Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

Delete phrase that says "Bloomberg L.P views her as a sex symbol. It's unnecessary and not representative of said company as an entity, additionally there are likely hundreds of thousands of individuals who view her as a sex symbol.

She refuses to take part in overly sexualized photo-shoots, although Bloomberg L.P. views her as a sex symbol. 72.83.254.98 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Begoon 03:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

Says 'Murder of Larry King' (wich is wrong) Must say 'Murder of Latisha King' 200.29.151.82 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Why is it "wrong"? That's the name of our article, decided by WP:COMMONNAME.

There's been discussion about renaming that article, using the name "Lawrence", but no consensus to do so, and the article says, in its lead, "also known as "Latisha King" - you'd need to show good reasons and a good consensus to use a name other than the already established common name here. Begoon 03:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Associated acts

Tim McGraw and Ed Sheeran should be removed as associated acts. They do not comply with the rules of Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts, which states that the acts have to have collaborated on multiple occasions. The definition of multiple is "having or involving several parts, elements or members", and the definition of several is "more than two but not many". That means at least three collaborations, Sheeran and Swift have collaborated twice. McGraw and Swift have collaborated once, although Swift does have a song named for him. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Multiple: consisting of, including, or involving more than one [1]. Calidum 04:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not weighting in my opinion, just a question. On what occasions did Tim McGraw and Taylor Swift collaborate that led to the inclusion of McGraw as one of Swift's associated acts? (Having a song bearing his name should not be a reason imho.) Swift was an opening act for McGraw and Faith Hill's tour, but that does not satisfy the criterion "toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" listed in the template guideline. HĐ (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

They collaborated on the song "Highway Don't Care". It's the only song they have collaborated on as far as I can see. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Then I can see it's settled that McGraw is not an associated act of Swift's. (His name has been removed) HĐ (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Influence/Legacy section

I believe an influence/legacy specific section should be created on Taylor Swift's page. Her cultural influence and status of a pop culture icon could be one of the topics written there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.43.109.4 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Please anyone check Forbes 17 October's report by Hugh Mclntyre Maliha Rashid (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

CHANGE HER PHOTO DAMNIT

Change it. That one looks creepy and weird. Far more iconic of her beauty and celebrity identity. https://www.tmz.com/2019/07/10/taylor-swift-highest-paid-celebrity-185-million-2019/

You obviously missed "©2019 EHM PRODUCTIONS,INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" on that website. We can't use it. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Any alternative photo must be freely licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license or equivalent. This is mandatory and not negotiable, according to policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Who gives a damn? We can do what we want. This is wikipedia, you guys. There more important things the FBI and police do than to care about wikipedia pictures, people. Seriously, change her photo to the one in the link! Taylor Swift must not LOOK BAD!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.67.207 (talk • contribs)

Copyright law is a thing and Wikipedia can't just violate it left and right without repercussions. Any reasonable adult would understand that this project needs to put its continued survival ahead of one fan's zealotry. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the current image. And the "iconic" image you've provided is far worse. She looks like she's in the middle of talking or laughing, and you can tell the picture is much older than the current one. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright law is just some stupid thing no one cares about you guys. People violate such dumbness everyday using the internet.

Seriously, use another fucking picture, this is Taylor Swift guys! Whoever made this one even go PUBLIC was trying to smear Taylor Swift.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.67.207 (talk • contribs)

Copyright law is just some serious thing that lots of lawyers care about, kid. Even if a lot of users here cite books pirated from less prominent sites operating outside the US, we have to avoid host copyright violations on this site to avoid getting this prominent site in trouble -- to not do so would be dumb.

Seriously, use another fucking site, this is a matter that's apparently over your head. Whoever you are, you're acting like a childish press-agent instead of someone who's here to help.

