Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Edit suggestions

• I think it is fair to separate the string of pop singles (from the Red singles to the Lover singles), because during this period Swift was well-known as an artist strong in both albums and singles. With Folklore and Evermore, her artistry is more of an album artist, and to be honest "Cardigan" and "Willow" were only successful in English-speaking countries. Listing them together with the pop singles is rather misleading that all of them were successful worldwide, and underscores Swift's recent "indie" ventures.
• I do not think Justin Vernon is an appropriate "associated act". I know that at {{Infobox musical artist}} it says: Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together. However Bon Iver and Justin Vernon are two separate artists (in Billboard methodology). Vernon is not significant enough to be "significant to this artist's career". Ippantekina (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede should be as concise as possible. "Album artist - Singles artist" thing is your personal opinion; I do not see sources supporting it. Willow and Cardigan reached top-10 in more than 10 countries, which also includes non-English-speaking countries. The current version covers this better. BawinV (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

How do my edit suggestions make the lede less concise? (To be honest I'd remove all singles altogether as artists' biographies focus extensively on albums, unless the singles are career-defining i.e. "Shake It Off" or "Blank Space"). What about the Justin Vernon listing as an associated act? Ippantekina (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the philanthropist/artists' rights part in the lead: by what metrics is she recognized for such actions (any accolade specifically?), or is it an encompassing praise mentioned by the media here and there? Specific accolades such as "Woman of the Decade" by Billboard or RS 100 Songwriters etc. demonstrate Swift's impact much better than vague definitions of what Swift is; "also" is poor phrasing. Ippantekina (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think separating is necessary. Both "Cardigan" and "Willow" meet the criteria of "international top-ten singles", and 'Cardigan' and 'Willow' were only successful in English-speaking countries is not true, per the "Cardigan" and "Willow" articles themselves. While I agree that the ten singles listed do vary in popularity levels, I do not see a need for any of the singles to be removed. [Swift's] artistry is more of an album artist – do you have a reliable source that backs this up? This seems like original research, and I don't think original research should be a factor in determining consensus. Moving on to the Justin Vernon comment, I definitely think he should be listed as an associated act. He (separate from Bon Iver and Big Red Machine) is credited multiple times on songs Swift is also credited on. He is credited for vocals on "Exile", "Evermore", and "Renegade" as Justin Vernon, not as Bon Iver or Big Red Machine. He is also credited as a writer, instrumentalist, and recorder on some of Swift's songs ("Exile", "Peace", and "Evermore"). Per one of the many interviews fellow Big Red Machine bandmate Aaron Dessner did to promote How Long Do You Think It's Gonna Last?, it was revealed that "Birch", an upcoming Big Red Machine song, is another Vernon/Swift duet, bringing the total amount of songs Vernon and Swift sing on together to four. Additionally, none of the Bon Iver members, except for Vernon, are credited on anything besides "featured artist" on "Exile" and "Evermore". The four credits are why I think they are associated acts. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Doggy54321: Hello, I think we must consider Vernon is "associated" with Swift or not. At Template:Infobox musical artist, only artists that are significant to Swift's career should be considered. Vernon and Bon Iver are not identical. Credits as songwriters/producers etc. do not count (if they do, we should include Aaron Dessner and Jack Antonoff as well). There is no concrete ground to state that Vernon is an "associated act", whether professionally or publicly. Ippantekina (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    • If anything, Vernon's credits on "Exile", "Evermore", and "Renegade" are not Vernon himself, but through other acts he is associated with i.e. Bon Iver or Big Red Machine. That is not the same for the definition at Template:Infobox musical artist. Unless Swift and Vernon publicly go on a world tour or collaborate on a joint album under the credits "Taylor Swift & Justin Vernon" (like Kanye and Jay-Z), then it would make Vernon an associated act. At this time, it is too soon to say so. Ippantekina (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @Ippantekina: Great points! I do agree that there isn't a concrete definition of what is and isn't associated. Now that you have put it this way, I agree that it's a little too soon to determine whether Vernon and Swift are associated. Although, it isn't a requirement to tour together/collaborate on an album to be associated. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I would like to point out that the template rules only ban songwriting and production being criteria for associated acts. "Vocals" do not fall under this. Swift and Vernon have sung together in three songs now, and the fourth one is coming. The criterion is already satisfied. BawinV (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• I understand. My main point is that Bon Iver and Justin Vernon are not the same musicians. It's like Beyoncé and Destiny's Child are two different acts. Ippantekina (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: I don't know why you edited the concerned part before a proper consensus was reached here? Consensus isn't just a discussion between two individuals. Anyhow, moving on, Beyoncé isn't the sole vocalist of Destiny's Child, hence it wouldn't make sense to put DC is someone's infobox as it would imply the other two vocalists collaborated with the subject as well; but that's not the case here — your analogy is not right because Justin Vernon is the sole vocalist of Bon Iver, and Vernon is credited as a "vocalist" in Swift's songs that feature Bon Iver. In other words, there are three Taylor Swift songs that explicitly credit Justin Vernon as a vocalist, which is what the rules for criterion for Associated Acts state. BawinV (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV: What do you mean? Technically they are not the same act. Justin Vernon ≠ Bon Iver. Simple as that. Would Billboard recognize them as one on charts? No. I can't believe this was an argument to begin with. Alas, being a guest vocalists on 2, 3 or even 5 songs do not count them as "associated acts". They are not significant to Swift's career, at least to this moment. Ippantekina (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You asking me "what do you mean" after me giving you a detailed explanation, eventhough it was you who brought up Beyoncé and DC, is quite ridiculous. Justin Vernon is Bon Iver and vice versa. "Would Billboard..."; that's literally your own research right there, trying to predict predict what would/might happen. I'm gonna stick with facts: having not only sung with Swift thrice, but also been credited by Swift herself for his hand in writing/composing Folklore and Evermore, that sounds "significant" to me.Your argument would apply if it was about including "Bon Iver" in the infobox, but that's the case here. It's Justin Vernon, the common denominator in three of Swift's collaborations. They _are_ associated. BawinV (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV: Original research? [1] [2] This speaks for itself. If they were one act why would there by a separate "Bon Iver" and a separate "Justin Vernon"? You cited songwriting/composing, and that is not what associated acts are supposed to present. Ippantekina (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes? and who is the constituent of Bon Iver? Justin Vernon! And who does the credits of Bon Iver's music mention? Justin Vernon. I didn't cite songwriting/composing until you very weirdly disregarded "vocals"? Please do not created your own definitions for what Associated Acts means. The rules simply states "mutiple collaborations in albums", and Swift and Vernon collaborated multiple times. That's it. It's right there. BawinV (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, you cannot decide "being a guest vocalists on 2, 3 or even 5 songs do not count them as associated acts", because, {{Infobox musical artist}} states Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album. Swift and Vernon have collaborated on multiple (more than two) occasions. BawinV (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

They said: can. Nothing is concrete and hammered. Swift sang with Ed Sheeran on two songs but they are barely associated. Ippantekina (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the rules for Associated Acts are indeed concrete. Of course Ed wouldn't be "associated", because the criteria demands "multiple" collaborations, and multiple is not just two, it's more than two. Ed would be an associated act, if he ever collaborated with Swift for the third time, according to the criteria. BawinV (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• @BawinV and Ippantekina: Now that Swift and Sheeran announced their third collaboration "Run" (as part of Red (Taylor's Version), Ticklekeys has added Sheeran as an associated act. For what it's worth, Sheeran and Swift toured together, with the former acting as an opening act for the latter's 2012 tour. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I vouch for both Sheeran and Vernon. BawinV (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sheeran. There has not been enough discussion on Vernon, so I removed it. My points regarding the fundamental difference between Vernon as a solo act, and Bon Iver as a separate act, has not been thoroughly addressed here. Writing/composing do not count. Ippantekina (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@YOÜ AND I baby: Care to comment? Ippantekina (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, all of it has been addressed, and you simply chose to blatantly ignore it and deliberately invalidate the points I raised. The rules states "multiple collaborations" across albums, and Justin Vernon has collaborated with Swift on "Exile", "Evermore", and "Renegade". And this has nothing to do with writing/composing. BawinV (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The Independent published a whole article about Taylor Swift – Justin Vernon association, corroborating both Bon Iver and Big Red Machine as Justin Vernon acts, which only further solidifies my point above. The above discussion was already stalled due to the lack of participation by the editor that had a problem with it, but I am going to make the edit. BawinV (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Bavarian Roots

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.br.de%2Fnachrichten%2Fdeutschland-welt%2Ftaylor-swift-stammt-aus-dem-freistaat%2C74u30ctj64uk4dtr6mukgd1h68w0

Yes. It says " Your great-great-great-grandfather Julius Mayer emigrated from Bavaria to New York in 1865 to trade pianos there. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, this has now been confirmed by the world's largest genealogical research database, Ancestry. Another German great-great-great-grandfather of Taylor Swift even made the great American dream come true: He worked his way up from grave digger to bank director." But surely not notable, as 99.9% of Americans have "foreign" ancestry? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Very true. That's why you should start today to delete any references to their roots in 99.9% of all Americans registered in Wikipedia. But wait: Isn't that a little unfair to the 0.01% of those Americans who don't have "foreign ancestry"?

Be my guest. But, you know, this is going back to "great-great-great-grandfather"? Maybe there's an acceptable limit to be had? But being the exception rather than the rule, I think Wikipedia should celebrate that 0.01% with a clear mention. That goes for all indigenous peoples. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I admit defeat, even though you too are the descendant of your great-great-great grandparents. In Taylor's case, however, the mother and father are Bavarian descendants. That you have a big heart for Native Americans speaks for your great understanding in ethnic roots.

