In article ,
Lee DeRaud wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:37:28 GMT, Walt Novinger
wrote:

tdup2 wrote:
Is there a woodturners newsgroup?

Tim


rec.crafts.woodturning

Question for the assembled multitude: is there actually a reason why
this group is "rec.woodworking" and not "rec.crafts.woodworking"? Or
conversely, why is the turning group not "rec.woodworking.turning" or
just "rec.woodturning"?

Or is this just one of those "just because" things?

For 'historical' reasons, a _newsgroup_ named 'foo.bar', and a newsgroup
_hierarchy_ named 'foo.bar' (i.e. the parent of groups 'foo.bar.baz',
'foo.bar.quux', etc.) was not allowed. This is why 'rec.woodworking.turning'
could not be used.

The other half of the answer is that 'rec.woodworking' was established
_very_early_ in the history of USENET. Before there was any serious attempt
by the Cabal (TINC) to 'regularize' naming into something approaching a
structured hierarchy. Any 'big 8' newsgroup that you see with just a
'two part' name probably has roots dating back to antiquity in like fashion.

USENET is like 'Mopsie" to a degree. it "just grew" over time.
And, accordingly, the protocols for newsgroup naming have mutated.
Those 'mutations' affect things from that point in time, forward.

"Renaming" a previously existing newsgroup, "just to comply with the new
standard" is almost _never_ done.

"Renaming" a previously existing newsgroup, as part of a broader reorganization
of that newsgroup -- e.g. 'splitting' it into several 'finer-grained'
groups -- does happen. *BUT* there are _lots_ of hoops to be jumped through
in the course thereof. There have been numerous attempts, over the years,
to do such a reorganization of 'rec.woodworking' -- *none* (as should be
obvious) have managed to drum up the degree of support required to get
changes implemented. Too many people like things "just the way they are".