If you continue to respond with the sort of deliberate disregard for and willful ignorance about laws that affect this site's ability to operate and this site's policies and guidelines, you're going to end up blocked for being disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Can y'all use a different picture? The angel and everything, this picture is creepy. There are so many better pictures from this very same red carpet. Why this???? BawinV (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears 73.92.67.207 now has an alt. Standardwikiman (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Describe her

Please write that she's one of the most popular singer of the world...and please re write that line "contemporary leading artist of the world" Maliha Rashid (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maliha Rashid: Do you have a reliable source to support your claim ? - FlightTime (open channel) 06:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

She was the only singer appeared in times 100... N she was mentioned in first place in icon category Maliha Rashid (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to which you can prove this information, the article will stay as it is. Standardwikiman (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

TayTay

@Kingsif:: you reverted my addition of the nickname "TayTay" which I added, with a source, in order to legitimise the entry at the Taytay disambiguation page. You said in your edit summary "other names generally refers to other names used professionally; additionally, a single tabloid source is not RS for a nickname (esp. featured article)". I read carefully the instructions at {{infobox person}} which clearly say other_names "This can include stage names, maiden/married names, nicknames, criminal aliases, etc." I've also now read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and I assume you're referring to "well-researched: ...claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Fair enough: can I re-add with [2], [3] and [4] - are they high enough quality? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Even better: a citation based on [5]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those sources are much better. It still may be more appropriate in the article body, but I'm sure regular editors will tweak it as best for the page :) Kingsif (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billiekhalidfan: Now Billiekhalidfan has removed the edit with comment "Unnecessary. Reach consensus before restoring." You have not participated in the discussion before reverting: please do so... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

She has never released music under the name "TayTay". She hasn't done anything under this name, actually, it's just a nickname that isn't necessary for an encyclopedia. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billiekhalidfan: MOS:NICKNAME says "Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject" which is the case. Bearing in mind WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, does the inclusion in the article of her nickname violate any guidance or policy? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there any other opinions on this? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"TayTay" is not frequently used by reliable sources to refer to Taylor Swift. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billiekhalidfan: it is: I cited 4 examples above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There's probably hundreds of thousands of articles about Taylor Swift. While there is likely more than the 4 cited sources that call her TayTay, the majority of them don't. It just seems really unnecessary to me. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't have enough of an opinion to really contribute, but I feel this warrants further views and the contentious material should not remain on the page while seeking. You may wish to open an RfC to gain consensus. Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My two cents is that it's trivial. The nickname is used in jocular, less-serious contexts. Her actual name is most commonly used to refer to her in noteworthy cases. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Political leanings

In light of her stances on the issues, her support of Phil Bredesen, her rebuke of Marsha Blackburn, I think we can add the category of Tennessee Democrats to her page.--67.86.56.85 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the source that directly states that? Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In her Rolling Stone interview that was published in September, she stated: With Republicans, if you’re wearing that red hat, you’re one of them. And if we’re going to do anything to change what’s happening, we need to stick together. We need to stop dissecting why someone’s on our side or if they’re on our side in the right way or if they phrased it correctly. We need to not have the right kind of Democrat and the wrong kind of Democrat. We need to just be like, “You’re a Democrat? Sick. It really is up to interpretation whether she was grouping herself with the Democratic party, but if we're specifically looking for a statement that says, "I [Swift] am a Democrat," I don't think that exists. KyleJoan^talk 12:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Public image section on earnings

Not sure if all the info on earnings belongs in the public image section, maybe that warrants a separate section about the money, an image is a perceived quality, for example being named an influential personality, the dry facts of earnings, while they relate to being popular as an artist and selling albums gets her that money, are not the image themselves, the image would for example be built by her giving some of that money away and getting credit for that.

Hnapel (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved to awards and achievements section. It suits there better I think. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

change She moved to Nashville at age 14 to She Moved to Nashville at age 13 - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Taylor-Swift -- TSwifty1989 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair article placed it at 14, and between VF and Britannica I think the former is generally more reliable. Shuipzv3 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Add her as a record producer to the first part of the article.

She can sing, write songs and produces songs. She produced her every album except her debut album, is many enough, and she is also as an artist and record producer to win Grammy Award for Album of the Year twice, so she is a Grammy-winning record producer, too. She is not like other singer-songwriters only can sing and write songs, she can produce songs. So I suggest to add her as a singer-songwriter and record producer. Arivgao (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be in the first sentence of the lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the rest of the article. Swift's record production is covered much less than her singing and songwriting. Including it there gives undue weight to something that she isn't really known for. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