Ah yeah, shucks, none of my great-great-great grandparents wore lederhosen, as far as I know (maybe only the women) (not ruling out moccasins, though). This is obviously a much wider question that applies to most, if not all, WP:BLP articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes "~"!! thanks

I suspect they were more likely to wear Levi's, whose originator was also from Bavaria. However, one must give credit to the Lederhosen that both their recognition value and durability are far superior to those of modernized work pants with rivets. 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:4D7C:9EB8:1414:68B4 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not register as an editor at Wikipedia? Perks include: an improved credit rating, free booze for a year, discount entry to Brooklyn Dodgers games a username! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thx very much, but "free booze for a year"? (I hope you don't have to drink Bavarian wheat beer to get creative?) Brooklyn Dodgers are unfortunately largely unknown here in Europe, however, should you offer a free Oktoberfest visit to Munich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjxF9eGtQ7M, I'm in! Prerequisite: without face mask! 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:84:353:4132:26FC (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be a good deal. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. I'm not actually in New York either...

I would love to be in New York. Until I get homesick again. I thank you very much for your openness and send you warmest greetings from Good Old Germany. 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:84:353:4132:26FC (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It may be relevant to note the long music-related history, which that quote suggests the Süddeutsche Zeitung did? But if a source hasn't bothered, probably not; how much importance do sources give to Swift's Bavarian roots, because if it's not much, it's probably not worth inclusion. (That is, regardless of "most" Americans having foreign roots, some treat it more important than others. This is particularly true of African Americans, people not from Western Europe, and the Jewish diaspora in general. Swift falls into the Western Europe category that is generally overlooked.) Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point. It also says "Taylor's grandmother Marjorie Finlay (née Moehlenkamp and successful opera singer) also has German roots, albeit not Bavarian ones. Taylor Swift is in good company with her family tree in the USA: Many Americans have Bavarian roots because hundreds of thousands of Bavarians emigrated to America in the 19th and 20th centuries." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a quick mention that "Swift is of German descent, with several of her antecedents also working in the music industry." then? Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No objection. Although she's not usually one to show her roots. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Taylor checks her German Wikipedia page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj2m1_Lya-M 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:5164:FA38:FA59:5C05 (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Here. I'm sure it could read better but it's integrated enough. Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Puffery on Legacy and Impact

I find the article that mentions that she has ​inspired Grande, Hasley, and Eillish to be vulnerable and personal just not right. It is a perspective from a critic. Not any article needs to be added, especially from a source that always seem to praise Swift in high regards. All three artists have their own experiences, and to me, it seems like it was only added to name the other artists, especially since no one of the artist ever mentioned something like this. It seems like a misleading attempt of name-dropping and puffery to me, just to show Swift's 'impact' on many of today's artist as possible. Mirrored7 (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone magazine is a generally well-regarded and prominent music critic whose reviews have been included on other Wikipedia pages for musicians/albums. Moreover, the article does not state that Swift has directly inspired Grande/Halsey/Eilish, Sheffield opines that her confessional writing has created an open environment whereby other contemporary artists - such as those aforementioned - may feel more comfortable to write as vulnerably. Provided it is highlighted that it is simply a well-reputed reviewer's opinion, I see no reason why not to include the article? Kaneambrosios (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to include. One could argue against inclusion on WP:DUE grounds, but no such argument seems to be made here. The OP's argument seems to be that the statement shouldn't be included because Rolling Stone is biased in favor of Swift, and that the article is puffery. On the contrary, Rolling Stone is considered a reliable source per WP:RS/PS and the quote is attributed to the author, so it's not like we're asserting the statement as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

@Amaury, Mirrored7, Ronherry, and Ticklekeys: I'm not sure which of you are edit warring and who's just thrown in the mix, but it's a page of the edit history now just additions and reversions, can someone please discuss. Kingsif (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm thrown in the mix. Haha. Ronherry (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting partner parameter

Since this discussion regarding the inclusion of Joe Alwyn in Swift's partner parameter, I've come across a number of news outlets specifically describe or discuss Alwyn as Swift's partner, which I've included here. Other sources that imply they're long-term. Given that the previous discussion took place last year and didn't reach consensus, I think ample time has passed and sources provided to begin a new one. Do editors believe that listing Alwyn under the "partner" parameter would be accurate or encyplodeic?--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

US number-one hits vs international top tens

Best to reach consensus here before it turns into an edit war. @Ronherry:, I understand you're a big fan of Swift, but it simply makes more sense that seven US number ones would be much more prominent than "international top tens" which ANY artist can achieve. Seven number ones is a lot and is a testament to Taylor's long standing career and success, rather than "international top tens" which makes her impact a lot less given that it's so vague that charting high in two countries can be considered "international." There isn't hyperfocus on the US here. Please stop. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh please don't hustle me. It's quite clear you don't know what's an FA and how to maintain it from degrading. Taylor Swift is one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, and you trying to model/restructure it after the articles you often edit on, such as Katy Perry, which is not even a GA if not a FA, won't work. Systemic bias is serious and should not be tolerated when there's a worldwide view of the content is available. "Hot 100 is flattering" is your opinion, a US-focused opinion. It's not "vague"; know the difference between concise and vague. The lead of one of the best articles on Wikipedia should not be as basic as the format you're trying to achieve with your focus on a certain regional commercial performance. Please read WP:FA and MOS:LEAD too. Regards. Ronherry (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"It's so vague that charting high in two countries can be considered "international" is factually false. You should edit Wikipedia using sources and facts, not your personal opinions. Do a little fact-check; all of the songs listed in the lead are her lead singles and considered her best performing singles, all of which have entered the top-10 in 10 or more countries. Ronherry (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ronherry: Jeez, there's no need for aggressive hostile personal attacks on your end. "Don't hustle you?" What am I trying to hustle you for? Wikipedia is not about winning. Your assumption that I don't know what a featured article is constitutes a quite hostile personal attack, and also quite wrong since, in my opinion, I've been working collaboratively with the guy who brought Katy Perry to featured article; so your accusation as of right now is baseless. I'm not trying to "restructure it to anything"; I'm just saying that Swift's seven U.S. hits are more prominent and important to her career as she has a lot. And no, Taylor Swift isn't "one of the best articles"; A peer review determined that some sentences were too long and excessive, especially the "Awards and achievements", "philanthrophy", and "activism" sections, which I assume you've spent quite a long time on. And again, I see more aggressive comments about how I don't edit with sources and facts. Yikes, your reply is unusually aggresive for an editor of your caliber and isn't inviting for any collaboration at all. Please tone it down. shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: Ah, you can call me hostile all you want just to discredit me, but let's stick to facts shall we? It's easy to call somebody hostile just because they don't agree with you. Nevertheless, "seven U.S. hits are more prominent" according to who? how could a chart performance in one country could possibly be more prominent than the international chart performance, as if there isn't already enough US focus in the lead? Why are you blatantly ignoring the fact that it is important to give a worldwide view of something more than just the US? The current lead covers both the US and international aspects. Moreover, there are whole Taylor Swift singles discography and Taylor Swift albums discography articles; readers can easily look into these articles' leads to know how much U.S. (or any country for that matter) No. 1 singles she has. Taylor Swift is about a living person, and generalized information (without undue focus on one specific thing) about her life, music, career, and recognition is enough. We don't have to stuff superfluous fluff like number of #1 singles in a territory (especially in case of globally popular mainstream artists) into the lead. The current lead perfectly balances it all, by mentioning her first two Hot 100 top5 hits in the second paragraph, and her international top10s in the third. And for your information, I haven't contributed more than 10% to the "Awards and achievements", "philanthrophy", and "activism" sections in this article. In fact, I haven't contributed much to this article at all, except the latest updates on the "2020-current: Folklore, Evermore, and re-recordings" section. Don't assume things. Thank You. Ronherry (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Also want to highlight the fact that you opened this talk conversation and the closing line of your first argument was "Please stop." And then you go saying my reply "isn't inviting for any collaboration at all" in your next reply. "Please stop" doesn't sound like "let's collaborate" to me. You clearly did not want to collaborate and you broke my good faith when you made that hostile peremptory request. Please don't spite editors like this. Thanks. Ronherry (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Taylor Swift is also starring in the movie "canterbury glass" which is a period drama set to be released on November 4, 2022. 2405:201:3003:3018:9D51:175C:361E:D505 (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how you figured out the name of the movie but it has already been included in a recent update I added. Nerd271 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the introduction

I suggest we cut it down to "Taylor Swift is one of the best-selling artists of all time and has won numerous awards for her work. She is also known for her advocacy of artists' rights and women's empowerment in the music industry." After all, we already have an entire section on her "Achievements and accolades" as well as an entire article on her awards and nominations. Nerd271 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Ronherry I trimmed that section because it was getting rather long-winded. I think it is enough to mention that she is praised for her generosity. We already have an entire section on her accolades and achievements and a full article on her awards and nominations. Seems like WP:UNDUE to me. Nerd271 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The Accolades section doesn't cover her awards from philanthropy. "Trimming" prose for the sake of trimming simply waters down the encyclopedic quality of the article. You're treating the entire article like it's the lead. Nope. Sections are supposed to give us the details—who, when, when, where, what and which, and not just "Swift is philanthropic. The end." Ronherry (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd stick to the principle of "show don't tell" and simply focus more on the things she has done, which are numerous. I think it is enough to say she has been recognized for her philanthropy. Curious readers can check all the awards she has won, and there are many of them. She is an overachiever. No need to belabor the point. Nerd271 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Impact on Ariana Grande

I've had this problem before and it's still a thorn in my side. The Legacy and Impact section indicates that Swift influenced Ariana Grande. A few months ago it was said that the article was written by a trusted author named Rob Sheffield, but now I see a different name. Unlike Halsey and Eillish, there has never been an interview where Grande referred to Swift as an inspiration, so I think the whole thing is misleading. Also, I don't like the fact that she is being described as the first country singer to become world famous - what about Shania Twain? I think these authors are insufficiently informed and are therefore weak sources. They have their own perspective, but when you read it you know it's not really true. I would be in favor of removing those two lines. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Edited) I agree with the bit about Grande. Nerd271 (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

1. It doesn't say Swift influenced Grande. It says Swift helped create space for later popstars including her 2. It doesn't say Swift was the first to go global either. It says Swift was the first to take it to the UK and Asian markets. North America ≠ World. 3. Something you don't like to see ≠ That editor is "insufficiently informed". Both of the sources are reliable sources as per WP:RS. Ronherry (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence reads, Music journalist Nick Catucci wrote that, in being personal and vulnerable in her songs, Swift helped make space for later pop stars like Billie Eilish, Ariana Grande, and Halsey to do the same. No other (female) artists did the same? I'm thinking of "The End of the World" by Skeeter Davis as an example. Nerd271 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't write my own interpretations of what the editor would've or could've meant. Like I already said, I don't see any problem with it since it's perfectly sourced by a reliable music publication. Ronherry (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the current language is a reasonable paraphrase of the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd say cut Grande out of that sentence. Bring her back if she specifically stated Swift had influenced her. Nerd271 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

But the point is, the factoid doesn't say Swift influenced Grande. Censoring sources to fit a narrative is not allowed on Wikipedia. Ronherry (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

And I'd wait to see what the other editors have to say. Consensus is not two editors agreeing with each other. Ronherry (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I never suggested the "censoring [of] sources." I only suggested we cut Grande out because she does not seem to belong there, given the information available. Anyway, it did say that Swift paved the way for people like Grande. That counts as influence. Although their musical styles are not the same, the themes of their songs can converge. I must say I am somewhat skeptical, however. (Olivia Rodrigo fits in better, but she is already mentioned.)

