So...is this category (and all the subcategories) really necessary? I mean if you want that information you could go to the character's pages, do we need categories for it? -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. A well laid out article should have a relationships section that would list these sort of things. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 22:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with no, unless someone makes a valid argument in the next week. -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way about these categories, but I suppose one argument in their defense is that they allow readers to access related information from a central location, which actually isn't available in all the related articles. For example, while Harry's blood status can certainly be found in his article, you wouldn't find a list of all the half-bloods in the series there. So while information on all the boys that Ginny dated could be found in the "Relationships" section of her article, you wouldn't find it at Michael Corner, Dean Thomas, or Harry Potter. And I suppose the aim of relationship categories would be to easily tie together articles based on a shared charateristic, sort of like is done with the categories for Aurors, Pure-bloods, Ravenclaws, etc. I imagine it would be quicker to browse through Category:Horcrux victims to find all the people killed to make Horcruxes than to scan the Horcrux articles for this information. Categories often duplicate information presented by articles, but they're basically like the indexing system used by public libraries, which make books searchable by common themes (e.g., a book on Nefertiti would be listed across "Ancient Egypt," "Famous women," "Queens," etc). But whether romantic relationships between characters are too trivial to be worthy of categorization on this site is open to debate. I'd say Category:Individuals by relationship lays right on the border between trivia and useful information. Category:Individuals by hair colour certainly would be pushing it. -Starstuff 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its trivial. At what point is it necessary to stop doing relationship categories? I.e. should we have a ccategory for Dean Thomas' girlfriends? Etc. -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I even added these categories is because I thought it would be helpful to anyone looking for a list of the characters' boy/girlfriends. I would have to agree with you that it is verging on trivial, but I still think that it is useful and should stay. Individuals by hair color would definately be pushing it, but I dont think that this category entirely crosses the line. The only other thing that I would add is that a category is not necessary unless there is more than one article in the category, which rules out Category:Dean Thomas's girlfriends, Category:Viktor Krum's girlfriends, etc. So, pretty much what I am saying is that the categories aren't TOTALLY useless, and I think they should stay. --Freakatone 11:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be moved to Category:Relationships and include marriages too...— [M183] ^Talk 11:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I picked a bad example by Dean Thomas, but (I'm not sure anyone fits into this in HP?) what of other characters who have much smaller roles but may be seen with multiple girlfriends/boyfriends? And I agree, each subcategory should probably be "Ginny Weasley's relationships" as opposed to "boyfriends." And just a note: I'm absolutely putting my foot down now -- we're not having an Individuals by hair colour" category :-P. -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There goes my idea of individuals by eye colour then .... seriously, if we are to keep the categories, they do need to be renamed. Adding the second name of the character involved is obviously more encyclopedic for a start, and retitling it relationships, as per DJ's comment above, is better. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can do it with my bot once I get back from breakfast if that's our decision. We also must look at if there are other characters that should have that type of category associated with them (and also add husbands/wives?). -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Husbands and wives are already listed in the current categories (Ginny is listed under Category:Harry's girlfriends' and Cho Chang's husband under Category:Cho's boyfriends). While I'd suggest that the "boyfriend/girlfriend" naming scheme is already inclusive of legal spouses, as we can presume that everyone dated for some period of time before tying the knot, I think that DarkJedi is on the right track by suggesting we change "boyfriends/girlfriends" to "relationships." However, the one issue I can see with the word "relationship" is that its usage is not limited exclusively to romantic involvement, and thus could be interpreted to include friendship. This problem could be solved by having more specific titles like "Cho Chang's romantic relationships." I think we should leave the title of the parent directory as "Individuals by relationship," because that version would allow us to slot in Category:Families as a subcategory, which I feel is out of place in its current location in Category:Individuals. Example:

• Category:Individuals by relationship
  • Category:Families
  • Category:Romantic relationships

-Starstuff 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, as usual, Starstuff, you're the category MASTER!! lol. Category:Individuals by relationship with Romantic Relationships and Families as subcategories. Does anyone have thoughts/objections to that? --Freakatone ^(Talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. What're the categories under "Romantic relationships"? Would it be: "Harry Potter's romantic relationships" or just "Harry Potter's relationships" or something else? -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Freakatone. :) To answer your question, DarkJedi, the subcategories under "Romantic relationships" would be in this format: "[Character]'s romantic relationships." The word "relationship" is too ambiguous on its own. -Starstuff 04:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All done I think. See if I missed anything? -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)