[2ND RFD] Top-levels in the us.* hierarchy
Henrietta K. Thomas
for the us.* hierarchy. Originally, I had suggested that perhaps
10-12 top-levels would be enough, but Jim Riley disagrees; he
would like to see as many as 30 top-levels allowed. His main
argument for this is that more top-levels would result in shorter
group names (3 components), whereas fewer top-levels would
result in longer group names (4 components). He prefers three
component group names because that will make it easier to
add fourth components later on if necessary. I am afraid this
will lead to a 'flat' hierarchy, but Jim Riley doesn't think so.
Then there were some suggetions made by Andy Wendel at
Message-ID: <d9pv4.25760$8S2.5...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>
which I would like to incorporate.
So here goes; the list is rather long, but I'm expecting it to be
pruned. Note that this second list is in strict alphabetical order.
Feel free to comment on the descriptions I'm using as well as
on the need for any particular top-level. For example, I'd like to
make a clear distinction between us.businesss and us.industry
if both top-levels are to be allowed. The best way to deal with
this, I guess, is to remove the top-levels you don't think we need
and just comment on those you think we *do* need. Then I can
go from there to make a final list (I hope).
I get a count of 32 top-levels, including 4 orphan groups.
us.administration (us.admin.*)
Administrative groups for the us.* hierarchy.
us.answers (us.answers)
Orphan group to be created when we have our
documents ready for inclusion in news.answers.*
us.arts (us.arts.*)
visual arts
performing arts
literature & creative writing
us.arts+crafts (us.arts+crafts.*)
To deal with various types of handicrafts, e.g., woodworking,
needlework, quilting, handmade jewelry, pottery, stained glass, etc.
us.business (us.business.*)
All aspects of doing business in the United States.
Should not duplicate existing groups in the biz.* hierarchy.
us.config (us.config)
Orphan group for discussion of newsgroup creation.
us.education (us.education.*)
elementary education
secondary education
higher education
post-graduate education
continuing adult education
us.food+drink (us.food+drink.*)
Uniquely American cuisine in general, by geographic
area, and/or by ethnic group.
us.government (us.gov.*)
The acts and doings of Federal agencies
us.health+fitness (us.health+fitness.*)
Programs to maintain physical and mental health.
us.history (us.history.*)
All aspects of US history, not just wars.
us.hobbies (us.hobbies.*)
Model railroading, gardening, collecting, etc.
us.industry (us.industry.*)
Groups to focus on various 'industries' in the United
States, e.g., hotel industry, auto industry, entertainment industry.
us.issues (us.issues.*)
social issues
economic issues
environmental issues
us.jobs (us.jobs.*)
All groups in this top-level have been removed due to
excess traffic. New groups not to be created unless they are
moderated and named in such a way as to discourage job
recruiters from sending articles. (One possibility might be to
create a series of us.jobs.resumes.* groups from which the
recruiters could 'suck' the resumes they want.)
us.legal (us.legal.*)
civil law
criminal law
constitutional law
us.marketplace (us.marketplace.*)
Currently consists of four moderated buy/sell/trade groups.
us.media (us.media.*)
newspapers
radio
tv
us.military (us.military.*)
Fellowship groups for military personnel & veterans.
us.misc (us.misc.*)
Inherited from the original us.* hierarchy. Equivalent to
us.general, but already contains one subgroup, us.misc.family-radio.
No new groups to be created under this top-level.
us.music (us.music.*)
musical instruments
musical styles (blues, rock-n-roll, ragtime)
musical theatre
composers and performers
us.newusers (us.newusers.*)
Help desk groups for new users.
us.organizations (us.org.*)
non-profit organizations
professional associations
trade groups
us.people (us.people.*)
Fellowship groups based on age, ethnicity, special interests.
us.places (us.places.*)
Unique places in the USA (national parks, monuments,
battlefields, historic sites, landmark buildings, scenic areas,
waterways, theme parks, resort areas, unique cities and towns,
etc.).
us.politics (us.politics.*)
political theory and practice
political history
elections & electoral process
US role in international politics
us.religion (us.religion.*)
Fellowship groups for members of various US churches.
us.sports (us.sports.*)
The us.sports groups were removed from the us.* hierarchy
for lack of meaningful traffic. No new groups with similar names
should be contemplated until the old groups have died, so as to
eliminate confusion as to the validity of the old groups. New groups
with different names may be considered, however, providing they
do not duplicate existing groups in other hierarchies.
us.support (us.support.*)
Support groups for various purposes, mostly physical
or mental illness. Should not duplicate existing groups in other
hierarchies.
us.taxes (us.taxes.*)
federal, State, and local income taxes
sales taxes
estate taxes
us.technology (us.technology.*)
Technological advances in various fields of endeavor,
e.g., space, medicine, agriculture, communications.
us.test (us.test)
Orphan top level; no new groups to be added.