Waiting is fine by me. I'm not in a hurry. Nerd271 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I was alerted to this discussion in an unrelated thread at Talk:Ariana Grande. First, the statement is attributed to Nick Catucci from Rolling Stone, so the article does not present the statement as a fact but instead attributes it to an individual writing for a specific publication (put another way, Wikipedia isn't saying, "Swift did this," it's saying, "Catucci wrote in Rolling Stone that Swift did this"). Note that Catucci is a former executive editor of Billboard Magazine, so he's not just some random guy off the street and I assume he knows a thing or two about popular music (and is more than "sufficiently informed"). Further, he is not just writing a column on his weblog or something, he is writing a column in a reputable, independent reliable source.

Second, because this is an attributed statement, I don't think it's proper to omit Grande unless there's a good reason to do so. Rolling Stone article directly addresses all three artists in the same sentence, so removing one of the three names could be interpreted as misrepresenting what Catucci said. If the statement is included in the article, I would recommend that either all three names be included or no names be included at all.

That said, I don't have a problem with how the statement reads right now because, as Firefangledfeathers said, this seems to be a reasonable paraphrase of what the source says. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Fairy-tale imagery

Ronherry That's the connection. That's the last sentence of the caption, supported by a source taken from the section itself. Oh, come on! Nerd271 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

An image of Swift performing, with the caption mentioning fairy tale imagery, makes little sense. I do acknowledge that Swift looks like a princess (or fairy?) in that photo, but Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate (MOS:PERTINENCE). Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

Make sure the stuff that matches the title is right. Liz parrot (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. clpo13_(talk) 03:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No mention of the Kanye controversy?

I am surprised that there is no mention of Swift's 2016 controversy with Kanye West and Kim Kardashian in this article (the fallout after Kanye's lyrics about her came out). This was a major event in Swift's career, and the implications of it - especially the racial implications - greatly affected her public image. (See: #TaylorSwiftIsOver, many think-pieces) This controversy was clearly notable and is supported by independent/verified sources, because there is an entire section devoted to it in the article for Kanye's song Famous. Readers should be able to learn about it here - or at least, there should be some acknowledgement that it happened. I attempted to add information about it (under the Reputation and Public image sections) which was removed by Ronherry. Please advise on what would be an appropriate way to include this. Lamacha9617 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The only two real events that happened were West interrupting Swift and the Famous Video. The drama with West, Kardashians etc are mentioned in the Background section of the Reputation album article. The rest is simply superfluous and speculation. Also, if the drama surrounding Famous video is already covered in the Famous article, why should the same be added in Swift's biography (a feature article)? That's redundant information. Instead, I would suggest including a line about the release of Famous video under the "2014-2017: 1989" section, and how Swift reacted to it. If readers want to know more about its details, they can simply view it by clicking the blue link to Famous. Ronherry (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, I really appreciate you adding that snippet to the 1989 section. I don't think most readers would necessarily know to look to the Famous article if it weren't mentioned here (I, for one, remembered the controversy but didn't remember the name of the song in question). Thank you! Lamacha9617 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No personal life section?

Why is there no personal life section? It's like everyone wants to buy into Taylor's version of events where this aspect of her life is to be kept private, but FACT: she has dated Jake Gyllenhaal. But you can't find that easily on this article now can you? And I'm not even referring to her dating life only. It would be nice to go to her page and immediately see a section that on countless other people's personal life section includes a nice synopsis of family, perhaps religion, etc. Bdavid1111 (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Bdavid1111, the article is laid out chronologically rather than thematically. This is a good way of laying out biographies, especially biographies of people whose careers are still ongoing, because it avoids putting excess weight on any particular aspect of their life or career. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my stance. Bdavid1111 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Could you guys remove the Nils ref? Taylorrswift89 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Dessner as an "Associated act"

Hi! I believe that, according to the WP guidelines for associated acts, Aaron Dessner should be included as an associated act in the lead infobox.

• Dessner is featured on "Coney Island" (from Evermore) as part of The National.
• Taylor Swift is featured on TWO songs from the Big Red Machine album How Long Do You Think It's Gonna Last?, and Dessner is part of the duo, along with Justin Vernon.

So, up to this point we have three collaborations.

• Moreover, Dessner is an associated performer on four different albums.

FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 16:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

These are only songwriting and production collaborations. Not vocal collaborations. See the guidelines for Associated Acts. Songwriting/production credits do not count. For example, you find Vernon in the infobox because he actually sang alongside Swift in three songs (Exile, Evermore, Renegade). Swift and Dessner never sang together. I actually tried to add Dessner and Antonoff to the infobox, but was taken down citing these reasons. You can find that discussion in the archive I think. Ronherry (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to tell here that media outlets have tightly and constantly associated Dessner and Antonoff with Swift; the latter for years now. I think it's about time we add both of them to the infobox. Would like to hear other opinions on this. Ronherry (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ronherry, thank you very much for answering! I agree with what you said in your reply. Moreover it should be discussed whether the associated acts field should include "acts significant to the artists career", as specifiaed in guidelines, or just guest vocalists who sang on more than two songs with the artist. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 11:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the debate on Dessner being significant despite guidelines, it has been previously decided that associated acts need to be the named acts. I.e. Swift has collaborated with Big Red Machine (band) and with The National (band). Dessner is a member of both of those, but if it is not, e.g. "Big Red Machine feat. Taylor Swift and Aaron Dessner", or "Taylor Swift feat. Aaron Dessner of the National" (as with Gary Lightbody), then Dessner still individually has a count of zero. The question is whether you count the two songs from one Big Red Machine album as separate projects, because then Big Red Machine could be added. Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Swift should not have Dessner listed as associated acts, because Dessner is not a named act. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The top

Can you try to make the top a little more specific? It's too long and there are too many details that don't need to be there at all. Mirrored7 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit. The matter seeking consensus is the use of TopHit.ru as a source for song release dates. Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Papergirl29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Glalria.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

where it says, "James Montgomery of MTV argued that the incident and subsequent media attention turned Swift into "a bona-fide mainstream celebrity"' should be replaced with, "a common stigma, to the dismay of Swift, is that Kanye's interruption aided in her rise to stardom. Asherstein (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That does not appear to be an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Page length

This isn't an issue at the moment, but this article is getting a bit on the long side. While there is no hard limit on how long an article can be, WP:AS recommends 10,000 words of readable prose. This article currently sits at 12,500 [3] which isn't excessive at the moment but will only continue to grow. For reference, our article on the Beatles contains 15,000 words of prose [4] but they aren't putting out more music. Katy Perry's article (another FA) clocks in at 9,200 words [5].

I can give some suggestions to trim the article down a bit, but I would rather not make changes by myself without discussing them here first. The Kanye West/Famous controversy gets for example gets almost as much coverage as the dispute with Scooter over her masters. The dispute with streaming services is referenced in both the career section and the impact section (same with the masters controversy to a lesser extent). Is it really that important to note you can stream her playlist from the Reputation tour or that she made one-off concert appearances with the Rolling Stones and Florida-Georgia Line? Calidum 16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article is getting longer and longer by the day. When it was promoted to FA, I managed to keep it at 6k words. Five years later, it's twice the size. Now a lot has happened in her life since then but not nearly enough to double up the size. I can think of several ways to cut down. For example, we don't need to have four long paragraphs of her philanthropic work. It's not supposed to list every charity she has done. The endorsements section could be shorter. The politics section could also use some trimming given she has mostly remained reluctant to express her opinions on this topic. As it stands, it needs to be no longer than 10k. If nobody has a problem with it, I can get it done. FrB.TG (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: If the difference is that great, I suggest going through FAR, which will also advise on where the article can be shortened and improved, besides re-justifying the FA-class with such different content. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think an FAR would be necessary. It just needs some toning down in regard to the recent additions. It’s still a high-quality article. What I have in mind is easily achievable - no more than a few hours of work. FrB.TG (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR doesn't mean removing the FA class, it would be a process to re-affirm that it's still a high-quality article since the previous reviewed version is so different. Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I get that but this sort of changes is kind of inevitable in BLPs especially about artists that are so active. They need regular updates. I remember reducing the prose size around two years ago. If we had to consider FAR for situations like this, we would end up doing a bunch of them. That said, I will keep this in mind once I'm done with my changes. FrB.TG (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fix missing space in makingSwift

In the 'Red' section about record sales, 'makingSwift' should have a space as 'making Swift'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbanerjeepalmer (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Fixed, thank you! aboideau^{talk to me!} 15:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ref: "Mean" video in Politics and Activism section

In the first paragraph of the Politics and Activism section, it is stated that Tay's "Mean" video was about LGBTQ. In fact it was about a music critic who repeatedly criticized her singing ability after one early poor performance where she had a case of stage fright. The NYT article footnoted as a reference for this says nothing about LGBTQ, only about bullying in general, which is true. Her video for "You Need To Calm Down", however, was definitely about LGBTQ. 2600:6C52:7003:600:15F3:A524:B4D9:C219 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition/clarification to Awards section

The Ripple of Hope Award she received was from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. (Incidentally, Ethel Kennedy is a friend and admirer of Tay). 2600:6C52:7003:600:15F3:A524:B4D9:C219 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Page Length edits

I don't think that the references to Tay's philanthropy should be reduced. I'm a big fan, but learned some new examples from the article. She is such a good role model for her hundreds of millions of fans around the world (as well as non- or not-yet fans), and her philanthropy is unparalleled in the music industry. You could even add that she has been voted the Most Charitable Celebrity by DoSomething.org in '12, '13, '14, and'15 , and the proceeds for her music video "Wildest Dreams" was donated to African Parks Foundation of America. Her charitable giving is such an important and admirable part of who she is, and if the overall article needs to be shortened, you should find somewhere else to edit, or link to a separate article on her charitable giving. For a list of other charities go to https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/taylor-swift Thanks! 2600:6C52:7003:600:15F3:A524:B4D9:C219 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you learned the philanthropic ventures she has undertaken in the last few days, then there is nothing for you to worry about. The current version will be retained and does not need any further reduction. Before this, however, it was starting to read like a proseline of every little charity she has done, and we have to prevent such writing, especially in a featured article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's best works. FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. She is such a good role model for her hundreds of millions of fans around the world [...] Her charitable giving is such an important and admirable part of who she is - not a good reason to include excessive and/or unencyclopedic coverage, so, no, we shouldn't find somewhere else to edit just because you don't like it, wow. Also - her philanthropy is unparalleled in the music industry - is patently untrue, with Dolly Parton (and BTS more recently, but famously Dolly for decades) around. WP:FANCRUFT is probably useful reading. Especially, if you are admittedly a big fan and only found out some of these things reading Wikipedia, it probably isn't very widely covered in media; the least-covered (i.e. least-publicly-notable) things will get removed first when the article gets too long. Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

The current image is from 2019; we are in 2022. Swift has appeared in various public events in the past 2 years. I'm not particularly specialized in retrieving copyvio-free images from Flickr or the internet or whatever, but I think it's time we update/replace the image with a newer one. Initiating this talk topic as a reminder to those editors who would be interested in accomplishing this task. ℛonherry☘ 11:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Article merged into another after AFD.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that fans consider track 5 on a Taylor Swift album to be special? Source: "a pattern started to emerge of track five denoting the moment on each of her albums where Taylor really, fully gets cathartic ... there is a certain vulnerability that comes with a Taylor Swift track five, and there is always a heightened level of anticipation for what these songs will hold." ([6])

• Reviewed: 2007 Football League One play-off Final
• Comment: Course assignment for Public Writing Across Genres

Created by PublicWriterABC (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 22:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC).

• Putting this nomination on hold until the AFD is finished. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• The outcome of the AFD was to merge this article. As the article no longer exists as a separate article, it is no longer eligible for DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Change "Having sold over 200 million records worldwide, Swift is one of the best-selling musicians of all time.Her concert tours are some of the highest-grossing in history." to "Having sold over 200 million records worldwide, Swift is one of the best-selling musicians of all time. Her concert tours are some of the highest-grossing in history." There is no space after the full-stop in the current version. 182.79.4.253 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Crboyer. ℛonherry☘ 08:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Taylor Swift is 1.78 cm tall and not 1.80, she herself has said so in multiple interviews. 2A02:A466:B316:1:345D:379E:BA4F:B01B (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 11 2022

Adding ”at” in the following phrase ”Becoming one of the first signings Big Machine, she wanted…” (after ”signings”) Gunboz (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

update the photo of Swift at the 2019 American Music Awards to a photo of Swift at All Too Well short film Premiere in 2021 I do my nails (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide an image with acceptable licensing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this seems like a good and important change. Swiftieben (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

I want the main picture of Taylor Swift to be changed to the photo of Taylor Swift at the All Too Well Premiere. This photo is more recent and has been used a lot in articles since it came out. Swiftieben (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide an image with acceptable license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

Taylor Swift is also a filmmaker (Director and Screenplay writer), one of her works is All Too Well: The Short Film 183.87.160.46 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

She is, but it's not what she's predominantly known for, so we don't include it in the opening sentence to keep it succinct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Under "2020–present: Folklore, Evermore, and re-recordings", change "has been cast in David O'Russell's untitled film" to "has been cast in David O'Russell's Canterbury Glass" or "has been cast in David O'Russell's period film Canterbury Glass" because the film is no longer untitled. BTASJoker (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth, Star sign Ophiuchus

November 29th to January 18 falls into a new old sign Ophiuchus, pronounced ‘o-few-cus’ Rhino1178 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions

Remove rock because 2-4 genres is preferred, the source for rock says she "may be the last true rock star", and "rock star" is ambiguous as it could refer to "a person treated as a celebrity, especially in inspiring fanatical admiration". Additionally, it might be better to remove alternative as well because just alternative itself is ambiguous; it could be alternative rock, alternative pop, alternative R&B, etc. I am not sure if folk should be listed either, because there is only one source supporting it and an artist "spanning" folk music does not necessarily make them a folk singer. Most sources refer to her as country and/or pop, which are the genres she is most known for, and I don't think her experimenting with alternative and folk genres on two albums necessarily defines her work as a whole; her other seven albums are classified as country and/or pop. --RoseAnarchy (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Taylor Swift just graduated from New York University with a honorary doctorate, making her officially Dr. Taylor Swift. Curie Thota (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The claim at the bottom of the Impact section that evolutionary psychologists study Taylor Swift's songs is misleading. There are two citations given. One citation (Grandoni) links to an article that itself only refers to the second citation (Hobbs in Evolutionary Psychology) which is a general analysis of hundreds of songs and books and includes songs by Taylor Swift as data points. NiaRya (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorate

Introduce her as Dr. Taylor Swift to honor her honorary doctorate from one of the greatest institutions NYU. 2600:1010:B145:E3FD:3035:F0B9:C98E:DCDC (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done it’s not customary to use the prefix for someone with an honorary doctorate degree. FrB.TG (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Piano and ukulele?

It's pretty clear from context of the article that Swift plays guitar a lot and banjo regularly. But what about piano and ukulele? Does she play them regularly enough to warrant an infobox mention? —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Taylor's genre

Can indie be included as Taylor's genre? 2405:3800:839:9588:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC for Cuepoint started

Forgot to mention this here sooner. An RfC has been started to determine the reliability of the Medium publication Cuepoint. This publication is used in some Swift related articles. Your participation is welcomed. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Add actress to opening sentence

I don't see why actress would not be included in the opening sentence. She has participated in multiple acting roles not as herself, several of which she was a main cast member. I'd get if she just did very sporadic guest spots on tv, but with Valentine's Day, Cats and Amsterdam, it's definitely accurate to include actress. Rusted AutoParts 19:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (see archives). Acting is not what she is primarily known for. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I'm finding alot of the rationale silly. In one of the threads I read it's simply you stated you'd "prefer not to". That's not a reason to exclude. Whether it's what she's primarily known for or not, she has a notable acting career. Lady Gaga is more known as a singer but actress is in the lead and not just shunted off to the side in the infobox. Rusted AutoParts 05:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair though, Gaga is a more prolific actress, having won a Golden Globe for a TV show and received an Oscar nod for a lead role. Swift's roles in those two released films didn’t gain her much recognition. Consider her work in other areas like music producing and music video directing; she’s much more active there, but we still went with her primary profession. FrB.TG (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Holding off any other fields of work she has gained notability in just because she's primarily a singer is ridiculous overall. I don't see the point, or how it improves the article or the reader experience. Rusted AutoParts 00:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Her film roles are mentioned on the third paragraph of the Lead section, so it's already improved "the reader experience". General public recognizes her as a singer/songwriter. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lady Gaga garnered various film industry awards and recognition. People can identified her with that role easier, as well media. With Taylor, a passive mention (the third paragraph) is more than fine as per previous reasons explained by other users. The role has been included in the infobox, the appropriate place by now. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Trim

@Vaulter @Ippantekina the recent trimming by the latter was definitely called for. The article's length is brought up regularly (e.g. here); I did quite some trimming but I felt more could be done. At 10.9k words, the size is a bit long, and the article could definitely use fine-tuning like Ippantekina's recent changes. FrB.TG (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that the page could use trimming (I'm actually the one who started the thread). I disagree with making wholesale changes under the guise of "peackory" however. -- Vaulter 19:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I didn't recognize your name change; regardless, I do think Swift is being excessively praised here, and the addition of the criticism by Ippantekina adds a fine balance. The politics and fashion sections in particular discuss her activities in an unnecessary manner. It should be done in summary style to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE. FrB.TG (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I did some editing of my own and reimplemented the changes I undid to the politics section. -- Vaulter 20:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is still in dire need of trimming - there's over 500 (almost 600) references. It's excessive and its 342kb - a lot of which is probably due to the references. I've trimmed another 8k but it really needs someone more familiar with the content. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Aside from a few cut-downs here and there, I don't think there's much else to be done, but I do agree that the size issue somewhat remains. The only such reduction can be done through a split in that we, for example, move the artistry section to a new article (like Cinematic style of Christopher Nolan and Shah Rukh Khan in the media). It could be called something similar (Musical style of Taylor Swift?). FrB.TG (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Photo

Is that pixely low resolution image really the best we have? Somarain (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Just added a bunch of new 2022 pics to Commons from Flickr. I added one under the "2020–present" section. You can check all of them out here. SilverBullitt (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Great photos! This one would be a good choice for an infobox image. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That one looks weird and kinda tacky. ℛonherry☘ 05:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Albums one through five

Does everyone agree that:

• Fearless is Taylor Swift's second album?
• Red is Taylor Swift's fourth album?
• In this interview [7] Taylor Swift says "My contract says that starting November 2020, I can record albums one through five all over again."

