Talk:List of newsgroups

Untitled

Why don't we incorporate this list to the UseNet article? -- Taku 01:41 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Some people here on wikipedia are absolutely fanatical about creating lists about every conceivable topic (I think there is even a humerus term or acronym for it). In my opinion a list of the usenet groups is not central to explaining what usenet is (which is what an encyclopedia should do) - save of course for a few examples. So by all means, if the listoholics want to create every conceivable list let them, but it should not interfere too much which genuine encyclopedic entries. --snoyes 01:49 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

If we must have this list, shouldn't there be a short parenthetical note telling WHY a group is notable or interesting? There's no invitation for the curious to explore the entry on, say, alt.binaries.slack, which means nothing to most people (including me). Alt.sex.stories may be self-explanatory, but many are not. just 2 cents. Catherine

That's a good point. Descriptions of the newsgroups have been added. -- Modemac 11:48 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I'll delete uk.lifts because Google Groups doesn't carry it and it has no description/WP article so it must be not that notable at all. Grue 13:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is is possible to move the newsgroups related to mature subjects to another page? It's not a request bases on morals but a request based on content. It would also be important to separate them from the lis if there are people who are looking at this page at work.

Also, I'm thinking of making pages for a few of the Big 8 categories. Specifically alt.*, comp*, rec*, and sci* since those are the ones with the most active groups. Does anyone have any objections? --Bushido Hacks 19:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Heirarchy Pages

I'm currently working to export the larger group listings to their own hierarchy pages. Currently, comp.* and sci.* have been created.

--Bushido Hacks 22:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Lists are examples only

It may confuse the novice to see only a few groups in the alt category, and only two in talk. It should be made clear that these are EXAMPLES only, and not all there is. I will add Examples include: to those lists for this purpose.

For that matter, why are there NO examples at all of ANY science groups or society groups, but two for talk, both trivial? What a strange priority!

And yes, there is no reason why Wikipedia can't have COMPLETE lists on many such topics. A lot of encyclopedias have sporting records and almanac type info so that readers can look things up. Wikipedia has SO many articles on little side streets that would be of interest to less than 5 people, and yet there is always a lot of objections raised when anyone, quite sensibly, suggests making complete records of EXACTLY those kinds of things that people DO look up, like Classical Allusions, for example, and newsgroup sites. Myles325a (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Other hierarchies

This section is blank, and should probably refer to other hierarchies, such as national ones, and even local ones... eg:

A number of other hierarchies exist, for example those relating to issues of a more national or local nature, or those within a particular organisation's servers.

For example:

• uk.* - newsgroups relating to the United Kingdom
  • uk.railway - discussion of Railways in the United Kingdom
  • uk.local.*
    • uk.local.birmingham - local discussion about Birmingham, United Kingdom
    • uk.local.yorkshire - local discussion about Yorkshire

• bham.* - newsgroups relating to the University of Birmingham
• bham.comp.unix - Unix use in Computer Science at the University of Birmingham

Aboodoo (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)