[net.tv.drwho] Change of name to 'net.drwho'

percus@acf4.UUCP (Allon G. Percus) (08/20/85)

Considering the fact that the newsgroup for Star Trek, net.startrek,
is unaffiliated with net.tv, isn't it about time that we get the
name net.drwho, instead of net.tv.drwho?  It seems a very reasonable
simplification of something rather unnecessarily long.

                                         A. G. Percus
                                  (ARPA) percus@acf4
                                   (NYU) percus.acf4
                                  (UUCP) ...!ihnp4!cmcl2!acf4!percus

              "Wait, wait, an android?  Oh, I thought you said an
               android"

stuart@sesame.UUCP (Stuart Freedman) (08/22/85)

That is a very good idea and one that has been in the back of my mind as well.
Like Star Trek, DW enjoys other media besides the TV aspect.  I am getting
interested in the comics as well (ever since I started reading my friend's
when he would bring them home!).  The novelisations are a medium that are
also deserving of attention (even though I haven't read any of them).
Anyway, the name change is something that I still consider unnecessary as
long as one knows what the group is about, if just because people will just
get confused.  Being lazy, I wouldn't mind a shorter name, though, if there
is a net admin. who wouldn't mind changing it AND there is a consensus among
readers of this group.  I am curious to hear Spaf's opinion on this...
-- 
Stuart Freedman		{genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!stuart
Data General Corp.		{cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!stuart
Westboro, MA			    	    or mit-eddie!futura!stuart

I'm too busy reading other people's cute quotes to think of any of my own.

rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) (08/23/85)

In article <5020007@acf4.UUCP> percus@acf4.UUCP (Allon G. Percus) writes:
>Considering the fact that the newsgroup for Star Trek, net.startrek,
>is unaffiliated with net.tv, isn't it about time that we get the
>name net.drwho, instead of net.tv.drwho?  It seems a very reasonable
>simplification of something rather unnecessarily long.

NO!  Instead, net.startrek should be moved to net.tv.startrek.  Both Dr. Who
and Star Trek are subtopics of "tv", just as Star Wars is a subtopic of
"movies".  Rather than flattening the tree structure of news, we should
put related topics in subtrees.  (See Gene Spafford's proposal in
net.announce for similar reasoning.)
-- 
Rich Kulawiec	rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa

pjk@hou2a.UUCP (P.KEMP) (08/24/85)

Wouldn't net.thedoctor be more proper? :-)

[I know the show is called Doctor Who!]
-- 
			Paul Kemp
			ihnp4!hou2a!pjk

       The above statements are those of the author only,
          and are not those of AT&T Bell Laboratories.

mom@sfmag.UUCP (M.Modig) (08/25/85)

I don't find it particularly inconvenient to have the longer name,
and I think it is more orderly; if you really want a change,
net.startrek should really be moved to net.tv.startrek.  Or, if you
want to get really nasty, you can have:

net.tv.drwho
net.tv.startrek
net.movies.drwho
net.movies.startrek
net.books.drwho
net.books.startrek
net.misc.startrek
net.misc.drwho

Not to mention:

net.origins.drwho
net.origins.startrek
net.flame.people-associated-with.drwho (or perhaps net.flame.bbc)
net.flame.people-associated-with.startrek
net.sport.cricket.drwho
etc.

Obviously, the quest for a little order can get a little carried
away, but I really think net.tv.drwho is most appropriate, just as I
prefer, for example, net.games.chess to net.chess.

Mark Modig
ihnp4!sfmag!mom