Because if you do, please voice your agreement.

User:Ippantekina does not agree and keeps reverting my edits. I have reported them for edit warring but I would like to make sure that I am in the right here. Tree Critter (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What do sources say? Here's the list. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Taylor Swift – "...her self-titled first album came out on October 24, 2006."
• 2: Fearless – "...Taylor Swift’s re-recorded version of her 2008 second album..."
• 3: Speak Now – "Taylor Swift Announces Third Album, ‘Speak Now’ "
• 4: Red – "Taylor Swift released "Red (Taylor's Version)," the rerecorded version of her fourth album, on Friday."
• 5: 1989 – "...2014’s 1989, Swift’s fifth album..."

@Binksternet: That relates to an ongoing discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Here is the link to the discussion. Ippantekina (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tree Critter: You may want to revisit WP:SYNTH to understand what I mean. Ippantekina (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Tree Critter, this post appears to be misdirection from you. Nobody here is confused about the album order. The ongoing problem is really your violation of WP:SYNTH, trying to shoehorn a studio recording date range into many song articles, based on a comment Swift once made on Good Morning America. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yea. Where's the confusion? She recorded them no earlier than November 2020, and yes User:Ippantekina is confused about the album order when they stated "She did not specifically say in the interview that she would re-record Fearless or Red by that time" and ""The GMA interview says nothing about Fearless or Red"", when, in fact, it does. Further, I'm not combining sources, I'm using one source. Nor am I using two different parts of one source. I'm using one sentence that very clearly states that the songs were recorded no earlier than November 2020.

But to be clear, the two of you think that adding to the prose of the article "Taylor Swift stated that contractually she could not re-record the songs any earlier than November 2020." would not be appropriate? Tree Critter (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift's Carbon Emissions

The past two weeks it has been a trending topic that Taylor Swift allegedly used her private jet 170 times since the start of 2022, which she has been criticized for. A representative then said that her private jet was actually loaned out, although she still received criticism i believe. I feel like this would be a very notable thing to write in the Public Image section, although i wanted to see what y'all thought first 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 17:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

References

This would be a notable thing to write about if we can confirm that it's true. However, even Rolling Stone mentions that there have been doubts on the study's methodology and accuracy. Yard does not appear to be a reliable source, especially on this since the source of their data is a Twitter account. We should wait for a reliable source to confirm it independently from this study. ~Rajan51(talk) 16:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it could be added but then also with a line about the doubts on Yard as a reliable source? I wrote that the jet was used 170 times, but seeing the doubts on the CO2 calculations i didn't add those numbers. Oh and also, the Twitter account referred to gets the data from ADS-B Exchange 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 17:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it should not be mentioned if we know that a reliable source does not exist. See WP:RS. We don't have any reliable sources backing up the claim that the jet was flown 170 times. The Twitter account may get its data from another source, but even if we assume that its source is reliable, the account itself is not reliable. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yard is a not a reliable source and studies conducted by unreliable websites are not worthy of inclusion, especially on a featured article. According to reliable sources, Yard is a digital "marketing" company, which furthermore makes it highly unreliable. For data/surveys regarding the ecosystem, environmental agencies and organizations are the best source, and none of those seem to support this factoid. ℛonherry☘ 20:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yard technically didn't conduct the study/isn't the primary source, they just compiled a top 10 list based on data from another place (@/CelebJets on Twitter which is a bot that takes it data from ADS-B Exchange) and tried to calculate the CO2 emissions (which, as previously mentioned, has casted some doubts according to Rolling Stone). Are there any environmental agencies specifically stating that its untrue, or are they just not reporting/commenting on it? Oh and also, i feel like the fact that Swift's spokesperson didn't specifically deny that the jet had been used so many times should be taken into consideration (''Taylor’s jet is loaned out regularly to other individuals.To attribute most or all of these trips to her is blatantly incorrect'').

Also, i feel that if Yard is an unreliable source or if the report is unreliable, that should be mentioned alongside the controversy, although i haven't seen other sources beside Rolling Stone discuss that (Edit: I also forgot to say that Yard has been referred to as an 'analytical' firm/agency as well by sources)𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 21:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You said "I feel that if Yard is an unreliable source or if the report is unreliable, that should be mentioned alongside the controversy." Well, as per WP:RS, Yard is an unreliable source. Plus, reliable sources are the ONLY valid references on Wikipedia; there is no place for unreliable/questionable sources. Yard would not be allowed on a good article and will definitely not be on a featured one. Another point is that, Yard's source of information is also a Twitter account. And Twitter, again, is a depreciated source on Wikipedia unless it's the account of a verified organization/individual making statements about themselves. ℛonherry☘ 07:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ohh i wasn't trying to say that Yard should be used as a reference, I put a list of references that covered the controversy in my first comment of this thread, most or all of which are listed as generally reliable under WP:RSP as far as i can remember (Oh and also NBC covered the controversy too)(Edit: The Washington Post stated that the report 'was not peer-reviewed and features a prominent disclaimer about its analysis', maybe that could be added alongside?)𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 13:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

But all of the references you have listed use Yard as their source, don't they? There hasn't been any independent report confirming Yard's study, so the source is still Yard. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree. ℛonherry☘ 17:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Indie genre

Would everyone agreed that Indie is included as her genre? Since folklore she keeps on making indie songs. Is it possible to add indie in her genre? 2405:3800:88E:93DC:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on whether or whether not the inclusion of "November 2020–" should be added to Taylor's re-recorded songs.

Hi!

In a 2019 interview [8] (it happens at 2:01) Taylor Swift stated "Starting November 2020 I can re-record albums one through five all over again" in reference to her masters controversy. User:Ippantekina and User:Binksternet both feel this is not an adequate source to add the recording date of "November 2020–" to the re-recorded songs.

User:Ippantekina disagrees because she does not explicitly mention Fearless or Red [9], [10]. I disagree with this disagreement because she mentions her first five albums, which Fearless and Red fall under.

Despite User:Binksternet agreeing with me that she did not re-record these songs before November 2020 [11], they feel this is an example of WP:SYNTH because Taylor does not explicitly state every song in question. I believe this is an example of WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH because saying "album" is enough to imply the songs on the album.

Please watch the interview for yourself and come to your own conclusion on whether or not the songs' infoboxes should reflect having not been recorded prior to November 2020.

Thank you for taking the time. Tree Critter (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH, it is as clear-cut as it is. (Your rationale I disagree with this disagreement because she mentions her first five albums, which Fearless and Red fall under. falls under SYNTH also). I see no point in starting a discussion to verify an information that must be implied by the reader rather than explicitly displayed by the source. Please watch the interview for yourself and come to your own conclusion why should readers do the verification themselves? If the source is as vague as it is, leave it be. Ippantekina (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation but I'll keep the RfC up. In the meantime, read WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH if you like. :) Tree Critter (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think there's any reason to believe that the albums should be mentioned by name when refer to clearly as a group ("albums one through five"), but I'm more concerned about her phrasing i.e. "my contract says that starting November 2020 I can record albums 1 through 5 all over again". Announcing something a year in advance is not evidence for that thing happening. And the quote does even less than that. It just states the earliest possible date from a legal perspective for the re-recordings to happen. Is this the only source for the date? PraiseVivec (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Billboard also uses it [12]
  • She mentioned she had recently started on November 16, 2020 [13]
  • Vulture uses it [14]
  • New York Post too [15] Tree Critter (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose attempting to source claim about the past to even older source asserting a plan for the future. You cannot assume reality will (or did) obey a plan.
  You might be able to get away with citing the historical date of an eclipse to an even older table of predicted eclipses, as anything that would render the prediction wrong would likely leave no one alive to read the article anyway. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  It honestly has nothing to do with her plan to re-record. She contractually can't start any sooner than November 2020. Tree Critter (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agree if the question is whether or not this is synth or not. If a source says, "All the colors of the rainbow," it should not have to say "Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet" for us to cite that green is among them.

"SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: 'In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.'" WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH

To answer your question, Ippantekina, "Why should readers do the verification themselves?" It seems necessary for Tree Critter to request "thoughtful editorial judgment" in this case to reach consensus.

Where I fear this may fall into WP:SYNTH is suggesting that just because Taylor Swift said she could re-record doesn't mean she is re-recording. If other verified sources confirm she's re-recording, I'm good with this. Please verify. Unless of course the edit being suggested is going to specify that Swift only said she could, in which case, that seems perfectly legitimate. But it doesn't seem like that's the suggestion here.Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead

(First word: This is not to argue, but to discuss.) I trimmed down the lead (my revision here) but it was restored to an earlier version by Ronherry (their revision here, with their reason being "Too watered-down and cherry-picked to ignore key moments (according to sources in body) of her career + lack of due weightage/lopsided"). I am not sure how my edit is construed as cherry-picking, but here are some points to my edits:

• I removed vague, potentially puffery wording such as "successful on both country and pop radio", "established her as a leading crossover act", "signaled Swift's transition to mainstream pop", "receiving plaudits for their nuanced storytelling".
• I replaced them with facts such as "the first female country-music artist to write or co-write every song on a US platinum-certified album", "were the first country songs to respectively top the pop airplay chart and the all-genre airplay chart in the United States", and clearly stated which single peaked atop the charts.
• I removed her acting credits because they are supporting roles and not notable for the lead, which introduces her as a singer-songwriter.
• "Swift is regarded as a pop icon owing to her influential career, philanthropy, and advocacy for artists' rights and women's empowerment." is puffery, so I changed to: "Swift has advocated for artists' rights and women's empowerment."

