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