[in full, as groups added, follow-up to uk.net.news.config]
>The Committee has received two objections to the fast-track on
>uk.sport.football.american on the grounds of some expectation that
>uk.sport.football.* should be reserved for association football within
>However, it is the case that there are currently no
>uk.sport.football.* groups at the moment (the fact that groups such
>as uk.sport.football.man-utd were under consideration at one time is
>irrelevant since these proposals never succeeded). Moreover, the game
>in question undoubtedly goes by the name "American Football".
>It therefore seems not unreasonable to envisage a structure such as the
> uk.sport.football.american (or australian, or other strange varieties)
>This gives the advantage of a shorter "handle" for our "national"
>games, which will surely have need of several newgroups in the
>future. The Committee is therefore minded to permit the formation
>of uk.sport.football.american as proposed, but would first like to
>hear further discussion (of at least 10 days) on the overall structure
>suggested above before reaching a final conclusion.
football. If we wanted to go down this route then u.s.football.american
should have been u.s.gridiron or similar.
I see no problem with having
etc, as required.
The topic of each group is quite clear.
On rugby, while the long feud between Union and League has died down,
I don't see a northern league fan looking under rugger. I suggest
etc, as and when required.
Again, while this system not perfectly tidy in terms of depth of
hierarchy, the purpose of each group is clear.
Are there any cases of League and Union teams having the same name?
If so something like
would do the job.
Real Wood Flooring Direct from the Importers