Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on Suggestion about the community name

Post

Suggestion about the community name

+3
−4

I suggest alteration of the name from "Scientific Speculation" to a more appropriate "World, Speculation".

Why?
Most questions they seek to answer are somewhat based on science, but rarely take science into account. It's more similar to Pseudo-Science Speculation, because it usually ignores most of what we know as real Science, maybe not ignore but pick and choose. Because of that, we can't create a Science Community, for example, because I think it would cause general confusion about why there are 2 science communities, particularly with newcomers. I think something that alludes to “World Building” or “Fictitious World Building”, as long as it makes the 3 points clear that:

  • It's about world building for a story.
  • It's a fictional world that may not obey any real rules.
  • If the objective is to get concrete proof of something, the question most likely belongs in some other community. For example, "I want to know exactly the speed of a bullet that's propelled by 15 grams of powder, through its path/arc", should be asked in Physics, not World Building. While “Could / How would cavemen plausibly build weapons with gunpowder?” would (possibly) be a good question.

I know there are wikis for the communities but from experience people don't typically read them before using the website, so I think the name should be more explicit or convey the content more accurately.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

Why the downvote ? (7 comments)
No opinion on the name of this community, but I don't think that having a site called "Scientific Spe... (2 comments)
Why the downvote ?
Or4ng3h4t‭ wrote 8 months ago

Once again, I'm seeing people downvote and not leave a comment or saying anything good or bad, or what they think is wrong.Downvote my Question but by all means, please write why so i can improve it

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote 8 months ago

Why the downvote ? Most likely because people disagree with your proposal.

Or4ng3h4t‭ wrote 8 months ago

That's not what downvotes are for, or should be used, they're purpose is to make good question show up, and poorly written ones be difficult to find, nothing to do with opinion, besides what proposal is there to disagree ? It needs a name change, World Building has little to do with science, for the simple facts we cannot build worlds, have never built a planet, and that science doesn't support FTL.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote 8 months ago

"That's not what downvotes are for" they are on meta. Here votes indicate agreement or disagreement, although I suppose downvotes for poorly written posts wouldn't be out of line.

"what proposal is there to disagree ? It needs a name change" In your opinion. It seems at least some others disagree.

trichoplax‭ wrote 8 months ago

Downvotes are anonymous by design and do not require a comment. If you think this should be changed, you could discuss this on Codidact Meta. There has been a General discussion on making votes public, and you could post a new question about requiring comments for downvotes if you wish.

Personally I am in favour of anonymous downvotes. It means people who do not wish to comment (or do not have time) can downvote to bring attention to the post, and then other people can comment with what they think could be improved.

Or4ng3h4t‭ wrote 8 months ago

I don't think downvotes get attention for anything, exactly the opposite they take attention away, because they are supposed to filter bad questions not questions people disagree with

trichoplax‭ wrote 8 months ago

They will have different effects for different people at different times:

  • When someone is looking for a question that is ready to answer they can filter out downvoted questions.
  • When someone is looking to help improve questions they can filter to show only downvoted questions.