22

I would prefer to err on the side of inclusiveness, so yes. And the two communities really should be talking to each other more than they do.


20

The asterisk indicates that a proposal has NOT yet met the Minimum Activity Requirements for Area 51. The asterisk (*) was originally visible to employees only so I could see which proposals were still in the submission process before I spent too much time vetting their content. I found it really useful, so I suggested making that information public to ...


17

I would say no, it wouldn't be a good name. This is supposed to be a site for language learners, and the name reflects that. "Language Overflow" is much more vague - it could be a name of a site for professional linguists, or for people whose hobby is to learn about languages. Here are some more arguments: https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5220/147300 ...


17

Yes Even if you put all the different branches together, formal methods is a rather niche field, and I don't think there would be so much success having separate sites for ATPs and ITPs. At the same time there is much to be gained by having a shared user base, since the combination of computer science and mathematics knowledge you need in ITPs is also useful ...


16

Proposed site name: Operations Research


16

Full name: Moderators Common shortcut: Mods Domain: moderators.SE


16

When a proposal nears the end of its Definition, it undergoes a final review by the Community Team to see if and how it fits with the rest of the network. During the final review, any discussions and surrounding activities are considered, and the title and description are finalized in preparation for launch at 100% Commitment. Yes, this site is slated to ...


15

I believe that the term "Open Source" is the one most accessible to a general audience. People like Richard Stallman make good points about why the term "free software" might be better, but unfortunately the semantics of the term did not enter the general language use. When you use the term "free software", most people still think of free as in beer, not ...


14

I don't believe so. The original change came about from a potential branding collision with another Stack Exchange product — but upon further reflection and discussion, it was decided that "Technical Communication" better captured the broader expert/professional/academic audience for which this site is targeted. "Technical Communication" is a well ...


13

Personally, I think that "Graphics Layer Architecture" sounds broader than computer graphics. But, it probably isn't that good for getting search engine results. I suggest going back to or "Computer Graphics Programming." Even though the scope of a question might not always be about computer graphics (gpgpu, for example). "Computer Graphics Programming" is ...


9

Probably should depend on if we welcome other vi clones. If we welcome nvi, elvis, levee, etc., then those aren't vim. But they're all descendants (spiritually at least) of vi. Existing example: the vast majority of questions on Unix & Linux (unix.se) are about Linux, but it uses the more generic term as its URL. [Ok, in reality, not that important. As ...


8

Edit: Already implemented this change: Documentation: Proposed Q&A site for information developers, technical communicators, writers, programmers, engineers, and others interested or engaged in documentation. Edit2 (site name changed from "Documentation" to "Technical Communication"): Since the name of the site has changed, there have been a ...


7

Total disagreement TL;DR: Literature and books are two very different things. We should not use the most popular medium of literature as title. All the example questions are about literature. Books.SE could very conceivably contain questions about the binding that keeps a book together or the material of book covers or the efficiency of types of printing ...


7

Proposed site name: Operations Research & Optimization A (lengthy) variant could be: Operations Research: Mathematical Modeling, Optimization and Decision-Making The URL and community shorthand could then just be OR.


6

Full name: Community Building, Common shortcut: Community Domain: community.SE


6

Technical Communication is much more than documentation. Changing the name to documentation will reduce the scope drastically.


6

I would not like to see the Latin Language StackExchange co-opted into a Classics StackExchange. As much as I'd like to see a Classics StackExchange succeed, many of us, including me, have a backlog of hard questions about medieval, renaissance, and even contemporary Latin, and the Latin Language StackExchange promises to be the best place on the Internet to ...


6

Computer Graphics Programming seems to unnecessarily restrict the domain of the site to purely-programatic topics. A resource for computer graphics would seem woefully incomplete if if did not also provide resources aimed at the art and production side of computer graphics. While I could see the desire to target this at the (small subset of) people who are ...


5

In the link you provided, @shotgun-ninja and @blue seemed to be looking for a place providing low-level information, and suggested to use the term "Architecture". I am looking for a place where you can discuss the implementation details of Visual Effects generated by Computer. If this is within the scope of this site, then I think its name should suggest ...


5

I am smelling more vagueness because, Writers Stack Exchange community are willing to change their site name from 'Writers' to 'Writing'. They already claims this: We're about the product and the processes to get there, not personal identity. We want novels, poets, and essayists, and we also want scientists (who write papers), marketers (who write, e.g., ...


5

Custom-branded site names (like "Cross Validated", "Ask Different", "Seasoned Advice") were from a time when communities would discuss what their up-and-coming site would be called and (theoretically) the best option would be selected. Unfortunately, crowd-sourced naming discussions often became highly toxic and divisive to the community, so after a lot of ...


5

I see your point, and understand your concern. Somehow, this reminds me of the Programmers vs Software Engineering dilemma. While It's true that many of the example questions posted so far are focused on documentation, this highly voted question is a good exception. I do think that the site description needs some modifications to make the scope more ...


4

Documentation is the best of all the not-quite-right options. I like "Tech Writing," personally, because I think of myself as a "Technical Writer," not a "Documentation Writer" (or "Documentarian" - yikes). But lots of technical communication is not primarily written. There are two problems I see with "Technical Communication": There is a professional ...


4

Stack Exchange doesn't go in for generalized sites. Proposals are built around specific, focused areas, and any proposal that's created for general stuff like this will just get closed as not a viable proposal.


4

I'm a very basic Latin "beginner" but even so I'm already seeing that Classical Latin language and literature are inextricably interwoven with Ancient Greek (my next learning project lol). I would like to see both on topic, personally. As an example, I have been involved both on HistorySE and WordReference as to the usage of domine or ere as the common term ...


4

Proposed site name: Operations Research and Analytics


4

While I won't argue that theorem provers should be completely off topic for this site, I think naming the site provers would really distract from the purpose of the site, namely proof assistants. I should emphazise that the term prover commonly refers to a automated theorem provers, and not proof assistants. This could also be confusing because a prover also ...


3

I agree it should be vim. Any vi question will be just as relevant to vim, but the reverse is not true.


3

NOTE: At the time I'm writing this answer, the site description is currently: Proposed Q&A site for information developers, technical writers, programmers, and engineers engaged in documentation. As an outgrowth of discussion in the comment thread here, I propose to revise it to something like (additions emphasized, deletions struck out): Proposed ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible