H's Dreams, Trio, One Year, Narrative Style, Predictions (Canon-Free)

[annemehr]

HARRY'S DREAMS

Of 26 in the category, only axed 4 of them, leaving 22.

Took the opportunity to mark 11 of them for unticking under 2.4.1
Harry Potter, so I won't have to read them again there, since the
Dream category was sufficient.  Other wise, very straightforward.  I
wouldn't be surprised if I have to move plenty from Harry Potter to
some of these subcategories (Dreams, Eyes, Scar...) later, since I
don't think we had these from the beginning.

Also reviewed some empty and nearly empty acronyms: did nothing yet,
though the nearly empties are useless except for as a record of two
abandonded acronyms, and another that was simpy miscoded altogether. 

TRIO DYNAMICS, ETC.

I'm very happy to see this category (do we have "marauder dynamics,"
too, or don't we need that yet?), and suggest another possible home
for it.  We could rename Family Dynamics to Family & Group Dynamics
and put the Trio under there, along with the Marauders, and any others
that may come up, if any.  There are other groups, but I can't think
of any but those that have codes elsewhere (Teachers, DEs, Slytherins,
Gryffindors).  The DA, for the future?  Where *are* we going to put
the DA?

Leaving them out of Friendship, Love and Loyalty at least gives us
flexibility to include groups whose dynamics are not based on those
happy characteristics, so I agree with that.


> Carolyn:
> I am going to add this category, and see how people get on with it.
> If it has the advantage of cleaning out the HRH categories, and it is
> possible to distinguish it from the SHIP posts, then it may be useful.
>
> What happens when the posts stray from strictly HRH, and start to
> include Draco or something? Do they still go there? I don't think
> they should or this category will also become a ragbag.

Anne:
The temptation, in a post about HRH(any two or more) vs. Draco, would
be to code Trio and Draco categories (only two ticks), rather than
Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Draco.  Similarly for HRH vs. Snape or with
Hagrid, etc.

Just to be clear, which way do we want to do such posts?  Argument for
ticking "Trio" is that they probably do act together as a group
differently than as separate people, when interacting with other
people.  Argument against is that it muddies things up when anyone
else is involved, so that you have individual character codes for
everyone but HRH.

I think I'm voting to keep Trio Dynamics purely for the relationships
among the three (non-SHIP, of course.  Gack).  So I think I'm
seconding what Sean said.


THE CATALOGUE ONE YEAR ON

That was...erm, interesting.

:P ;) :D

RUNES

Anne (before):

By the way, several of these were speculating on the resemblance to a
rune (Sigel). They seem to call for another category - Either adding
"Runes" to the Symbolism list, or coding under 1.6.6. "ancient myths
and legends" -- or should I just leave well enough alone? (#40355 is
an example)

Carolyn:
I don't know why we don't have a runes category under symbolism - I
will add one now.

Anne again:
Come to think of it, maybe because they'll all be about Harry?  Does
anyone remember any rune posts that weren't primarily about Harry's
scar, even the Eiwaz/Ehwaz ones?  On the other hand, you just know
people are going to look under Symbolism for Runes.  Besides, more
runes might come up later.

And, yes, I had waffles for breakfast.  :P

NARRATIVE STYLE

I always hated that category; I could never quite tell when it was
called for and don't think I used it much.  When I did, I felt guilty:
damned if I ticked and damned if I didn't.

I second Barry's motion to ax it (though I dimly suspect he's merely
trying to rescue his dire reputation from being overshadowed by the
bloodthirstiness of Talisman, claims to warm fuzziness
notwithstanding; imagine, an entire large category in one swipe -
that'll be hard to top).

PREDICTIONS - NO CANON

I'm pretty sure I put some predictions in the "without canon" category
because they didn't cite any; however they did seem to be made by
someone who had paid attention while reading the books and seemed to
have put some thought into their post.  There weren't very many of
those, though.

On the other hand, I coded some nonsense into there, just because that
seemed to be what the category was for.  I think Barry just wanted to
laugh at them.

As long as they're quarantined in there, I don't see the harm in
keeping a representative sample, as a monument to what some people, as
Talisman might say, "pull out of their back pocket and slap on the
list."  They'd be a sort of warning to people to *think* first.

That's probably a vain hope...

Anne