| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy Taylor edit
This article seems to appear when clicking for information on 'Timothy Taylor', even within the link in the page as her spouse. There used to be a Timothy Taylor article as well, and now it seems not simply to not exist, but to be linked to this one. Is there a way to fix or report this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militant.squirrels (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Children edit
A recent Articles for deletion discussion established that her youngest daughter, Estella Taylor, was not sufficiently notable and should be replaced with a redirect to her mother, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estella Taylor. Presumably the same arguments apply to her 3 older children. Unless anyone objects I propose to replace them with redirects to her mother as well. This is part of a wider discussion about where the threshhold of notability lies in relation to distant relatives of royalty, further contributions would be welcome. PatGallacher 20:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Post-merge succession box edit
Well, the Taylor children's articles were just unmerged "because it broke the succession box". So, here's a solution that doesn't:
and Lord Frederick's will say Preceded by Estella Taylor (which links to her mother). I suggest we utilise this or a similar solution in the future mergings of not-notables in the line. DBD 11:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Nickname edit
The nickname in the article, and the section in talk about it, should both be removed. Wikipedia would devolve into nonsense if any nickname, applied by anyone, were allowed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no problem with nicknames, as such, however vulgar or objectionable they may be to some readers ("Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so"), as long as the nicknames are widely known and can be duly referenced. Lady Helen Taylor's alleged nickname "Melons," however, is ascribed in the article to media sources that are all referring to the nickname as adopted by other media. In short, there is no original, first-hand source cited. Consequently, the alleged nickname goes. -The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Plan edit
to redirect the page from Helen Taylor as per advice at "malplaced disambiguation page". Victuallers (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Helen Taylor. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Image edit
Why is the image on the page a pencil drawing when photographs of Lady Helen Taylor exist? USA1855 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Are the photographs free-use? See Wikipedia:Image use policy. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)