Talk:Speak Now/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Archive 1
  • 2

Speedy Deletion

I think this article qualifies for Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. There are enough references on the page, but they all state the same thing. Thoughts? Ga Be 19 23:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

October's quite a long time away, I think this article should be redirected to Taylor Swift until the album charts. MatthewWaller (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Selenagomezayearwithoutrain101fan, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Taylor Swift has another song called "Permanent Marker" from Speak Now she confirmed it at a concert

Isaiah (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

:If you provide a link to a reliable source, I will gladly add it for you. Nowyouseemetalk2me 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Found significant coverage, added it. Nowyouseemetalk2me 00:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Song

Taylor also has another song called Dear John. Selena Gomez stated it in an interview. http://www.mtv.com/videos/news/573830/the-year-without-rain-will-be-a-feel-good-record.jhtml#id=1648116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katief74 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not in source given. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it was in this one. http://www.mtv.com/videos/news/573833/selena-gomez-is-so-excited-for-taylor-swifts-record.jhtml#id=1648116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katief74 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Deluxe edition

there is a deluxe edition from asda. [1]

Edit request from 175.40.237.24, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

UPDATE

"Speak Now" Debuts at #1 on iTunes by Taylor Swift on Friday, October 8, 2010 at 1:57am

“Speak Now,” the title track from Taylor Swift’s upcoming Big Machine Records album, was released on iTunes on Tuesday and ascended to the #1 spots atop both the iTunes All-genre Singles Chart and the iTunes Country Singles Chart within hours of its release. The song remains at #1 on both charts, with first day sales in excess of 85,600 downloads.

“Speak Now” is a hit with both fans and critics, with Entertainment Weekly (who this week ranks Taylor at #24 on their annual list of the Most Powerful Entertainers) lauding the song as “expertly catchy” and “one of her best tunes yet.”

175.40.237.24 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Yves (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Abesam, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Not done: We don't add info pertaining to iTunes / you provided no source. Nowyouseemetalk2me 14:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RECENT UPDATE

"Speak Now" Debuts at #1 on iTunes by Taylor Swift on Friday, October 8, 2010 at 1:57am

“Speak Now,” the title track from Taylor Swift’s upcoming Big Machine Records album, was released on iTunes on Tuesday and ascended to the #1 spots atop both the iTunes All-genre Singles Chart and the iTunes Country Singles Chart within hours of its release. The song remains at #1 on both charts, with first day sales in excess of 85,600 downloads.

“Speak Now” is a hit with both fans and critics, with Entertainment Weekly (who this week ranks Taylor at #24 on their annual list of the Most Powerful Entertainers) lauding the song as “expertly catchy” and “one of her best tunes yet.”


Abesam (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Abesam, 8 October 2010

{{subst:edit semi-protected}}

RECENT UPDATE

"Speak Now" Debuts at #1 on iTunes by Taylor Swift on Friday, October 8, 2010 at 1:57am

“Speak Now,” the title track from Taylor Swift’s upcoming Big Machine Records album, was released on iTunes on Tuesday and ascended to the #1 spots atop both the iTunes All-genre Singles Chart and the iTunes Country Singles Chart within hours of its release. The song remains at #1 on both charts, with first day sales in excess of 85,600 downloads.

“Speak Now” is a hit with both fans and critics, with Entertainment Weekly (who this week ranks Taylor at #24 on their annual list of the Most Powerful Entertainers) lauding the song as “expertly catchy” and “one of her best tunes yet.”


HERE IS THE LINK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR

Taylor Swift Tops iTunes Charts With 'Speak Now'


Abesam (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please make a specific request, not just a copy-and-paste of quotes. Also, I would like to let you know that iTunes charts are WP:BADCHARTS. Yves (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Album early? Amazon

i don't know why but Amazon shipped it to me yesterday (arrived today, I had release/1 day delivery). I am unsure if that was a mistake, but the point of the story is that is how I know the track lengths. I don't feel like adding anything else unless we are doing a hidden messages section. just a rundown (spoilers if you want to figure them out yourself) Superbowlbound (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Artwork

Hi, I found a large version of the Deluxe Editon artwork (which I saw the original smaller version on HMV.com), so could someone who's good at the boxes edit it in please? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mupIVJbjvuU/TI_Kr_kXovI/AAAAAAAAG10/4b81W0uFo0M/s1600/Taylor+Swift+-+Speak+Now+%28Target+Deluxe+Edition%29+%28Official+Album+Cover%29.png Theog101 (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just a different color. Not needed. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 15:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Track listing

No.TitleHidden MessageLength
1."Mine"Toby3:50
2."Sparks Fly"Portland Oregon4:20
3."Back to December"Tay4:53
4."Speak Now"You Always regret what you don't say4:00
5."Dear John"Loved you from the first day6:43
6."Mean"I thought you got me3:57
7."The Story of Us"CMT Awards4:25
8."Never Grow Up"I moved out in July4:50
9."Enchanted"Adam5:52
10."Better than Revenge"You thought I would forget3:37
11."Innocent"Life is full of little interruptions5:02
12."Haunted"To this day4:02
13."Last Kiss"Forever and Always6:07
14."Long Live"For you5:17
I don't know who posted this above, but I like the idea of it. Maybe we should use it in the article. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 15:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Trivial and doesn't take importance over writers or producers. Yves (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems as though, she and Nathan co-produced all the songs together, so it would be easier to just say it in the beginning. But, I don't know. I like the idea. And the way it is currently looks so messy. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
that was me by the way. Someone rearranged it Superbowlbound (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

