Forum:Infoboxes

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Infoboxes

Hi guys, I'd like to bring up a point I mentioned sometime ago, and that is which info boxes should be used for certain characters. I feel the only proper way of doing this is to use the infobox that rpresents a characters most recent and most major affiliation whenever possible. We already do this for certain people, ie: Snape and Dumbledore's infoboxes are both OOTP as opposed to Slytherin and Gryffindor respectivley. This is the way it should be done, but I've noticed it is not the case for everyone, for example Harry Ron and Hermoine's infoboxes are Gryffindor despite all three of the being MOM employees. I know that many of you will say their house is something the relate to, but that cannot be said for all characters and despite however strongly someone may feel about their house they do cease being part of it when they leave school. Obviously for people who we don't know what they do after leaving school ie: Cho Chang, their infoboxes should remain as they are, however in the case of the trio they are MOM employees, Harry and Hermoine are heads of department and I feel thats more important than what house they were in at school. Anyway, rant over, let me know what you think. Jayce Carver ^Talk 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the infobox used would be for what they were most known for in the books. Ex:Harry would be Gryffindor.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But remeber that we are writting from a real world prespective, the infoboxes are included in this, and despite being well known as a Gryffindor Harry is not one at the end of the series he is head of the auror office and his infobox should reflect that. Present over past if you will. Jayce Carver ^Talk 13:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I wasn't thinking about that.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I still think that that a character's infobox should be what best defines them, and what they are most often affiliated with. On the other hand though, perhaps a character's infobox could represent what makes them most proud, so Walburga Black's infobox should be (and is) a Slytherin one, and Sirius Black's is an OOTP infobox. Sorry for elaborating so much here, but this topic makes me remember something else. I think we should have a special infobox for Death Eaters, so then, for example, Tom Riddle's infobox could be distinguishable from that of Pansy Parkinson. Margiechocoholic 07:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually we already have a Death Eater infobox. And as I've said a persons house is not always what best defines them, look at Snape for example, as Dumbledore said Sometimes I think we sort too soon. The only truly encyclopedic way of doing is to give everyone their most recent affiliation. Giving Harry Ron and Hermoine Gryffindor infoboxes when their not Gryffindors anymore is like giving Darth Caedus a Jedi infobox, even though he is not a Jedi anymore, see what I mean. Jayce Carver ^Talk 09:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise we had a Death Eater infobox because it's not used on all Death Eaters. I agree that character's infoboxes should be what best defines them, but, in the case of Harry Potter for example, not everyone knows that he grew up to be an Auror, whereas most people know he was a Gryffindor. Also, he's famous for what he did as a teenager, when he was still a Gryffindor. Margiechocoholic 10:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use the infobox that best defines them, because thats not always possible to tell. Maybe people who havent read JK Rowlings interview don't know Harry became an Auror, but most people in-universe do, and thats what matters. The fact of the matter is, know matter how famous or well known he was as a Gryffindor he is not one anymore so giving him a Gryffindor infobox is innacurate. He is a fully grown man now, not a teenage boy, he is the head of the Auror office, and so his infobox should be Ministry of Magic. Jayce Carver ^Talk 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From a fully in-universe perspective, I have to agree that most recent affiliation makes the most sense. Presumably, by 2017, most people would associate Harry with the Auror Office more than with his house at school.

However, I'm still not sure if that should be the guiding principle for determining an infobox. I think we should have a standard like that of the naming of articles, in which it was determined by vote that "an article's title should contain the last name used throughout the Harry Potter series, regardless of marriage". Thus, for example, even though we know that Ginny became a Potter upon marriage, her article is still "Ginevra Weasley", because she is only a Potter for a few pages of the entire series. Similarly, in the series, we never actually see Harry, Ron, or Hermione affiliated with the Ministry of Magic. On the contrary, they've usually been opposed to the Ministry (e.g. in the entirety of Order of the Phoenix and most of Deathly Hallows). I think it would be misleading to give them Ministry of Magic infoboxes.

Even if we do have an in-universe perspective as a general rule, there can be rare exceptions when they are more logical or practical, and I think this is one of those occasions. Oread ^(talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia and so we have to do things from an in-universe perspective. It's the same reason we write articles from a RWP and the same reason we use characters real names rather than alias. It doesn't matter how many pages he is depicted as an adult for, or that he was opposed to the Ministry before, he joined them. We shouldnt make exceptions because it undermines the whole point of establishing policys. It's certanitly not more logical to have him as a Gryffindor when he isnt one anymore and I dont see where practicallacity comes into. It's not misleading to give him a MOM infobox because thats what he is. As far as I'm concerned if these infoboxes stay Gryffindor then Snapes infobox should be changed to Death Eater, it amounts to the same thing. Jayce Carver ^Talk 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it would be the same thing to change Snape's infobox to a Death Eater one. He defected from that side to the side of the Order of the Phoenix, and he was loyal to the Order for basically the entire timeline of the series. Harry, Ron, Hermione, and so on did not abandon one allegiance for another; they simply graduated from school, which makes it an issue of most recent affiliation. I take your point, though.

Secondly, having rare exceptions to a general rule does not necessarily undermine them; most rules do have some exceptions to them. And there is already a policy that, as I mentioned above, is an exception to the strictly in-universe point of view. One of the criteria for the naming of articles policy is that we don't use married names for article titles if the character was not referred to by married name throughout the series. From an in-universe perspective, Ginny's most recent name is Ginevra Potter, but the article is called Ginevra Weasley. That is one occasion on which the "most commonly known as" standard trumped the in-universe standard.

I don't disagree with you that the infoboxes should be Ministry of Magic ones if the standard we are using is most recent affiliation from an in-universe point of view. I just think this should be an exception to that standard for the same reason Ginny's article uses the name "Weasley" instead of "Potter". Oread ^(talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the marrige name rule was only if they are not refered to by their marrige name. Yes I know it says the seven Potters, but JK is describing them as a family unit, she is hardly going to write the six Potters and one Weasley is she? I assumed that if a canon source ever refered to her as Ginny Potter than the article would be moved. Wheras in this case we have the highest canon source possible JK herself that says Harry becomes an Auror so the infobox should reflect canon. Jayce Carver ^Talk 09:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that JKR probably said "the five Potters" just to be efficient, but still, her word is law. Therefore, the Deathly Hallows establishes Ginny's surname as Potter in canon. Nevertheless, her article retains her maiden name because of the policy to use the name "used throughout the Harry Potter series".

On a related subject, though... Do you think Arthur Weasley's infobox should be a Ministry of Magic one, as opposed to an Order of the Phoenix one? Presumably, he returned to work after the war, just like Kingsley Shacklebolt, who has an MoM infobox. Furthermore, Frank and Alice Longbottom both have Order of the Phoenix infoboxes, though they were Aurors as well as Order members, and their most recent affiliation would be the Ministry, since they were incapacitated after the end of the First War and the disbandment of the Order. And should Minerva McGonagall and Hagrid's infoboxes return to Gryffindor ones, considering that they are affiliated with Hogwarts long after the end of the Second War and the Order with it? Oread ^(talk) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