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
Business: usa...@wwa.com
Personal: h...@wwa.com
---
Support the new, improved us.* hierarchy!
Ask your news admin to get the official list
of active groups from usa...@wwa.com.
Henrietta K. Thomas
and us.talk as top-level hierarchies. The article at Message ID
<5o20esguen1989uek...@4ax.com> has been
cancelled, so I hope nobody has responded to it yet.]
This is a second attempt to get a comprehensive list of top-levels
for the us.* hierarchy. Originally, I had suggested that perhaps
10-12 top-levels would be enough, but Jim Riley disagrees; he
would like to see as many as 30 top-levels allowed. His main
argument for this is that more top-levels would result in shorter
group names (3 components), whereas fewer top-levels would
result in longer group names (4 components). He prefers three
component group names because that will make it easier to
add fourth components later on if necessary. I am afraid this
will lead to a 'flat' hierarchy, but Jim Riley doesn't think so.
Then there were some suggetions made by Andy Wendel at
Message-ID: <d9pv4.25760$8S2.5...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>
which I would like to incorporate.
So here goes; the list is rather long, but I'm expecting it to be
pruned. Note that this second list is in strict alphabetical order.
Feel free to comment on the descriptions I'm using as well as
on the need for any particular top-level. For example, I'd like to
make a clear distinction between us.businesss and us.industry
if both top-levels are to be allowed. The best way to deal with
this, I guess, is to remove the top-levels you don't think we need
and just comment on those you think we *do* need. Then I can
go from there to make a final list (I hope).
I get a count of 34 top-levels, including 4 orphan groups.
us.subculture (us.subculture.*)
For groups of people whose customs, mores, and values
differ significantly from mainstream USA, e.g., some religious
groups (Amish, Jewish, Nation of Islam), some ethnic groups
(Asians, Arabs), certain lifestyles (sexual orientation), and
counterculture (hippies).
us.support (us.support.*)
Support groups for various purposes, mostly physical
or mental illness. Should not duplicate existing groups in other
hierarchies.
us.talk (us.talk.*)
Informal social groups for people who just want to talk.
Henrietta K. Thomas
further thoughts......
Feel free to jump in and offer your two cents.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:17:12 -0600, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
wrote:
Some very impressive explanations of what this list is for. :-)
Note changes in language I've made in the three paragraphs below:
>This is a list of actual and potential top-level hierarchies which may be
>included in the us.* hierarchy. The presence of a potential hierarchy
>on the list does not imply that such a hierarchy will ever exist. The list
>is merely to provide a framework for placement of the types of newsgroups
>that are often found in a national or regional hierarchy. It is recognized that
>because of the dominant role of the USA in the development of Usenet as
>well as within the English-speaking world, that many groups that ordinarily
>would be found in us.*, will instead be found in the Big-8, alt.*, and other
>hierarchies.
>
>The presence of a potential hierarchy does not imply that there will or need
>be a parent group for that hierarchy (e.g. us.foo, us.foo.general or us.foo.misc).
>In many cases, such a group would be too broad for any sort of coherent
>discussion. Instead these top-level hierarchies form containers for subgroups
>dealing with similar or related topics.
[snipped one paragraph I think is not needed.]
>Proponents should attempt to place new groups within one of the existing or
>potential top-level hierarchies listed here. If it is felt that additional top-levels
>should be created, they should have a breadth similar to these existing and
>potential top-levels, and should imply the potential addition of >large numbers
>of related subgroups. The addition of new top-levels to this list may be made
>by consensus in us.config pursuant to proposals made by RFD to amend this
>document.
