section 4 of the stuff I pasted

[quigonginger]

GENERAL

Carolyn (2492):
As I plod on through the Voldemort posts, I realise that we have 
created rather a lot of sections with similar content. Under WW we 
have: 3.5.3 Heirs, rules of inheritance 3.5.3.1 Ancestors/descendants 
Under Harry we have: 2.5.1.7 Harry's parentage/ancestry Under 
Voldemort we have: (A1) Slytherin family ancestry (b2) 
plan/objectives A great many of these posts are about whether or not 
Harry and Voldie are related, with much repetition of the (alleged) 
ancestors/descendants printing mistake, and many assertions that 
Voldie's principal aim was/is to destroy the heir of Gryffindor 
(James/Harry). Not quite sure what to do about this overlap, as there 
are good reasons for maintaining the sections under the various 
headings, and not having just one heading (where would it go - under 
plot?). 

Ginger (2495) responding to Carolyn: 
You think there are a lot there now? You should have seen it several 
weeks ago. 3.5.3 was 88, now 36 and 3.5.3.1 was 81, now 65. And, yup, 
there's still a lot of repetition. I really trimmed it as ruthlessly 
as I dared. Although, I'm sure less Ruth could be applied if one 
wanted to. 
The categories you mentioned do all seem to fit together, although 
touching on different aspects of things. Such is our grand history. 
In the categories I reviewed, there is enough non-Harry/Voldie/James 
stuff to merit a category for each, but they would be very small 
ones. 
I remember quite a lot of what I rejected as repetitious from my cats 
was also coded to Harry's ancestory. I'm sure a lot of what was kept 
was as well. 
With an eye to the future, I can see that anc/dec will have a lot of 
non-Harry additions with the Black family tree discussions, and the 
heirs will have a lot of who gets #12 GP talk, so maybe they could be 
non-Harry/Voldie/James in nature and stand alone. Of course, there is 
a lot of overlap, as always.

Anne (2497):
 At the Harry Potter end of things, the 2.5.1.7 category seems to be 
justified. It overlaps with 3.5.3.1 and the Voldy categories 
somewhat, but also contains lots of other stuff including speculative 
ties to G. Gryffindor, DD, Weasleys and probably others, as well as 
discussions of Harry's actual parents and grandparents. Overlap 
happens all over the catalogue -- I think it's unavoidable. Coding 
furiously to finish up here. I am removing HP codes completely from 
many posts. I'm trying to get through them all earlier than I'd 
planned, because I want to save a little time to review "Harry's 
character traits/maturation" which is swelling alarmingly and which I 
suspect could be trimmed even more. I think a let too many posts slip 
in there because I wasn't sure if the old familiar discussions were 
things I coded into the category alread or whether I just remembered 
them from reading the list. Otherwise, things seem to be working out. 
I am ending up with more than 100 posts in a general 2.5.1 Harry 
Potter category. If I really can't find a home for them (they'd 
probably require several discrete categories with 1 to 10 posts each; 
a waste of space, I think), it might be easiest to insert 2.5.1.8 
Harry Potter/miscellaneous to dump all those posts into. 

Anne (2500):
> I'm noticing that a lot of the Weasley posts share coding with > 
parenting and child development. Is anyone around who did that 
section? > I was just wondering if both codes would be appropriate, 
or if > parenting was mostly a Weasley section anyway. > > Kathy W > 
Well, there are certainly plenty of Harry-related posts in there, 
too. And, if they're mostly about how someone treated Harry as 
opposed to about Harry himself, then they are NOT also still coded to 
Harry anymore. 

Debbie (2501):
> > I'm noticing that a lot of the Weasley posts share coding with > 
> parenting and child development. Is anyone around who did that 
section? > > I was just wondering if both codes would be appropriate, 
or if > > parenting was mostly a Weasley section anyway. 

Debbie, shaking the cobwebs out of her brain: That section *does* 
sound a bit familiar. IIRC, the posts were heavy on the Weasleys, but 
that's not surprising since Molly is the primary mother image in the 
series (of the live ones, anyway). In particular, I think the thread 
you've been working on was heavily focused on Molly's parenting 
style. I think the double coding is appropriate. (Weasleys should 
have lots of sibling dynamic posts that wouldn't be in the parenting 
category, right?) 

Anne: > Well, there are certainly plenty of Harry-related posts in 
there, too. > And, if they're mostly about how someone treated Harry 
as opposed to > about Harry himself, then they are NOT also still 
coded to Harry anymore. 

Debbie: There are also a number of Malfoy and Dursley posts in the 
parenting section, as well as posts about Harry's father figures, and 
probably some others I've forgotten by now.