Maybe some voice from outside... IMO there exist a not so well visible but still solid border between Computer Science and something that I call Computational Science.

The first is mostly a part of mathematics dealing with algorithms, data structures, complexities, languages and stuff. This is what mostly happens here.

The second is an interdisciplinary movement of people using computer computations to make science; this group is rather united by common practical problems and methods than a common interest. Those are people that make all kinds of simulations, like computational physicists, computational chemists, computational biologists, computational sociologists, ..., meteorologists, economists, visual/physical effect makers, various kinds of engineers; people processing data, like various data scientists, bioinformaticians, chemoinformaticians, again economists, machine teachers, text miners, image and sound wizards and the rest of data-AI; finally all soft computing, robotics and steering theory debris.

There is some overlap between the two, mostly in areas of numerics, BLAS and some "golden" algorithms like Smith-Waterman (C-nal Scientists spent thousands of CPU hours in such so they would use any fast working black-box C-ter Scientists would gave them). Outside this C-nal Scientist don't care much about theoretical aspects of their algorithms. Also most C-ter Scientist don't care much about practical aspects of their work -- and that's why I think those two topics won't blend well.

Summing up, I second with integrating C-nal Science on Area, but rather in a new proposal than this site; see my Area51 discuss question about it.

Maybe some voice from outside... IMO there exist a not so well visible but still solid border between Computer Science and something that I call Computational Science.

The first is mostly a part of mathematics dealing with algorithms, data structures, complexities, languages and stuff. This is what mostly happens here.

The second is an interdisciplinary movement of people using computer computations to make science; this group is rather united by common practical problems and methods than a common interest. Those are people that make all kinds of simulations, like computational physicists, computational chemists, computational biologists, computational sociologists, ..., meteorologists, economists, visual/physical effect makers, various kinds of engineers; people processing data, like various data scientists, bioinformaticians, chemoinformaticians, again economists, machine teachers, text miners, image and sound wizards and the rest of data-AI; finally all soft computing, robotics and steering theory debris.

There is some overlap between the two, mostly in areas of numerics, BLAS and some "golden" algorithms like Smith-Waterman (C-nal Scientists spent thousands of CPU hours in such so they would use any fast working black-box C-ter Scientists would gave them). Outside this C-nal Scientist don't care much about theoretical aspects of their algorithms. Also most C-ter Scientist don't care much about practical aspects of their work -- and that's why I think those two topics won't blend well.

Summing up, I second with integrating C-nal Science on Area, but rather in a new proposal than this site; see my Area51 discuss question about it.