7
$\begingroup$

The discussion in the previous post seems to have reached a saturation point, so I'm making this one to follow up on it.

Judging from the vote tally and ensued discussions, it doesn't seem like we should change the site URL. The votes are quite evenly split (7 vs 8 against changing it, at the time of writing), but I don't think this sort of change should happen without a clear consensus in one way or the other. However, it also appears, reading answers and comments, like there might be a consensus on leaving the URL, but changing the site name to something like Quantum computation and quantum information.

Because the distinction between changing URL and changing display name wasn't entirely clear from the phrasing on the other post, I'm making this one to make sure.

Should we change the site name (i.e. the name displayed in the top-left corner of the site) to "Quantum computation and quantum information"?

As always, please add comments/answers for any suggestion, alternative proposal, or other thought related to the matter. The more people voice their opinion, the easier assessing community consensus is.

$\endgroup$
16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1 for me, and thanks for help crystallizing the lumping and splitting (I was one of the dissenters in the previous question). "Quantum Information" by itself seems too closed and might turn away some as overly academic. Likewise "Quantum Computing" for some sounds too narrow and doesn't properly reflect the scope of the site. "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" together might strike the right balance. $\endgroup$
    – Mark S
    Aug 29 at 17:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've added the support tag since this name change won't even happen if the CMs don't allow it. What you're proposing is a long name, and Area51 proposals with such long names get shortened. "Operations Research and Analytics" was changed to "Operations Research" because "While the other options were more elaborate and detailed, the titles were too long for our design". $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 1:28
  • $\begingroup$ How about "Quantum computing and quantum information and quantum communication and quantum metrology and quantum annealing and quantum foundations and boson sampling" ? $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 1:52
  • $\begingroup$ Why did you revert that edit? It seems important for people to know what you're proposing to change the name to. $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkS Why would "quantum information" turn people away, and why does it matter that "quantum computing" might be too narrow? The Institute for Quantum Computing doesn't feel that way, and it's the biggest institute for quantum information on the planet. Furthermore, quantum information theorists are asked what field they work in, they say "quantum computing" far more often than "quantum information" or "quantum computation and quantum information". $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ @user1271772 mostly because the "a follow-up" bit didn't make much sense if the first part of the title was different than the previous iteration of the post. I just made it this way to give an idea of continuity $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Sep 2 at 22:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1271772 It appears that one can cast this debate as the difference between being "descriptive" lexicographers with Quantum Computing vs. "prescriptive" lexicographers with Quantum Information - the longer, double name proposed by gIS appears to strike a balance between the two. My position is that the term used by the public writ large, right or wrong, is Quantum Computing and not Quantum Information; Quantum Computing/tion should be in the name of the site, if only to help drive traffic from google searches. $\endgroup$
    – Mark S
    Sep 4 at 1:07
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkS I agree that the term used by the public is "Quantum Computing" and not "Quantum Information", as does the Institute for Quantum Computing and Singapore's Centre for Quantum Computation, and Cambridge Quantum Computing, and the company Quantum Computing Inc., etc. Why do we need to "strike a balance between the two"? It didn't seem like anyone had any qualms with the name of the site until recently, and it still seems to just be one person pushing that agenda, with some much more apathetic people chiming their opinions in, and in some cases agreeing to it with seeming ambivalence. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 1:25
  • $\begingroup$ @user1271772 we already went through this in the other post I feel, but you can pick and choose places that are called "Quantum computing XXX" or "Quantum information science XXX" to prove whatever point you'd like to make. Point is, the precise meaning of the terms is not set in stone, there is no centralised source prescribing what "QIS" or "QI" or "QC" should or shouldn't comprise, and people coming from different backgrounds/communities will understand it as meaning different things. $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Sep 4 at 7:54
  • $\begingroup$ @user1271772 That said, I might be the one actively asking people if a change is due, sure, but I really don't like your characterisation of everyone else as "apathetic people" following my "agenda" by inertia. I'm not forcing anything, I'm merely asking, and I don't see how I'm trying to "push" anything to anyone. How come people agreeing with the proposal are "apathetic", but you disagreeing aren't? $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Sep 4 at 7:56
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't say "apathetic" by itself, I said "much more apathetic than you". $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 8:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user1271772 fine. But just let me stress that I don't understand why you're so against asking people what is the best course of action. I don't "push" anything. Sure, I have an opinion, and I think one course of action is better than the other, but it's not like I'm getting money out of this, or have some sort of evil agenda. A legitimate answer to all of these proposals is leave everything as is. What's the harm in asking if others think a change is due? If the answer is no, great, discussion settled, we'll carry on as before. $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Sep 4 at 8:53
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not so against asking in general. In this case the consensus from the previous featured question, seemed to be not to change anything, but the follow-up question (also being featured) started to make it feel pushy (at least to me). The only answer supporting the name change, was from yourself. 3 answers were against it or erred on the side of neutrality (in addition to those 3, were commemters, and zero of them supported the name change, except for Aiden who's not been active). Now you made a follow-up post saying that the previous discussion only reached consensus on the domain. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 10:03
  • $\begingroup$ Correction: while Auden was the only one in favor of changing the name, they seemed to be in favor of "Quantum Information" or "Quantum information science", not the long one with "and" in it, suggested here. I might have voted for one of those (which is why I said in my answer to the previous post, that I'd be open to a name change if I can vote on some options ... But here there's only one option and my opinion is that it's too long). With Auden's suggestion, we'd have to start calling it QISE instead of QCSE, but that seems more easy of a change than QCQISE. $\endgroup$ Sep 4 at 10:20
  • $\begingroup$ @user1271772 that is not the case. I did not come up with the proposal of "QC&QI" myself. I didn't even think about it, as you can see from the proposed names I threw there, and I'm not that much of a fan of it (though I think it better of the current name). It came out in the comments of Mark S' answer there. And considering the vote tally here, it doesn't seem like I was misguided in my impression that there might be a consensus on that name $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Sep 4 at 11:49
10
$\begingroup$

