Review: 3.01.1 Pre 1900 History

[Eustace_Scrubb]

     'Where have you been?' asked Carolyn, cutting coolly through
Doug's babbling.
     'Where've I -?'
     'Been, yes', she said. "Reviews started four months ago. Another
cataloger has had to cover your posts. None of your colleagues has
been able to give me any information as to your whereabouts. You left
no address. Where have you been?'
     There was a pause in which Doug stared at her with his newly
uncovered eye. 
     'I - I've been away for me health', he said.
     'For your health', repeated Carolyn. Her eyes travelled over
Doug's discoloured and swollen face; dragon blood dripped gently and
silently on to his waistcoat. 'I see.'
     'Yeah', said Doug, 'bit o' - o' fresh air, yeh know-'
     'Yes, at open air museums fresh air must be so difficult to come
by', said Carolyn sweetly. The small patch of Doug's face that was not
black or purple, flushed.
     'Well - change o' scene, yeh know-'
     'Mountain scenery?' said Carolyn swiftly.

Anyway, the secret mission didn't go so well, but I have at long last
finished reviewing posts coded to Pre-1900 History.

As I'm in the history biz in RL, I suppose I could have brought a
somewhat obscure (some might say pedantic) perspective to analyzing
these, but I think I've resisted that.  However, a minimum standard
seemed to be that the post had to actually discuss aspects of history
(WW, RL or both) of the 19th century or earlier.  I propose to
eliminate posts that merely mention a date or event in passing (e.g., 
a reference in Post 159 to the Werewolf Code of Conduct (1637) in the
midst of a post that is really about the significance of the number of
werewolf references in PS.)  Someone who wanted posts on pre-1900
history wouldn't find this very useful.  And the post has quite enough
codes to be going on with already.  

Then there's a thread that includes #34199 that centers on discussion
of religious influences and whether the WW's observance of Christmas
and Easter are primarily Christian or pagan or secular/modern.  The
3.01.1 code adds little to these posts as they're not really about how
the holidays developed in any historical sense.

As another example of posts I'd be apt to de-code from Pre-1900
History, there's a thread that includes #45679 that's trying to answer
a query about what the sword of Gryffindor should look like.  Again
this is primarily about the style of sword and the relative merits of
the movie version.  There's more data from the perspective of Creative
Anachronists than historians in most of these.  Take 3.01.1 out of
some of these and the only code is Godric Gryffindor...but I still
think it would be misleading to code this to History.

Anyway, with these examples in mind, I found that 35 of the 58 posts
(yeah, I know, what _took_ me so long?) are fine coded to 3.01.1. 
Another 7 are marginally OK.  I'd drop the code from 15 of them and
there's one that should be moved to Post-1900 history.

Cheers,


Doug
(who wishes he was in the mountains rather than the hot, humid upper
Susquehanna valley tonight)