LOl, I don't know why I said seven Potters, my mind was adrift from it's moorings. I'd have to say that since the Order is technically disbanded (after all is was formed with sole purpose to fight Voldemort) that all members who are alive at the end of the series should have infoboxes to reflect their new stations in life. Wheras Snape, Dumbledore, Tonks, Lupin etc who died in the service of the Order should stay as they are. Incidently do we have a source that says Arthur goes back to the Ministry, while I'm sure he does we shouldn't say it if it can't be proven. As for Frank and Alice, I personally think they should be given the general witch/wizard infobox. Afterall incapactitation is not death, they didnt die in the service of any organization and are not affilliated with any to this day. And yes I think Hagrid and Minerva should have Gryffindor infoboxes as their are both still at Hogwarts. Jayce Carver ^Talk 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that, since we are writing from an in-universe perspective, we should use a character's most recent affiliation to determine which infobox they get. But, like Oread, I think that this should only be a general rule, because there are cases in which going with an older affiliation is preferable. For example, Regulus Black's most recent affiliation would be the Death Eaters, but since he defected and sacrificed his life to try to bring down Voldemort, it would incorrect to use the Death Eater infobox on his article. But he didn't join the Order, and we don't have an infobox for lone wolf opponents of Voldemort, and thus we've opted to use the Slytherin infobox instead, although Slytherin is an earlier affiliation for Regulus than the Death Eaters.

I also think that veterans of the Order, like McGonagall and Hagrid, should keep Order infoboxes. Veterans in the real world often associate themselves with the unit in which they served long after the war has ended. If we created a Hogwarts individual infobox, then this would supercede the Order infobox for Hagrid and McGonagall, as it is a more recent affiliation.

When it comes to which infobox to use for Harry, Ron, and Hermione, I'm not really sure where I stand. I see the logic in both sides of the argument, but, ultimately, I think we should opt for flexibility over a strict standard. Although applied on a case-by-case basis, the naming convention on maiden vs. married names is still objective, because it's easy to look at the series and determine which is used more often. Narcissa is consistently referred to as Narcissa Malfoy, and only once as Narcissa Black (in Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 6), thus we use her married name; Ginny is consistently referred to as Ginny Weasley, and only once as a Potter (DH epilogue), thus we use her maiden name. But affiliations are a little more subjective. It's hard to look at the series and say, objectively, which affiliation takes precedence over another, especially if two are held simultaneously. Is McGonagall more defined by her affiliation with Hogwarts or the Order? Neville, Gryffindor or Dumbledore's Army? Kingsley, the Ministry or the Order? That's why I think a strict standard for which infobox to use would be unworkable. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 06:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I agree with you that Death Eater should not be used for Regulas's infobox, for the simple reason that he defected, technically he doesnt have an affiliation so his infobox should be the Wizard one, unless we make a House of Black individual infobox? However where there is a clear case of a person leaving one organization and joining another then the infobox should be changed. As the Order is disbanded by the end of the series, all it's members who are still alive should have their new affiliations, whereas those who died in it's service should stay as they are. For example Snape, Lupin, Tonks, Mad-Eye, Dumbledore etc should all be OOTP, while Kingsley, Harry, Ron, Hermoine, Arthur and Percy should be MOM. And I think Hagrid Minerva and Neville should be Gryffindor, unless we make a Hogwarts staff individual infobox. I'm sure that many veterans do relate to their factions in war time but that's not a standard we can use in Harry Potter because we have no proof of it. Jayce Carver ^Talk 08:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Starstuff. Having very strict standards in some cases simply makes less sense, IMHO. With Regulus, for example, it doesn't make sense to me to use a general 'wizard individual' infobox rather than a Slytherin one, when the latter is more specific and still accurate, even if it is an older affiliation.

The issue can also be raised with many other characters. Ginny, for example, is affiliated with the Daily Prophet by adulthood. As we don't have an infobox for that, but it's been almost 20 years since she was a Gryffindor, by the logic of most recent affiliation, her infobox should be a general wizard one as well. The same logic would apply for Luna and George, since they've been out of Hogwarts for years, the Order was disbanded at the end of the war, and we know what their careers were. In my opinion, there's no point in making affiliations less specific, even if they are less recent.

The infobox choice for Harry, Ron, and Hermione is a separate issue, but I still tend to favour leaving their infoboxes as is. For most of the series, they are, at best, indifferent to the Ministry. For a fair portion of it, though, they are actively opposed to it and vice versa. Throughout the entire series (since JKR only mentioned their employment in interviews subsequent to Deathly Hallows, not the epilogue), they are not mentioned as being loyal to the Ministry at all. Even though it's canon that they eventually are loyal to the Ministry, that is not what we see for the bulk of - or even at the end of - the series.

From what I can tell, we're really debating between two standards for selecting an infobox:

1) Most recent affiliation - the affiliation held at the time of death or last stated in the series or by JKR

e.g. Harry, Ron, and Hermione all have 'Ministry of Magic' infoboxes; Regulus Black's is a general 'wizard' one

2) Most prominent affiliation - the affiliation held during the bulk of the series, unless the character actively abandoned an allegiance

e.g. Harry, Ron, and Hermione retain 'Gryffindor' infoboxes; Regulus Black's is a 'Slytherin' one

I personally favour the latter. Oread ^(talk) 13:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If we do the latter than were going against canon, I'm sorry but it's as simple as that. More to the point Harry Ron and Hermoine did abandon their allegiance as they droped out of Hogwarts at the end of the sixth book, so even if we do opt for the latter they would still have MOM infoboxes. Jayce Carver ^Talk 14:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The affiliations are still canon; they're just not the most recent ones. An equivalent can be seen on Wikipedia - articles such as that for Al Gore use a Vice President infobox, even though it's clearly been a while since he was Vice President. I also don't think that Harry, Ron, and Hermione abandoned their allegiance to Gryffindor or Hogwarts. Leaving school in order to defeat the person who is threatening everything you care about -- including your fellow Gryffindors and the ideals of your house -- is very different from, say, Snape and Regulus actively betraying the Death Eaters, or Pettigrew betraying the Order. I meant abandoning allegiance in the sense of defection. Oread ^(talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oread. I think that the infoboxes should go to the most notable affiliation. Before, we had a discussion on married names on article's titles and I think we should follow that with these affiliations too (like Hermione Weasley vs Hermione Granger - Granger is more notable than Weasley, and we all know her to be Hermione Granger despite that her married name is Weasley.) -- Seth Cooper ^{(Owl Post)} 14:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the affiliations are canon they were ONCE part of them but are not anymore. Using their house infoboxes does not reflect who they are now. It would be as if Wookieepedia continued to give Darth Caedus a Jedi infobox after he fell to the dark side simply because he was a Jedi for most of the NJO series, never mind the fact that he is not a Jedi anymore and therfore shouldnt have the infobox of one. I know we are not wookiepedia but the logic is the same. Harry is not a child anymore, not a Gryffindor no matter how many books of the series he spent as one. And as I've already said we don't call Hermoine Weasley because we Don't know that she changed her name. Jayce Carver ^Talk 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with Star Wars beyond the films, but from what you've said, that character actively left/abandoned/betrayed the Jedi in favour of another allegiance? Because that is defection. It's what Snape and Regulus did with the Death Eaters, and what Pettigrew did with the Order of the Phoenix. It is not what Harry did with Gryffindor. It would be misleading to use a Death Eater infobox with Snape not only because it isn't his most recent affiliation, but also because he switched sides. It isn't the same as simply acquiring additional affiliations as one grows up.

You're completely right about Hermione; we don't know whether she changed her name. But we do know that Ginny did, yet her article retains the surname 'Weasley' because it is the one used most in the series, even though it isn't the most recent.