Sure. "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" is a satisfactory name that perfectly captures the scope of the site and isn't as obscure or niche as "Quantum Information Science."

If you're deliberating between computing and computation in the title, have a look at “Computing” vs. “computation”. I believe computation is the more appropriate term in this context.

I second the idea of leaving the current URL undisturbed.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ +1 Also, I think the correct capitalization is "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" (as in this answer) and not "Quantum computation and quantum information" (as in the question). This is based on the assumption that N&C would capitalize their book title correctly ;-) $\endgroup$ Aug 28 at 20:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AdamZalcman the title with more than one capital letter wouldn't have been accepted on arXiv, haha! $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 1:46
0
$\begingroup$

Should we change the site name to "Quantum computation and quantum information"?

That's 13 syllables and "Operations Research and Analytics" was changed to "Operations Research" which was only 11 syllables, because "While the other options were more elaborate and detailed, the titles were too long for our design".

In terms of characters, the proposal you've made here is significantly longer than a site name that has already been rejected in the past:

Quantum computation and quantum information
Operations Research and Analytics

Also, even if we remove the second (arguably redundant) "quantum" we get:

Quantum computation and information

which is still longer. To change a site name more than 3 years into Public Beta (and to something so long!) would need strong justification, and I don't see it here (yet).

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ isn't the character count more important than the number of syllables? But it being too long is a legitimate concern, I agree. I don't quite see the rationale about the number of years the site has been in public beta. Why does that imply the name shouldn't change? Regarding the justification, it is simply that the current title doesn't reflect the scope of the site. Are you disagreeing with this, or saying that this isn't a strong enough justification? $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Sep 1 at 10:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (1) You're probably right about character count being more important, because when Robert Cartaino said that "Operations Research and Analytics" was too long, he said it was "too long for our design" which probably means that the character counts are too long, especially considering that more and more people are using SE from their smartphone screen. However, the character count in your proposal is even worse in comparison. If you look at the history of name length policies on A51, you'll see that SE staff have talked about syllables too, in the past. $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ (2) Site names changes are less likely to be approved, the longer the site has been live. This is also something I learned from my thousands of hours spent on A51 and in trying to set up a new site recently. (3) I agree that the site is about more than just computation, but that's not enough to justify changing the name. "Quantum computation and information" doesn't fully capture the score either (what about boson sampling, quantum foundations, mathematics of quantum theory, quantum communication, etc.). Maybe "Quantum Information" could work since we can argue that computation falls under it. $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ Long site titles are rare, but not impossible. Consider "code golf & coding challenges". The main name of the site is "code golf" in many fields, but it's official name, as well as the name on the banner is the full name. I think a similar treatment of "Quantum computation & quantum information" is at least technically feasible, regardless of whether it is desirable. $\endgroup$ Sep 12 at 7:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DiscteteLizard "quantum computation and quantum information" looks in your comment like it takes 150% the space that "code golf & coding challenges" does (there's a post saying that the symbol "&" won't be used anymore). Also "Operations Research and Analytics" was already changed to "Operations Research" because the longer version was "too long for the SE design". $\endgroup$ Sep 12 at 12:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Discretelizard CGCC's name is also a good example of changing the name on graduation after a long time in beta - it was known as "Programming Puzzles & Code Golf" before for a very long time. $\endgroup$ Sep 24 at 9:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In other words, it was too long before. $\endgroup$ Sep 25 at 1:02
0
$\begingroup$

If the name must really be change to include more things, while not being overtly long, I would go with "Quantum Informatics" - I have seen this term being used as an umbrella for things like computer science, information science, quantum mechanics, all in relation to quantum computing. I am struggling with finding this as a formal definition, though.

As an aside, I am not sure a longer name is necessarily an issue - the Code Golf SE graduated as "Code Golf & Code Challenges", with "Code Challenges" stylised as a subtitle. Perhaps the "Quantum Information" bit can become such a subtitle with the site name being quantumcomputing anyway.

New contributor
htmlcoderexe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "quantum informatics" is not really standard terminology in academic papers on the subject $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Sep 24 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ I tried googling and a few papers and other stuff came up, but am not sure how mainstream it is, example here: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/128/1/012103 Regarding my second point, should that maybe be on a separate answer? $\endgroup$ Sep 24 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ up to you really. I agree that they (quantum informatics title and length of name) are two separate topics of discussion though. $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    2 days ago

You must log in to answer this question.

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