A 'Me Too' and Group Dynamics (Re: 3.8 Magic)

[KathyK]

Dot:

>> I'd like to finish the section I'm reviewing before going back to 
coding - RL getting in the way a bit, so don't know when it'll be 
finished. Then would be happy to split 50/50 reviewing beasts and 
doing more coding. It would be better to have a good review of the 
category definitions *before* we start coding again, though, 
wouldn't it? << 
 
Kathy W.

>> Me too.
I haven't started the real work of Time lines, so nothing to report. 
But it looks like it could use some sorting and it would be helpful 
to have it together before coding. So I'd like to get it finished 
before I start on coding. <<

KathyK:

I would like to continue plowing through Group Dynamics as well.  I 
apologize because I'm very slow and most of my free time falls 
around Tuesday and Wednesday so I've been pretty useless in trying 
to work a lot on this category before then.  

I know early on I took a look at the Dursleys and now I've gone 
through the general heading 1.2.11.  It had 26 posts, I propose 
axing the main heading from 16 of those.  Most just need to be 
recoded to the proper sub-category, ie Weasleys.  

Some thinngs to consider with this category.  Posts coded to 
specific families, again like the Weasleys:  Do we keep the 
individual character codes as well?  Some posts deal solely with the 
interaction of Percy and the Twins, for instance.  Does this get 
coded to Weasleys under Group Dynamics *and* to F&G and Percy?

I know the ones remaining in the general heading should because 
they're about characters not covered by the sub-categories, like the 
Diggorys.  

There are a couple about Dumbledore & McGonagall and how they treat 
Harry, and whether or not they're acting as surrogate parents.

Also, a couple in the general heading merely discuss the young age 
at which James and Lily married.  They're not really what I have in 
mind for 'group dynamics'--interaction/relationship within families 
or the trio.  

Thoughts?


Kathy W:

> Just off the cuff, should we keep any issues that can be resolved 
just by going to the Lexicon, or should I code as if it doesn't 
exist? I recall someone else was removing posts that contained 
information easily found elsewhere.<

KathyK:

Er, that would be me.  I was doing this with the Fantastic Beasts 
and Quidditch Through the Ages categories.  Mainly because many of 
the posts found there ran along the 'what do we know about 
kneazles?' 'or don't those fuzzy animals in the pet shop in PoA 
remind you of tribbles?' answered by 'well FB says this:' followed 
by a quote and little discussion.  Since this information is easily 
at hand by either reading an entry in FB or popping into the Lexicon 
for a quick definition or brush up, I decided they didn't really 
need to be coded to FB or QTA.  Was I wrong?
 
KathyK, off to work