I look forward to discussions on whether my edits are constructive or not. Ippantekina (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(i) "successful on both country and pop radio" could be reworded, but "established her as a leading crossover act", "signaled Swift's transition to mainstream pop", "receiving plaudits for their nuanced storytelling" are all factually true, as per Rolling Stone, Billboard, Time, The New York Times, et cetera. Moreover, in my opinion, "successful" is not a word of puffery but rather a word of concision. "Successful" is crisper than an album with "US multi-platinum singles written by a female country solo artist", which is wordy. We can save all those specific details for the body. The lead is not supposed to copy the body, but summarize the entire article body in fewer words, without blatantly ignoring the subject's important works. (ii) Her acting credits for Valentine's Day and Cats are indeed notable in the lead as every reliable source mentions them whenever Swift acts in a supporting role in a movie. We are not mentioning all the movie/series she's ever been in. We are making a mention of only two movies she's featured in, and then naming the films central to her career. Her widely discussed documentary (MA), her solo debut as director (F:TLPSS), and her widely covered short film (ATW). (iii) Please differentiate between puffery and genuine favorable press. Swift has been described as a pop icon by several reliable sources, and the reasons cited (industry influence, philanthropy, and advocacy for artists' rights and women's empowerment) are from multiple reliable sources as well. This is not puffery. This is a condensed statement supported by nearly all critical music/entertainment publications. ℛonherry☘ 13:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:PUFFERY "Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." What is deemed "successful" for one can be seen differently for others. Swift is not known as an actress, so I doubt the lead should mention those two roles. Words like "industry influence" are easily demonstrated through her accolades. Not to mention why the singles "Back to December" (which barely made it to the top 10 of Pop Songs) and "22" (which barely hit the top 10 of the Hot 100) could be included. Ippantekina (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention some of the wordings ("acclaimed", "leading", "popular") are listed in the "Words to watch" box at PUFFERY. I can see a sentence like, "Swift was credited with influencing a new generation of singer-songwriters," as specific enough, but "industry influence", well, no. Ippantekina (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(i) Yes, hence, let's mention the Hot 100 positions of both TOMG and Our Song, since there is no mention of singles from this album. (ii) Swift is "not known as an actress" is the exact reason why only two of the films are mentioned as "supporting roles". MA, F:TLPSS and ATW:TSF are notable works within her career, which is what the article is about. I think I've already said that. (iii) Mentioning an artist has influence in the lead, or what they are known for, or the mention of the word "success" are not wrong. Look at other FAs like Kylie Minogue, Nirvana (band), and Mariah Carey. "industry influence" not even marginally puff-y. (iv) "Back to December" could be removed, but "22" has consistently been ranked as one of Swift's most popular songs; charting at #20 in 2012 does not mean a song did not gain popularity consequently. ℛonherry☘ 14:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, "popular" was never in this article's lead. "leading" has been removed. "acclaimed" is not here as it is, but mention of an album/song/aspect having acclaim is not as same as claiming an act is "acclaimed" entirely, which is the case with the list of words to watch. ℛonherry☘ 14:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that the lead is too bloated and puffer-ish at places. I think it's a little too early for "Swift has been described as a pop icon owing to her industry influence". I don't doubt that Swift has made a lot of positive impact on the music industry in the last few years, but this kind of phrasing is usually used for singers like Madonna or Michael Jackson who have/had been in the industry for much longer. I am sure Swift will get there one day as well, but for now let's stick to the hard facts like sales, awards and rankings. I also don't think we need to mention singles from every album if they weren't all that successful. For example, the singles from her debut album don't really need mentioning when they only charted highly in genre-specific charts (as well as "BTD" and "22"). I also agree that her acting doesn't necessarily need mentioning when she has "only" played supporting roles and didn't win much praise either. I would instead emphasize on Miss Americana, the Folklore film and ATW:TSF. And finally, I would do away with phrases like "receiving plaudits for their nuanced storytelling" and "strong acclaim". This version is much cleaner, although I would re-add some parts (like the current second sentence and ATW:TSF). FrB.TG (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The current lead stands at whopping 523 words. Comparing with Michael Jackson's (which is at 540 words), this is way too long and some trimming is definitely in order. FrB.TG (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(i) I feel like this discussion is drifting away from basing arguments on literature and articles as reliable sources, and refusing to include sourced facts just because you feel "it's a little too early" even though a dozen unrelated sources saying the same thing outweighs you. (ii) I stick with what I said previously about "22" and the singles from her debut album. "22" is one of Swift's most notable songs (iii) The supportive acting credits should say in the lead as they have much wide coverage, which should be the only criterion that should decide what stays in the lead. Their removal constitutes unbalanced weightage and does not satisfy the lead's purpose - summarizing the article. (v) Folklore and Evermore receiving praise for their storytelling is a fact; Fearless (tv) and Red (tv) both did receive acclaim. (iv) Apart from one or two places where I told them some bits can be reworded, I feel Ippantenkina's vision of the lead leaves several holes in her career, does not reflect what the majority of the reliable sources are saying, and is influenced by personal opinions. ℛonherry☘ 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I would be fine with Ippantenkina's version if it included the points you suggested and two other points I argued for. ℛonherry☘ 03:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have given it a go. I have restored Ippantekina's version of the lead but also re-added some parts as a compromise. Ronherry, her songwriting on her 2020 albums received praise, no doubt, but that is not specific to only those two so I don't see why we need to single them out; it just seems a little out of place to only discuss these two's critical reception. Rankings such as RS' Greatest Songwriters of All Time already establish her reputation as a songwriter. FrB.TG (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

On a side note, I really like that the article's overall size now stands at 9.87k words. I hope that we’ll be able to keep it at under 10k for as long as possible. FrB.TG (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

New infobox image

Can any editor who is interested and aware of copyright rules try to find a new image for Swift's infobox? 2022 is about to end and the current image is from 2019. Swift got clicked in a dozen different occasions this year, so I was wondering if the image can be updated with a most recent, good looking picture. I'm not particularly specialized in gathering images and analyzing them for copyvio, So I'm just putting this out here as a reminder/request. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 08:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Found a handful of images from 2022 [16], would the following photo below be good?

Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I like this one:

But I'm really open to any image personally. TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

These are great; I've seen these. But I was referring to uploading new pictures of her from the recent VMAs, or that NYU graduation ceremony, or even that Tribeca Film Festival. I'm pretty sure some of these images exist out there that we can use without violations copyrights, I'm just not sure where to find one. The current infobox image is a screenshot obtained from a Cosmopolitan YouTube video. ℛonherry☘ 20:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ll look for a good portrait in Flickr and ask some authors if they could change the licensing permission. They’re usually cooperative but let’s see how this works out. FrB.TG (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you fucking want to kill me!? These photos are a walking horror movie! Joey Camelaroche (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thank you very much! ℛonherry☘ 20:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Taylor Swift (2022 VMAs) (cropped).png

Another potential option? Though it might be a little to blurry. What do you think? a wiki editor 05:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a little blurry when zoomed to the face. I was the one who uploaded the original full-torso image, but I don't know about this one; the cropping has made it blurry.

ℛonherry☘ 06:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If you already insert, then the very first proposed, otherwise this, too, fucked up, some.... Joey Camelaroche (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joey Camelaroche: Hi, this and your previous response in this topic contains unconstructive profanity. Can you please mind? Thank you. ℛonherry☘ 07:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wikieditorforfun1: I've been searching the internet for a 2022 image of Swift with viable licensing. I'll notify you when I find one. I would appreciate your comments on it. I did upload an image from the 2022 NYU ceremony (you can find it on the "Impact" section) with suitable licensing, but I'm not sure if it is suitable for the infobox image. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 16:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I updated the infobox image with one I recently uploaded. It has good quality and lighting, no copyvio, and is a very recent one. ℛonherry☘ 18:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Public Image

The last Line of the section is demonstrably false, She did not Popularize the Polaroid Aesthetic, nor Cottagecore. If anything she capitalized on the popularity of. There is a very *very* long history of the popularity of these Aesthetics going back well over a decade before the albums in question. This line is literally just entirely Untrue and need be removed for the Accuracy of the Article. 2600:1700:3F10:7D10:DC4B:ECB7:9208:C6F5 (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of these claims are backed up by reliable sources. There are many other sources that show that Swift’s use of Polaroid in her 1989 album boosted the sales of Polaroid. FrB.TG (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it is important to remember the difference between popularize and originate. It is true that Swift did not create the Polaroid or Cottagecore aesthetics, but she definitely made them more popular as supported by citations in the article. It is also important to remember trends can be popularized multiple times by multiple different people over time. The point is not that she is the first, but that she brought to greater attention. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As written, you make it sound like she was the original populariser. You should change the line to be something like: "her use of Polaroid and Cottage Core aesthetics helped spread their popularity further" etc. Just because someone said something in print doesn't mean it can't be misleading, especially lifted out of context. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion.  Done FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Abuse of "Did you know" articles.

Hi gang. We all love Taylor Swift. There is no way in heaven that she makes the "did you know" DYK section every three days. This is a wikipedia of all human knowledge, not Taylor's career.

With millions of artists around the world, what are the odds that any one artist would even make the DYK page once in a lifetime? Vanishingly small.

Your abuse of editorial privilege is a problem because it sucks up the oxygen for other artists and destroys the credibility of Wikipedia.

On top of this, the DYK pages you are nominating don't meet the criteria of a good page, as they are not interesting to anyone other than fans, if that.

Feature our beloved Tay Tay once a year max, people! Save it up and make it interesting. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Billyshiverstick: This is a fair question, but I would encourage you to bring this up on the DYK talk page (Wikipedia talk:Did you know) as this should be seen and discussed by the individuals who help to organize and run that space. I am not sure if there are any policies in place for spacing out hooks with the same subject, but I think that is the better venue for this discussion than on this talk page. Aoba47 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Aoba47, I think the DYK page relies on "self policing" as does the today's featured article, which is heavily weighted to dreadnought battleships; Australian soldiers, banksia varieties, and cricketers; the US Mint; and video games. I will try. Another Taylor Swift DYK today. One 3 days ago. The TS community needs to address this. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple images in Influences section

We don't really need to show what Shania Twain and Stevie Nicks look like in this article, they are adequately illustrated in their own articles. Could these two pictures be removed? It is another example of extraneous detail being added. 92.15.144.174 (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Edits you don't like aren't always "frivolous."