But if the first part of the article only says she is a singer-songwriter, others would think she was just only can sing and write songs, more people would see the first part, few people would see the infobox’s occupation. Ed Sheeran is also known for his singing and songwriting, but the editor of his article add him as a record producer, too. Arivgao (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be in the first sentence. It's not something she is generally well-known for. What other articles do or don't do is not really a guide, by the way - we're discussing what this article should do. If other articles include characteristics of lower significance in the first sentence then maybe they should not - but that would be a matter for discussion on their talk page(s), not this one. -- Begoon 06:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

Many musicians have a "personal life" section on their Wikipedia page. How come that isn't the case with Taylor Swift? Can someone please create this section on this page, please? 1.136.111.13 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Provide some professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources to be cited for such a section and that can happen. Wikipedia doesn't do gossip, it just summarizes what's already published elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Information about Swift's personal life is throughout the article. You can search the archives for previous discussion about this. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article for two days due to recent edit warring. Please discuss here instead of reverting. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to keep the article's length under an acceptable length. It was nearing 10,000 words, which are incredibly long for an artist who has been active for not more than 13 years. Three years ago, it was de-listed as a GA for the exact same reason, that it was too long. I improved and shortened it drastically afterwards, eventually bringing it to WP:FA standards. Now that it is FA, we have to be extra careful to not include any WP:UNDUE info, which I tried to remove in my last few edits and which BawinV is failing to comprehend. Not ALL of her Grammy achievements need to be mentioned in the lead. Making a claim like she has been described as one of the greatest songwriters of all time would need to be backed up by multiple highly reputable and reliable sources (the likes of HuffPost are not enough in this case). I hope it is clear now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Influence/Legacy

Swift's page should be updated with this section, considering the number of lifetime and prestigious achievements she has garnered over the course of 13 years of her career, including winning "Artist of the Decade", "Woman of the Decade" and being the only woman, next to Adele to win 2 Album of the Year Grammys. Furthermore, her impact on music industry and shifting the way we look at streaming and pure sales. There are many articles supporting this. She has also influenced the pop music so that there is more focus on songwriting, which can be seen in the works of artists such as Camila Cabello, who have spoken about Swift as one of her inspirations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.43.109.4 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I understand the need for this section to be added to the page and agree with you. However, why won’t you let anyone add to the lead her achievement as the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice? That’s a major accomplishment and should be in the lead, like any other major achievement. At least let we add that 1989 won AOTY. TheHipHopRapping (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, not all of her achievements need to be mentioned. Her being the first woman to win AOTY twice is a major accomplishment, I agree, but the lead is becoming too Grammy-focused in my opinion. Grammy is mentioned three times in a three-paragraph lead. I think that's enough. Her youngest artist record is more impactful in my opinion, since she now shares the "only"-woman record with Adele. FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I sort of agree with you... since that record is now shared, it wouldn’t be essential to be mentioned in the lead. However, the fact that 1989 won AOTY should be stated, don’t you agree? At least let’s state “won three Grammys, including Album of the Year”, I believe >that< is essential. An artist to win AOTY is a major deal. TheHipHopRapping (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I have now added the AotY win in the lead. FrB.TG (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So is this section going to be added now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.43.109.4 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't this section added already? Who's gonna do it? BawinV (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of what you have added are either too POV-ish (saying she introduced country music to her generation is a stretch and unsourced) or have been covered elsewhere (her letter to Apple in career section). This needs to be significantly trimmed down. Hell even Michael Jackson's legacy section is much shorter than what we currently have here. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Boyfriend

This article is supposed to be about Taylor Swift, not what her boyfriend thinks of a song she may or may have not written for him. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. FrB.TG (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why influences shouldn't be listed. Paul McCartney, my favorite musician, has a quote about his creative influences on his Wikipedia page. If Swift's boyfriend is an influence on her newest album, I see no reason why it can't be stated in that section. It's still essentially about Taylor Swift. 42.241.165.150 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say if he has influence on her album it shouldn’t be mentioned. It can be if Swift explicitly acknowledges it and there is a high-quality source for it. What I don’t like is adding lyrics to one of the songs in a quote box or adding his reaction to it. It’s Swift's article, not his. FrB.TG (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

Add to background information: Swift is also an avid ice hockey fan, mentioning her love for the sport during an interview on the The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and can be spotted at Nashville Predators or Los Angeles Kings games Helpmefindpoptarts (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think this is trivia. Shuipzv3 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hating her?

