Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsd!popeye
From: popeye@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (ken.a.irwin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: aquaria (required reading for you alt.aquaria folks)
Summary: sci vs. rec, aquaria vs. aquarium
Message-ID: <2274@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Oct 89 20:45:46 GMT
References: <20686@gryphon.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 77


Richard and Others have made very good arguments for sci.aquaria, and though
it may be very applicable to the current content of alt.aquaria, somthing 
must be considered: A group should have the broadest appeal possible, and any
group created should be created with a broad defined user base. Should the 
readers find a group to be too general in nature and contain too much "excess
bandwidth" then a group tailored to the special intrest subset should be
proposed to cater to that subset. First you need something to be a subset of.

Starting with a special intrest subset as a basis for group creation is in
my opinion, the wrong way to go about it. I think more people will vote against 
sci.aquaria because of name than would vote against rec.aquaria, or even
misc.aquaria, and I think even more people could identify with "aquarium" than
"aquaria" ("Aquaria" may indeed be more proper given that the subject is not 
about just one aquarium, but how many people even know what "aquaria" means?).
I don't think many of the rec.pets.aquarium (or fish, aquatic, fishes, etc..)
would vote against "rec.aquarium" because of name, and it would be an easy 
group to relate name to subject, and it seems it would be a heavily used group.
This is the type of group that should be created without question. (IMHO unless
rec. has the same broad distribution as misc. the group should be misc.aquarium,
again IMHO).

Many groups have spit up thriving spin-offs due to enough intrest in a narrower
field of discussion. I like and agree with all the arguments for sci.aquaria,
but I feel that if a rec.aquarium (or misc.) were started first it would be
that much easier to get support for such a group. Lets face it there is a need
for an aquarium group that caters to both the coral reef and fish breeder types
as well as to the guppy goldfish types. This talk about distroying the high
level atomosphere of the current group, and using the "sci" heading as an
intimidation factor is a selfish attitude. The purests can always burp up their
own group later. As far as the technical aspects of fish keeping, there is
enough examples of this level of discussion in misc. and rec. to null that
argument;

rec.autos(.tech) rarely have threads about how to change the oil. More often
	its "what are the benifits of synthetic oil?"
	(compare to medications vs. environment to cure fish disease)
misc.consumers.house rarely has threads about 3 prong outlet adapters. more
	often its "how do I retrofit new outlets in a house wired in Al?"
	(compare to aquarium construction)
rec.woodworking rarely has threads about what kind of saw to use. More often 
	its "How does an import compare to a Delta?"
	(compare to who makes the best power filter)
rec.railroading rarely has threads about snackbars on Amtrak. More often its
	"What is the principle behind Dynamic Braking?"
	(compare to explanation of the bacteria bed)
etc....

All these groups are for the most part technical in nature, they all deal with
design, mechanical sciences, and engineering, and all deal with product 
availability and standards. These groups are no less technical in nature than
alt.aquaria. Every group has its self appointed experts that set the pace of
the group and effect its level of content. Every group has a certain level of
articles that do not appeal to some readers (remember the "please include an
"(F)" or an "(M)" in your header discussion?"). The point is a mainstream group
is needed that appeals to all levels (did Richard raise Killiefish from birth
or did he mature to his current level of expertease?).

Traffic has dropped off to barely a couple of articles a day in alt.aquaria
if you discount this thread, compromise, there are only two arguments, aquaria
are more recreational than scientific and fish arn't pets. So give up on pets
and give up on sci and get the group in distribution. If both sides hold their
ground alt.aquaria will remain alt, as both sides have enough following to
kill the other, and both sides agree there should be a group on this subject.

I personally will vote against "pets". I would vote for "misc", "rec" either
"aquaria" or "aquarium". I would have to think about "sci", even though I
thought it was a good idea at first. 



Ken A. Irwin
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Indian Hill 6G410
Naperville, Illinois
(312) 979-4578
...!ihlpa!kai