[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Harry FP and Leadership

[cindysphynx]

Hi,
 
>In an ideal world, all the FPs should be updated to include OoP. I'm 
>sure that's what our membership would want. However, wouldn't they 
>rather have an FP which clearly states what it is includes and the 
>expectation that it will be updated rather than no FP at all?
 
Mmmm, my opinion is that a FAQ writer should include all fantastic posts
and interesting discussion and theories through whatever date the FAQ is
finished, more or less.  Either there have been fantastic OoP-inspired
Quidditch posts or there have not been.  If not, no problem (although
the writer could certainly include a narrative section with wise
observations about the role of Quidditch in OoP).  If there have been
fantastic posts, then it would be easy enough to include them in some
truncated fashion now, I would think.  Thoughts?
 
When Pippin and I did the Mysteries FP update, we picked a certain end
point (which was pretty much the day we got started).  I think the
cut-off point was post 50,000.  We wrote, and then I think I added in
any truly dynamite, stand-out posts I was aware had been posted
recently.  And that was that, and will be until someone updates it.
 
In a way, I have found FAQ writing to be like a giant hamster wheel.  As
soon as you think you're finished, some new post or theory pops up.  ;-)
Indeed, we gave serious consideration to not uploading the most dated
FPs (Weasley Family and Pettigrew) at all because they were so dated
that it was difficult to justify calling them "new" - I think Pettigrew
may have only covered posts 1-4000.  We got around the problem as best
we could by calling them "classic" FPs.  I'm not sure we could get away
with that again, myself.
 
Anyway, to answer the question of whether members would rather have an
FP that goes as far as it goes rather than nothing . . . who knows?  I
suppose MEG could poll the main list if they like.  But my guess is that
anyone opening a brand new FP of a character or subject that appeared in
OoP and seeing that it does not cover OoP will figure that we are just a
bit daft for failing to include discussion of the most recent canon,
*if* there has been any such discussion.
 
Anyway, that's how I look at things, but I'm not writing the Quidditch
FAQ.  :-D  Your mileage may vary.
 
Cindy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]