Forum:Should Lovers Be Listed as family

I don't think lovers should be listed as family. They aren't married so I think it shouln't count.--Nintendo-Fan (talk) 07:20, December 13, 2009 (UTC)Nintendo-Fan
 * Is it 1950 again? Why would two people need to get married before being seen as family?
 * Besides, it would mean Kushina Uzumaki and the Fourth Hokage would not be seen as family, nor would Asuma Sarutobi and Kurenai Yūhi. --ShounenSuki (talk 00:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Still it wasn't official. It's the same thing with Naruto and Minato, we all knew they were related but it wasn't listed as family was it? Even if it was blatantly clear. I apologise if I seem insulting but in sticking with my arguement.--Nintendo-Fan (talk) 04:24, December 14, 2009 (UTC)Nintendo-Fan


 * I think you're contradicting yourself a little there. Or, rather, being simply ignorant. I can understand the non-married relationship argument, but your example of Minato and Naruto is well, completely irrelevant because they are related and family, regardless if he (Minato) died before your cultural view of family took place. Family in this sense is persons related or in a serious, monogamous relationship, using Kurenai and Asuma as an example; they have a son and are a family. They don't have to be married, again, in your cultural idea of family to be family. 98.211.13.216 (talk) 06:20, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that, for a long while, Naruto's relation to Minato was pure speculation. "Lover", in the rare cases that it comes up, is at least provable. ~SnapperTo 06:27, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

"Family" just needs a better name. Content wise there is no reason to exclude lovers from the list. This just just another one of those stupid cases where we randomly put one word into an infobox because it's the best word we can think of to describe what we are putting in that content area. Then some random person comes along, decides that the single word we use to describe the content is a almighty rule of what goes in that box, based on that decide some content does not fit that word, and then demands that we remove that content or add some content to that field. This is the same issue as we had with Rank:. We just titled the field dedicated to Ninja Ranks (AS,Genin,...,Kage) "Rank" because it was the only type of relevant rank back then. Then later on ANBU ranks come into play, and because we titled the field "Rank" instead of "Ninja Rank" when ANBU ranks never existed someone decided to assert that we should include ANBU ranks in the Ninja Rank field where they don't belong.

In short we aren't going to exclude lovers from that box simply because the box is titled "Family" and someone doesn't like that. The box is meant for close family, lovers, relevant relationships, etc... It's a box linking to people who are extremely relevant to that character. If you're going to complain about something, either complain about the title we use for the box, or complain about the content for some reason related to the content. Don't complain about the content because it contains an irrelevant title(You'll make the babies in the bathwater cry.) ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 14, 2009 @ 18:14 (UTC)


 * I do not really see why the family box would need a better name. Family describes it perfectly fine. Lovers can be as much family as spouses. Just ask my aunt. She and her lover were together for twenty-something years before they were finally allowed to marry and for each and every one of those years we considered her lover as much a part of the family as if she was born into it. A piece of paper does not a family connection make. A relationship does that.
 * That said, the ANBU rank issue is still haunting my mind. We should really find a satisfying solution to that... --ShounenSuki (talk 18:34, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox/Naruto/Character, rank is now a heading. The new infobox can handle multiple types of ranks. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 14, 2009 @ 18:50 (UTC)

well, in this time, if you live with someone and are in a relationship with them for 3 or more years, your a listed as Married, I know this is no help, since we have no idea how long these characters have been in a relationship for, but, it doesn't matter if you are married or not, you should be listed as "Family" since you are with them at the time, possibly having a child with them and you are there "lovers". Though it may help with the conflict if you change "Family" to "Relationships", Relationships could be family wise or Lover wise, pretty much means the same thing also in the INFOBOX of the character it will say how they are "Related".


 * Just throwing this out here, but, how are we sorting family? By relationship or by name. Simant (talk) 20:03, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * ^_^ There's a lovely little semi-constant variable in the JavaScript language we like to call, I think that one applies here, heh... ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 14, 2009 @ 23:44 (UTC)

Well, i think they should be, also if they have a child, they are considered family.

What about Itachi and his apparent "lover", that Madara talked about? 24.45.20.86 (talk) 21:17, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have proof that that wasn't a mistranslation? Do we even have proof if he was lying or not?--TheUltimate3 (talk) 21:28, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a mistranslation, I can tell you that. However, Itachi's lover is simply in no way significant enough to add to his infobox. His lover is not even named.
 * however, if his lover had been significant to Itachi and the story, then they should be listed in his infobox. --ShounenSuki (talk 21:33, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that's good game then. It seemed like a mistranslation because it just seemed so left field. "Hey Itachi had a lover!" "F0r r3@lz z0n?!?!"--TheUltimate3 (talk) 21:38, December 20, 2009 (UTC)