Existing top-level hierarchies, including "legacy" groups from the
original us.* hierarchy created in 1992 and rmgrouped in 1994.
us.arts
Legacy group from 1992. Subgroups under this top-level
should deal primarily with classical forms of artistic endeavor in the
United States from colonial times to the present day, with emphasis
on the visual arts, performing arts, literature, and creative writing.
The term "visual arts" should be read to include photography,
lithography, and illustrations as well as traditional forms of painting
and sculpture.
us.issues
Subgroups in this top-level should deal with US domestic issues
only and what is being done (or not done) about them by the Federal or
State governments. The term "domestic issues" should be read to include
social issues, economics, environmental concerns, etc.
us.legal
Legacy group from 1992.. Subgroups in this top-level should
deal with various aspects of the US legal system -- civil law, criminal
law, constitutional law -- from both theoretical and practical points of
view.
us.marketplace
Currently consists of four moderated buy/sell/trade groups
created to replace the us.forsale.* and us.wanted.* groups. New
groups not to be added without permission from the moderator.
us.military
Fellowship groups for US military personnel & veterans.
us.misc
Legacy group from 1992. This is the US equivalent of the
*.general groups in other national and local hierarchies which are
set aside for the discussion of topics not covered in other groups.
No new groups are to be added here. The existing subgroup,
us.misc.family-radio, is grandfathered in because it was created
before us.* had a formal newsgroup creation process.
us.organizations
Subgroups in this top-level should focus on various types
of non-governmental organizations, such as social service groups,
professional associations, trade groups, consumer advocacy groups,
civil rights (and civil liberties) groups, youth organizations, etc.
us.politics
Legacy group from 1992. Subgroups under this top-level
should deal primarily with various aspects of the political process
rather than with the pros and cons of the national issues being
addressed by the Federal government. Appropriate topics include
political theory and practice, political history, elections, the Federal
legislative process, the role of the States in Federal affairs, and the
US role abroad in international affairs.
us.taxes
Legacy group from 1992. Subgroups under this top-level
should focus on various aspects of the US tax system at both Federal
and State levels, including income taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes,
etc.
Potential top-level hierarchies which should be considered before
proposing any new top-level hierarchies.
us.arts+crafts
Subgroups in this top-level should deal with various types
of handicrafts, e.g. woodworking, needlework, quilting, handmade
jewelry, pottery, stained glass, etc.
us.business
Subgroups in this top-level should deal with the various
aspects of doing business in the United States, mainly the production
and distribution of consumer goods and services. Proponents should
be careful not to duplicate existing groups in the biz.* hierarchy.
us.education
Subgroups in this top-level should focus on the basic US
educational system from kindergarten through adult education.
e.g., elementary and secondary education, higher education,
post-graduate studies, and continuing adult education.
us.food+drink
Subgroups under this top-level should focus on uniquely
'American' cuisine by geographic area, ethnic group, or other
'special' characteristics.
us.health+fitness
Subgroups in this top-level should focus on public and private
programs designed to help people maintain and improve their physical
and mental health.
us.history
Subgroups under this top-level should promote discussion of all
aspects of US history from colonial times to the present day.
us.hobbies
Subgroups here should deal with activities considered to be
hobbies done for personal enjoyment rather than as a way of making
a living. Personal hobbies include such activities as gardening,
model railroading, stamp collecting, coin collecting, etc.
us.industry
Subgroups here should focus on broad-based 'industries'
in the United States rather than on single businesses -- e.g., hotel
industry, auto industry, entertainment industry.
us.jobs
All groups in this top-level were removed from the us.*
hierarchy due to excessive traffic. New groups not to be created
unless they are moderated and organized in such a way as to
discourage job recruiters from dumping their databases into the
moderator's mailbox.
us.media
Subgroups in this top-level should deal with various means
of mass communications -- newspapers, magazines, radio, tv, the
Internet, etc.
us.music
Subgroups under this top-level should deal with both
traditional and popular music unique to the United States from
colonial times to the present day, both instrumental and vocal,
as well as with musical theatre and with prominent composers
and performers.
us.people
Fellowship groups based on age, ethnicity, special interests.
us.places
Subgroups here should focus on unique places in the USA
people might want to learn more about, such as national parks,
monuments, battlefields, historic sites, landmark buildings, scenic
areas, waterways, theme parks, resort areas, unique cities and
towns, etc.
