank you so much for this great answer! However our site will not be launched if we do not get 25 more people with 200 rep before 18 April, so please spread the word !!!
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 5, 2020 at 16:30
  • Nice proposal. I think "matters" sounds better also. +1
    – Verktaj
    Apr 5, 2020 at 21:33
  • @Verktaj: Thanks again for your input. Remember though, that if we do not get 23 more committers with 200+ points on a different SE site, within 12 days (there is a 4 month limit for commitment phase and we started on 18 December), then there will be no "Modeling Matters" stack exchange in the first place. So please help by asking anyone you know that might have have 200 points to consider committing, perhaps even spread the word on a mailing list at your institution, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 6, 2020 at 18:56
  • I have referred 124 people already, and brought in a total rep of 720,000: area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/… so the 124 people I know that might be helpful, are already committed and unfortunately I've tapped into all of my resources. I am therefore now relying on your help here.
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 6, 2020 at 18:57
4

It should be noted that we do not hold open discussion about the names of upcoming sites. While some of our very old sites did start with customized names, we discontinued that option many years ago. It then became an option only available upon graduation, and nowadays sites are only renamed when they've achieved great success and we want to give them a better brand identity.

For example, Cooking actually was just called Cooking when it first launched. It was renamed to Seasoned Advice as part of the redesign that occurred when it left beta.

Spending time thinking up a custom name for the site is not a valuable use of your time at this point. The name must reflect the topic of the site in a succinct yet descriptive way. Unless there are pressing reasons related to scope confusion to not just use Materials Modeling as the site name, that is the name the site will be given if and when it launches to private beta.

If there are pressing reasons that the site name is too specific, vague, or needs to be more inclusive of a broader subject, that is a more important discussion to be having right now. The site name is important in quickly portraying what kinds of questions are on-topic there and we don't want to use something that doesn't accurately reflect the full scope.

However, fancy names like "Schrödinger & Kohn" are plainly out of the question. The process just doesn't work that way anymore. There is no discussion to be had about it and no amount of voting is going to change that.

I encourage you to focus your efforts on actually getting people to commit to the site. This particular proposal only has a couple weeks before it will hit the 4-month mark and be auto-closed. Getting your proposal to the 100% mark should be your primary and only focus right now.

8
  • "It should be noted that we do not hold open discussion about the names of upcoming sites" -> The discussion we were having here was had in the most recent proposal that went into beta, here is that discussion: area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28663/…
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 6, 2020 at 20:31
  • 1
    @NikeDattani While they had that discussion, it would not have made any difference and was not a discussion that mattered to the proposal in any way. As I said, we don't do custom names. We only customize the title to better reflect the scope.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Apr 6, 2020 at 20:33
  • I understand better now. Let's scrap the idea of "Schrödinger & Kohn" although I do very much love the name "Modeling Matters" (or "Modeling of Matter" or "Matter Modeling"). Materials Modeling is also fine, but "Matter Modeling" would include all materials plus also "material fragments" and "clusters" and things that are often used to comprise the final material. After making the proposal in August, some of the Example Questions with 10 upvotes during Definition stage, involved these. The experts and audience for "materials" and for "matter" in general, are often the same people.
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 20, 2020 at 18:37
  • I also understand if this comment comes too late and all of this has already been decided. Your answer said that our only focus should be to first get the required number of committers, so we focused on that quite heavily in the last 2 weeks. I think Matter is better since it comprises all materials without leaving some of the other topics out, but if it is too late to switch "materials" to "matter", that is okay too!
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 20, 2020 at 18:42
  • @NikeDattani Site names are generally decided at the beginning of the commitment process after the proposal goes through a formal evaluation, and the site is scheduled to go live as "Materials Modeling" next Tuesday. If there is any reason that should be changed, it's best to hold a Meta discussion so everyone can point out specific objections. Limiting answers to the name only is not a useful way to vet names, as it forces the useful information into comments that can end up collapsed.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Apr 20, 2020 at 18:45
  • @animson . Nice to hear from you! I'm excited about this :) I was considering to ask something like "Materials Modeling" or "Modeling or Matter"? But since you are suggesting not to limit answers that way, is there a better way you might recommend?
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 20, 2020 at 18:48
  • Perhaps something like: "Does anyone have objections to the name 'Materials' ?", so I am not suggesting the word "Matter" at all, and if an overwhelming number of people come to that themselves then so be it, and likewise if most people prefer to stick with Materials (it got 6 upvotes in this question anyway)? Someone might also suggest something even better... the idea of "Matter" only came up on April 5th when tmgriffiths suggested it here, I unfortunately hadn't thought of it myself.
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 20, 2020 at 19:03
  • Okay maybe you meant that this Meta discussion was a bit of a poor choice, because the question said "reply with only a suggested title and nothing else" which meant that people could not "discuss" anything except in the comments. I apologize for this, as I had just tried to do what the OR proposal did.
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 21, 2020 at 0:22
2