In any case, we're all beginning to get a bit repetitive in our arguments. If we can't agree, I would suggest a vote. Oread ^(talk) 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your right, we just keep saying the same the same things. I really hoped a vote woud not be needed, it seemed like a no-brainer, were either up to date or were not. Maintaing two affiliations at the same time is one thing, but Harry DID leave Gryffindor when he left school. The manner of leaving is unimportant in the bigger picture, what matters is, he left, and ninteen years down the line saying he is still a Gryffindor when he isn't is going against canon, and by extension the reason we have this wiki in the first place. I've just had a look at the page where you all voted sometime ago on the naming issues. And it was discussed that maiden names should be used unless their is a source for having changed their names. I'm not going to make an issue of it, but I do think Ginny should be Ginny Potter as it's canon. It just seems to one standard for the majority and a diffrent one for the sentimental favourites. Also, if you think that we should go by what there best known as in the series, than surely you think that Tom Riddle's article should be Voldemort despite it not being his real name, and Snape's and Dumbledore's infoboxes shoul be Slytherin and Gryffindor, despite them not being their most important affiliations. Sorry to keep ranting, I'm nearly done. I just want to bring up Wookiepeedia on last time, because I don't think Jacen Solo/Darth Caedus was the best example. A better one would be Kreia/Darth Traya, which, I'm not sure if your familliar with? If not please bear with me. Basically she's a character from a Star Wars video game, who, throught the game maintains allegiance to both the Sith and the Jedi simaltaenously (I can't spell it, sorry), only revealing her allegiance with the Sith at the very last moment before her death. There have been countles arguments over the name of the article, wether it should be Kreia because thats what she's best known as, or Darth Traya becuase thats what she died as. In the end it was decided to call the article Kreia despite her having aquired a new name. The one that that was never desputed as far as I'm aware was the infobox, which has been consistently Sith for many months because it was unanimously agreed that that was her most recent affiliation even though there was only an hour or so between her defection and her death, whereas Harry has not been a Gryffindor for nearly twenty years. Again I know were not the Wook, I just wanted to show you an example of how others might view the situation. I'm sorry this has been so long, I just wanted to make sure I covered everything. I think I'm going to go and collapse in a heap somewhere. Thank God for half-days. Jayce Carver ^Talk 07:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry did leave Gryffindor upon leaving Hogwarts, just as all students leave behind their houses when they leave school. That is a perfectly valid point. But it's still different from defection; it's not as if Harry betrayed Gryffindor in favour of Slytherin or something. There is also a lot to suggest that wizards and witches maintain some kind of loyalty to their old school houses even as adults - many families prefer their members to all be in the same house (e.g. the Blacks in Slytherin, the Weasleys in Gryffindor); in the epilogue we see Ron telling his daughter to be in Gryffindor and James II teasing his brother about getting into Slytherin. I'm not saying that house affiliations are still the most important ones when people are adults - of course they aren't. I was only saying that they haven't been completely abandoned, let alone betrayed.

I wasn't familiar with that Star Wars character, but you explained it well. That situation seems most like Snape's - readers were not sure whether he was truly loyal to the Order or to the Death Eaters until the end of Deathly Hallows. But then we found out that he had been loyal to the Order since 1981 (i.e. the entire series). I think his infobox should be an Order of the Phoenix one, as a result. I've never said I wanted the standard to be what a character was 'most known' for, but rather the most prominent affiliation throughout the series. I was only using one part of the naming policy to show how we already have a policy that isn't strictly 'most recent' in standard. I really don't want to open that debate up again, though, for the record, I don't think Tom Riddle's article should be called 'Voldemort' either.

Anyway...I didn't think this would need a vote either, but it seems to be getting more complicated the more it's discussed. From what I can tell, these are the various suggestions of standards for determining which infobox should be used:

Completely in-universe, most recent affiliation standard:

1) If a character is still living in 2017 and his/her affiliation at the time is known and there is a specific infobox for that affiliation, that infobox should be used.

e.g. Harry is head of the Auror Office = Ministry of Magic infobox

e.g. Ron is an Auror = Ministry of Magic infobox

e.g. Hermione is high up in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement = Ministry of Magic infobox

e.g. Neville is professor of Herbology at Hogwarts = Gryffindor infobox

2) If a character is still living in 2017 and his/her affiliation at the time is known but there is not a specific infobox for that affiliation:

Option (a) use a general 'wizard individual' infobox:

e.g. Ginny works for the Daily Prophet = Wizard individual infobox

e.g. Luna works as a wizarding naturalist = Wizard individual infobox

e.g. Molly does not work, but the Order has been disbanded and she hasn't been at school in 50 years = Wizard individual infobox