The album has been released an leaked. I know leaks don't need to be mentioned, but wouldn't that mean that it has been released somewhere? I could have sworn it was out in Ireland yesterday. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 16:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The Irish release date has changed. Leaks are very easy to do closer to the release date. In fact, CDs are probably being shipped to retailers as we speak. Anyone could grab ahold of a copy at this point. There was an interesting Billboard response about it. I'll give you the link if you want. Yves (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the Billboard link. I was just wondering because I could have sworn it was getting released eariler in Ireland, but as you said, it changed. Maybe I should just... go to the store, and maybe... grab a copy. >.> Haha. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 16:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Or get a job at hmv. :P The Irish date was the twenty-second, but it changed a couple of days ago or something. I think they want to release it all at the same date, which makes sense, though the British and Irish have different rules than we on release dates. Yves (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish. They don't have HMV here. :( Yeah, they announced that before, I guess Ireland wanted it then, but they won't allow it. :P I wish things would all just come out Monday's. It would be so much easier. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Its possible it shipped early. Mine did from Amazon (as above). Unsure if it was a mistake, but this is not really notable unless it was a mass release AND there was a big deal about it. Superbowlbound (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It was relased in ireland on the 22nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollysof (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Source? Yves (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent reversion by Dan56

The information I placed on Taylor Swift's Speak Now album is reliable and credible. It is an official article published Billboard article about Soundscan's estimations of the album's performance in the United States of America. Please check the this link for confirmation. If there is a valid reason why this was removed then please let me know. Thank You. Kevon100 Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 21:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - put in quotations from this review

{{Edit semi-protected}} This review specifically analyzes some of her songs. If someone can, should add a quotation from this review: http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/taylor-swift-needs-a-gap-year/

following the currently last line of the second paragraph in "Critical Reception." Specifically, include: In an analysis of Swift's lyrics, The Oxonian Review noted themes of regret and solitude, highlighting that "December is a month to get through so we can return to the beginning, and is certainly not a month to relish. Yet, Swift goes there—'all the time'—in 'Back to December' by delivering an apology to an ex-boyfriend, which she never did on her prior two albums."


Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First-week sales

Articles that may be of interest in discussing successful first-week sales:

  • Caulfield, Keith (November 3, 2010). "It's Official: Taylor Swift Cracks 1 Million With 'Speak Now'". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved November 3, 2010.
  • Christman, Ed (November 3, 2010). "Taylor Swift Sales Chain By Chain". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved November 3, 2010.
  • Christman, Ed (November 3, 2010). "What Went Right For Taylor Swift?". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved November 3, 2010.

Yves (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


German chart position

The album debuted on the German Albums Chart at No. 15 source! --79.216.191.171 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

European chart position

The album jumped from No. 12 to No. 9, please add that change source--79.216.213.42 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

German downloads chart position

The album debuted at No. 7 on the official German downloads chart. Please add that! source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.159.8 (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Charts

PEAKED AT 8 <http://greaves.tv/amprofon3/Top100.pdf/> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.130.162 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd single is "Back To December". It should be added under her singles section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.175.179 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Announced tour dates

{{edit semi-protected}} Tour dates should be added, or delete the redirect to create a new page ,based on this source:http://www.taylorswift.com/news/o1287965052241?post=taylor-announces-speak-now-world-tour-20110.12002400%201290556850


Edit request from 203.82.95.35, 26 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The certification in Canada should be changed from Platinum to 2X Platinum,based on this source:http://cria.ca/goldplat.php

203.82.95.35 (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Logan Talk Contributions 07:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Writing credits

The album wasn't solely written by Swift; Carmichael has writing credits (in addition to strings and arrangements) on "Enchanted". Yves (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Background and Development

Under "Background and Development," it says "She has described it as a "conceptual" project, with variations of the theme of "boy-crazy country starlet tries to stop dripping tears all over her guitar"[6]." The quoted description is from a reviewer, not the artist. This is poorly written English and the sentence should be deleted, or amended. If amended to show that the quote is not from the artist, it does not belong under "Background and Development."

The last section of Background and Development includes reviews which should belong under "Critical Reception."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.112 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Target Deluxe Edition

According to Target's website, the Speak Now Target Deluxe Edition features the original 14 tracks, 3 new songs, and 3 acoustic versions of "Back To December", "Haunted" AND "Mine". In the Wikipedia article it says "Mine (POP Mix") instead of "Mine (Acoustic)". I think it should be amended to "Mine (Acoustic)". I just wanted to discuss it before editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is actually incorrect cause the CD actually has the Pop Mix of Mine that was an error on Target.com's part. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 14:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

platinum in india

Speak now is certified platinum in India..There's an advertisement on Vh1 India saying speak now is Platinum In India now.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.133.112 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Since the infobox should reflect its article, the genre(s) that are included would be better off included based on several sources that have something consistent with each other; if most critics dub it "country" or "pop", for example, those should be included. But not an Allmusic reference that has the label "Pop/rock" for categorical purposes to serve its own database, the general label used for convenience's sake as it serves as a musical databse. Since no reference mention "rock", in prose atleast, critic or otherwise, it should probably be left out. I've encountered a similar issue with genre change, and have gotten helpful advice on such a matter at the WP:Albums talk page. Dan56 (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, although I feel 'teen pop' should also be added due to a very significant portion of it's fanbase being teenage girls. Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sales source