In the documentary Miss Americana about Swift, she said in an interview that the audience started hating her and because of that she wasn't seen by anyone for a year. What happened? Why did people suddenly start hating her? Or is she delusional? Source where i found this is a reliable Dutch newspaper: [6] The documentary was released January (2020) so she may be referring to something that happened late 2018??? I know nothing of her and randomly stumbled into this article and was just wondering what happened that caused what she described as a radical shift in her life from "living off attention and applause" to avoiding it. Or did i miss it in this WP article? There's also no mention of it on the Miss Americana page as far as i can see. Not sure if this should be discussed here or on that article's talk page. Or both. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Or not at all, until there's plenty of sources addressing such issues instead of speculating about a living person like a fictional character. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Speculating? I'm quoting herself talking about a drastic change in her life as perceived by herself. If anything, leaving that out would violate BLP by painting a biased picture. If we don't know what she's talking about (and like i said, i know little about her), at least we should mention the fact the she feels the audience started hating her and how this caused her make sure she wasn't seen by people for a year.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 00:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The only source you have confirms that she made the comment. It does not discuss whether she was correct or wrong in that assessment, nor her mental state and so is inadequate for any speculation on your part.

There's nothing in the sections 2017–2019: Reputation nor Public image about her audience hating her. If we were to elaborate on a brief comment in an interview that doesn't appear to have made any waves in her native language, that would violate WP:NOR; and since doing so would lead to either portraying her audience as paradoxically hating her (why would they still be her audience?) or else commenting on her mental state (without adequate reliable sourcing) would violate BLP. Even your just asking Why did people suddenly start hating her? Or is she delusional? without adequate sourcing violates BLP.

BLP isn't "include anything that's traceable to a source," it's "don't say anything anywhere unless it's backed up by a source." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure the documentary didn't make waves in English? It's an English documentary that's cited in quite some reliable sources, judging by a quick google search. What is your statement based on??? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. And any source but the person herself should be extra decent. Here the source is the person herself and what she said is well discussed in reliable secondary sources judged by a quick Google search.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't break up people's posts like that.

It's on you to show that the news media has been discussing that particular statement. Discussing the documentary in general or discussing other parts of the documentary isn't enough, it's your job to provide sources that focus on that particular statement.

A subject's statements about themselves (and only themselves) are considered probably reliable if there's no conflicting evidence. Swift is not her audience, so her comments about them should not receive any special treatment. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's on to you to do with my suggestion whatever you want. Last thing i'm going to say about this. I couldn't care less about this page. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: To answer your initial question in short, there was some drama stuff involving her in 2016. Her social media was bombarded with negative messages and she disappeared from the public eye for a while. There were also other criticisms she got around the same period, but I wouldn't go into that (this is not a forum to discuss her life). Suffice to say it's gossip and trivia that I don't think is encyclopaedic. Shuipzv3 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding actress to lead

I was wondering what others' thoughts are about adding actress to the lead of this article? The subject has acted in multiple projects, including Cats (2019), The Giver (2014), a New Girl episode (2013), The Lorax (2012), Valentine's Day (2010), and a CSI episode (2009). I am not including her cameos. RS have referred to Swift as an actress (as well as a singer, obviously), including the South China Morning Post, Fast Company, and Vanity Fair. There are also articles dedicated solely to the subject's acting career, including those at InStyle, People, and One Country. What are other editors' thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it out of the first sentence of the lead. While Swift has acted, it isn't what she is primarily notable for – singing and song writing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

I found out the exact time Taylor was born and I would like to include that in this article. As well as the time of the weeks he was born. (Redacted) Mac.Butterfly (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:BLP — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Shawn Mendes on Impact section

In this Time 100 dedicatory (regardless of how Capital FM title it), Mendes says he's a fan and gets in his feelings when he sees her performing live. Is he claiming inspiration/influence? Both of these words aren't used in the text. Considering Mendes has discussed his inspirations and always bring four names but never her, I think he shouldn't be there. cc: @BawinV:. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Cornerstonepicker just delete it, that's a superfluous inclusion. This kind of examples are commonly added in similar articles or lists like Janet Jackson or even Beyonce about "artists influenced by..." --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Genre order

Closing discussion per WP:EVADE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay so, I don't know who ordered these genres because it does not make sense to me. So, I decided to count up the genres for all her albums and songs that have articles, to see which order the genres should be listed in. These are all the specific genres and how many times they have been used Country: 2 album, 11 songs Pop rock: 3 albums, 8 songs Country pop: 2 albums, 2 EPs, 11 songs Pop: 3 albums, 8 songs Rock: 1 album, 1 song Synth-pop: 3 albums, 13 songs Electropop: 2 albums, 9 songs Country rock: 4 songs Power pop: 2 songs Soft rock: 3 songs Bluegrass: 1 song Alternative rock: 3 songs Arena rock: 1 song Dubstep: 2 songs Disco: 2 songs Bubblegum pop: 4 songs Dance-pop: 3 songs Folk-pop: 1 song Funk: 1 song Hip hop: 2 songs Dream pop: 2 songs New wave: 2 songs Industrial: 2 songs R&B: 2 songs Electroclash: 1 song Indie folk: 1 song Folk: 1 song Alternative country: 1 song Electro: 1 song Putting genres that are too specific in their parent genres (e.g. soft rock goes into rock, electropop goes into pop), I found that this is the order of her most used genres (from most to least). Pop: 5 albums, 27 songs Rock: 4 albums, 29 songs Synth-pop: 3 albums, 15 songs Country pop: 2 albums, 2 EPs, 11 songs Country: 2 albums, 13 songs Other: 6 songs In conclusion, the genres should be in this order: Pop, rock, synth-pop, country pop, country. Although, country can be removed because it is a bit redundant, and it is preferred to not have more than 4 genres. Kingswool (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Country and Country-pop are not the same, the same way Pop-rock and Pop are not the same. I am okay with any order, but I don't think Country should be removed. BawinV (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, if you're going to put pop-rock and electropop etc. into pop to make it surface as first, country pop should be forced into country to let it come second. Country and Pop are her two clearest most obvious genres, and she's still a performer at the Grand Ole Opry, so removing country would be ridiculous. Just put Country, Pop, and Rock (here in alphabetical order) and leave it at that. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC) no. Synth-pop can't be left out because that is cited as the genre of Swift's latest THREE albums. Country-pop too (her first 3). you realize these genres are something we editors already reached a consensus upon? Just leave it as it is, there's nothing to be changed. BawinV (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Albums Sold

Information on her album sales and streams should be updated - her record label has revealed that she’s sold almost 100 million albums globally (97 million) and accumulated 54 billion total global streams, making her one of the best-selling artists of all time. Mohz1234 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Politics and Activism

Swift hosted an IGTV on June 13, 2020 where she described her “disgust” with America ranging from the media intentionally trying to sabotage President Trump, demanding ALL Americans stand for the National Anthem, and #BlueLivesMatter. Clowncarsrus (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to cite for that, it will not be added to the article. General Ization ^Talk 03:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@General Ization: This account is a sock puppet of User:Smallmouthbassboost who write defamatory content on things related to her and her articles and political content that is not related. I'm taking it up to the sock-puppet investigation. Raritydash (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Taylor Swift’s record label, UMG, on February 2020, has issued a press release revealing that Taylor’s sold over 97 million albums globally rather than just 50 million: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/taylor-swift-signs-exclusive-global-publishing-deal-with-umpg/ 2001:8F8:1465:8C31:9017:222A:4673:8DF8 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, this source is not independent from the subject, and thus isn't ideal for a claim like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Partners of Taylor Swift

The subject's current page - Taylor Swift - has Joe Alwyn as a partner. But all of the references linked portray them as just dating. Hence, Joe Alwyn is not an unmarried partner, but just a boyfriend. This is stated in Template:Infobox person. If you don't consent to this edit, you can revert it at Old Taylor Swift

I'mFeistyIncognito | Talk 13:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Reputation and hip-hop

@BawinV: Before reverting someone once again, can you please provide sources that describe Reputation as a hip-hop influenced album. You should also familiarize yourself with MOS:LEADNO, which says we do not put information in the lead if it is not in the body of the article. Calidum 17:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: Before reverting, YOU should check the body. I literally ADDED the source in the "Reputation" subtitle under "Life and Career" section. I said I ADDED the source in my edit summaries as well. BawinV (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: Here I attach more sources than its required:

1. https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/11/10/562360434/the-old-taylors-not-dead 2. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/art-books-music/a13512095/taylor-swift-reputation-album-review/ 3. https://www.theringer.com/music/2017/11/10/16633196/taylor-swift-reputation-review 4. https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/taylor-swift-reputation/ 5. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/27/taylor-swifts-confessions-on-reputation 6. https://www.axs.com/5-best-songs-from-taylor-swift-s-reputation-130649 7. https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/13/25558428/taylor-swift-negotiates-with-hiphop-on-reputation-her-bedroom-album BawinV (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Please participate. The source has been added to the prose. You'll find surplus amounts of sources above, which talk about the influences of hiphop in Reputation. BawinV (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'd also like to let you know that Mirrored also reverted my edit thrice, where I added the adjective "hip hop-influenced" to Reputation, in the lead. The source has already been cited in the prose (click here), but Mirrored7 continued reverting. User Calidum opened a discussion requesting me to provide sources. And I, assuming Calidum hasn't checked the prose (because it's already sourced), provided surplus sources to back "Hip Hop-influenced", anyway (You can find them above). It's been more than 24 hours since then. Mirrored7 hasn't responded in the discussion eventhough he was pinged (he was also actively editing, notably). BawinV (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, well, Mirrored7 seems to understand the requirement to discuss now, and Calidum is an experienced editor who already knows, so let’s wait and see what they have to say. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, got it. BawinV (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, thank you for spending time searching all sources, but my point still remains. The album has some hip hop influences, but it's not a mainly influenced hip hop album, that it needs to be featured in the lead. You're welcome. Mirrored7 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think what you’re referring to is that you feel it’s an WP:UNDUE issue to emphasize hip hop over any other aspect of the album here. I’m not taking sides, just mediating, but that could be considered a valid rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, BawinV, for providing those references. After reading through them, I'm not sure "hip-hop influenced" is the best way to describe the album, but I do believe it merits some sort of mention and am open to suggestions. Calidum 02:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: I am open to suggestions too. I am not sure why you didn't find "hip-hop influenced" a correct adjective. All these sources state how hip-hop has influenced the record heavily. But anyway, I'd like to know what other alternate can be used instead of that. You and user:Sergecross73 have more experience. BawinV (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: I wanna suggest "Swift experimented with hip-hop" as an alternate. It could be like "Swift experimented with hip hop on her sixth studio album Reputation, which sold..." BawinV (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

BawinV, you can add it back, and I am very sure that it will not take long because someone other than us will disagree. I'm sure even Swift herself would disagree. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

All I needed to hear is "you can add it back". Thanks. Regards. BawinV (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Mirrored7 decided to drop it. Now, can I proceed to add the term back? BawinV (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this was just an example. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

example of what exactly? BawinV (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading lead

"Lover became the world's best-selling studio album of 2019."

It was number two says IFPI. It gives the idea that Japanese boy band Arashi's 5x20 All the BEST!! 1999-2019 isn't listed at number one, and it is. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IFPI says Lover is the world's second best-selling album. The Arashi album is a greatest hits album, not a studio album. Lover is the best-selling studio album on the list. I don't see what is misleading here. There's a clear distinction between "Best-selling album" and "Best-selling studio album". BawinV (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure common readers have no idea of the difference. Were those songs recorded at a random place? All songs were recorded in a studio. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

For me, sounds natural, simpliest and "better" just "the world's second best-selling album" and if the user wanna specify (that it's a "studio album") can do that in the reception/commercial section of the album article, and it's more appropiate there, not in a biography with overdetails like this. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This page's lead section has more exposure than the commercial section of the album article. The wording is misleading. Maybe "best selling album by a solo artist"? wouldn't erase the number one position. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: I've this page in my watchlist a long time, and I could say agree with your thoughts. You're avoiding any kind of edit war discussing first here. User doesn't reply but made new editions, so you can consider reword that part as per this discussion. As was said, there is a main article for this album and this is a FA that requires more accuracy and many things. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• The lead is fine. A studio album and a compilation album are different things. Calidum 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

