Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Overhauling "family" field in character infoboxes


Under our character infobox guidelines, relations more distant than two generations in either direction (i.e., grandparents and grandchildren) are not to be included in the "family" field of infoboxes, with a couple exceptions. However, it isn't uncommon to find explicitly disallowed distant relations listed in infoboxes (great-aunts, great-nephews, great-great-grandmothers, etc.), and even the listing of relations that are technically allowable under the current guidelines can get so out of hand that infoboxes become an unwieldy mess. Look at Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, Ron Weasley, etc., where users have felt compelled to list every last niece, nephew, and in-law.

I'm proposing two changes:

  • Trimming down the "family" field by limiting the listing of nieces, nephews, and in-laws so that, if a character has lots (like any member of the Weasley clan), only notable ones would be included. For Harry, this would include Rose and Hugo, who are the only niece and nephew he's shown to have a relationship with in canon. All of his other Weasley in-laws and nieces and nephews would be covered with "various other nieces, nephews, and in-laws," which would link to the Weasley family article.
  • Restructuring infoboxes so that the "family" field is no longer freeform, but has predefined sub-sections for "mother," "father," "siblings," "spouse," "children," "grandchildren," etc. There is currently an informal ordering used infoboxes, but it isn't universally applied, and creating a standard structure would eliminate that inconsistency.

Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:47, March 27, 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both changes, though I think it's sometimews dificult to determine which relationshoüs are notable. --Rodolphus (talk) 07:39, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
Family relations are too difficult to determine in a lot of cases and excepting for the most obvious relations (ie Molly Weasley is the mother of Ron/Fred/George etc), a lot are not set in stone anywhere, just assumed. I'd prefer the family field to be significantly cut down to list only those characters who actually exist in the series, not some long-lost ancestor who has never existed. --Sajuuk 09:32, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly support the use of structured fields for people within 2 steps of relation (not generations necessarily as a sibling's child is 2 steps, but only 1 generation eg Ron > Ginny > Lily Luna). The steps should be defined as being direct by blood or a marriage, not inferred so Harry's parents are 3 steps from Ron (>Ginny>Harry>James I) not 2 steps(>Ginny>James I (father in-law)). I would also suggest that they are separated for clarity so you have maternal grandmother, etc, instead of just grandparents. Given the special nature of Godparent within the series it should probably be a named field as well.
Using family pages help could help limit the number of listings, but with the intermarrying of the Sacred 28 almost every member would have links to all the other families unless this is similarly restricted. But even using just 2 links, for Ron this still means the list could include the Black Family (Ron>Arthur>Cedrella Black), The Grangers, Delacours, Johnsons, and The Potters but not the Longbottoms, Malfoys, Crabbes, etc although they are still related.
The trouble still lies with other notable family as there is no clear definition. Harry should be linked with Ignotus Peverell, but what about Linfred the source of the Potter name? Or how about William McGonagall for Minerva, which is a speculative ancestor, but one provided by JKR with its own story so probably should be included. Overall there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule for this, just have to depend on best judgement (which is what got us into this mess to begin with ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:18, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favour of entirely disallowing the listing of distant ancestors in character infoboxes. When it comes to Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, there's an argument for listing their respective ancestors Ignotus Peverell and Cadmus Peverell in their infoboxes, since this ancestry (or at least the artefact passed down Ignotus's and Cadmus's respective lines) plays a role in the plot. But I think it opens the door to listing every single known distant relation and thus cluttering infoboxes.
I'm for keeping the current practice of limiting relations to two generations in either direction. Except, of course, for cases in which the only known relatives are more than two generations removed (as with Cassandra Trelawney and Zygmunt Budge).
I like the idea of allowing godparents to be listed.
I know I've seen structured family fields in character infoboxes on a number of wikis, but the only one I can remember off-hand is the A Song of Ice and Fire wiki. You can see an example of how it looks on the Ned Stark article (note: the article contains spoilers for the books). Though I'd prefer the field names ("mother," "siblings," etc.) be to the side of the field rather than above it. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:07, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a single field for Earliest Ancestor would avoid adding everyone but provide a root to the family trees that you can jump back the earliest known member and work forward. Given some of the ancient families (Gaunt/Slytherin/Cadmus Peverell, Potter/Ignotus Peverell, Olivander, Malfoy, etc... knowing the history of the earliest ancestor provides context for understanding the later generations.
Agreed about two steps of relation (not generations ;) although for the Weaselys the resulting info boxes will still be large) & Relationship name to the left of info. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:49, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
Having an "earliest known ancestor" field sounds like a good idea. For example, Linfred of Stinchcombe would be listed as the earliest known ancestor for James, Harry, etc.
Perhaps we should develop special guidelines for including extended family in the character infoboxes of members of the Weasley clan given the size of the family? Like only listing prominent (from the perspective of the plot) nieces, nephews, and in-laws, or ones who are related through the non-Weasley spouse's side of the family? So, in Bill Weasley's infobox, we'd list Harry and Hermione as siblings-in-law, and their respective children as nieces and nephews, because they're all prominent from a plot perspective. We'd also list Gabrielle as a sister-in-law because she's his wife's sister, not a Weasley. But we wouldn't list Audrey Weasley, or Lucy and Molly II, because they're only mentioned on JKR's Weasley family tree, and are thus minor figures within canon. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:48, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
I don't have much of a dog in this fight and I strongly support structuring the family fields regardless of the specific approach taken so my comments are just thoughts on some possible options.
If a minor / major character approach is taken, it seems like there would be room for arguing over the relative importance of different family members. Another possible way of limiting the Weasley family list may be to limit it to 2 connections, not 2 generations. An example of the difference can be seen in for Ginny:
A 2 generation approach seems to include both Arthur/Molly and James/Lily (parent generation) as well Septimus/Cedrella, Mr/Mrs Prewett AND Mr/Mrs Evans and Fleamont/Euphemia Potter (grandparent generation). A 2 connection approach however would not include Harry's grandparents as it takes one connection from Ginny to Harry and then one to James & Lily. In general this method limits the number of relatives shown from the spouse's side of the family and would cut down on the Weasleys in the infoboxes of the spouses (Harry, Hermione, Fleur, etc) and reduce the extended family shown for the Weasleys (who have plenty of direct family already).
As for the ancestor field, I would only point out that for the Riddle/Gaunt line it should likely include both Cadmus Peverell and Salazar Slytherin, and for the Potter line it should include Ignotus Peverell and Linfred of Stinchcombe as these ancestors are central to the characters amd story. Most other families would have a single ancestor. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:00, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
ETA: in working through this for Hugo Weasley even a 2 connection approach leads to an unwieldy list (note that for a true 2 Generation method this list should also include the parents of Angelia, Audrey, Fleur, and Harry!). There must be better way.
If a minor/major relation approach is used, I would only suggest that minor family members are hidden in a comment in the infobox so that when someone goes to edit there is a list of who is already considered to be minor so they are aware they'll need to make a strong case for including any of those individuals in the displayed family list. --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:18, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