With that said, following WP:BRD, here's a list of things in the lead that can be refined:

• First of all, why would we try to reinforce the reputation (pun intended) that Swift writes songs about her exes? "Often inspired by her personal life" might as well say the same thing. We can pay attention to her songwriting skills without saying "Oh, she writes songs about her relationships." Trying to counter back by saying that there is more to her personal life than her relationships- then at that point, every artist including the likes of Cardi B and Billie Eilish writes about their personal life. It's an irrelevant detail.
• You Belong With Me topping all-genre radio is bigger than Love Story topping Mainstream Top 40, which is a chart that's barely mentioned in articles let alone lead sections.
• "Eschewed" is a confusing word, and why did you remove Shake It Off's diamond certification? Is that not important? A diamond record is huge.
• "Her music is credited with influencing a generation of singer-songwriters." She's 32, not in her 50's. There isn't much of a a "new generation" yet.

PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Everything you listed here are SOURCED. Swift's lead has been trimmed nicely to include only one line/record about each album/era. "There isn't much of a new generation yet." Billboard, the New Yok Times and Business Insider all disagree. Plus stop removing sourced content. All are sourced within the article body. And no, stop misusing BRD. BRD does not encourage reverting. You removed content once, and you were reverted. You cannot revert again. The article shall be restored to its last stable, original state before your disruptive edits. ℛonherry☘ 16:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

And please stop cherry-picking data. Rodrigo is not the only artist who has cited Swift as an influence. You have been previously warned for edit-warring by several editors. ℛonherry☘ 17:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ronherry: No mention about any of the other content, just a revert? Shake It Off's diamond certification is also sourced, yet you are removing that content too. Did you actually take a look at the edit before reverting it? Why are you removing a major accomplishment for an artist that you seem to majorly edit, just because you find it "disruptive"? Making changes is not disruptive. I'm not just removing content FYI. A diamond-certification song being in the lead is not "cherry picking data." Please actually try to be constructive and improve the article. Editors have warned you before for being biased for and against certain artists, such as the time when you were removing sourced content from BTS and was subsequently called out for editing in WP:BF. Don't bring up editing history over content unless you also want your editing history to be brought up. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal attacks and stick to the topic. I'm merely asking you to stop making disruptive edits. I'm not the one suddenly popping up on an article and making drastic edits. And yes, SIO is diamond certified. But so is Fearless. Those information is in the body. This article's lead has been streamlined to represent all of her albums and #1 singles equally. Quit ruining it. Plus, your edit has several grammatical issues too. Please discuss it with other editors BEFORE making the edit. If you still continue the disruption, this will be taken to the Admins' noticeboard. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 17:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Quit ruining it."

"I'm going to take you to the Admin's noticeboard if you keep editing."

"Discuss with me before making an edit to the page."

WP:OWN. Okay. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not own this article. Several editors have edited this article in the past month. If you were reverted, then that means you're drastically changing the lead/article without due weightage to the article content or contradicting the sources within the article. ℛonherry☘ 17:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I do not agree with the inclusion of "often inspired by personal life" line either, I argued against it actually (a year ago if I remember correctly). But editorial consensus and strong sources proved that the line should stay. "Personal life" is not just relationships; the lead does not mention any words such as "relationships" or "exes". Personal life refers to Swift's life struggles, family, fame and mental health too. I just believe the article's current version of the lead is the best version as it was a product of several discussions and quality trims. ℛonherry☘ 17:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

Change December 13, 1989 (age 33 years) to 34 years Hudland623 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The template used to add her DOB does it automatically. FrB.TG (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

What's with the Shania Twain and Stevie Nicks images?

Are these images in the influences section really necessary? We don't really need to show what Shania Twain and Stevie Nicks look like in this article, they are adequately illustrated in their own articles. 92.15.148.117 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Laughing at Kanye

I think it's safe to say Swift has won the war. She continues to successfully make music while he parades Nazi talking points. It is improper to say her reputation was damaged by his actions. No, only his was damaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.86.217 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much self-explanatory. Though I don't believe he has any idea what he's saying or doing anymore, as nobody with an ounce of common sense would say they like a lot of things about Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer. In short, he's completely lost it, while Swift has not and continues to successfully make music. --92.15.148.117 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

I would like to change the photo of Taylor to a slightly more recognizable and better-lit photo to improve this page. 204.16.224.53 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the lighting is a bit off. Trouble is though, there's very little choice in 2020-2022 era images of Taylor on Wikicommons. Pretty much all of them are from the same tour, with the same lighting issues present. --92.15.148.117 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks weird and unlike the Taylor we know and love 204.16.224.53 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you have an image in mind that you would like to change it to, check out our WP:Image Use Policy for guidance on whether or we can legally use the image and how to upload an image for use. If you upload an appropriate image or find one already uploaded on the Wikicommons, link to it here and reopen the request then. Cannolis (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Any good recent images on Wikicommons that aren't from the Haim tour? --92.15.148.117 (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

Hi can you unblock it so everyone can edit 101.177.8.152 (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Article overhaul

Happy new year, fellow editors. I am thinking that this article needs an overhaul; but because this idea is very bold, I reckon it is better to discuss here before any large reconstruction. In light of the recently-promoted music biography FA Mick Jagger, as well as following some other music biography FAs for singer-songwriters such as Bob Dylan, David Bowie, et al., I am having some ideas as follows;

• Merge the entire "Artistry", "Public image", and "Accolades and achievements" sections into the "Life and career" section. Instead of just listing pure chart statistics, awards, and singles, we can discuss how each album of Swift's career incorporates different genres and how each album cycle corresponds to her evolving public image more in-depth. The reception of her songwriting can be safely discussed here, as well as her musical influences as her music tends to be influenced by different musicians through each phase/era.
• Divide the "Life and career" section by decade (2000s, 2010s, 2020s) without naming each and every album in the headline. This is pretty much self-explanatory. We can also do some headlines like "2000s: The country years", "2010s: Pop-music expansion", but this is not necessary.

The rationale for my ideas is that the said sections ("Artistry" et al) at times read pretty bloated but can be safely merged into the "Life and career" section to create a smoother flow and give readers a better idea of how Swift evolved. Currently the "Life and career" section almost exclusively focuses on chart statistics, which makes it... expressionless. Of course, this is a ton of work and would need cooperation by not only Taylor Swift WikiProject participants, but any editors are much welcomed. Ippantekina (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy new year! I think your suggestions are very good ideas that would improve this article! --92.15.148.117 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the active Taylor Swift editor Ronherry, and the FA contributor FrB.TG, could input some thoughts? Ippantekina (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about merging artistry, public image, and accolades with Life and Career. The enlarged section's content would become very miscellaneous in nature and difficult to navigate in terms of topics. I believe the prose of the former three are consistent and maintains a uniform topic throughout. By keeping the artistry, public image and accolades sections separate, readers can actually find what they want in a separate section without having to go through a vast mixed-bag section. Like take one of the FAs you cited, David Bowie; his article keeps Musicianship and Achievements separate as well. The current artistry and public image sections explain Swift's evolution in terms of music and image, separately. The Life and Career, currently focuses on her early life, personal life, disputes, her album/single releases, and each release's commercial/critical success. The other information about her have been categorized in the remaining sections. This is much easier to go through. Now, coming to your second bullet point, yes, I like your idea about dividing the Life and Career section based on decades. The section will look well organized that way. ℛonherry☘ 08:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna write my ideas in bullet points to make it easy to follow,

• We could keep the "Achievements" section on its own, and if possible merging it with "Public image" is a good idea.
• The "Musicianship" section of the David Bowie article is actually very short, whereas the "Artistry" section here is pretty bloated with information that could safely be incorporated into the Career sections (Particularly, "Musical styles", "Songwriting", and "Voice" i.e. how she transitioned from country to pop, or how her voice evolved by 2020's Folklore).
• The "Video and film" section can be a separate one.
• A little controversial, but I think we can safely remove the entire "Influences" section; her artistry has gone beyond country to keep the images of Stevie Nicks/Shania Twain in the article.

Ippantekina (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I do not understand how "Achievements" section could be merged with "Public image", when they are both different things. I do not think a merger is required in this case.
• Yes, the "Musicianship" section of the David Bowie article is short. But that is Bowie's article; not Swift's. While we can take inspiration from FAs, I don't think Wikipedia wants editors to exactly replicate the article structures, section titles and prose sizes of one FA onto another. Publications have covered Swift's voice, songwriting, genre styles all separately in separate articles. So, why not keep them separate, but all under Artistry? We can tweak/trim these sub-sections but I'm not sure about incorporating them into Life and Career.
• Yes, we can remove the images of Stevie Nicks/Shania Twain in the article. But removing the entire Influences section? If I understood you right, you want to delete Influences, merge everything else in Artistry into Life and Career, and keep Video/Film separate; Artistry section would cease to exist then? I do not understand under which case and why would an artist's article would not have an artistry section. Life and Career should deal only with her personal life and career details. Artistry section could contain the "artistic"/"creative" notes about her music/lyrics/genre without talking about her life. We should separate art from the artist in terms of prose as well. This point of yours would work with a less popular artist with little coverage, wherein we can merge them all into Life and Career, but for popular contemporary artists like Swift or Beyonce, who have received wide coverage of their artistry specifically, I think it's best to keep them separate.