us.religion
Fellowship groups for members of various US churches.
us.sports
The us.sports groups were removed from the us.* hierarchy
for lack of meaningful traffic. No new groups with similar names
should be considered until the old groups have died, so as to
eliminate confusion as to the validity of the old groups. New groups
with different names may be considered, however, providing they
do not duplicate existing groups in other hierarchies.
us.subculture
For groups of people whose customs, mores, and values
differ significantly from mainstream USA, e.g., some religious
groups (Amish, Jewish, Nation of Islam), some ethnic groups
(Asians, Arabs), certain lifestyles (sexual orientation), and
counterculture (hippies).
us.support
Subgroups here should relate to specific US-based
support groups sponsored by public or private organizations
in the United States, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or the
Alzheimer's Foundation. Proponents should take care not to
duplicate existing support groups in other hierarchies.
us.talk
This top-level is for informal social groups for people
who just want to talk.
us.technology
Subgroups here should focus on technological advances
in various fields of endeavor throughout the nation's history, e.g.,
space, medicine, agriculture, communications, transportation, etc.
Administrative groups to be created as needed.
us.administration
Administrative groups for the us.* hierarchy similar to existing
administrative groups in the news.* hierarchy, including groups for
discussing and reporting net abuse and groups to help new users
learn more about Usenet and the us.* hierarchy.
us.answers
Required if we want our documents approved for inclusion
in the news.answers periodic postings.
us.config
Legacy group from 1992, the only group *not* removed in
1994. This group is for the discussion of newsgroup creation in the
us.* hierarchy and other matters related to re-building the hierarchy.
us.test
For the posting of test messages.
Henrietta
--
Henrietta K. Thomas
which I'd like to respond to separately.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:17:12 -0600, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:37:40 -0600, Henrietta K. Thomas
><usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
<...>
>>us.arts (us.arts.*)
>
>What is being indicated by the form:
>
> us.foo (us.foo.*)
I wanted to spell out 'organizations' and then indicate that it would be
shortened to org. in group names, and felt I should be consistent with
that in the other listings. No big deal, I guess.
<...>
>>us.arts+crafts (us.arts+crafts.*)
>> To deal with various types of handicrafts, e.g., woodworking,
>>needlework, quilting, handmade jewelry, pottery, stained glass, etc.
>
>What is the advantage of this name over us.crafts.*, which could also
>include topics like smithing and brewing?
Handicrafts are more prevalent than smithing and brewing, and are
usually referred to as 'arts and crafts', because some 'crafts' are in
fact forms of 'art'. And it is the only way Stella Nemeth will *ever*
get a quilting group in this hierarchy. (We argued before over
whether quilting is an 'art' or a 'craft'.)
>>us.business (us.business.*)
>> All aspects of doing business in the United States.
>>Should not duplicate existing groups in the biz.* hierarchy.
>
>Would this include us.business.consumers?
I don't think so. The only 'business' consumers do is to buy the goods
and services. us.business.consumer-rights might be an idea.....
<...>
>>us.government (us.gov.*)
>> The acts and doings of Federal agencies
>
>I think most of the topics of interest could be placed under other
>hierarchies and based on the activities of the various departments and
>agencies:
Note that us.government is missing from the new list. We can always
add it later if we feel a real need. I think government agencies are
pretty important to our national life, with all the regulatory powers
they have.
<...>
>>us.jobs (us.jobs.*)
>> All groups in this top-level have been removed due to
>>excess traffic. New groups not to be created unless they are
>>moderated and named in such a way as to discourage job
>>recruiters from sending articles. (One possibility might be to
>>create a series of us.jobs.resumes.* groups from which the
>>recruiters could 'suck' the resumes they want.)
>
>At one time there was a discussion group in the misc.jobs.* hierarchy.
>The moderation vote failed, and they were overwhelmed by the jobs
>posters.
Yes, I remember it well. Also, several months ago, one of the Usenet
spam cancellers started cancelling *jobs* postings on grounds that the
volume was eating up too much bandwidth. We were able to get a couple
of major *jobs* posters to agree to cut back on their postings, but then
the canceller had to quite Usenet to take care of some business in real
life. So no one has done anything seriously about it since except to
urge their fellow news admins not to carry those groups. I've spent
some time writing news admins asking them to drop the us.jobs.*
groups, and some have agreed, but the stuff is still pouring into all
the misc.jobs groups.