But do the common reader know that? Both are albums. Why not specifying to avoid confusion? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why you'd assume what the readers would know and would not know. No one knows everything. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. If a reader doesn't know something, they'll search it on Wikipedia. It's not a big deal. The Album and Greatest hits album articles exist. They state the difference between a studio album and a greatest hits album. The statement "Lover is the world's best-selling studio album of 2019" is true and sourced. I do not think there's anything to be changed. Agreed with Calidum. BawinV (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Stop disruptive editing. If you have anything to say, say it here in the talk discussion. Stop editing something that is being discussed. BawinV (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone add a source or article at the top that says it was the best selling studio album? It just seems misleading for people who read it outside. Thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: No, there is no necessesity to reference it again in the lead. It's enough to be sourced in the prose. Taylor Swift is a featured article. The lead must be tidy. BawinV (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

YOU are talking about tidy, if you're were not the one that wants every achievement in her career on the top. My point still stands, you need to make it more obviously, like adding article or a source. I'm not the only one who thinks that it's misleading. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the majority agrees? "second-best selling"? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I still agree. IMHO, sounds "natural" and in article's main article, could be fine. In a lead like this FA biography, sounds kind of "awkwarding". --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it at all bc it sounds awkward either way. I'd only put it if it's indeed the best selling album of the year, without observations. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Genres

As ‘folklore’ is an alternative album, alternative should be added onto the list of genres she has used for music. Lisacrawshaw1 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lisacrawshaw1:  Done Special:Diff/969505949 by Iancrwebb. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And I reverted. Genres for musical artists come from reviewers saying the artist has such-and-such genre. Album and song genres are for album and song articles, respectively. They don't mix. If you think "alternative" should be added then you'll need to find a published reliable source saying something like "alternative star Taylor Swift" or describing her as a singer-songwriter in the alternative genre. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Right now, all the sources describe as an artist who has released an album in the alternative genre, her first. They are saying the album is alternative, not Swift. They are surprised at the genre. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Folklore has been praised for its writing, not just its production, so I suggest to change the final line of 2nd intro paragraphs from:

Folklore (2020), her eighth studio album, was a surprise release and received critical acclaim for its indie folk and alternative rock production.

to

Folklore (2020), her eighth studio album, was a surprise release and received critical acclaim for its mature lyrical compositions and its indie folk and alternative rock production. 73.58.231.238 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest, for its "new sonic direction, fictional songwriting and relaxed production", according to its reviews. BawinV (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "Folklore (2020), her eighth studio album, was a surprise release, announced hours before its launch, and marked a shift to indie folk and alternative rock. The album was met with critical acclaim for its sonic transition, storytelling, and lyricism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuipzv3 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Fancruft

Since this article is FA, prose quality is of the greatest priority. Reverting bits of poor writing in the "Impact" session, below is my edit summary should anyone question my motives,

• Honorific titles must be excluded unless capitalized (noone would write the title "King of Pop" in all lowercase)
• Passive voice must be avoided at all cost ("Swift has been credited / is noted / is seen as...")
• Be specific. Show, don't tell ("Swift is one of the ..." → specific data from a reliable source)
• Some statements sharing the same content must not be repeated. Once is enough (there's no need to include lengthy quotes of how Swift is a feminist over and over)
• Images/files are not of decorative purpose. Only include them to assist understanding of the article.

— HĐ (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Support changes and your improvements. Article have suffered of fancruft stuffs for a while, alongside being overly detailed (WP:TOOMUCH) at some points. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with these changes. Great job. FrB.TG (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Support, I agree completely. It isn’t fair to the viewers or the Wikipedians if this page, an FA page, isn’t the best it can be. Doggy54321 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Swifties" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Swifties. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 18#Swifties until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Article needs some update

Except for the "Life and career section", I think that the article needs some update, specifically the sections pertaining to Swift's artistry. Most sources cited in the "Musical style" section is from 2010 reviews of Speak Now. The "Songwriting" section could benefit from some latest reviews of Folklore, or some retrospective essays on Swift's career as a whole from NPR et al. I'm not sure if we need to include all of Swift's philanthropic ventures in the "Other ventures" section, because apparently every celebrity is a philanthropist. The lead is a disparate collection of Swift's achievements with her albums which is rather appropriate for a discography list, while I kind of want to see something that is more thematic (i.e. discussing Swift's musical styles through each period).