ℛonherry☘ 04:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, as an alternative, I suggest we merge "Public Image" with "Other activities" rather than "Achievements". ℛonherry☘ 05:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Public image" and "Other activities" merger is a great idea. Keeping an "Artistry" section is okay, as long as it does not repeat what has been covered or can be covered in the "Life and career" section (i.e. her transition from country to pop and to folk) and instead only discusses what cannot be found anywhere else in the article (i.e. her songwriting techniques).
• We could separate the "Film and videos" as a section from the "Artistry" section and rename the latter to something like "Musicianship and songwriting" to highlight what she is best known for.
• Also, imho, I would wipe out most of her charity activities/donations and commercial tie-ins; the "Philanthropy" section is specifically too much, whereas her commercial partnerships are covered in separate album articles and their corresponding eras. Her political endorsements however could be crucial in relation to her public image, as discussed in various media.

Ippantekina (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Okay.
• Okay. "Musicianship" alone is the best suited title for the section. We could subdivide it for songwriting, genre, etc. Additionally, the "Filmography" section could also be merged with newly formed "Film and video" section.
• I do not agree with wiping out the "Philanthropy" section. Her efforts have been widely covered by media outlets, and many publications have even published comprehensive articles solely dedicated to her philanthropy.

ℛonherry☘ 12:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Learn English with Speeches - Taylor Swift's inspirational speech (English subtitles).ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Tay Tay" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tay Tay and has thus listed it for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Tay Tay until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

Rapozzo (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Swift's real name is Amielia Gates, please change it to that.

You need to source it.$chnauzer 06:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah pretty out there comment - who the heck is Amielia gates LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

“Legacy” section

I've been bothered by their legacy section for a long time. First, the sentence “Rosen described Swift as the first country act whose fame has reached the world beyond the U.S. Her chart success extends to Asia and the UK, where country music was not previously popular”.

This is not the truth and the facts are always ignored. Shania Twain, a country artist, had much more success in the UK and Asia and beyond. In fact, her albums sold more globally than Swift's. How Swift then can be the first country artist to conquer those countries then?

Second, “Music journalist Nick Catucci wrote, in being personal and vulnerable in her lyrics, Swift helped make space for later pop stars like Billie Eilish, Ariana Grande, and Halsey to do the same”.

1. The author isn't someone reliable as Rob Sheffield. 2. Being personal and vulnerable in lyrics, isn't something Taylor Swift invented. 3. Also, unlike Halsey and Eilish, Grande never mentioned Swift as inspiration to her career, so this one is very misleading because it gives the impression Grande was inspired by Swift. 4. Are there more sources, that state the same? That “source” comes from publication, that always seems to be very positive about Swift.

Just because there's one author writing these articles doesn't mean they are facts. But of those two, are argumentative, and should either be written differently, or one should look for similar sources that claim the same, but with that I have named above, so there's more than one perspective and clarity.

This is not a page to be title Taylor Swift's legacy and success. It's just for discussion, and resolution. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ronherry: since you’ve written a big part of the section, maybe you’d like to weigh in? FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Both Rosen and Catucci have written for multiple publications. And the entire article body attributes everything to the sources. Hence, I do not see any issue here. Mirrored7 is only stating their personal opinions that are not backed by any source. An artist saying somebody else influenced them and a journalist observing an artist's influence on other artists as part of a critical observation, both are valid. These are nothing new. ℛonherry☘ 09:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

But facts cannot be ignored. Shania Twain is actually known for popularizing country around the world in the 90s. It's debatable whether Swift brought Country to a new generation of listeners, but that's really all what can be discussed. Again, being vulnerable and personal is certainly NOT something Swift invented, but that's what you get from reading it. It's almost disrespectful to the other artists who probably didn't have Swift in mind when writing about their own personal feelings and experiences. The article already mentions Halsey, Eilish and other younger singer-songwriters being inspired by her work, so I really don't see, why it should be included twice. It's really repetitive and not necessary at all. Who cares if ONE author (who isn't really well known and reliable) makes a point of view but no other sources corroborate it? Mirrored7 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Facts cannot be ignored", but what are "facts"? Whatever you think or believe is "facts" and whatever you don't like or believe are "not facts"? Alas, that is not Wikipedia works. Read WP:SOURCE to understand how basic sourcing and attribution works. Summarily, this talk topic discussion is not an issue of what is included in the article, but rather whether you understand how critical commentary and attributing publications/journalists works on a Wikipedia article. You cannot remove prose just because you do not like or agree with personally. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 16:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not just about personal opinion. Catucci isn't really a well known author, and only one source isn't enough, to state that Swift is the first country artist to have success beyond the US, or to claim that she inspired Eilish or Grande to be personal and vulnerable in their lyrics. The sources are simply too weak, for this to have any substance. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Catucci isn't really a well known author". Please prove it? He has written for multiple publications, which is not even a requirement as long as the cited publication in the ref is a reliable one (Rolling Stone in our case). If we are really going "this source ain't good cuz the author is unknown" then all featured articles, including featured articles, including every contribution you have ever made to Wikipedia, should be deleted (because the authors are all quiet literally "unknown" as you say), but fortunately that's not the case. Please read WP:SOURCE;l it answers all your queries. This talk discussion is futile and pointless since Wikipedia makes it clear. ℛonherry☘ 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least he isn't as known as some other Rolling Stone authors like Sheffield. Still, those sources are too weak to make such strong points. All of these are debatable and aren't known as facts. That's why, it also can't be supported by other sources. Why are you always so passive-aggressive? It's just an issue with you, I want to resolve. Nothing more. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This is going in circles and I believe you are intentionally dodging the questions posed to you and refusing to go through the articles of Wikipedia guidelines that have been cited to you. You are trolling and I have no time for this. Bye. ℛonherry☘ 18:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, just FYI, Catucci, Sheffield and Rosen, all are reliable because they have written for a reliable music publication. You do not get to cherry-pick which individual writer is reliable. But If you do and strongly so, then take this topic to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music project or Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and get all the "unknown" editors disqualified from being a citation; don't edit war here. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 18:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You know what, yeah, it really doesn't make any sense. I've had a lot of problems with you in the past, but at the time, your English wasn't that good and you yourself got caught up in a lot of edit wars and got warning points for blowing up Taylor Swift articles—what was your name, Bawin? So I find it hilarious that you tell me not to do edit wars. Of course, you "don't have time" because you spend all day blowing up Taylor Swift articles with delusional, irrelevant stuff and remembering any guidelines on this site. I'll be done debating when it's obvious this is going nowhere. You can breathe easy now, there are people who have a life outside that site, you know? I'm just trying to avoid articles about Taylor Swift from now on, at least until YOU stop editing them. Enjoy. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol. Might I remind you this is not your personal blog. At least try to stick to the topic of discussion?? You do not decide who edits what. You don't WP:OWN this or any other article. If you really care about articles from "unknown authors" being included in Wikipedia (which doesn't seem to be the main focus of your "argument" currently), you would take it up to the project talk pages I've mentioned previously. That is all I've got to say. ℛonherry☘ 15:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

What's even point of user talk page, when no one is even using it? It would be really great, if that issue can be resolved by tommorow. I look at a certain user too. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Split "Artistry" into its own page

Do you think it would be appropriate to separate the "Artistry" section (on this page) into a separate article? The length of this article is brought up a lot, and (in my opinion) the "Artistry" section takes up a reasonable amount of space. I think it would be sufficient and beneficial enough, in regards to the readability and length of the article to do a split. Thoughts? a wiki editor 07:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Great question! With the article being so long, it would make sense to split out the "Artistry" section, but I would be very interested in knowing if any precedence has been set for this. Do other notable artists have a separate "Artistry" article? I think we would need to determine the precedence first. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such articles for music artists but there are Cinematic style of Christopher Nolan and Shah Rukh Khan in the media whose parent articles, both FAs, were becoming too large. FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried searching for "Musicianship of [x]" on Wikipedia but the results turned out nothing. I guess for now it's better if we can trim the section instead of creating a standalone article. In particular, "listicles" like Swift's influences could be tremendously reworked... Ippantekina (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Brian Wilson used to have one, before it got removed due to overlap. Which is saying it has been done, making sure there is not any overlap with the main article. I would say there is a little bit of overlap with the "Legacy" section, but that could be merged and shortened to the end of a possible "Musicianship of Taylor Swift" article. a wiki editor 22:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Re-recordings

Jedi Knight Joshua (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)In my experience, it is extremely common for individuals to have misconceived notions for why Taylor is doing the re-recordings--would it be more beneficial to dedicate an entire subsection to why she is doing the re-recordings? While it tracks to do subsections based on the "eras" she enters, she herself has emphasized how important the re-recordings are to her. (As such, I don't think the one to two sentences are doing the topic justice).Jedi Knight Joshua (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Jedi Knight Joshua (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

Change the first picture of Taylor Swift to a picture of her during The Eras Tour. 2001:4455:6F0:5300:14C:9DC5:595D:B421 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

Taylor Swift broke up with her partner Joe Alwyn https://www.etonline.com/taylor-swift-and-joe-alwyn-break-up-after-six-years-of-dating-exclusive-202408

Change from Partner: Joe Alwyn (2016-present) to Recent Partner: Joe Alwyn (2016-2023) 2601:14D:8600:20D0:B4A1:98F6:832B:4D22 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Taylor Swift - The Eras Tour 2023 (Lover Act) (cropped).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Taylor Swift

The Legacy section of the Taylor Swift article only covers a few things on a superficial manner. There's numerous other sources, articles and scholarly papers that delve into Swift's impact on all aspects of the entertainment industry, business and sociopolitics that cannot be covered by just a section of this article. So instead of expanding this section, I'm thinking about creating a new article for the topic. Before I make the bold move, I would like to hear what other editors think about this idea of a new article? ℛonherry☘ 05:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fair to do so but I'd advise that you create a draft first. Also because pop-culture articles tend to read like fanzines/fanwikis with a journalist writing style, I think we should be extra careful writing in a strictly encyclopedic tone without steering towards coming off like a lightweight CNN article. Much work, but plausible. Ippantekina (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed and noted. ℛonherry☘ 03:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Acting Career

Taylor had small roles in multiple movies. example: The Giver I think you should include those. 70.189.52.225 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's there in Filmography. ℛonherry☘ 07:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)