Proposed site name: Schrödinger & Kohn

6
  • The logo was just a very rough draft, using a software from 20+ years ago because I don't know how to use any image making software! This is why the "e" in Schrödinger is not perfect, but all these things can be improved with better image making software. In my mind I visualized Schrödinger and Kohn more like looking at each other, but this is how it turned out during my first attempt.
    – Nike Dattani
    Mar 30, 2020 at 3:16
  • 1
    I do like this idea and it is a catchy name. But just to point out some possible issues. a) This name identifies with the major developers of quantum mechanics and DFT. So there might be less attraction from people working in topics like classical simulations and higher order methods other than DFT. b) I think it is less clear on what the site is about. Of course, those who know Kohn might understand. But it might not be obvious to many people who does materials simulations.
    – rashid
    Mar 30, 2020 at 5:04
  • Yes, as we discussed privately yesterday, there is the issue that it doesn't include some topics like MD.
    – Nike Dattani
    Mar 30, 2020 at 5:06
  • Yeah. I have put the original name as an answer just as an alternative.
    – rashid
    Mar 30, 2020 at 5:08
  • I think this name could be problematic, as it could be associated with large software package in this space. As a community, we probably want to portray a wider range of topics, rather than just being a Q and A service for one particular package. In the interest of providing net positive feedback, I'll try to think of a name and post it for consideration. It's just going to take some thought.
    – tmgriffiths
    Apr 3, 2020 at 0:02
  • @tmgriffiths: I very much appreciate you offering to try to think of another name, and I very much like the "net positive feedback" idea. I do not at all see why the name would be problematic due to anything software package related. These are just the names of the "founders" of quantum modeling. We could do "Wavefunctions & Density Functionals" but I'm already worried that Schroedinger & Kohn might be considered too long (after reading Cartaino's post on lengths of site names) and it would also not have the same ring to it! Schroedinger & Kohn are also 2 of my favorite humans of all time :)
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 3, 2020 at 2:15
1

Proposed site name: Molecular Modeling

7
  • following the rules taken from the voting for previous Area51 site proposals "Each answer below should contain a proposed site name only (and possibly a logo)" can you please change this answer to "Proposed site name: Molecular Modeling" and leave the rest for a comment?
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 2, 2020 at 1:35
  • 3
    I think the original name works fine and it's not confusing like some of the listed in the post. Considering the potential contents of the site, its name should be broader than "materials". I mean, if people come to the site for asking a question about finite systems (molecules, clusters, etc), the name "materials" could be misleading, at least for non-experts. I don't have a good imagination for names, but my proposal would be Molecular Modeling, in a way that embraces ab initio periodic and finite calculations, molecular dynamics and molecular mechanics.
    – Verktaj
    Apr 2, 2020 at 1:37
  • Ouch. Sorry to see the downvote. It wasn't me! Maybe the problem with "molecular" or "materials" is that "materials" may be seen as excluding molecules and "molecular" may be seen as excluding "materials". This was why I suggested "Schrödinger & Kohn" which covers all quantum modeling of "bonding". Your comment says it is "confusing" but would you say "Cross Validated" is confusing for the stats.stackexchange? or "Ask Different" is confusing for the apple.stackexchange? or "Seasoned Advice" is confusing for the cooking.stackexchange? Our URL could still be mmm.stackexchange (mmm = "molecular
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 2, 2020 at 20:49
  • and materials modeling" but the logo and "fancy" name could be something like "Schrödinger & Kohn".
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 2, 2020 at 20:50
  • @NikeDattani My comment is more about "Cross Validated". In my case, I'm not very involved in statistics and the first time I entered that site (from Google), I saw the title and didn't understand what the site is about. Looking the top voted questions and answers I figured out. Respecting what you said, I know that "molecular" can be excluding to some extent, and maybe some references to ab initio theories or DFT could be broader.
    – Verktaj
    Apr 2, 2020 at 20:57
  • @NikeDattani Also, your proposal is very broad in that sense, but I don't personally agree with using people's names.
    – Verktaj
    Apr 2, 2020 at 21:00
  • honestly I also felt very strange about "Cross Validated" and "Seasoned Advice" at first. I think "Schrödinger & Kohn" is less confusing than "Cross Validated" because everyone associates Kohn with DFT and Schrödinger with the Schrödinger equation. I do not think "Schrödinger & Kohn" is perfect, and I'm hoping someone is creative enough to come up with something better! I do think that "materials" excludes finite systems (clusters, molecules, etc.) and "molecules" excludes clusters and materials, so that's why I like "Schrödinger & Kohn" more. They're also 2 of my favorite humans :)
    – Nike Dattani
    Apr 2, 2020 at 21:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .