This is a continuation of a side conversation which emerged from this topic, following @anton comment:
What a wonderful name, literally. It’s always better to be one thing instead of two, so people do not get confused. I’m curious about how this will look. As for ‘Relation 2.0’, this makes me even more excited.
Regarding the list that has been provided, everything is on point. but, I’m hoping the rest, specifically Numbers 6, will be included in the plan.
Edited: I’m curious if the items in the provided list will be implemented in 2024?
As a German “Kraut” I can’t understand why English terms are always so multifaceted instead of unique?
“Lists” can have all kinds of meanings, one could mix it up with other meanings and we’ll have lots of misunderstandings.
Why not choose an explicit name for the new Object with no second, third, fourth … meaning?
What about these examples:
- Multiview
- Presentator
- Objectlist
- Collector
In my understanding as a non native English speaker, the difference between a “Collection” and a “Collector” is this:
A Collection is something static. It is, as it is. One can change it, but it doesn’t make anything on it’s own.
A “Collector” on the other hand, is a mystical somewhat which does something on it’s own. It can collect things on it’s own (like a Set does).
So, in my opinion, “Collector” would be a nice and exclusive name.
It represents the combination of Set and Collection, as well as the new Object’s function, in one even shorter word.
Yes, I think before June. Can tell more certain in two weeks.
Our logic here is to find as simple metaphor as possible
“Collector” is short. It’s even one character shorter then Collection.
Please don’t try to make the metaphor shorter than this at all costs.
Short is good, yes. But a precise meaning is more worth.
Best is always the combination from both: short an precise.
“Collector” fulfills that perfectly, in my opinion.
“List” has the disadvantage, that also the list of Tags is a list, for example.
In the Library we have the list of Types and the list of Relations.
Even in the Views of Sets and Collections we have a so named “List” View (beside Grid and Kanban and so on).
I foresee many confusions for new users and a lot of misunderstandings in the forum if you name it so.
Please rethink the idea!
Hey @anton
I have a new idea for the name of the combined Collectin/Set-thing:
- Lister
This is really short!
And it is much more on the point, what it’s purpose is.
- What does a “Lister” do?
→ it makes lists! (of Objects)
The combined thing should be called “Lister” - it shouldn’t be called “List”, because it itsn’t a list.
(A drummer is not a drum! And a “driver” is not a drive!)
A Lister makes or presents us lists.
It makes lists of Objects.
(Partly on it’s own, like a Set, but partly based on the Objects we gave it, like we always did with Collections).
.
The two characters more makes the big difference in clearness!
“Lister” cannot be confused with other things which are really lists (list of Tags, or list of Relations in the Library etc.).
It is precise on the point what the new combined thing does.
.
Please let these lines soak in, and consider this input carefully!
I’m sure that my thoughts make perfect sense, although my English is not the best.
I’m not sure, buddy, but ‘Collector’ or ‘Lister’ just feels odd. I could agree that ‘list’ might not be the best name, even though I feel that’s not the case. But you free to provide better suggestions.
Thanks for your thoughts, @GrayArc
I think it is good that it feels a bit odd!
It is a “suitcase word”, or a “made-up word” (don’t know how to say it in English the right way).
It is the name of a previously non-existent thing.
– Somehow not real, that’s why no one can’t mix it up with existing things.
But It is a “talking name”; everybody understands on the first glance what it stands for.
The ending “er” implicates that the thing does something.
Drummer
Driver
Dancer
Mixer
Swimmer
Singer
Lister
A “Lister” does something.
What does it? → It lists somewhat.
It’s not a static thing as a “List” is. No, it makes lists.
That’s what the new combined Object does; no one would expect anything else from an Object called “Lister”.
Your previous suggestion Collector it was better in my opinion, but I can feel it will be better suggestion later even so I feel it’s not necessary.
I also like Collector a tiny bit more then Lister, but both are absolutely OK in my opinion.
“Lister” is a bit shorter, so I think Anton and the rest of the team can accept it without arguing about the length.
But Anton’s suggestion “List” is in my perception totally wrong and misleading.
The combined thing is not a list, what’s why “List” would be a wrong name.
And it is also misleading because the word is already occupied by … all kinds of real lists.
.
Translations
What the team also should consider is the problematic with translations.
The German language often forces one to be very specific. But “List” is not a specific word which stands exclusively for the new combined Object; so what should a translator do with it?
“Collector” or “Lister” is a name. No reason to translate it, because it is simply a name, exclusively reserved for this new Object.
But the name is a talking name, everyone understands it; also a German or any European guy will not scratch his head but directly get it, what it makes.
Search box
If we search in the forum for “List” we already get a huge(!) amount of results!
This would affect also bug reports and FR’s, where we users are supposed to search for related posts, before writing a new one.
So it wouldn’t be any helpful for a new user to search for it. 
But a search for “Lister” or “Collector” would bring only relevant results.
– This is the benefit of choosing always completely specific names!
It was never a very good choice to name Objects 'Collection" or “Set”. But we could live with it, because there was nearly no overlapping with other things in the forum.
But “List” has already a lot of overlapping, as the search box proves.
– Dear team, please don’t choose such an unspecific word as a name!
This is really cool. And “list” is a great name: simple, comprehensive, and most importantly easy to understand for people who aren’t technical.
@raph with all respect, but I don’t believe it … :-/
I thought I have my points so well explained that there would be no reason for spending further words anymore.
Do you really not foresee the MASSIVE problems we will get with the search in the forum if the Object’s name is “List”?
In contrast, we will have absolutely no problem at all if the Object’s name gets two characters more: “Lister”.
What speaks against “Lister”?
Maybe it’s because of my weak English, but I can’t see any reason against it, but for the two characters shorter name I see a lot disadvantages.
I have to respect the native English speakers preferences, also you are a valued user here.
So please don’t take it as bickering that I don’t let it go. I simply want to understand it.
Please explain me why you seemingly prefer a choice which is (in my opinion) a clear and already well explained mistake, which foreseeable leads to problems with the search and will cause a lot misunderstandings, as well as problems with translations in other languages.
Lister sounds more like a mouthwash.
Not that I like “Lists” either.
I also don’t understand why the obvious, conventional “Database” is being avoided.
But if a new name is needed, I suggest letting a copywriter who has English as their mother tongue break their head over it. Language is more than a dictionary and grammar.
Either way, I suggest we keep the discussion here focused on actual features/UI changes that we’d like to see. A linguistic debate of a new name is pretty off-topic
I surmise that it’s because neither sets nor collections is actually a database in the classical sense. Sets are saved searches - the items in the set aren’t connected by any structure. Collections are groups of items that are linked, but not in a common structure.
The team have unwittingly created this problem by using “Sets” for the saed search. If to were my choice, I would reuse “Sets” for the newly redefined thing.
Reuse “Sets” - it has the appropriate meaning and is clear and when they were introduced, many users thought that they were, in fact, databases. I understand that the change in application of the term might cause some confusion, but (IMO) a lot less confusion than some of the outré ideas that have been offered in this thread (I don;t mean to be rude to people who are trying to help, but if simplicity and clarity are important, then many of the other ideas won’t be very helpful).
Not a native speaker but here are my suggestions
- Index
- Atlas
- Catalog
- Respiratory or Directory
I’do personally go with index
Nope, “Database” is wrong.
@ThatGuy explained it very well. 
@Jed made the good suggestion “Catalog” which fits much better.
A Catalog may contain a lot of items, but not in every case ALL items in the database.
That fits!
So I like “Catalog” much more then “List”, the only tiny issue with it is, that it doesn’t expresses that the thing actively does somewhat (it can collect items on its own, wherever they are located in the space).
What’s why I prefer “Collector” over it. But “Catalog” it is a much better suggestion then “List”, as the search box proves. There are only a few results for it.
Also much better then “List” would be what @ThatGuy suggested, to reuse “Set”.
It will be in deed a Set 2.0 which will have the additional feature of a Collection.
So we could simply reuse it (although I was never really happy with this name).
I strongly vote for a name which is specific, with no overlapping with any other meaning, so that the forum’s search shows nothing else then relevant results.
That’s why I strongly prefer a fantasy word as name – but a talking one that everyone intuitive understands.
I’ve always been fond of “Compilation”, as it basically pinpoints what a Set or Collection does; curates and compiles things. Probably not snappy enough a term though.
Also an interesting suggestion, @Angelo
However, I would change ending this way:
Compilator
(Yes, it’s a fantasy word.).
I suggest it this way, because the new Object is somewhat that curates and compiles.
Whereas (in my understanding) a “Compilation” is the result of the Compilator’s action.
Same thing as with the example “List” versus “Lister”.
A lister’s action’s result is a list.
We are in search for a name of the thing that does the action – we are not in search for the result of this action.
The new combined Object ist not the static result of any action.
No, it is the thing that does the action.
The name should reflect that.
It can be a fantasy word (it would be even good, because then there can’t be any overlapping with existing words), but the name should reflect the function, for an intuitive understanding.