As it's been over a week since the last post on this (and as I've seen User:Starstuff bouncing around leaving immaculately crafted articles in her wake), I'd like to bring it back up for discussion. Even when restricting family members to just 2 generations, the family lists end up very long for the Weasley's and their relations, as well as members of the Noble and Most Ancient House of Black. Structuring the fields to specific relations (Mother, Father, Siblings, etc) will help limit the list, but I would follow up on Starstuff's suggestion that other family members only be included based on their notability with anyone considered minor left in a comment list on the page so future editors know that they should not be added to the displayed list without a strong argument. Does this sound workable to everyone or does anyone have any other ideas? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:14, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

I think we've managed to hammer out a solid framework for a new "family" field policy. The next thing to do would be to put these proposed policy changes to vote and create some infobox mock-ups to work out the design for the new family field. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:49, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
I've created a draft version of the "Wizard individual infobox" template with expanded family fields. You can view it in action here with data for Harry Potter. Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:55, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
I'm liking how this is looking! Couple thoughts
  • "First ancestor" sounds odd as no one has a "first" ancestor. "Earliest known" is the right idea, but may be too wordy. Other possibilities?
  • We had discussed a "Godfather" field as this is a rare, but meaningful relationship in the HP series. Thoughts on adding it in?
Thinking about the implementation process, wouldn't these family fields need to be added into "individual infobox", "wizard infobox" and such? Is the idea to create a new version of these or just modify the current one and move info from the "family" field into the proper relationship field?
Nice work so far! Let me know if there is anything I can do to help --Ironyak1 (talk) 12:30, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
I love the idea of this because it keeps things nice and simple! However, I don't see the point of the "First Ancestor" box. Even if we replace it with "Earliest Known" it still means the same thing. Have you considered not putting ancestors in the infoboxes and keeping them strictly with their close family? We can explain who their ancestors are under a lineage title as we already have on Harry's page. I favour when things are kept simple because it makes pages look better instead of cluttered. The rest of your infobox for family make things simple and clearer though! Good work :) --May32 (talk) 13:59, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
As discussed above, the earliest known ancestor plays a key role in the relationships of many characters. Understanding that Tom Riddle is a descended from Cadmus Peverell and Harry from Ignotus Peverell is part of understanding the metaphorical meaning for the entire series. Other ancestors provide insight both to the individual character as well as the history for the family (Malfoy, Gaunt, Ollivander, etc). I think providing an ancestor to anchor the rest of the family information is very valuable and worth word-smithing to find a usable title for the field. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:19, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine! It was just a suggestion but I see keeping it has it's own merit too. :) We could put "Start of Lineage" but I think "Earliest Known Ancestor" sounds best. When I think about how it would look I don't think it will look too cluttered. I don't think it will be more than two lines and it will look simpler than it does now.
I also think it would be cool to add a godparents part too. When I came on this wikia for the first time I expected to see Sirius listed so I think it would a nice addition. --May32 (talk) 14:27, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

I like it, but have we alreadxy discussed what we do if we don´t know which one is the earliest known ancester?--Rodolphus (talk) 14:32, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I cannot think of a page where we will have this problem yet. I don't think there will be lots of possible earliest known ancestors - maybe one or two - so we could put both such as "___________ or ___________". But should there be more than two, we can discuss it and try to reach a consensus and if we don't then we just leave it blank. --May32 (talk) 14:52, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Do you have an example where this might be an issue Rodolphus? As I mentioned above, I would advocate that for a few key characters a couple ancestors are listed (eg Tom Riddle - Cadmus Peverell & Salazar Slytherin) so we can always do that, but in general, I think we have a pretty good handle on the earliest ancestor for most of the family trees. --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:00, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

I´m trying to think of it, but I think there is no such example as of now.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:08, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion about how to list all known family members (certainly ones whose relationship can be clearly defined e.g. parent-child e.t.c.) without overfilling the info box.

Why not in the character's article, allow for a section where all known family (certainly ones whose relationship can be clearly defined e.g. parent-child e.t.c.) can be listed. Just noting that a character's relationship with other characters can be listed or given their own article, so why not family members?

KillerBird (talk) 11:59, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Advertisement