Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Relationships sections

I recently did some rearranging of the "Relationships" section of the Harry Potter article, but it occurred to be that we seem to have no guidelines about how those sections should be ordered. In most articles, it probably isn't relevant, but some articles have very long "Relationships" sections and the order of them is often arbitrary. My suggestion would be that we only have rough guidelines, rather than very strict ones, along chronological lines, though how close the relationship is would also be taken into consideration. For instance, technically Harry met Dumbledore before he met the Dursleys, but that was when he was an infant; it would be years before they would become close, during which he was raised by the Dursleys. Harry also interacted with Professor McGonagall earlier than he did with Ginny Weasley, but I would still think his relationship with Ginny should be higher in the order based on its overall greater importance.

For example, with the Hermione Granger article, I would suggest the following order:

Parents (family relationships would probably go first in most articles)
Harry Potter
Ron Weasley
Neville Longbottom (technically, Hermione becomes friendly with Neville before Harry and Ron, but she is clearly closer to the latter two)
Draco Malfoy (they don't really interact until Chamber of Secrets)
Ginny Weasley (they don't really interact until Prisoner of Azkaban-Goblet of Fire)
Viktor Krum
Luna Lovegood
Cormac McLaggen
Weasley family (fairly minimal but consistent interaction)
Minerva McGonagall (fairly minimal but consistent interaction)
Lavender Brown and Parvati Patil (fairly minimal but consistent interaction)

Any thoughts? Oread (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea for me...the Fred Weasley project was another example of things getting out of hand, I mean, we had a relationship with Flitwick just because Fred took Charms and because Flitwick didn't get rid of a small bit of swamp. That way is good. For another character like Luna, I'd suggest;
Ron and Hermione

And possibly others. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 04:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we have to be careful about not letting "Relationships" sections get excessive. Subheadings, I think, should be avoided except in the case of multiple family members, since they are often unnecessary and lengthen tables of contents. I agree with you mostly about Luna as well. What about something like this for her:
Family (I'm not sure if there is enough to have separate subsections for each of her parents, but if so, then fine)
Ginny Weasley (they weren't close, but were still friendly before she ever met the others)
Harry Potter (Luna seemed to become the friendliest with him first in Order of the Phoenix)
Hermione Granger (I would put her before Ron because she and Luna make their peace at the end of Order of the Phoenix and seem closer in Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows)
Ron Weasley
Neville Longbottom (clearly friendly, but we see less interaction between them)
Dean Thomas (no interaction until Deathly Hallows)
Harry's should possibly be discussed, since there are so many of them. Oread (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Ron and Hermione should be merged, as there is not enough information for seperate sections. I had forgotten Dean, but the rest of them are fine. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We can use this for Harry:

Dudley Dursley (I perfer to have dudley before any other dursley's because Harry seems to have a closer relashionship)
Petunia Dursley

--This is where a Vernon Dursley section should be created

Sirius Black (I perfer all family relashionships to go first)
Lord Voldemort (Seems to be one of the most importanat relashionships and one of the longest.)
Ron Weasley (Harry has a closer relahionship with him then Hermione)
Hermione Granger
Ginny Weasley (I put her after Ron and Hermione because their relashionship doesn't become strong until the fifth book)
Draco Malfoy
Luna Lovegood
Rubeus Hagrid (He is the first wizard he had ever interacted with ever since he was a baby)
Weasley Family
Albus Dumbledore
Severus Snape
Nymphadora Tonks
Minerva McGonagall (Only a small relashionship)
Cho Chang (Only a small relashionship)

-- HellaboreHallows(Deathly Hallows)

With regards to Luna, I don't think her relationships with Hermione and Ron should be merged; the sections we currently have on them are of an appropriate length and level of detail. We have less details on her friendships with Neville and Dean, but they still both merit their own sections.
I like Hellabore's outline for Harry's section. I think that Neville deserves his own section, though, perhaps after Draco's, and I'm a little unsure about Cho's placement. The importance of the relationship should matter somewhat in the order, but I think we have to be careful about not speculating. For instance, I would also put Ron before Hermione, but because Harry became friends with him first; it's debateable whether Harry was closer to one than the other. Oread (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. But i think relationships between another family (the Weasley family in Harry Potter) should be at the end of the relationships section. This is because so far most relationships are about an individual and families are not. Get what i mean? ShirleyALuna Lovegood(The Quibbler) 05:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should discuss WHAT we want from the relationship sections before discussing specific examples. If I remember correctly it wasn't actually arbitrary when we made the articles, but I'm not sure where that conversation went. Obviously the more important relationships are first -- which may not necessarily be family. Harry, Ron and Hermione's relationships are obviously the most important to each other. But after that, who can say? It does become a bit arbitrary, and I really don't think there is any way around that. It seems you're on the right track for the way they were meant to be arranged -- by order of importance to the person in question. Sub-headings do length the table of contents, but its good to have an organized page...but if sections can be combined then they should be (why have two paragraphs in different sections that say the same thing?) -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the only way to completely avoid subjectivity would be to arrange "Relationships" sections in alphabetical order. This wouldn't do justice to the way relationships are presented in the books, though, because it would mean that Luna Lovegood ("L") would get higher placement in Ron's article than other members of the Weasley family ("W"). I generally agree with the ideas outlined in Oread's initial post: section ordering should, ideally, be based mainly along chronological lines, with relationship significance as a secondary consideration. I say "significance" rather than "closeness," because while Harry's relationships with Snape, Draco, and the Dursleys were important, they obviously weren't friendly. I am also curious about where important relationships formed later in life would fit under a chronologically-based organization system. Would Harry's short-lived romance with Cho Chang be given higher placement than his relationship with his children because it happened first? Of course, we currently don't really have enough information on Harry's relationship with his children to build a "Relationships" section, but this is just an example of the kind of dilemma that might arise. Starstuff (Owl me!) 20:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to break down "Relationships" into thematic sub-sections, such as "Family," "Friends and allies," and "Adversaries." For example, with Harry Potter, this would work out something like:
Petunia Dursley
Dudley Dursley
Ginny Weasley
Friends and allies
Ron Weasley (Technically also family, but the friendship plays a more important role in the series, and I think that, even after they are both married, Ron and Harry will probably regard each other more as best friends than brothers-in-law.)
Hermione Granger (same as with Ron)
Rubeus Hagrid
Albus Dumbledore
Severus Snape (Snape's relationship with Harry is hard to categorize. They dislike each other very strongly, but they're definitely not enemies in the traditional sense, since they fought for the same side.)
Sirius Black
Cho Chang
Weasley Family
Luna Lovegood
Nymphadora Tonks
Minerva McGonagall
Draco Malfoy
Lord Voldemort
I suppose we could have separate sections for "Friends" and "Allies," and another for "Romances," but that might make things more complicated than necessary. Starstuff (Owl me!) 21:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think if we break into even more categories the articles would become way too messy. ShirleyALuna Lovegood(The Quibbler) 23:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely be against splitting it into subcategories. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should we should consentrate on ordering the main charcters because the have to many reletionships. Harry's, for instance should go...
The Dursleys ( There is not enough iformation for one each)
Sirius Black (He is Harry's family even if his reletionship is not as strong as with Ron or Hermione)
Lord Voldemort( One if is longest and strogest Reletionships)
Ron and Hermione
Ginny Weasley
Neville Longbottom
Luna Lovegood
Draco Malfoy
Other Reletionships ( contains Cho Chang, Minerva McGonnagoll, Severus Snape and Nymphadora Tonks.)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hermione821 (talkcontribs).

For Harry, I would disagree. His parents perhaps should be first -- but more likely Ron & Hermione, then Ginny -- they are clearly very important to him and should definitely go in front of The Dursleys, etc. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would agree.ShirleyALuna Lovegood(The Quibbler)

Family , I think , should go before friendsHermione821