>>us.legal (us.legal.*)
>> civil law
>> criminal law
>> constitutional law
>
>If someone wanted a group for sheriffs would it go here? Or maybe
>us.professionals.*? It seems an uncomfortable fit to place such
>groups under us.business.* or us.industry.* or us.people.*. But maybe
>us.people.professionals.*?
Good question. Answer depends on the purpose of the group.
Fellowship groups should go under us.people and a sheriff's
association would go under us.org., but a group to discuss the
job of being a sheriff would probably fit best under us.issues,
e.g., us.issues.occupations.sheriffs.
<...>
>>us.organizations (us.org.*)
>> non-profit organizations
>> professional associations
>> trade groups
>
>Would these be better placed under the other hierarchies
>(e.g. us.legal.aba, us.jobs.afl-cio, us.people.fraternal-org.elks,
>us.sports.ncaa).
I think they'd all sound better under org.
us.org.attorneys.aba
us.org.attorneys.nba
us.org.unions.afl-cio
us.org.fraternities.elks
us.org.college-sports.ncaa
Something just dawned on me. How would I write a group name for
the Southern Poverty Law Center? (I think that's the name.) People
might understand the meaning of aba and nba because both are
national bar associations, but what would people think of a group
neme us.org.attorneys.splc? Not very meaningful. :-(
<...>
>>us.sports (us.sports.*)
>> The us.sports groups were removed from the us.* hierarchy
>>for lack of meaningful traffic. No new groups with similar names
>>should be contemplated until the old groups have died, so as to
>>eliminate confusion as to the validity of the old groups. New groups
>>with different names may be considered, however, providing they
>>do not duplicate existing groups in other hierarchies.
>
>How about:
>
> participatory sports
Well, I suggested us.play.golf/tennis/ping-pong, etc, but you weren't
too impressed.....
us.sports.participatory.golf? What's a nice short word that means
the same thing as 'participatory'?
> spectator sports
That's what they have in alt.* and Big 8. Talk about major league
sports teams, where people sit and watch guys and girls go for
the gold.
>While groups for fans of a particular team or league would be
>appropriate for the us.sports.* hierarchy, traditionally these have
>been placed in the alt.* or rec.* hierarchies, and it is expect that
>similar groups will continue to be placed there.
You want me to work this into the description for us.sports? If so,
I wouldn't want to close the door completely on fan sports groups
in us.*. Can we reword it some way so as to give ourselves a
chance if a good idea comes along? Say:
"While groups for fans of a particular team or league would be
appropriate for the us.sports.* hierarchy, some of these have
already been placed in the alt.* or rec.* hierarchies, and it is
expected that similar groups in the same sports leagues will
continue to be placed in those hierarchies. With some sports
or leagues, however, this is not the case, and proposals will
be considered to place those US sports fan groups in the
us.sports.* hierarchy."
Or is that too long-winded?
>>us.subculture (us.subculture.*)
>> For groups of people whose customs, mores, and values
>>differ significantly from mainstream USA, e.g., some religious
>>groups (Amish, Jewish, Nation of Islam), some ethnic groups
>>(Asians, Arabs), certain lifestyles (sexual orientation), and
>>counterculture (hippies).
>
>Isn't this the same as us.people.*?
Um, no. I am a senior citizen, and I would join a group called
us.people.senior-citizens just to talk with people my own age
once in a while. But seniors don't have a separate set of mores,
customs, and values away from the mainstream. They may be
old-fashioned and out of touch with some of the latest fads, but
that doesn't qualify them as being an identifiable subcultural group..
Now I would not oppose a fellowship group called us.people.jewish,
but if the proponent said s/he wanted to discuss Jewish cultural mores
and values, I'd recommend us.subculture.jewish instead. Again, it all
depends on the purpose of the group.
>>us.support (us.support.*)
>> Support groups for various purposes, mostly physical
>>or mental illness. Should not duplicate existing groups in other
>>hierarchies.
>
>Would these fit under us.health+fitness?
Not really. Lots of people do health+fitness who don't need
support groups, and some support groups have little to do
with health+fitness.
