| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> Simon & Richard, this looks really nice. Thanks for all the effort you put
> in and research time you devoted.
Thanks.
> I have a bunch of questions and a counter-proposal.
OK.
> The 9 groups listed below are areas of specifically England, right? Could
> you elaborate on what you mean by "on the same Government hierarchy" and
> "useless duplication"? I don't quite understand why they're on the same
> hierarchical level as .uk.wl, .uk.sc, and .uk.ni. Do you mean that they're
> less geographical and more administrative, and overlap multiple physical
> areas of the Kingdom?
Well what I meant was that if the Government went ahead with it's
proposals for the devolution of England then the name England would
become irrelevant. Let me explain, it would be similar to the state
system in the US, these regions and Wales, NI, Scotland would all be
equal. However I agree that the .en should be added in order to make it
straight-forward.
> > lugnet.loc.uk.sw South West
> Are the 9 suffixes above official or made-up for this?
These suffixes are made up, I wasn't too sure what to put for East,
etc. You may have more logical ideas.
> > Complete list of all islands:
> > lugnet.loc.uk.ai Anguilla
> > lugnet.loc.uk.ac Ascension Island
> AI and AC must be official historical abbreviations? I'd expect AI to mean
> Ascension Island, not Anguilla. :)
I got those from the same site I mentioned in the GB / UK discussion.
> > lugnet.loc.uk.bm Bermuda
> > lugnet.loc.uk.vg British Virgin Islands
>
> Bermuda and the Virgin Islands are already lugnet.loc.bm & lugnet.loc.vi, as
> they have their own top-level Internet domains of .bm and .vi, respectively.
That was my point, these have the same level of control as the Isle of
Man, etc. does so surely they should be in the same hiearchy. BTW, .vg
is the British Virgin Islands while .vi is the US Virgin Islands.
> > In this proposal the total number of groups has been lowered but the local
> > groups now cover all UK related places.
> All right, first let's coalesce all of these into one list, first sorted by
> newsgroup name:
> lugnet.loc.uk
> lugnet.loc.uk.ac Ascension Island
> lugnet.loc.uk.ai Anguilla
> lugnet.loc.uk.ci Channel Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.ea Eastern
> lugnet.loc.uk.em East Midlands
> lugnet.loc.uk.fk Falkland Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.gi Gibraltar
> lugnet.loc.uk.im Isle of Man
> lugnet.loc.uk.ky Cayman Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.lo London
> lugnet.loc.uk.ms Montserrat
> lugnet.loc.uk.ne North East
> lugnet.loc.uk.ni Northern Ireland
> lugnet.loc.uk.nw North West
> lugnet.loc.uk.pn Pitcairn Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.sc Scotland
> lugnet.loc.uk.se South East
> lugnet.loc.uk.sw South West
> lugnet.loc.uk.tc Turks & Caicos Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.wl Wales
> lugnet.loc.uk.wm West Midlands
> lugnet.loc.uk.yk Yorkshire & the Humber
>
> The way North East and North West are separated in that view concerns me, as
> well as (more importantly) the confusion of interspersing sub-regions of
> England with sub-regions of the larger Kingdom.
After reading other posts I agree that the .en should be substituted -
it doesn't make that much difference.
> Now here's how that would appear on http://www.lugnet.com/loc/uk/ ...
>
> Local / United Kingdom /
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anguilla Falkland Islands North West Turks & Caicos Is.
> Ascension Island Gibraltar Northern Ireland Wales
> Cayman Islands Isle of Man Pitcairn Island West Midlands
> Channel Islands London Scotland Yorkshire & Humber
> Eastern Montserrat South East
> East Midlands North East South West
>
> Is it 100% clear to someone coming into that page out of the blue that, for
> example, "North East" means Northeast England rather than Northeast UK? I'm
> obviously not intimately familiar with how people think of UK regions on a
> daily basis, so it's tough to judge whether the list above is single-layer
> or mixed-layer, especially in the minds of viewers.
See above.
> Is the following clearer or less clear?
>
> Local / United Kingdom /
> Local / United Kingdom / England /
> [End of questions segment]
I do think that the islands should be separated in some way as Wales,
etc. are buried in the list.
> [Now for the counter-proposal]
> How about this (all 4 parts)?--
> 1) Scrap everything currently beneath:
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.* (54 groups)
> lugnet.loc.uk.ni.* (2 groups)
> lugnet.loc.uk.sc.* (12 groups)
> lugnet.loc.uk.wl.* (8 groups)
OK.
> 2) And keep:
> lugnet.loc.uk
> lugnet.loc.uk.ci Channel Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.en England
> lugnet.loc.uk.im Isle of Man
> lugnet.loc.uk.ni Northern Ireland
> lugnet.loc.uk.sc Scotland
> lugnet.loc.uk.wl Wales
OK.
> 3) And reserve for future expansion possibilities (these would go in
> all together as a collection of subgroups someday):
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.ea Eastern
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.em East Midlands
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.lo London
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.ne North East
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.nw North West
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.se South East
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.sw South West
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.wm West Midlands
> lugnet.loc.uk.en.yk Yorkshire & the Humber
Yes, I agree with the expansion idea.
> Alternatively, if it made more sense if/when the time comes, the original
> 54 sub-groups of .loc.uk.en could be restored in place of creating these
> 9 new regional groups.
I would never rule it out but there will never be that many of us from
the UK as has been shown from the way that LEGO UK has less sets than
the rest of Europe. You would have to reconsider some of the 54
sub-groups as counties, etc. have changed.
> 4) And reserve for spur-of-the-moment creation as appropriate (when needed),
> so long as the areas (a) don't already have a top-level Internet domain
> (like Bermuda & Virgin Islands or Hong Kong) and (b) aren't more logical
> as a sub-category of some other .loc group:
Well all of these islands have their own top-level domain, that's where
I got the .xx codes from. We don't have Hong Kong anymore, we gave it
back after 99 years as per our agreement with China.
> lugnet.loc.uk.ai(ag?) Anguilla
> lugnet.loc.uk.ac(ai?) Ascension Island
> lugnet.loc.uk.ky(cy?) Cayman Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.fk(fi?) Falkland Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.gi(gb?) Gibraltar
> lugnet.loc.uk.ms Montserrat
> lugnet.loc.uk.pn(pi?) Pitcairn Islands
> lugnet.loc.uk.tc Turks & Caicos Islands
These were the offical codes.
> That would leave the UK with 7 groups. And a plan for expansion.
Yes that is a good plan.
> It would mean the destruction of some existing content, but the number of
> articles is small (around 10) since almost everything was posted to either
> .loc.uk, .loc.uk.en, or .loc.uk.sc.
> --Todd
Wouldn't it still be available via the search? I know
lugnet.off-topic.qotd isn't searchable. This of course would be via the
web interface.
Whenever you do decide on expansion through your 4-step program base it
on the actual amount of regular UK posters rather than all the other
people who post here.
Huw Millington wrote...
> lugnet.loc.uk.sc.hi Highlands
> lugnet.loc.uk.sc.bo Borders
I disagree with breaking up Scotland and Wales because of their size and
population, Scotland has the same population as Birmingham so in order
to compensate lugnet.loc.uk.wm would be split and so we would be back to
square-one. We only have very few people from Scotland now and the best
that can do is double (1).
> lugnet.loc.uk.<xx>.<country> (for the 'empire')
This may be a better way of organising it but all the islands have their
own top-level domain so either all the islands go here or at
lugnet.loc.*
--
Carbon 60
ICQ # 5643170
(1) Based on that 30% of the UK use the Internet compared to the US's
60+%.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
