2016-07-04

Streamlining signature.

← Older revision

Revision as of 12:00, July 4, 2016

(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)

Line 13:

Line 13:

::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. --'''''[[User:SuperSajuuk|Sa]][[User talk:SuperSajuuk|ju]][[Special:Contributions/SuperSajuuk|uk]]''''' 09:32, 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. --'''''[[User:SuperSajuuk|Sa]][[User talk:SuperSajuuk|ju]][[Special:Contributions/SuperSajuuk|uk]]''''' 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.

:::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.

+

:::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 ;) --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk:Ironyak1|talk]]) 14:18, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

:::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 ;) --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk: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 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'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 like the idea of allowing godparents to be listed.

Line 29:

Line 29:

::::::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.

::::::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. ★ [[User:Starstuff|Starstuff]] [[User talk:Starstuff|(Owl me!)]] 00:48, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

+

::::::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. ★ [[User:Starstuff|Starstuff]] [[User talk: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.

::::::: 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:

+

::::::: 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).

+

::::::: 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 --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk:Ironyak1|talk]]) 06:00, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

::::::: 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 --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk: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.

:::::::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.

Line 40:

Line 40:

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? --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk:Ironyak1|talk]]) 02:14, June 7, 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? --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk: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. ★ [[User:Starstuff|Starstuff]] [[User talk:Starstuff|(Owl me!)]] 00:49, June 11, 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. ★ [[User:Starstuff|Starstuff]] [[User talk:Starstuff|(Owl me!)]] 00:49, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

::I've created a [[Template:Wizard individual infobox test|draft version]] of the "Wizard individual infobox" template with expanded family fields. You can view it in action [[User:Starstuff/infobox test|here]] with data for Harry Potter. ★ [[User:Starstuff|Starstuff]] [[User talk:Starstuff|(Owl me!)]] 22:55, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

::I've created a [[Template:Wizard individual infobox test|draft version]] of the "Wizard individual infobox" template with expanded family fields. You can view it in action [[User:Starstuff/infobox test|here]] with data for Harry Potter. ★ [[User:Starstuff|Starstuff]] [[User talk:Starstuff|(Owl me!)]] 22:55, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

Line 47:

Line 47:

:::*"First ancestor" sounds odd as no one has a "first" ancestor. "Earliest known" is the right idea, but may be too wordy. Other possibilities?

:::*"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?

:::*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?

+

:::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 --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk:Ironyak1|talk]]) 12:30, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

:::Nice work so far! Let me know if there is anything I can do to help --[[User:Ironyak1|Ironyak1]] ([[User talk:Ironyak1|talk]]) 12:30, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Line 65:

Line 65:

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

I´m trying to think of it, but I think there is no such example as of now.--[[User:Rodolphus|Rodolphus]] ([[User talk: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?

+

+

[[User:KillerBird|KillerBird]] ([[User talk:KillerBird|talk]]) 11:59, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Harrypotter.fandom.com

Forum:Overhauling "family" field in character infoboxes