Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pallas!wally
From: wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: ****   Call for Discussion  --  Creation of Sci.Aquaria   ****
Summary: rec.pets.aquaria is the least confusing name
Message-ID: <165@pallas.UUCP>
Date: 9 Oct 89 15:04:38 GMT
References: <20503@gryphon.COM> <146@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <35218@apple.Apple.COM
Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, IL
Lines: 56

In article <20583@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: 
>  
> And I, for one, would much rather not see those articles at all.  I accept 
> the fact that this type of article will show up in ALT.AQUARIA now and then, 
> but I would much rather not deal with this at all.  The very reason 
> ALT.AQUARIA has been this successful is the high level of discussin. 
> Ichtiology, ichtiopathology, aquatic ecology, behavioural research, 
> chemistry, taxonomy etc. are exactly why we are all reading that group. 
 
 
I have been thinking about getting an aquarium, so I was pleased to see 
this newsgroup being discussed.  However, if the purpose of this newsgroup 
is for pompous discussions on a level that mere mortals such as myself 
cannot hope to grasp, then I'll just have to skip it and look for more 
mundane information (such as whether this type of fish will get along with 
that type of fish, or whether this type of fish will eat the plants, etc) 
in other places.
 
However, if there is room in the newsgroup for such imbeciles as myself, 
then I think that the proper name would be rec.pets.aquaria.  Here's why:
 
sci.* -- No.  If I were looking for help with my aquarium, it would never 
occur to me to look under sci.*.  You folks seem to feel that we have 
insulted you by suggesting rec.*.  It's not meant as an insult.  It's just 
a simple fact that 90% of the people looking for such a newsgroup would not 
think to look under sci.*.  Most of us consider it recreation, technical 
though it might be, so rec.* is where we would look.  It is not meant to be 
an insult to the merits of aquarium keeping, so please don't take it that 
way.
 
rec.aquaria -- No.  When I saw "sci.aquaria", I first thought it was for 
discussion of astrology and horoscopes.  (I was also shocked to see it 
under "sci.*".)  :-)  If you make the name "rec.aquaria", probably 50% of 
the potential readers will miss it due to that confusion.
 
rec.fish -- No.  Half the people who saw that would assume it was about 
fishing (eg. rods and reels, lures, trolling motors, etc).
 
rec.pets.fish -- No.  Aquariums ("aquaria" to you English majors) are more 
than just fish.
 
rec.pets.aquaria -- Yes.  True, plants are not pets, but I don't think we 
want to call it "rec.plantsandfishinwater".
 
If you are looking for info about keeping aquariums, you would look in the 
bookstores in the "pets" or "hobbies" section, not under "science".  You 
would go to a "pet store" (assuming your town wasn't large enough to have a 
specialist dealer).  "rec.pets.aquaria" seems to be the least confusing of 
the choices.
 
Now, if a few months go by and it becomes obvious that there are those who 
are hobbyists and those who take the hobby a bit more seriously than that, 
then perhaps a separate group called "sci.aquaria" could be created.  By 
then perhaps those of us who cut our teeth in rec.pets.aquaria would be 
ready to join in some high-brow discussions with the gods of the water 
world.