Template talk:Autobiography

Toby Young
What is in the opinion of editors the proportion of text by an 'autobiographer' that makes Template:Autobiography appropriate? There don't seem to be clear guidelines. I believe that the template has inappropriately applied at the article Toby Young and have raised the issue on the article talk page (and at Village pump (policy)). In brief, in this case, page statistics estimate that while edits by Young constitute 21.8% (the figure cited by the editor placing the template) over the history of the article, they currently involve only 6.4% of the content. Young seems not to have edited the article since 2017, since when a variety of editors have more than doubled the article size, in the context of much debate on the article talk page. In these circumstances it seems to me that the template, stating that the article "may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" conveys a misleading impression to the casual reader or editor. Opinions would be welcomed. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6.4% of the raw characters have been added by Young, but 21.8% of the prose text (as the article currently stands). These raw figures are sufficient to justify the Autobiography tag according to common standards and practices. I suggested that Smerus raise the discussion in another forum because their arguments seemed not to relate to Toby Young but instead to the general usage of the tag, Smerus arguing:
 * If [personal] friends [of the subject's] editing counts as COI (and I agree it does), then so should enemies' editing. And much editing has clearly been done here by those who dislike [the subject]. [...] can we not just all be trusted to behave as responsible people, to read and edit the article in a responsible manner, and make up our own minds without being told or signposted what we should think? Just asking..... [...] Perhaps my estimate of editors' abilities is slightly higher than yours in that I believe most of them will realize that elements of the article is controversial without them being told so, but I was ever an optimist
 * More opinions anywhere are welcomed by me too. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)