When Billboard is available as a source for US sales, it should be used as the primary source. It receives its sales data from Nielsen SoundScan data, the primary sales tracking data system for the US. It should not be replaced with a press release, from a record label, which may be subjective. Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sparks Fly is the fifth single

She is an American artist which means we are suppose to go by US standards. "Mean" and "The Story of Us" were not released as a dual-single in the US. Mean was released first as the third single then it's music video. A month later "The Story of Us" was released as the fourth single and then it's music video was released on May 25th. "The Story of Us" was released as the third single in the UK only "Mean" was not released at all. Also where is the reference for the dual single? I do not see where this makes the count right but if "Mean" was released first then "The Story of Us" then their correct count would be 3 and 4. I'm just wanting to point this out cause I don't see how it makes sense to call them a dual-single when they were not released at the same time. So "Mean" is the third single, "The Story of Us" is the fourth and "Sparks Fly" is the fifth single. I even added a reference from NYDailyNews.com claiming that "The Story of Us" is Swift's fourth single. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 01:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

SYN: Total sales

Recent edits by Theodorerichert have added up total sales figures for the album using two sources, one article from Dec. 16, 2010 supporting total sales up to that date, and another mid-year total for its sales up to July 2011; his revision "The album sold 2,960,000 copies in the United States in 2010<ref>http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/71209/chart-watch-extra-eminem-does-it-again/</ref> and 563,000 in 2011<ref>http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/top-selling-albums-of-2011-so-far-1005267092.story</ref> for a total of 3,523,000". I asked for help to User:IHelpWhenICan, who agreed with me against such synthesis, citing WP:SYN, which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as that would be original research. Another editor reverted my edit, citing Wikipedia:SYNTH#Routine_calculations. (see history for recent revisions) However, I don't see such addition as routine, nor would it be accurate. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan56 (talk • contribs)

Certainly it's a routine calculation. The first source provides sales through 2010, and the second source provides sales during 2011. They are both basing their sales on Nielsen figures, so there isn't a question of mixed methodologies or overlapping periods. What's your argument against being able to add the two figures and get a logical result?—Kww(talk) 20:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The first source yahoo chart watch is only up to Dec 16, 2010, and does not cover the following two weeks of the album's sales to the end of December 2010 and the year. There's already a total sales source (cited in the "Commercial performance" sec.) up to Jan. 2011, and while it's not the very recent, it's more accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan56 (talk • contribs)
Missing two weeks of sales is less accurate than missing 7 months of sales? That's a pretty tortured conclusion. If you want to say "over 3,523,000" to accommodate the missing 14 days, that's a better solution than being 6 months out of date.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: Is your tilde key broken, Dan56?—Kww(talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there'll be a source soon by either Billboard or Yahoo to make a more recent update of its total sales, but the figure "as of Jan. 2011" can suffice. I just think it's more encyclopedic and following WP:Verifiability's policy on citing anything that's likely to be challenged. "Bring its total sales" sounds like original research, and if there's a total sales figure that's not from calculating from two sources, then it seems like the one that should be used. As for it being routine, I don't think I've seen such synthesis with sales figures. At least it being chosen over a citeable figure. I've asked a couple of more editors to contribute here for opinions. Dan56 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You have it slightly wrong originally I used http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/71209/chart-watch-extra-eminem-does-it-again/ for the 2010 figure refrence but I replaced it with this billboard refrence http://www.billboard.com/#/news/eminem-s-recovery-is-2010-s-best-selling-1004137895.story. Which by the way has the same figure because although Paul Grein posts year end charts early "to get them to you in a timely manner" (quoting Paul Grein) he updates them at year end. That however is irrelevant because the last couple times I edited it I used the billboard as citation for both figures. So it is the same reliable source for both figures and there are no missing days(or weeks) even if there maby ever was. Thankyou.Theodorerichert (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • According to WP:SYNTH (No Original research)..."Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." ... Adding up sales falls under this, is should not be added. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lakeshade if your so crazy about music then here is your biggest news of the year. The Billboard magazine uses two web sites billboard.com and billboard.biz. Both use the same charts, numbers, and information (which means both cite Neilsen Soundscan). And it is not two sources but one. There now you know some thing new, which is the point of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorerichert (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a routine calculation Wikipedia:SYNTH#Routine_calculations both numbers are from Neilsen Soundscan everyone knows that both billboard websites cite Neilsen Soundscan (so why bring it up Theodorerichert?). Obviously you are just dealing with a bunch of Kanye West fans who would do anything to keep Taylor's total a half a million lower. I hope Kanye West dies soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David131317 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with (CK)Lakeshade. I could not have explained it better. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
How come you guys won't even investigate my sources, they are both the billboard. This is a routine calculation. Two numbers from the same source added together dosen't violate any rules. Billboard.com=Billboard.biz. You just have to pay for most of the charts on billboard.biz and billboard.com only has a few charts some of which are just top 25 or 40 however they are identical to the charts on billboard.biz and numbers are from the same source Neilsen Soundscan. According to Neilsen Soundscan Speak Now sold 2,960,000 in 2010 http://www.billboard.com/#/news/eminem-s-recovery-is-2010-s-best-selling-1004137895.story also according Neilsen Soundscan it sold 563,000 in the first half of 2011 http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/top-selling-albums-of-2011-so-far-1005267092.story so it MUST have sold at least 3,523,000 so far. How is this so hard to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorerichert (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

