Talk:Fearless (Taylor Swift album)

Fearless (Taylor's Version)

I wonder if the re-recorded version of Fearless (Taylor's Version) should be added/merged to this Wikipedia article, or should it have a separate article? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thijslandsmeer (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Already RD'd the article. It would be hell having another hundred articles like Red (Taylor’s Version), "Speak Now" (song, Taylor's Version), etc. It would be too confusing. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 13:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, but would it be worth adding a small summary of Fearless in the reissue section, given there could be a lot of articles linking to this? Perhaps it's too WP:CRYSTALBALL as we don't know how notable the reissued edition is going to be, but what would your thoughts be on something like this? (Bolded text is new text)

Fearless (Taylor's Version) is the reissue of Fearless, scheduled to be released on April 9, 2021. The reissue features all tracks of Fearless re-recorded with fresh vocals from Swift, including six tracks that were scrapped from the 2008 version. Fearless, Swift's second album, is a country pop album and is the most awarded album in the history of country music. Swift co-produced the album with collaborator Nathan Chapman. The lead single, "Love Story (Taylor's Version)", is set to be released on February 12, 2021. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Why did you (?) decide to split the articles if you presented arguments that refuted this action? Hello513 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hello513: I didn’t split the article. To be honest, I don’t even know what happened. I just saw that someone had made a Fearless (Taylor's Version) page, and I saw that it was accepted into mainspace through AfC, with the reviewer stating that the re-recording is notable enough to have its own article. It's also April, and I wrote that comment two months ago, when I hadn't yet known how much of a struggle it is to edit the sections on two very large pages (the editing menu takes a couple seconds to load, when I save an edit it loads for a good 15 seconds, etc). I still semi-stand by my original comment, as I don't think having a White Horse (Taylor's Version) page is really gonna do any good unless the re-recorded version is notable enough. However, I do think that, once the more mainstream re-recordings are notable enough, they should be split off into separate pages (right now, the only other two besides Fearless and You All Over Me are Wildest Dreams and Love Story). D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

First, I appreciate your answer. I also wonder what should be done in the current situation on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I guess the solution is to really split the articles for the reasons you mentioned. Hello513 (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! I agree, I just checked the page on Hebrew Wikipedia out, and, even though I don't understand anything, there is enough coverage and sources to split. After all, we're encouraged to be bold. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Thank you, and have a great day! Hello513 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

correct 109.77.102.140 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request

• Swift had been a fan of Caillat's music. The source provided doesn't seem to suggest that; it seems to only mention she and Chapman enjoying Caillat's song "Bubbly". I think this should either be removed or changed to be more specific, like Swift appreciated his song "Bubbly" for its authenticity or similar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• This can be removed since it does not add much substance. Ippantekina (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

   Done. Removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Recording wrapped by October 2008 when Swift finished the track "Forever & Always" just before the mastering and publishing processes. Wikilinks removed. Would it be more appropriate to say [...] just before the album was mastered and published? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was advised to always use the active voice; if it flows better then it can be revised. Ippantekina (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

   Done. Revised. Active voice is generally preferred, but the phrase that was used wasn't technically in the active voice; it's a nominalization of the processes and the subjects (who were doing the mastering and publishing) are never mentioned. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Other tracks with a more balladic production also feature memorable hooks [...] Wikilink removed, emphasis added. The word "memorable" sounds very subjective. It might be better to use a quote from the source, so that it's not being described in Wikipedia's voice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think this can be reworded to "pop hooks", like what Slant Magazine says. Ippantekina (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

   Done. Switched to requester's proposed wording. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "You Belong with Me", similar to "Love Story", was a crossover success. This sounds like it shouldn't be described in Wikipedia's voice, and the source doesn't seem to mention that. Perhaps the assertion was meant to be made by a single person? Right now it seems like this is a popular opinion, which is very different from TIME staff being interviewed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think it is fair to say it is a popular opinion [1] [2] [3]; it highlighted the pop success of a country artist. Ippantekina (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

   Not done. I'll leave the wording as is, but suggest that other sources like the ones you provided be added into the article, as the current one by itself personally feels insufficient to make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Hello, I have responded above. Thank you very much for your c/e. Ippantekina (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Cool! I've gone through all the above points (The "not done" is technically for something out of my purview), and will give it a later look to make sure it's good. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, Ippantekina! That's everything on my end, so I'll consider the request to be complete. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Ippantekina (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the other tracks on different versions of Fearless is biased.