Option (b) use an older affiliation that has a specific infobox:

e.g. Ginny works for the Daily Prophet, but used to be a Gryffindor = Gryffindor infobox

e.g. Luna works as a wizarding naturalist, but used to be a Ravenclaw = Ravenclaw infobox

e.g. Molly does not work, but the affiliation she had most recently was the Order = Order of the Phoenix infobox

3) If a character is still living in 2017 but his/her affiliation is not known:

Option (a) use a general 'wizard individual' infobox:

e.g. We know that Cho Chang survived the war and later married a Muggle, but nothing else = Wizard individual infobox

e.g. We know that Minerva McGonagall retired as headmistress of Hogwarts sometime before 2017, but nothing else = Wizard individual infobox

Option (b) use an older affiliation that has a specific infobox:

e.g. Cho Chang was a Ravenclaw in school = Ravenclaw infobox

e.g. Minevra McGonagall was headmistress of Hogwarts before retiring = Gryffindor infobox

4) If a character died during the course of the series and his/her affiliation at the time of death is known and there is a specific infobox for that affiliation, that infobox should be used.

e.g. Snape was loyal to the Order of the Phoenix = Order of the Phoenix infobox

e.g. Pettigrew was a Death Eater = Death Eater infobox

5) If a character died during the course of the series but his/her affiliation at he time of death was unclear or there is no specific infobox for the affiliation:

Option (a) use a general 'wizard individual' infobox:

e.g. Regulus Black defected from the Death Eaters but did not join the Order = Wizard individual infobox

Option (b) use an older affiliation that has a specific infobox:

e.g. Regulus Black defected from the Death Eaters and did not join the Order, but was a Slytherin in school = Slytherin infobox

Most prominent affiliation throughout the series standard:

1) If a character was a student for the majority or entirety of the series, without acquiring and keeping a more prominent affiliation, his/her house affiliation is used:

e.g. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, and Neville were loyal to Gryffindor (books 1-7) and Dumbledore's Army (books 5-7) = Gryffindor infobox

e.g. Luna, Cho Chang = Ravenclaw infobox

2) If a character was a student for part of the series, but acquired a new affiliation later in the series that is more prominent, use the latter:

e.g. Percy Weasley was a Gryffindor in books 1-3 and a Ministry of Magic employee in books 4-7 who was staunchly loyal to the Ministry = Ministry of Magic infobox

e.g. Fred and George Weasley were Gryffindors who joined the Order of the Phoenix = Order of the Phoenix infobox

e.g. Draco Malfoy was a Slytherin who became Death Eater, but defected before the end of the series = Slytherin infobox

3) If a character has more than one prominent affiliation for most or all of the series, the one that the character is more loyal to or that plays a larger role in the series is used:

e.g. Arthur Weasley was an employee of the Ministry and a member of the Order of the Phoenix, but he was more loyal to Dumbledore and the Order than to the Minister for Magic = Order of the Phoenix infobox

4) If a character defects ("gives up allegiance to one state or political entity in exchange for allegiance to another") from an affiliation, even if it is his/her most prominent one, the newer affiliation or an old one is used:

e.g. Regulus Black was a Death Eater, but he left, betraying Voldemort himself, though he never joined the Order = Slytherin infobox

e.g. Lucius Malfoy was a Death Eater for most of the series, but he defected in the end = Slytherin infobox

