Harry Potter Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki
20,678
pages

Talk: Character infobox guidelines

Back to page
Sign in to edit

Question[]

I was re-reading the policy, and it says that we shouldn't put cousins x-times removed. But what if that relationship is explicitly mentioned in the books, like Sirius and Tonks? - Cubs Fan2007 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Certain exceptions to the rule could be made for important characters such as Sirius and Tonks - it was written that way mainly to stop things such as listing each member from the Black family in each of their family infoboxes, or having the Potter children listed in Dudley's infobox for example. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Thanks. - Cubs Fan2007 07:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Character Infobox Guidelines On Family Members[]

The current policy is too narrow!

Any relationships that have been distinctly defined should be included: Great-Aunt/Uncle/Neice/Nephew and Cousins X-Times removed should be included if they are stated explicitly or implicitly based on already known family relationships. Otherwise one is limiting the family relationships of a character being stated.

Jdogno7 (talk) 06:28, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Why, exactly, is it too narrow? I much rather having close familial relationships featured on infoboxes than distant, obscure, and less relevant relations there. Simply put, too much is too much.
Our knowledge of the family trees of certain characters (namely, those that are in some way related to the Blacks) is vast, and that's a fact. By trimming the information featured on infoboxes, we are actually making research easier. By cluttering infoboxes with distant and irrelevant relations such as "maternal first cousin once removed-in-law" (James Potter II's relationship to Dudley Dursley's wife) or "paternal great-great-uncle-in-law" (Herbert Burke's relationship to Louis Weasley) we would be saying such relationships are of similar relevance than that of "father-son", "brother-sister", or "wife-husband" and we would be, effectively, making it so that the unnecessary, irrelevant information eclipsed those (by far) more notable relationships.
How could a restriction such as the one we apply be narrow, especially considering the family information on an infobox can (and should) display a link to the appropriate family article that displays the full known family tree, including links to the family trees of related families? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:32, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I can understand with relatives whose relationship is not clearly defined e.g. With the Malfoy Family: Armand Malfoy, Nicholas Malfoy, Lucius Malfoy I, Brutus Malfoy and Septimus Malfoy are distant ancestors of even Abraxas Malfoy, that it would be hard to define their relationship to Narcissa and Astoria. I mean it is known that Abraxas is Narcissa's father in law and Astoria's grandfather-in-law but even with Septimus Malfoy (who is the earliest known ancestor of Abraxas), his relationship to them isn't clearly defined, so therefore it would be unnecessary (but not wrong) to include him and his ancestors as their in-laws.

Jdogno7 (talk) 00:16, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there was no bumping of this discussion and no "Talk" tag at the top made it difficult for me to see that the discussion was going on at all. As I posted on this page, I feel that it would be too much including all the relations you had posted on there (second-cousin-in-law, great-aunt-in-law, maternal first cousin once removed in-law), and can handle the whole "two generations either way" with only the parents and siblings in-law and no cousins x-times removed.
Your proposal, if accepted, would mean lengthening the infobox of Dudley Dursley's wife to become more than twice the length of the body text due entirely to distant relations.
You say that it would be too narrow having only those family members listed on the policy page, and that any family member whose relationship is clearly defined. However, for Ron that would mean at least sixty-four people before his marriage, which bumps it up to seventy-one after, and that still isn't including his siblings' marriages.
Thus, as you can probably tell, I am somewhat opposed to your idea. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:56, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Romances[]

Michael Christopher Malfettano III's recent edits & questions have made me think that perhaps there should be a section on the 'Romances' field in this policy. Thoughts? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. My suggestion would be that it should only include people that a person had romantic feelings for, and that they themselves should only be listed in the other's if the other person returned that feelings. Canon tells us that Magic can't create love, therefore I would exclude those influenced by Love Potion or Veela Magic, like Tom Riddle Senior. What do the others think?Rodolphus (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Bump. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to define what can be put in the field too. Rodolophus has a good definition, but wouldn't a romance be deeper than just having feelings? I think it should be for characters who acted upon their feelings, dated or had a committed relationship. But like Rodolphus says, they can't be forced by Love Potions etc. - Kates39 (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, I've seen a few pages that list the person's spouse in the romances field, which to me seems redundant given as how spouses are already mentioned in the family field, so clearer rules on that would also be welcome imo. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft suggestion for the romance section; The Romance section can include people who had genuine feelings for another, including dating, and likes. This excludes the examples such as the effects of a Love Potion, Veela Magic, or Imperius Curse, and marriages. StarLightNova (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


I personally think that we could list the spouse, but only if it is confirmed that they had a romance. We know, for example, that Bellatrix' true love was Voldemort, so I'd probably remove him from her romances section.Rodolphus (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We could include Romance for couples such as Arther and Molly Weasley.StarLightNova (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the romance section should only include people who've been actually boyfriend/girlfriend, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, obviously, husbands and wives had romances, but they are already mentioned in the family field. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  14:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

While I don't oppose putting husbands and wives in the field, they can be found in the family field so I don't feel like it's neccessary. Getting married or having a child doesn't neccessarily mean that they did so out of romantic love anyway. We know of characters who wed strategically, due to things like blood status. Can we prove it was out of love, or that they ever loved each other too? I feel like the romance field should just be a place to put any other noteworthy romances a character had. But they need to have had genuine feelings for each other that led to dating or a proper relationship. A romance = courting, an affair out of having romantic feelings for each other.
Like the Bellatrix thing would be a good example of what can't be in the field - he didn't love her, because he couldn't feel that. I wouldn't say that was any sort of romance, even if they had a child. He viewed it strategically, so even though she was in love, it still doesn't count. Did characters like Walburga and Orion Black love each other and date? They wed because of blood status, but it can't be proven that they loved each other too. - Kates39 (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Yup. I'm completely with you on that, Kates.
So, I'm guessing any change to the policy would have to be voted upon? Could we do that here, or would we have to take it to a forum? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest doing it in a forum.Rodolphus (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

forum. StarLightNova (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, let's move this discussion over to Forum:Character infobox guidelines - "Romances" field proposal. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Images[]

Should the whole 'infobox images must be voted upon' thing be mentioned on this policy page? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

But the infobox images don't need to be voted on in general - just that if an image is voted in then it would take a new vote to change it (which is just part of the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy). However, I agree that there should probably be some note on the conventions for infobox images, but would suggest perhaps as part of the Harry Potter Wiki:Layout guide and include notes about using the most recent portrayal like the infobox theme, etc... Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Well we're frequently having to revert edits changing an Infobox image without a vote, so it would help if it was officially written somewhere, wherever best it fits; and as this guidelines page is literally about infoboxes... -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  00:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think an official note about it on a policy page sounds like a good idea. It could be written on a couple of policy pages if needed, and the character infobox guidelines could have a section about the image field, and have links to the voting policy, layout policy page etc. - Kates39 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Distant relative families[]

We know that it is not allowed to list most "great-" relations unless in rare circumstances, so how come it's allowed to list extremely distant 'ancestors' like this? (Two examples)

From the Edward Lupin infobox:

From the Rose Granger-Weasley infobox:

Should these extremely distant relations like Yaxley, Flint, Crabbe, Bulstrode -- families of which these characters have no actual relation or dealings, who are only extremely distant ancestors -- not be excluded to save infobox space? Castlemore (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

In-laws[]

I have a feeling that son/daughter in-laws are missing from this list whereas they should be included. If parental in-laws and sibling in-laws are permitted, then I believe this is an accidental ommission. RedWizard98 (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

True, but in the case of Lily J. Potter, I don't think it should say Ginny is her daughter-in-law, because she never had the chance to be that. MalchonC (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement