Hi, guys. I'd like to suggest a few ways to improve the infoboxes on this site. Firstly I like to suggest that they be divided up into the following fields. The reasons for this is, mainly to create an infobox that serves the article better by acting as kinda like a fact file. Secondly I think the Behind the scenes section should be removed from the Template. Mainly, as per Wookieepedia, because including fields such as portrayer contradicts the in universe perspective of the wiki.
Biographical information
- Date and place of birth=
- Date and place of death=
- Family members= (Notice that Wookieepedia dosn't have a family members field? Not quite sure why, but I think it's to avoid the great long lists of in-laws etc, that we have here)
- Blood status= (Not sure if this should go in physical description or not?)
Physical description
- Gender=
- Height=
- Hair color=
- Eye color=
- Skin color=
Magical characteristics
- Animagus form=
- Boggart form=
- Patronus form=
- Wand statistics=
Affilation
- Affiliated organizations, goverments etc=
I think this is a much better way of organizing the information in the infoboxes, and prevents them from becoming cluttered by removing non essential fields. Let me know what you guys think, I've also got some ideas on how to make the templates more asthetically pleasing. Jayce Carver 
Talk 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Also I think it might be beneficial to have less infoboxes, or to have more general ones that would apply to more characters. For example, we have Beauxbatons and Durmstrang infoboxes, yet there are only two or three articles that require these, so it's kinda wasted. I think having ones for the major factions for the majority of characters, and having a basic one for individuals who can't be placed. So it'd be "Order of the Phoenix character infobox", "Death Eater character infobox", "Ministry of Magic character infobox", "Muggle character infobox". That classifies nearly all the characters in the series, rather than having Gryffindor Slytherin Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw for characters who could all share a single template like Hogwarts student infobox. Jayce Carver Talk 15:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have been working on the appearance of the infobox, and I think I have made a more appealing version. See here for the infobox or here for a test. I'm going to try and incorporate some of the changes mentioned above.--Matoro183 (Talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Jayce's proposal. But I think we should keep the relatives field, because it allows readers to quickly scan the infobox for this information, which is often scattered throughout the text of an article (and thus not easy to find). As to who should be included, immediate family like parents, grandparents, siblings, spouses, children, and grandchildren are obvious choices. Extended family like aunts, uncles, cousins, and in-laws are okay in moderation. It makes sense to list Bellatrix Lestrange as "sister-in-law" in the infobox of Lucius Malfoy, due to the level of interaction these two characters have in the books, but it's hard to justify cluttering up all the Weasley pages with twenty minor cousins/nieces/nephews/uncles/aunts/etc.
- Blood status belongs under the heading "Biographical information" because it does not effect physical appearance. I also think we should add a separate Hogwarts House field as this can be hard to determine from the colour of an infobox alone. And what about occupation? I guess that should go under "Biographical information." ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although it might seem unnecessary, I also think we should retain the gender field, because a character's gender is not always immediately apparent based on their name (especially if they are known only by a surname or have a unisex given name like Terry, Dominique, or Blaise). ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
We should definately retain the gender fields as it is a essential part of a character. I suppose we could keep the family members but we definately need to tighten the restrictions. A persons occupation is determined by their afilliation, so I'm not sure if it's needed. Also I think titles and or alias should go, I've noticed a lot of people putting things like "Hagger" as Hagrid's alias and "Crack pot old fool" as Dumbledore's, so yeah a line needs to be drawn somewhere I think. And like I said before including fields such as a charcters first and last appearance in the books and there portrayer in the film directly contradicts the in universe perspective of the wiki, so the behind the scenes section should definately go. Jayce Carver Talk 07:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think occupation can always be linked to a particular organization. For instance, Luna Lovegood is a magizoologist, but we don't know which research institute, if any, is her employer. And what about characters who have two or more careers during their lifetimes? Ginny Weasley started out as a professional Quidditch player but went on to write for the Daily Prophet. It would be awkward trying to incorporate this sort of information in the affiliations field.
- I completely agree with your suggestion to thin out non-essential fields like titles and aliases, although I feel there is an argument for keeping significant and/or widely-used nicknames (Moony, Prongs, Lord Voldemort, The-Boy-Who-Lived, Mad-Eye, The Half-Blood Prince, etc.). But we should definitely get rid of trivial and one-off nicknames like the examples you gave. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 08:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The main concern I have is that, by looking at Matoro's test page, I believe that the physical description info should go before the biographical; since having the family list so high up looks wrong to me. The family field is important to have in the infobox since family (or the essence of family) is a strong plot thread throughout the Potter novel.
I propose a slight tweak:
Biographical information
- Date and place of birth=
- Date and place of death=
- Blood status= (Not sure if this should go in physical description or not?)
Physical description
- Species=
- Gender=
- Height=
- Hair colour=
- Eye colour=
- Skin colour=
Family information
- Family members= (Following our previously established policy on the matter)
Magical characteristics
- Animagus form=
- Boggart form=
- Patronus form=
- Wand statistics=
Affiliation
- Occupation(s)
- Affiliated organisations, governments etc=
- Also, the behind the scenes information section could be done away with. By keeping our Appearances section as it is, we can clearly show exactly where and when a character was first introduced or mentioned, and which books/media they appear in. Also, a mention of the film portrayer would be more appropriate to the bts section. In addition, adopting a Wookieepedia-style required for reffing the infobox would be recommended. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Personally I don't think there is a need to have an occupation field at all. A general rule on Wookiepedia is less is more, only include the bare neccesity of information and let the article itself fill out the details. Thats what it is there for afterall, the infobox is meant to just be a quick rundown. I agree with Cavalier One, we need to start refrenceing the infoboxes. Jayce Carver Talk 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, remember that we are not Wookieepedia, and our way of doings things can and will be different from theirs. The information recorded in the infoboxes are what we believe to be important to the characters in our respective universes. We would also need to include a species field in the biographical section for non-Human characters. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 09:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
True, that would be physical description.
I also think we should discuss the possibility of condesing the number of infoboxes we have and getting rid of some uneccsery ones. Jayce Carver Talk 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The occupations of characters play an important role in the series and influence the story at many points. It's the kind of information that readers probably want to be able to access quickly. Unnecessary information, to me, would include things like hobbies and interests. Leave it to articles to reveal the fact that Dean Thomas liked drawing and Eileen Prince liked Gobstones. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 10:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Which ones would you class as unnecessary? Currently, for characters, we have:
- The only ones I can see might be expendable would be the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang ones. The house infoboxes are, I feel, important since a lot of the characters pride themselves—and identify themselves with—their house, even after leaving the school. Individual is needed for characters whose affiliations are unknown, and Muggle to clearly differentiate between Wizards and non-Wizards. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)