 | | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) How stable is the name? Probably the place for something like that would be under .castle, rather than under .org, because it's Castle-focused to the core. Probably something like lugnet.castle.org.ca...leworld... --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) I third the motion... (...) It's highly unlikely to change. There is literally no danger of TLC asking us to change it since no lego reference is made, and we all agreed long ago (I think) that a simplistic name would be the best. (...) Sure, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Ya, that would be the idea. :) --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Well, another idea would be just lugnet.castle.org, and split it when a 2nd group comes along. As far as name stability, how hard is it to move all the messages from one group to another (other than that it may break certain references - (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to move a body of existing NNTP messages from one newsgroup to another group without completely destroying the normal functioning of the original group. --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) My thought was that if a while down the road, the name of Castle World was changed, and it became a problem with the newsgroup, it might not hurt to change the name of the newsgroup. Would it be possible to edit (automatically of course) all (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Oops (rereading what I wrote), I didn't mean to imply that a plain .castle.org group (with no .castleworld suffix) was a no-go because of that -- I was just answering the part about the feasability of moving messages. (...) Ya, that would (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Sounds like a good idea to me. The only thing I can see as being a quibble is that once the adminstrivia(1) is over with, then it becomes a really blurred line as to what goes where. Most Castle World content will be quite happy and on topic (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Very stable. The site has a new link, but the name is to stay. (...) I agree with having it under .castle. So how about the following (just throwing out some suggestions ...): lugnet.castle - your main group ... lugnet.castle.org - a group for (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Right on brotha;) I don't think that lugnet.castle.castleworld.admin will be around anytime soon;) I think that we MIGHT need an lugnet.castle.castle....off-topic type group, no? This way if and when something is up, we can talk about it (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) OK, splendid. (...) The .castle.org isn't necessary as a group per-se (it -could- be left empty, as .cad.dev.org is left empty above .cad.dev.org.ldraw), but it's necessary to at least exist as an intermediate level, for consistency and for (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) This also helps immensely with topical cross-linkages, for example the cross-ref link to (2 URLs) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
