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)