Talk:William Bronston

"particularly relevant"
@GiantSnowman I'm sorry for creating so many discussions, but regarding including Trotsky in the infobox, I'd like to point out that the guidelines state that it needs to be "particularly relevant" to the article, not simply notable (in the general sense or in the Wikipedia sense). I'm not quite certain what being included in the DYK hook really has to do with all this. There's one book that provides a mention of him being the great nephew of Trotsky when introducing him, but that's really it. Him being related didn't impact of influence him, hell he didn't even know him. I doubt that the distant relationship counts as "particularly relevant". ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If it's notable enough for DYK, then it's notable enough for the infobox - and that seemed to be your concern? GiantSnowman 19:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything is "notable enough" for DYK so long as it is supported by an in-line citation in the body of the article. I'm unsure what that has to do with the guideline that relatives added to the infobox must be "particularly relevant" to the subject of the article.
 * A small aside, in case this is the confusion, the guidelines for relatives is stricter than the guidelines for parents/children. Parents/children only require the person to be either independently notable or particularly relevant (emphasis my own). Relatives (and distant relatives like this) require the person to be both independently notable and particularly relevant (again emphasis my own). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)