These aren't two separate sources: they are all Nielsen figures. The arguments against it being a routine calculation seem to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH. It's probably approaching time for an RFC on this to get a broader spectrum of opinions.—Kww(talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding - you can't take two sources from the same reliable source and add them together through OR. Can I take information from two articles on Fox News, a reliable source, and then my own OR to make a conclusion? Toa Nidhiki05 18:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That is compleatly diffrent these are numbers. It's not like saying 'King Kong is is a gaint white gorilla' based on one Fox article saying he is lily white and another saying he is gaint, cause the first could have been talking about his courage not his color. But with numbers there is NO ROOM FOR ERROR. That is the principle of math. Did you even pass first grade yet? WTF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorerichert (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No need for personal attacks, Theodorerichert, although I can understand your frustration. Toa, yes, if Fox News says "Box Reporting Internationl counted 15 boxes sold by Acme Box Company in 1997" in one article and CBS News says "Box Reporting International counted 20 boxes sold by Acme Box Company in 1998", I can say "Acme Box Company sold 35 boxes in 1997-1998" and cite that to Fox News and CBS News. No problem per WP:SYNTH#Routine calculations. The units are compatible, the measurements are consistent, time periods don't overlap. There's just no reason to suspect that the result is misleading or incorrect.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind, though, that still needs consensus, and none has been achieved so far. :) Toa Nidhiki05 20:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
True enough, but I really don't understand exactly why, except for people misunderstanding WP:SYNTH.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think people are getting caught up in WP:SYNTH. A+B means getting source A (eg, um, MTV) and adding it to B (err, Music Week), to get sales total C. Adding up data from the same source (Nielsen SoundScan) does not fall under this (and both articles directly cited are from the same magazine). All of this is a hoop-lah kerfuffle caused by reading the letter of WP:SYNTH misinterpreting the word "source". A source is a publication/organisation etc etc, not an article. The two articles (from the same source) explicitly state X sales in 2010, Y sales in 2011 so far. That adds up to Z just fine in my head. I agree with what Kww said, add a "more than" to compensate for the time since the latest figures (although the 2011 year may have started Dec 16). —Andrewstalk 09:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
When it comes to sources I say this 3. If three sources can verify the same thing then it's probably true. But when it comes to an artist no better site is best for accuracy then their official website. Though in the case of what we are dealing with here. I'd say go by what the Billboards say and leave it at that since it's their job to post all that stuff. But that's me. I was make an opinion and that's mine go by the Billboards reference. Yahoo to me has always been a little shakey and sometimes I don't think everything posted around here is always a good source. I've been told just cause it was used as a good source once doesn't always make it a good source. This is true in 9/10 cases. You always go by what is higher then one particular source. Say for example Yahoo, you go from that and you look at say Billboards.com. Well Yahoo says one thing but Billboards says another well Billboards is used on here all the time so it's more then likely to be more correct on Billboards.com then it is on Yahoo. But again that's just me. I hope this helps. I was asked to give an opinion and I am so yeah. I hope this helps. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 13:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo and the Billboard both say the same thing in this case so there can be no doubt. Also I'm not using Yahoo as a source any more, the Billboard is the source for both figures. Also I asked User:IHelpWhenICan to examine my sources. And he said,
"TBH, I really don't give a rat's ass. Knock yourself out."
So I said, "If you 'really don't give a rat's ass' then you shouldn't have changed my edits. And I have tride to knock myself out several times before and it never seams to work. Any tips on method? LOL"
Then he said, All I care about is that you sourced new information in the lead. We don't do that.
So he dosn't care either way, as long as I don't source in the lead.
℥nding·start told me something similar, "My revert has nothing to do with the discussion on the talkpage. Here on Wikipedia, we DO NOT source information in the leads, we source information in the article itself and the lead summarizes the article."
So I guess we almost have consensus.Theodorerichert (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
*rolls eyes* Why does everyone think that there's a law against citing sources in the lead? Read MOS:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE. Anyway, there seems to be consensus here, so feel free to add the data again. —Andrewstalk 10:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that this is a pointless discussion so I'm retracting my statement and staying out of this. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 08:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition pic

I added that so people can see what we are referring to. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 10:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sparks Fly

Okay can anyone count? 1. Mine, 2. Back to December, 3. Mean 4. The Story of Us, 5. Sparks Fly. That's 5 singles not 4 I don't know why everyone says that. If this gets changed again then "The Story of Us" on under the picture of Speak Now needs to be moved to "Mean" and look like this 3. "Mean/The Story of Us" Released: March 14, 2011/April 19, 2011 if that gets changed again. Cause that's just wrong to call it the fourth when it's really the fifth I even got it confirmed by a lot of fans on Taylor Swift.com. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 13:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever read this read it wrong this is from the reference that started the whole it's the fourth single thing:

Swift and her keepers have been careful to nurture her original country base, perhaps mindful of how Twain's pop stardom lost her some support at country radio. Until recently, they'd never released two different singles simultaneously to separate markets. But this spring, they took a chance and went with the neo-bluegrass "Mean" for country, and the guitar-charged "Story of Us" for pop radio.

"'Mean' tells a story about the fact that no one gets to go through life without getting picked on," says Swift. "That was a song that I wrote when I felt completely powerless." That word would hardly seem to describe Swift, but she took comments from critics who were saying she "can't sing" -- like industry blogger Bob Lefsetz, who turned on her -- and responded with an upbeat, banjo-inflected stomper that became a rallying cry for the national anti-bullying movement.

"I don't feel like I necessarily have to win over every last person," she says. "Knowing that Kris Kristofferson's opinion [of me] is a positive one is going to have me floating on a cloud for weeks and months."

On the pop side of Swift's dual format assault, "Story of Us" is believed to be about nearly encountering Mayer at the Country Music Television Awards last year. "It's a moment I'm glad I was able to represent in a song, when you run into someone that you used to be in love with, but now that's gone, and all that you have is drama and the desperation and the horrible feeling of awkwardness and not knowing what to do or where to stand or how to act natural." She pauses. "That, as well as that I just like seeing how the crowd jumps up and down when I play it."

Let me point out here that it didn't say when they were being released as one whole single, it said that the singles were being released as separate singles to two separate stations. "Mean" was released for country radio while the "The Story of Us" was released for pop. If you read this carefully anyone can see that this is talking about releasing two different songs as a single to two separate types of radio stations. I think the whole "dual format assault" was what caused all this. That doesn't mean double sided singles it's just a way of phrasing that she's release two separate songs to two different radio stations.

Here is the link that came from: http://www.billboard.com/#/features/taylor-swift-top-artist-finalist-interview-1005179542.story?page=2

I read this article over several times and that's what it says to me. I think people need to not go so in depth in these things and quote stuff that isn't actually true. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They were not released as b-sides on the same date, therefore we cannot say their releases are such. Both were released to radio separately. I'm not even sure what you are even trying to say here... too many words, not enough substance. ℥nding·start 21:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What you just said is what I was saying plus it's gotta do with single release order. It's really unknown right now what it is to me. As many things have claimed Sparks Fly is the fifth single while I've only seen 1 document claim it as the fourth single. I'm just trying to help get which it is resolved. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 05:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Question (2)

Why are we unable to post format in the infobox? The album is available both as a CD and digital download but yet I got told posting that information was promotion when all I'm trying to do is post accurate information about the album. What's up with that? JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 10:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost every album is available as CD and digital download; it's just redundant and unnecessary. Accuracy is not in question, but notability. And having a text say that something is available in this format or that sounds like something from an advertisement. That's what I meant by promotion. Dan56 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Course anything sounds like an advertisement when you gotta post it in wikipedia standards to say it in any other way would be stupid. Just like saying "SONG NAME" was released as a promotional single...." That's sounding like an advertisement but yet it's posted to sound as such. And to not post what was released on Taylor Swift.com is kinda dumb. I gotta say it's a bit redundant to post singles as such but yet we have to. So if we do it for singles, albums should too. All the discography pages do. Just look at hers. But the sad thing is no one knows what is or isn't available and this is suppose to be an encyclopedia. But unlike an encyclopedia wikipedia only post half information instead of full information like an actual encyclopedia does and when it gets out-dated it gets updated. I'm sorry but I don't think it's right to only include half information especially if someone post reliable information like I did with using iTunes and scatterstunes. And I'd also like to point out it's unfair to users to claim on a discography page that an album is available for digital download but not say what one is on the actual album page. Eg. Taylor Swift is available for digital download but only the bonus track edition is available. The 11 track version isn't nor is the deluxe edition. Now is it fair to post that and allow people to assume all 3 are available when their not? I'm not trying to be annoying but I just thought I'd point this out seeing as it doesn't seem right to me to not place information like that cause it let's people know what is available to them which is part of the wikipedia guide lines from what I've seen. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Never mind that one's still on there lol! JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 19:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually, this kind of thing goes in the release history. But this page does not have one because it was all released on the same date. And that's just how it is, you can only put formats in the singles infobox. If you'd like to bring something up suggesting that there be one added to album infoboxes, bring it up at WP:ALBUMS. ℥nding·start 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ending! JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Speak Now Sales Figures

"Speak Now" Chart Run in Billboard 200 (UPDATE)

  1. 1 - 1,047,000
  2. 1 - 320,000
  3. 2 - 212,000

...#9 - 146,000

  1. 4 - 241,000
  2. 2 - 182,000
  3. 2 - 201,000
  4. 1 - 259,000
  5. 1 - 276,000
  6. 1 - 77,000
  7. 1 - 52,000
  8. 3 - 35,000
  9. 8 - 31,000
  10. 7 - 31,000
  11. 8 - 27,000
  12. 12 - 32,000
  13. 15 - 30,000
  14. 14 - 23,000
  15. 20 - 19,000
  16. 24 - 16,000
  17. 26 - 15,000
  18. 34 - 15,000
  19. 33 - 15,000
  20. 25 - 18,000
  21. 30 - 15,000
  22. 17 - 27,000
  23. 29 - 12,000
  24. 26 - 18,000
  25. 25 - 15,000
  26. 29 - 13,000
  27. 25 - 16,000
  28. 20 - 15,000
  29. 22 - 17,000
  30. 18 - 22,000
  31. 24 - 16,000
  32. 27 - 18,000
  33. 20 - 14,000
  34. 30 - 12,000 (This Week)

Total Sales: 3,549,582

Weeks in Chart: 38 Weeks in Top 40: 38 Weeks in Top 30: 36 Weeks in Top 20: 23 Weeks in Top 10: 15 Weeks in Top 5: 11 Weeks in Top 3: 10 Weeks in Top: 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.165.210 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get those sales figures from? Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From an official Facebook page and the 2011 Year To Date Album Sales are on there also. "Speak Now" has sold over 3,576,797 copies in the United States so far and over 5.3 million globally. Currently #25 on Billboard 14,000 copies sold this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide me with a link? Much appreciated, thanks. Noreplyhaha (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

International Version

I just got my copy of the UK deluxe edition of Speak Now yesterday and the whole "alternate" versions of "Mine", "Back to December" and "The Story of Us" is kinda incorrect cause they are actually the pop mixes of the songs. I also own the Target deluxe edition of Speak Now and I can really vogue for this cause the Pop Mix of "Mine" is the international version of "Mine" featured on the international CDs. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 13:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Also liner notes on both deluxe editions add "Michael Rhodes - Bass" for "Superman", and Byran Sutton does national (didn't add this cause I have NO idea what that is), 12-string guitar, and ukulele on "Ours". JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 14:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre change

I suggest we change the genre section to 'Pop' and 'Country pop', in either order. Allmusic has described the album as simply 'pop', and I really doubt the style of this album would be described as 'country' without 'pop' at the end. Toa Nidhiki05 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: My opinion is that it already says both so there's no real need to do that. That's just over doing it and overlinking the page. I think it's fine the way it is. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 03:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Allmusic isn't a source for music genres. — Status {talkcontribs  03:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw definitely change the genre to country pop. The album is a mix of both, like Fall Out Boy merging punk rock with pop. The genres on their own would be an inaccurate label for the album. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@Status - SInce when is Allmusic not a relevant source for genres? I've been editing music articles for years and have never once heard that. Aside for the Allmusic source, here is another: http://slantmagazine.com/music/review/taylor-swift-speak-now/2300

A quick heads-up to Sugarland: This is how an ostensible country act makes a full-on pop album that sounds contemporary and relevant.

I've found more, but I figure source overload is never good. Basically, I think these two sources confirm an independent 'pop' labeling (in addition to changing 'country' to 'country pop') is the accurate thing to do. Toa Nidhiki05 13:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, from what you posted there all that says is that it is a pop album and it is already posted with the pop genre. Why does this need to be a discussion? The genre is correct and your references aren't showing what the page already doesn't show. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Because it has been labeled as 'pop' and 'country pop' - it hasn't (aside from the Allmusic source) been defined as simply 'country'. Having 'country' and 'pop' as the sources is misleading, particularly because 'country' is listed first, and this is a pop or pop-oriented album, not a country one. Toa Nidhiki05 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't she a country artist? Look at Shania Twain, best example actually, she did both but her albums are considered country, go to a store and look you won't find Twain in the pop section of the music department. Same goes with Swift, so to classify it as a country album is correct. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 19:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All I see here is WP:OR. Allmusic has never been a reliable source for genres. — Status {talkcontribs  21:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@JamesAlan1986 - I don't think department store catalogs count as reliable sources, just as you don't use a library's categorization of a novel to support it's genre. I have two reliable sources supporting it, and that is good grounds for inclusion.
@Status - It's not OR - I have two reliable sources. And if Allmusic is qualified to source chart information (as it is, even though it's chart lists are incomplete), there is absolutely nothing preventing it from sourcing a genre. I have never heard that it is not a RS for a genre, ever, and I've been involved in some music disputes before. Allmusic is a RS unless disproved, and it hasn't ever been. Toa Nidhiki05 23:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You missed my point. Swift is a country artist so to post the album as a country album is correct. There is no need to change the genre because you're the only one who thinks it should be. The thing is is this discussion is getting no where and a consensus won't be reached with only 3 people talking about it so I think this should just be dropped. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 01:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

She's considered country pop, but even then, overall 'genre' of an artist doesn't determine the album's genre. Sting is considered a rock musician, but he's released some baroque/classical album. And I'm not the only one, it is 2-2 currently. Once again, two reliable sources call this album 'pop', one of them exclusively referring to it as such. To keep 'country' up and give it equal weight is simply absurd when it clearly isn't considered a 'country' album. Toa Nidhiki05 12:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a "Music" section for this article, discussing its content and style? This would be an outlet for making general statements such as characterizing its genres/style and providing critics' prose/quotes to compliment, but not critical statements that should be in the reception sec., instead analytical prose that some of them are bound to make. Then, everything in the infobox would reflecting what's in the article. An example is what I made for House of Music. P.S. this is my last edit till Hurricane Irene blows over. Peace. Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, as long as we change the 'genre' section of the infobox to 'country pop'. It's the broadest possible term to describe this album. Toa Nidhiki05 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a of different styles in this album, don't put them all in the infobox. Just put the main ones. Also, there has to be a source. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Layout edit

27.110.166.40 insists on restructuring the Singles section into individual paragraphs for each single's prose, claiming that they're different topics and that warrants changing 4-5 line paragraphs into 2-3 line paragraphs. Thoughts? Dan56 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion I agree with how we've had it going for so long. Not to mention we gotta worry about WP:PAGE SIZE and I feel that splitting them into separate paragraphs per single just makes it too long so no I don't think there should be. JamesAlan1986 *talk 08:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding paragraphs is unnecessary it's allready clear and understandable, no need to change.Theodorerichert (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with JamesAlan here. One paragraph for each single is going to create a big Singles section. Also, Article size. Novice7 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See Also section?