WP:ALTTRACKLIST is a weak argument for removing track listings. If it has to apply then apply it to all track listings and only post the standard versions of albums, not bonus tracks, no deluxe editions, etc. Picking and choosing when it applies is biased editing. It's all or none. Sorry but the editing on this site is atrocious. 2601:806:8300:D0D0:A06E:1569:335E:B44E (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus against the proposed move. There was some support for the alternative (2008 Taylor Swift album) disambiguation although this was rejected on the basis that the re-recorded album already has its own natural disambiguation. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Fearless (Taylor Swift album) → Fearless (album) – Clear WP:PDABPRIMARY. This article has a ~16:1 pageview ratio relative to all eighteen other albums at Fearless (disambiguation) combined. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fearless (album) is incomplete disambiguation and should redirect, as it currently does, to the Fearless#Albums disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this is the best place to dispute partial disambiguation in general. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ambiguous. Fails WP:PRECISE. Also, these changes help no reader. Even the readers who think that it has to be Taylor Swift will be hindered by having that in the title since we have one more article Fearless (Taylor's Version) by the same artist.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fearless (Taylor's Version) provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:TheWikiholic. 162 etc. (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Although there are many Wikipedia articles about other album's with this title, this seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views. While I do understand the concerns about disambiguation, this seems like a clear instance of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which puts a focus on page views, so it may be worth opening a larger discussion about that for those who disagree. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  I'm striking my previous vote to agree with Ippantekina that the current wording should be kept. Aoba47 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• In response to the below discussion, I would oppose a move to Fearless (2008 Taylor Swift album) as it honestly does not make any sense in my opinion. Fearless (Taylor's Version) already has a natural disambiguation by having a different title. If any readers are confused, they could navigate to either version via hatnotes. 14:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• I'd also like to add that I agree with one of the concerns raised below about how Fearless (Taylor's Version) would be affected by such a move. Fearless (Taylor's Version) is the full title so it would not make sense to do something along the lines of Fearless (2023 Taylor Swift album) as that would be misrepresenting the name, and doing something like Fearless (Taylor's Version) (2023 Taylor Swift album) would just be silly. Regardless of one agrees or not with the original proposed move, this one just does not hold up under scrutiny. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, instead rename to Fearless (2008 Taylor Swift album) to distinguish from the newer album. (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Again, Fearless (Taylor's Version) provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  The other article title is OK, but both albums are Taylor swift albums so the current disambiguator fails, IMV. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose 16:1 probably isn't enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  If 16:1 is not enough, which ratio would be sufficient? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  More like 100:1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll quote TheWikiholic here these changes help no reader. I sometimes feel like editors think pages have feelings and that these pages are slighted that they aren't in a primary or semi-primary location. So don't worry, pages do not have feelings and don't care where they are. Care more about our readers who partial ambiguity does not help nor does it help our editors who can mistakenly link to the wrong location and won't get notified about that, like it happens now. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Also agree with buidhe. The year should be added to distinguish from the other Taylor Swift album. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I voted "oppose" to Fearless (Taylor Swift album) → Fearless (album), but would join Gonnym in support of the alternative proposal by buidhe: Fearless (Taylor Swift album) → Fearless (2008 Taylor Swift album). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll quote this from Estar8806 at Talk:1989 (album)#Requested move 23 August 2023:

There is no 2013 "1989 (Taylor's Version)". There is the upcoming 1989 (Taylor's Version), but there is no cause for confusion between the 2014 album and the upcoming Taylor's Version album. No sources will ever refer to "1989 (2023 Taylor Swift Album" because (Taylor's Version) provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation.

— @Estar8806

JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose because of potential confusion, and support renaming to "Fearless (2008 Taylor Swift album), because disambiguation is not commutative. "Fearless (Taylor's Version)" is WP:NATURALly disambiguated from "Fearless (Taylor Swift album)", but that does not mean the reverse is true: "Fearless (Taylor Swift album)" could apply equally well to the 2008 and 2023 albums for an unfamiliar reader, such as myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment "2008 Taylor Swift album" is unnecessary as we have a note at the top of this page specifying that this is about the 2008 album. The 2021 album Fearless (Taylor's Version) is naturally disambiguated by the Taylor's Version subtitle. I vote to keep this pagename as it is ("Fearless (Taylor Swift album)"). Ippantekina (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed "2008 Taylor Swift album" disambiguator. Taylor Swift has only released one album titled Fearless; the rerecorded version has a different title, even if the non-parenthetical portion is the same. The existing hatnotes, both at the top of the article and in the Legacy section, should be sufficient to help any readers who are seeking detailed information about the rerelease specifically. (Neutral on the original proposal.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taylor swift

beautiful & pretty 109.77.102.140 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

International cover usage

I do not believe that there is a strong enough justification to include the international cover. It was not present in the version that passed the FAC. It is important to keep non-free media usage to a minimal, and I do not see how this alternate cover adds enough to the article to justify its inclusion. For instance, there was not any real discussion about this cover or seemingly anything notable or unique about it to explain why the article needs two album covers (i.e. two instances of non-free media). It could be removed without losing anything. Pinging @Ippantekina: as they are the primary editor for the article. I wanted to open this discussion instead of outright removing it . Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)