Death Eaters & dark marks

[carolynwhite2]

KathySnow:
I started to review the Death Eater category code 2.10 (only) and
after looking over the first 40 posts realized there was going to be
a conflict. The majority of the posts dealt with the dark mark
insignia, which 99% of the time will involve the death eaters as a
collective group. Now that's ok but being suspicious of the situation
I looked at 3.9.4 the Dark Mark category and it has many of the same
posts or ones that are very similar in nature. It's almost like there
are two different categories representing the same ideas. My
suggestion would be to combine the Death Eater/Dark Mark into one
category. The Dark Mark category however, is also used for the
Morsmordre spell creating the symbolic dark mark, which I would
suggest, moving to symbolism. Input please!


Talisman:
I'm not sure I would move the Morsmordre Spell to symbolism. <snip> I 
think it is still primarily a spell, and one that has (apparently) 
exclusive DE meaning.
<snip>
Actually, I'd rather each topic have its own category (DE's/Dark
Mark/Morsmordre)
<snip>
The effect of combining the groups is that someone researching the
Dark Mark has to wade through all DE-related posts, rather than
pulling up the specific subgroup.

Carolyn:
We had a discussion a little while back about the two meanings for 
the Dark Mark - the Morsmordre spell and the mark on the DE's arms, 
and we made a hasty passing judgement to leave the two under the same 
head for the time being (3.9.4). I think that the time has now come 
to separate out the two, so I will add a new code under 3.9 Dark Arts 
so you can sort them into one head or the other. I'm in agreement 
with Talisman that this should not go under symbolism, which is for 
more abstract notions. 

On the posts coded generally under DEs, but which in fact mainly 
refer to the dark mark insignia, I would de-check them from the 2.1 
DE heading, and put them into one or the other of the dark mark heads 
within 3.9.

However, I think that will leave quite a lot of posts which discuss 
how Voldemort manages his DEs and their relationship to him which are 
not primarily about the dark mark. Should I create a sub-head under 
Voldemort for this? Please note, I have taken a minor executive 
decision, and will be reviewing 'Voldemort' alongside 'Voldemort's 
agenda', so easy to consider a new sub-head for DE-management during 
this process.


KathySnow:
One of the other idea's that was talked about under the Death Eater
category was name origin. Here is an example:

<snip example>

Is it necessary to code to the subject matter when talking about the
origin of a name? Posts discussing name origins often go off on a
tangent or in this example make a brief reference to the subject
matter.

Talisman:
I agree that this name origin example should not be coded to DE's. I
don't think the brief reference is sufficiently substantive to put
it there.

Carolyn: I agree with Talisman. The quoted example had nothing to do 
with DE's, and should only be coded to Sinistra - although even that 
is doubtful, if that was all there was to the post.

On origins of names generally, I have tend to click 1.5.1 
Etymology/origins of names plus the character concerned. I was 
vaguely thinking that someone might like to write a general review of 
name origin by browsing 1.5.1, and that it would be irritating to 
have to go through all the character codes to find the evidence. At 
the same time, it is useful to come across these posts if you are 
studying a particular character. So I think they should continue to 
be coded to both places.

KathySnow:
Also I hate to bring this up again but the post numbers are out of
whack. The first post is 16000 and the next one is 15993 and three
posts later its 6558.

Carolyn:
I'll take a look and contact Paul...