Should we post a see also section that includes both the Speak Now World Tour and Speak Now World Tour – Live? I wanted to get others opinions before I did it. JamesAlan1986 *talk 20:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really nessicary. "Speak Now" and "Speak Now World Tour" was not the same thing. "Speak Now (song)" should be linked at the top; not sure why it isn't. The live album could be linked to the tour article. — Status {talkcontribs  21:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Got that added. JamesAlan1986 *talk 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe a section just about the live album. There is already information about the tour in the Speak Now#Release and promotion section. Just a section and a few sentences on the live album, that would be better, in my opinion. QuasyBoy 21:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to wait on a consensus for that. JamesAlan1986 *talk 21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What kind of see also section you guys mean? I think both the tour and its live album should have information in the article under section "Tour", which should be under "Promotion". That's the norm. Now you can use the template {{main}} for linking to the main articles. See Hard Candy for example. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Links already integreted to the article generally shouldnt be repeated in "See also" (WP:MOS (layout), so the tour article link should probably be excluded. Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Lego, we were talking about the {{About}} tag. The tour really should be mentioned in the article, but for some odd reason its not. — Status {talkcontribs  10:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay well I got enough on here to see that wasn't a good idea. Glad I didn't go ahead and do it lol! I did add information about the live album in the Release and promotion section next to this:

A world tour, entitled the Speak Now World Tour, was announced on November 23, 2010, by Billboard.

as the live album is called Speak Now World Tour - Live. JamesAlan1986 *talk 10:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Didn't think it should be moved. JamesAlan1986 *talk 01:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Speak Now → Speak Now (album) – As there's also the song by the same name. JamesAlan1986 *talk 01:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

That's all I needed LOL! I just figured with Sparks Fly (album) being moved cause of the song it was the same idea which is why I didn't move it lol! JamesAlan1986 *talk 01:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Enchanted"

Okay this really needs to get discussed cause the vandalism over the fan speculation that this song being a single or promotional single is starting to get old really fast. What should we do about it? Thoughts? JamesAlan1986 *talk 10:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, it should not be added. I think a note should be added showing this. Novice7 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you novice but IP users don't seem to care about the notes check Mean's history where one went at me cause I reverted their edits over changing the certification from gold to platinum. They don't seem to care about it. JamesAlan1986 *talk 10:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If the IPs add unreliable information after seeing the note, we should warn them. If they continue adding it, even after that, we should report them. Semi-protection might help too. Novice7 (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is no reliable source, we shouldn't add it. If an IP commits vandalism, we should give a very stern warning and report them to the vandalism noticeboard if they keep doing it. That's just my opinion, but this page (and all of Swift's stuff, for that matter) gets vandalized somewhat regularly. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Just revert and warn them till there's enough to report them. Dan56 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed when multiple IPs start posting the same speculation/rumors it has a pretty good (but not great) rate that they're right in the end. I won't say that it should be added without a reliable source (it shouldn't), but I will say that we should keep a close watch out for this popping up in reliable sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had to remove it off of the singles template and personally I'm getting tired of doing it lol. JamesAlan1986 *talk 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say if 3 or more ip's are vandalizing reagularly the page should be Semi-protection for a time, that would be a lot easier than blocking individual ip's. Plus I have no idea how geeky they are but anyone who knows how can change their ip in 2 minnutes.Theodorerichert (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Theodorerichert. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with everyone. I decided to start this discussion on the bases on what consensus should be reached on the vandalism regarding this song. I had no intentions of having it posted but I still thought that others should have an input on this subject. JamesAlan1986 *talk 06:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Genre?

The genre on the page says country and pop. But instead of leaving them alone as two different genres, can we change it to country pop? Because that is what the pages of her other albums say. lyriclegendlover (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that's probably the most reasonable solution. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
We agreed on here in earlier consensus that this is the best solution, as it honors the two sounds she is most associated with instead of merging them together. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well if there's an earlier consensus then I'll defer to that...it's just by my logic her music is too country to be called true pop and vice versa, so I would think that country pop describes it better. I'm pretty sure I've heard some news sources refer to her music as country pop, too, but I don't have any on hand at the moment. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, no clue why I posted that. Toa Nidhiki05 02:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
For reference, here is the highest profile source I can find on a quick search with the phrase country pop to describe her. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The genres, country and pop, are both noted with sources, albeit briefly, in the article's prose. And from what the article country pop has, it doesn't seem to support what's in this article, or this album. And the NPR source just mentions "country pop" in the article title, which seems like a just something for them to call Swift. Dan56 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just passing by; there is some soft rock in Speak Now.Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree as Toa stated they need to be separated as there are two sounds on the album. User talk:RickyBryant45324 10:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ours is a single

