Talk:William Willett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you persist in removing my addition of Trivia with the point that Chris Martin of Coldplay fame is Willett's great-great-grandson?

Because 1) it's trivia 2) who cares? If it was son, or grandson, I suppose, but you never see anyone talk about "great-great-grandson" unless there is a reason to. That is so far removed that it is pointless. Do you know how many people can claim some connection to a famous person that far back? It's a matter of simple math. 3) It might be relevant in the article on Chris Martin, but in terms of William Willett it has no relevancy. In sum, it looks like a vanity edit, designed to bring attention to Chris Martin than say anything meaningful about William Willett. -- Stbalbach 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris Martin of Coldplay IS Mr. Willetts' great-great grandson. What is the harm of mentioning it?

See points above. -- Stbalbach 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, everyone is related to everyone. Each of us has a common ancestor. I am related to William Willett and to Chris Martin, and so are all of you. During the 2004 election someone actually found the common ancestor of John Kerry and George W. Bush, showing their family tree. The question here is, when is it significant for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? I think important factors include whether linkage has been traced and confirmed, the degree of linkage, and the connection, if any, between the respective subject matters for which each person being linked is notable. Applying these factors here, the linkage has apparently been confirmed, and the degree is 4 separations (father-grandfather-great grandfather-great great grandfather). On the other hand, the only relation between the subject matters for which Willett and Martin are notable is the daylight savings time and the song, "Clocks." I don't think that there is a strong enough argument to exclude the mention from the article, especially considering that it only takes a sentence.

Additionally, I'll mention that I don't think the standard for inclusion of borderline-irrelevant information is whether it will cause any harm. I think the overarching standard is whether it belongs in an encyclopedia. 67.184.178.226 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)