>>us.talk (us.talk.*)
>> Informal social groups for people who just want to talk.
>
>Talk about what?
the weather, the latest gossip, the latest fads, conspiracies (true
or false), dating and mating, etc. Little things that people like to
talk about in their spare time, but not too seriously.
Henrietta
--
Support the new, improved us.* hierarchy! Ask your news admin
to get the official list of active groups from usa...@wwa.com.
.
Jim Riley
<usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
>Jim Riley made a number of comments on my draft top-level list,
>which I'd like to respond to separately.
>
>On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:17:12 -0600, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:37:40 -0600, Henrietta K. Thomas
>><usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
><...>
>
>>>us.arts (us.arts.*)
>>
>>What is being indicated by the form:
>>
>> us.foo (us.foo.*)
>
>I wanted to spell out 'organizations' and then indicate that it would be
>shortened to org. in group names, and felt I should be consistent with
>that in the other listings. No big deal, I guess.
Maybe something like:
us.org.* US non-govermental organizations.
Description.
In effect, you have name/short description pairs just as you do for
newsgroups, followed by the charter or purpose of the hierarchy. This
can be varied for different presentations:
(1) Index list of us.* hierarchies.
(2) Description of us.* hierarchies.
(3) Description of potential us.* hierarchies.
(4) Description of us.* groups by hierarchy, where the description of
a hierarchy is followed by the descriptions of the groups that
comprise the hierarchy.
><...>
>
>>>us.arts+crafts (us.arts+crafts.*)
>>> To deal with various types of handicrafts, e.g., woodworking,
>>>needlework, quilting, handmade jewelry, pottery, stained glass, etc.
>>
>>What is the advantage of this name over us.crafts.*, which could also
>>include topics like smithing and brewing?
>
>Handicrafts are more prevalent than smithing and brewing, and are
>usually referred to as 'arts and crafts', because some 'crafts' are in
>fact forms of 'art'. And it is the only way Stella Nemeth will *ever*
>get a quilting group in this hierarchy. (We argued before over
>whether quilting is an 'art' or a 'craft'.)
In the Big 8, I seem to recall some arguments that certain groups
didn't like rec.crafts.* because it had an implied "artsy". Maybe
'artisan' could be worked into the description.
>>>us.business (us.business.*)
>>> All aspects of doing business in the United States.
>>>Should not duplicate existing groups in the biz.* hierarchy.
>>
>>Would this include us.business.consumers?
>
>I don't think so. The only 'business' consumers do is to buy the goods
>and services. us.business.consumer-rights might be an idea.....
What about consumer co-ops or coupon clipping? If you spelled out the
aspects, consumers rights, co-ops, product research might be one
aspect.
><...>
>
>>>us.sports (us.sports.*)
>>> The us.sports groups were removed from the us.* hierarchy
>>>for lack of meaningful traffic. No new groups with similar names
>>>should be contemplated until the old groups have died, so as to
>>>eliminate confusion as to the validity of the old groups. New groups
>>>with different names may be considered, however, providing they
>>>do not duplicate existing groups in other hierarchies.
>>
>>How about:
>>
>> participatory sports
>
>Well, I suggested us.play.golf/tennis/ping-pong, etc, but you weren't
>too impressed.....
I was just indicating that 'sports' is meant to include both
participatory and spectator sports, and to get away from a description
that begins 'The us.sports groups were removed' How about:
us.sports.* Participatory and spectator sports.
>us.sports.participatory.golf? What's a nice short word that means
>the same thing as 'participatory'?
I wouldn't indicate a separation. You'll find a mix of participatory
and spectator interests in most groups.
>> spectator sports
>
>That's what they have in alt.* and Big 8. Talk about major league
>sports teams, where people sit and watch guys and girls go for
>the gold.
>>While groups for fans of a particular team or league would be
>>appropriate for the us.sports.* hierarchy, traditionally these have
>>been placed in the alt.* or rec.* hierarchies, and it is expect that
>>similar groups will continue to be placed there.
