McGonagall

[carolynwhite2]

Potioncat:

(1) Quite a few of McGonagall posts have the code 1.4.3--1.4.6, 
portrayal
of males/females/gays. Some of these don't really pertain to her and
she could be un-coded even if the posts continues. Others would be
worthy of both codes. But I think this could be like the Weasley
family dynamics...what are the readers going to be looking for?

(2) A few posts have only been "I predict MM will become 
headmistress.Or
if not her, Snape..." I would be willing to reject all or at least
most of these. They are really just personal opinion pieces.

(3) The other questionable "co-site" is origen of names. Have we
determined how we'll handle that one? I wouldn't want to read through
those if I was interested in MM, but I wouldn't want to read a lot of
name posts to find out about M&M as names.

(4) Carolyn, are you going to be able to write all these decisions 
from
all these posts into one paper when it starts to gell? (Please,
please, I hope so.)

Carolyn:
(1) I've coded several of the 'portrayal of women' etc threads, and 
either because I'm lazy, or have second sight, I have not tended to 
code to the characters mentioned unless a very big chunk of the post 
was dedicated to them. This is a long way of saying that if you come 
across them in the McGongall thread, but she only gets a slight 
mention, I would mark them for de-checking to her code. As you say, 
the 'Portrayal of males/females/gays' section can be sub-divided 
further eventually if people really want that.

(2) I would agree; only keep & code to predictions if based on 
something a bit more substantive.

(3) For this, I would consider a sub-category under the McGonagall 
code if there are a lot of interesting posts about the origin of her 
name. What we do with the main etymology code, in that case I'm not 
sure. 

(4) Yes, I will try and keep a log of them all, and integrate them 
with the original definitions file for future reference.