Reference, I just don't know if it's promotional or an official single, someone told me there will be a music video for it, but I've found no source to confirm that. User talk:RickyBryant45324 10:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'm gonna guess promotional as "If This Was a Movie" was also released as a single. Reference User talk:RickyBryant45324 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Superman to that too. Reference User talk:RickyBryant45324 10:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can tell all three of those were released as promotional singles. Then again, take that with a grain of salt because I don't know the difference in promotional and official...all I know is she for sure appears to have released them all as singles and they have been selling like crazy on iTunes (top of the iTunes country charts). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd go with promotional as well - these appear to be similar to Today Was a Fairytale in that they are not being marketed heavily towards radio. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well "Ours" is definitely a single as there's sources on the "Ours" page. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are hardly promo singles. They use the same cover as the album, and, in my iTunes Store at least, the deluxe was removed and those were released in lieu of it. "Ours" is being sent to radio this month, though. So yes, it is a single. — Status {talkcontribs 02:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I never saw the deluxe edition on iTunes here. Guess it was only certain countries that got it. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's weird. Must be why they are doing it now. But I still wouldn't consider it even a single release on its own. — Status {talkcontribs 04:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ours release date

DIRECT:Talk:Ours (song)#Ours release date Brought this up there and since it's also gonna affect it on here I figured a link to it from this talk page was appropriate. User talk:RickyBryant45324 10:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Charted Songs

Noreplyhaha & Theodorerichert have both agreed on posting this on the article but until a consensus is reached by the Wikicomminuty by more then two people I have hidden the information at this time until a unanimous consensus is reached on it. So please post whether you support to have it with reason or if you dispute it and your reason.

  • Dispute. While it's notable that so many album tracks made the Hot 100, this information can be condensed to prose. A chart would be suitable for the artist's discography article. Dan56 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My two cents is that the information can be present, as its notable that so many of the songs charted due to downloads, but have it totally condensed so as not to give WP:UNDUE importance to it. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dan and Legolas. Condense it so that it does not fall under UNDUE. Novice7 (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact there were so many should be somewhere in the article, but I don't think it deserves an entire section with a table - a section in prose somewhere would be better. Toa Nidhiki05 14:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I would suggest since it is notable that many songs on the album charted due to download adding it in the Commercial performance section like Lego said above. RickyBryant45324*talk 06:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Also if people are concerned with the size it could be condensed to;
song name Hot 100 peak

format and people interested in a peticular song could go to it's page. But it definitely seems to me like the right move to list all noteable/charting songs from an album on the album's page and if there is to much to say give it its own page. And anything hitting the Hot 100 is worth the less than a sentence it takes to mention its peak. But techically my opinion could be biased because I am a chart fanatic. Also if the album had only one song hit the Hot 100 and it peaked at #85 it would be listed. So this seems like discrimination against a popular album just because it takes time to list their accomplishments, and since you can easily scroll to the bottom of the list, and it isn't messy and hard to read, and you didn't have to write it, and since the information will never be erased from Wikipedia's hard drive (so we are not saving room by getting rid of it simply wasting it) I think there is no reason to get rid of it.Theodorerichert (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really discrimination against an album, Theo, it's more concern then anything else. I am trying to do the best by allowing a consensus to be brought up about it. For now let's give it a few days to see what should be done. RickyBryant45324*talk 11:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Resolved It seems to me this situation has been resolved the chart is unnecessary but the fact that so many songs charted on the album have charted it is noteworthy. So that being said the chart needs to be removed and the information about the songs charting should be posted. Swifty*talkcontribs 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right.Theodorerichert (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Singles chart in Charts and certifications

I saw it on the The Incredible Machine by Sugarland article page so I didn't think it'd be a problem on here. RickyBryant45324*talk 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep It. Unlike the Sugarland album page, it's in the "Reception" section in this article so it's slightly different but nevertheless I think it enhances the article, demonstrating the album's commercial strength. Then again, does it entirely fit in the article flow?, because it is on her discography page and could be easily summarised on this page two or three sentences. I say to keep it though. Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The single chart that is posted here is different with a select group of charts used in it not a full amount of charts unlike the one waiting on a consensus which post every single chart on the discography page. Swifty*talkcontribs 02:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I change "country" to "country pop" because the sound of Speak Now is far from the "real" country of George Strait, Miranda Lambert or Zac Brown Band. --79.199.59.26 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(Genre template): Like all other content in articles, genres must be supported by cited, reliable sources (which I just added: Allmusic review: "blend of country and pop"), not editors' own point of view, b/c that would be contentious and fickle Dan56 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
As "blend of country and pop", but suddenly changed into pop rock. I should known that User:Status accidentally changed pop into pop rock as from genre sidebar without see that articles which says "blend of country and pop". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.160 (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information?

Whilst it is quite interesting to know about the details of the Speak Now Deluxe Edition, an entire section being dedicated to the Deluxe Edition in an article that is dealing mostly with only one song from the Speak Now album is a bit unnecessary in my opinion. No offense meant to any who disagree with me. 5.47.242.113 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the Speak Now article covers the entire album and era, not just "mostly one song" at all. The Deluxe Edition is notable and warrants its own section because all the deluxe songs charted on the Billboard 100, not to mention its contribution to Swift selling over 1 million copies of the album in its first week. Noreplyhaha (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.asda-entertainment.co.uk/cd/taylor-swift/speak-now-deluxe/10271059.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speak_Now/Archive_1&oldid=1150999571"