So we have to decide whether we're using (1) most recent affiliation or (2) most prominent affiliation as the standard, as well as what to do when we know an affiliation but don't have a specific infobox for it (do we use an older affiliation, or a general 'wizard individual' infobox?). Oread ^(talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I should have been clearer by what I mean precisely by "prominent". I meant it in the sense of "relative importance" and "standing out...distinguished above others". Oread ^(talk) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He did'nt defect, true, but he still left, one way or another. And as I've said although some may continue to support their house after leaving school, the same cannot be said for everyone. Anyway I'm done chatting. You've laid the proposals out very well. I'm in favour of most recent affilliation when known. When not, however, I agree that we should revert to an older affilliation rather than use the general one, except in the case of Frank and Alice where not only have they not joined another organization, they are not capable of actively joining one due to their condition. Also on a related subject, using the general infobox does'nt mean the colors have to stay the same. For example with Frank and Alice, Gilderoy Lockhart and others who live and work at St Mungo's, we could use the lime green colors that the healers are said to wear, or we could use vivid orange for obscure Weasley members. Also, I'm working on the European Wizarding Revolution article, and I realised a few days ago, we need a conflict infobox rather than using the battle one for wars. Jayce Carver ^Talk 07:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Both proposals presented by Oread are well-written enough to be used as official policy. As to which standard we should go with, "most recent" or "prominent," I think we should put it to a community vote, as time-consuming as that might be. Personally, I support using the most prominent affiliation, because I think that the standard used for choosing between infoboxes should be the same as the standard for choosing between a married or maiden name. But I wouldn't want this to become the standard of the wiki if it's not what the majority of editors would support. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 06:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent. The obvious problem is, if we establish most prominent as standard it contradicts the naming policy, which says to use full names vs nicknames ie Ron vs Ronald despite the nickname being most prominent, and alias vs real name ie Voldemort vs Tom Riddle, despite the alias being most prominent. It just seems a bit contradictory for us to use most prominent affiliations for the infoboxes because we use female characters maiden names over their marital names, when we have all characters article titles at their full names despite nearly all of them being known by their nicknames. I'm just concerned that if we choose most prominent because of the reasons suggested, there will be people left right and center insisting that Tom Riddles article be changed to Voldemort and so on. It makes much more sense to use most recent affiliation, which would tie in with the name policy of using characters true names despite them being more prominently known by their nicknames. Jayce Carver ^Talk 07:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would contradict the naming policy only if we used "prominent" in the sense of "widely known", which is one definition of the term, but that's why I mentioned above that "prominent" can also refer to "most important" or "most noteworthy", which is the way I think we should use it. Thus, for instance, it doesn't matter that Ron is most known as Ron Weasley rather than Ronald Weasley by both readers and those who know him in-universe -- his actual character name (legal name from an in-universe point of view) for the entire series is Ronald Weasley. It's the same thing with Voldemort -- there is no indication that he ever legally changed his name (I can't imagine him caring about such a thing at all), therefore his real name throughout the series is still Tom Riddle. Similarly, Snape was probably most known for being Slytherin's head of house for most of the series by most readers and other characters, but Deathly Hallows confirmed that he had been loyal to the Order throughout the series, and it was that loyalty that determined almost everything he did, therefore it's the more prominent one. Oread ^(talk) 14:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should just stay as what house they were in. If the house was unknown then it should be a wizards induvidual box. 90.198.123.53 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all gone quite on this front. I do think his still needs to be dealt with, so ,are we going to vote? Jayce Carver ^Talk 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out our original policy with thi sfor what its worth: we originally chose infoboxes based on House from Hogwarts (or if not from Hogwarts than just the school they were from). If it was unknown then a different affiliation was used, if no affiliations are known then wizard was used, etc. -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but things change as wikis evolve. We've already mostly discarded this policy anyway, as nearly all characters have most recent affiliations as their infoboxes. Jayce ^{•Avada Kedavra•Crucio•Imperio•} 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course Wikis evolve, I'm not debating them. It just seemed (by reading the above conversation) that they were thought to be randomly chosen, this is not true, there was a method to our madness a couple of years ago when we redid all the infoboxes the first time. -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 17:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be the affiliation that the character had at the end of the series (excluding the 19 years later bit). So it should go something like this.

Harry: Gryffindor infobox Pettigrew: Death Eater infobox Athur Weasly:MOM infobox Hermione821 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)