A case for the Mathematica proposal
I find Robert Cartaino's answer highly unsatisfactory and epitomizes the typical "meh" responses that are doled out on Area 51. It's unfair to criticize proposals for languishing on Area 51, when the voting process was clunky to begin with. Mathematica was one of the proposals that went into commitment soon after the new ...
Yes, we should merge them all because we simply don't have the numbers to launch the sites individually and to infuse them with the numbers necessary to prevent them from getting closed down in the same way that Astronomy.SE and Economics.SE got closed down due to inactivity - bear in mind that there's also significantly more Economics and Astronomy activity ...
The main challenge is making it clear to those who stumble across this that this isn't a "math education" place where students and teachers gather to work out homework problems.
Be more direct in identifying your audience.
This site should be called:
Proposed Q&A site for those involved in the field of teaching mathematics.
AI as a subject isn't likely to attract a community you can build a site around because it is a broad term that's been applied to everything from creating synthetic beings to creating more-sophisticated algorithms that make computers better at what they do. Once you get past a few dozen questions about what is AI? and how we live with it, you're into the ...
SO? Programmers? You can't.
Unsurprisingly, my opinion hasn't changed since that Meta.SO post, because the state of existing sites hasn't changed significantly. Let's review them:
Stack Overflow: Theoretical questions linger unloved, even get closed (what, no code?). Questions get closed as non-constructive because they're about science and not technology. ...
This will just fragment the community.
Very correct, and this is an important consideration.
That said, people have many, many issues with BioStars. I’ve personally put my view into words on Reddit:
… the [BioStars] software really sucks compared to Stack Exchange. I really dislike using it. Busy layout, chaotic comments, all leading to incredibly hard ...
This answer is community wiki. Please add to it with additional sites to merge, or additional closed sites to ask for inbox-notification to previous followers.
I suggest merging the following sites into a new single proposal of Earth, Atmospheric, and Environmental Sciences (thanks to InquilineKea for the title)
Sites to merge:
I hypothesise that the proposal has been closed for the same reason that it was opened: non-Mathematica users just don't get it.
There have been many cases of Mathematica questions on SO that have attracted erroneous close votes from non-Mathematica users who think such questions belong on math.SE. There are many Mathematica issues that are not, strictly ...
For students, researchers and practitioners of computer science.
For Computer Science students, researchers and practitioners?
The word "academicians" is somewhat elitist and exclusionary, which I thought we were trying to avoid.
I suggested merging Geology and Paleontology but that didn't get anywhere.
If a Geoscience proposal goes ahead, then the Geology proposal should be combined with it.
There's interest in all of these proposals, just not quite enough to push each individual proposal forward.
My opinion is that we should leave it as "Analytics". We (OR/MS/IE people) do more than just prescriptive analytics -- for example, simulation is descriptive analytics, demand forecasting is predictive analytics, etc.
I also am taking a page from the INFORMS web site, which uses the phrase "Operations Research and Analytics" a number of times.
I do agree ...
Astronomy & Astrophysics has now been extended to clearly include observational astronomy, solar astronomy, planetary sciences, stellar astronomy, galactic & extragalactic astronomy, and cosmology. Hopefully this proposal will now be broad enough to capture the attention of people in any of the astronomical areas, without being too broad, and without ...
If it's a general question about said piece of software, then probably not - but if it relates to astronomy in some way and there's a good chance the expertise needed to answer it would be on this SE site, I think such questions are perfectly valid.
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 ...
The scope should is all area of CS at all levels. So yes your understanding of being a CS counterpart of Math.SE and Physics.SE is correct.
And no I don't think this proposal will damage cstheory, in fact it should even help it because there will be much less off-topic low level questions on cstheory, as they will be posted on the new CS.SE. Also, nobody is ...
I would propose this.
Anything that is pure science, especially on a large scale (IE, observational, beyond the solar system, etc), belongs to Astronomy.
Anything that is science on a small scale (Probes, observers, etc) could belong to either site. IE, understanding what is happening at the one specific point that the voyager probes are crossing the ...
I would encourage questions about mathematics pedagogy and teaching for all age groups (from toddlers to adults), all educational levels (pre-school to graduate), all settings (homeschool to traditional school), and even those with special needs (gifted, with disabilities, etc.).
I don't know if we will be able to attract participants interested in this ...
Viewing the top rated questions, and considering Academia is expressly open to questions about research in industry, government, etc. I'm inclined to agree - Open Science is a subset of the type of questions that are already accepted in Academia.SE, and I don't think either community will particularly benefit from splitting them off.
No, machine learning as far as implementation goes is not on topic for this site. We've had two previous failures in launching a site about AI (which already included machine learning) — and the resolution following those failures was to create a more-comprehensive site which included the development of AI, machine learning, statistical tools, big data,...
Update: And now I'm bringing good news! The site is up and running.
I'm the developer that launches new sites and unfortunately I come bearing some bad news.
The original date for the private beta launch got delayed due to a security incident that we had to resolve first.
The plan then was to launch this week, but we are hitting some issues with database ...
Mathematics Education is partly mathematics and partly education.
It seems that you consider Math Ed to be a subset of Mathematics, but I consider Math Ed to be a subset of Education.
If there was an Education Stack Exchange (containing a "mathematics" tag), I would understand someone who was against the creation of a Math Ed site. But, unfortunately, ...
IMHO they should.
They are already questions tagged open-access and open science, which are warmly welcomed.
Also, some of questions from Open Science may fit OpenData.SE.
I don't see a question that is a valid SE-question and does not fit any of above.
I think that an initialism might be the way to go here:
This has precedent at sites like dsp.stackexchange.com ("Digital Signal Processing"), gis.stackexchange.com (whatever "GIS" stands for...), ux.stackexchange.com ("User eXperience"), and ell.stackexchange.com ("English Language Learners"). In some of those cases (DSP, GIS, UX), ...
“Non-programming” isn't meant to be part of the site's title. Its presence is due to habits on Area 51, where computer science has a history of being misunderstood.
“Low-level” in the title would be ridiculous. The proposed site is about computer science at all levels. This is not a duplicate of Theoretical Computer Science Stack Exchange, which as its FAQ (...