Talk:Holland Taylor

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.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

LGBT studies: Person

	LGBT portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
	This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Comments[edit]

Couldn't you find a more charming picture. This one looks terrifying to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.65.136 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 64.222.88.135 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. 187.23.110.197 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. 64.222.87.162 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree re the pic- terrifying? get off! Still lovely and still hot BUT- the opening paragraph has no mention of her film work. She is probably more known for her film work than for anything. Romancing 1 & 2, and for recent readers, Prof. Stromwell in Legally Blond.Dcrasno (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details about personal life? Marriage? Kids? Relationships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.72.122 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's tone[edit]

I am going to clean up parts of this article. It has a chatty tone which does not seem encyclopedic. For example, it talks about being in a "notorious flop" but the citation given doesn't mention the play in question; the article uses phrases like "Taylor had one of her greatest theatrical moments" and "the actress's fame, built slowly over many years,' which are meaningless and unsupported.Purplethree (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image change[edit]

I am so fed up with these admins abusing their power against new editors such as myself. Here i am trying to do my job as an amateur editor by selecting another suitable image to be used on Miss Holland's page, and these power hungry admins keep reverting my edit. Mind you, i did nothing wrong whatsoever! IslandScholar (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No admins have interacted with you regarding this article.

Why do you think either of the two images that you added to the article are better for the article? What is your objection to the current image? Schazjmd (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've asked. My issue with the image is that it is outdated. The caption says it was taken in 1994. It is 2023 now for crying out loud. The lady doesn't even look that young anymore she has aged. What is so wrong with someone selecting a much updated image of how the person looks now. I noticed this to be an issue all across all the Wikipedia pages. Years or even decades have passed and we' re displaying old ass images from years gone by when there are plenty of recent images of the person to be used. This is my purpose of becoming a Wikipedia editor. Not only just to edit biographies but to also fix the much needed problem on Wikipedia by updating images. It will make Wikipedia more appealing to the younger masses. Now you know my reason for my edits i beg of you to join me in updating all these old ass images on Wikipedia. Thank you kindly! IslandScholar (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IslandScholar: Well, the image you chose is blurry and very poor quality. Do you have a current free image we can use ? - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 01:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree the first one was blurry but the second one was not. Use the second one where she's in glasses wearing red clothing. This was the second image that you reverted. It you do not recall which one i am talking about then atleast allow me this time to change it. Without your objection to my edit of course. IslandScholar (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current, according to WP:ONUS, you get consensus, then it will be changed. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IslandScholar: The image you are editwarring over is not an improvement and editwarring will get you blocked. Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the long-standing image is preferable for the infobox because it's higher quality, has the fewest visual distractions, and shows a clear full-face view. I don't object to adding the red jacket/glasses version to the article but I don't think it's the best choice for the infobox - the glasses appear to be partially tinted and obscure her face, and the busy background is distracting. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]