>
>You want me to work this into the description for us.sports? If so,
>I wouldn't want to close the door completely on fan sports groups
>in us.*. Can we reword it some way so as to give ourselves a
>chance if a good idea comes along? Say:
>
>"While groups for fans of a particular team or league would be
>appropriate for the us.sports.* hierarchy, some of these have
>already been placed in the alt.* or rec.* hierarchies, and it is
>expected that similar groups in the same sports leagues will
>continue to be placed in those hierarchies. With some sports
>or leagues, however, this is not the case, and proposals will
>be considered to place those US sports fan groups in the
>us.sports.* hierarchy."
>
>Or is that too long-winded?
How about (as one of 2 or three paragraphs describing types of
groups).
Groups for fans of particular teams or leagues. (Note: traditionally
such groups have been placed in the alt.* or rec.* hierarchies. It is
recommended that you check these other hierarchies to see whether
there is already a set of groups for fans of the teams and leagues you
are interested in).
>>>us.subculture (us.subculture.*)
>>> For groups of people whose customs, mores, and values
>>>differ significantly from mainstream USA, e.g., some religious
>>>groups (Amish, Jewish, Nation of Islam), some ethnic groups
>>>(Asians, Arabs), certain lifestyles (sexual orientation), and
>>>counterculture (hippies).
>>
>>Isn't this the same as us.people.*?
>
>Um, no. I am a senior citizen, and I would join a group called
>us.people.senior-citizens just to talk with people my own age
>once in a while. But seniors don't have a separate set of mores,
>customs, and values away from the mainstream. They may be
>old-fashioned and out of touch with some of the latest fads, but
>that doesn't qualify them as being an identifiable subcultural group..
Aren't 'people' just a group that have some distinctive shared
perspectives or experiences (not necessarily unique to them)? I don't
see why any of the groups that you listed above wouldn't fit a
us.people.* hierarchy. I see the the us.people.*, us.places.*, and
us.issues.* hierarchies as primarily container hierarchies.
The 'people' in us.people.senior-citizens doesn't really tell me much
more than us.senior-citizens would. The hierarchy is interposed
simply to avoid an overly flat name-space.
Jim Riley
I would consider the group us.arts to be a member of the us.arts.*
hierarchy, even though this is not syntactically precise. I would
leave out the history (or move it to a history section).
:us.arts.* Visual and performing arts by, for, and about Americans.
Groups in the us.arts.* hierarchy deal ...
> Legacy group from 1992. Subgroups under this top-level
>should deal primarily with classical forms of artistic endeavor in the
>United States from colonial times to the present day, with emphasis
>on the visual arts, performing arts, literature, and creative writing.
>The term "visual arts" should be read to include photography,
>lithography, and illustrations as well as traditional forms of painting
>and sculpture.
>
>us.issues
> Subgroups in this top-level should deal with US domestic issues
>only and what is being done (or not done) about them by the Federal or
>State governments. The term "domestic issues" should be read to include
>social issues, economics, environmental concerns, etc.
Why not international issues from a US perspective?
>us.legal
>us.marketplace
>us.military
>us.misc
>us.organizations
>us.politics
>us.taxes
>Potential top-level hierarchies which should be considered before
>proposing any new top-level hierarchies.
>us.arts+crafts
>us.business
>us.education
>us.food+drink
>us.health+fitness
>us.history
>us.hobbies
>us.industry
>us.jobs
>us.media
>us.music
>us.people
>us.places
>us.religion
> Fellowship groups for members of various US churches.
Isn't 'church' a Christian-specific term?
>us.sports
>us.subculture
>us.support
>us.talk
>us.technology
>us.administration
>us.answers
>us.config
>us.test
Henrietta K. Thomas
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 00:41:46 -0600, Henrietta K. Thomas
<usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
When I think of smithing and brewing, I think of skilled trades. And
then I remembered that Jim was talking about 'professions' as well.
So I started to think: Aha! us.professions+trades! So, I looked in my
thesaurus to see what it said about these two words. Guess what?
They're synonyms. Not only that, but they're also related to arts
and crafts. Here is the list of synonyms given in the Merriam-Webster
thesaurus:
art, calling, craft, handicraft, metier, profession, vocation.
Anybody have any ideas how we can use any of these words to
create a top level for skilled trades+professions? us.trades alone
won't work because it's too easy to misinterpret the word 'trade',
and us.professions might make people think only of the legal and
medical professions, not of skilled trades.
Henrietta