At a whooping 305K bytes in size (to put it in perspective, the Beatles article is < 200K bytes), I think we need a discussion on what to include and what not to, and how we can refine the article adhering to encyclopedic standards. I can see that most articles of contemporary pop stars (say, Perry or Gaga) follow the same content that this article has, but as an encyclopedia, I think we should refresh our viewpoints on the inclusion of temporal subject matters into such articles. HĐ (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Puffery on Swift's lead

Hi! The user BawinV is trying an edit war with me, because I've cut Swift's lead a little shorter, and it seems like puffery and not constructive to me. I just want to keep it properly on this page, and that the user remains objective, and takes off his fan glasses. Mirrored7 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You make no sense. You're only making yourself look cheap by your constant vandal behavior. But whatever, please prove the "puffery" and "not constructive". BawinV (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@BawinV and Mirrored7: Both of you stop editing this article and try to work it out. From my measuring of the history right now, Mirrored hit 3RR, so they should be particularly careful about edit warring their version in, especially having only recently been blocked for the same behavior at Ariana Grande. Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Irrespective of the bright line of 3RR, both accounts were edit warring and I would have blocked both of them if they weren't already blocked for their actions at Ariana Grande. If there are specific issues with wording, discuss any changes here. If you are reverted do not then continue to revert particularly on a BLP. Woody (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on "Impact" on 19 October 2020

Hi! I would like to add following information to the "impact" category:

1. There are honorific nicknames used to describe Swift, such as "Pop Titan" and "Country Queen".
2. Guitar manufacturing company Fender deemed the "Taylor Swift factor" responsible for the worldwide phenomenon that saw young women driving 50% of new guitar sales.
3. Swift is considered one of the artists who resurged ukuleles in modern music. She was credited as one of the key artists in boosting music industry revenue to $20 billion in 2019, a figure not seen since 2005.
4. Swift is credited with helping boost traditional album sales in the streaming era; Quartz acknowledged Swift as the only artist "who stills sells CDs" in 2019.
5. Hugh McIntyre, writing for Forbes, praised Swift for using her voice to stand up against a major company and that it mattered more than any other person or organization.
6. In her 2018 record deal with Universal Music Group, Swift secured a guarantee from the label that any sale of its Spotify shares would result in non-recoupable payments to all artists on its roster.
7. Swift is also one of the most vocal supporters of artists' rights to exercise greater control over their music, especially with regards to ownership of master recordings. She has condemned the "unregulated world of private equity" that is "buying up our music like it's real estate", stating vehemently that creators "deserved to own the art [they] make".
8. In addition, Swift has been labeled as a "feminist icon" for her consistent efforts in championing gender equality and calling out misogyny and internalized sexism.
9. Swift is the first female artist and the second artist after Michael Jackson to receive an award named after her at the 2016 BMI Pop Award. Barbara Cane, BMI Vice President of Writer/Publisher Relations, said, "Taylor Swift has transformed pop culture through her songs, artistry and indomitable spirit, She has had a profound impact, not only musically, but also through her personal conviction and commitment to create a standard that values and respects music for everyone. We felt it appropriate to award Taylor with an honor that is as unique and special as she is."
10. In honor of Swift's two consecutive concerts at the U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton proclaimed August 31, 2018 as "Taylor Swift Day", praising her as "a positive influence on her fans through her example of truthfulness, grace, extensive philanthropy, and strength of character".
11. She was listed as one of the most influential artists of the decade by CNN for "pushing the boundaries of country and pop, and fighting for the rights to her music"
12. Vogue regarded her as one of the world's biggest sustainable fashion influencers.
13. Swift has wide influence on social media .
14. Swift has been credited with the resurgence of Polaroids and Instax cameras after featuring an instant photograph in the cover artwork for 1989 and her 2018 partnership with Fujifilm, respectively.
15. Swift also led a massive spike in voter registrations on Vote.org following her 2018 political endorsements.

I also would like to add following artists whom have been inspired by Swift's work :

• Adele
• Phoebe Bridgers
• Sabrina Carpenter
• Ed Sheeran
• Selena Gomez
• Girl in Red
• Niki
• Clairo
• Bailey Bryan
• Florence + the Machine ~~Andyn724~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyn724 (talk • contribs)

@Andyn724: That's quite a hefty edit request. I'm going to address your proposed additions to "Impact", and I've changed your bullet points to numbers. Note that although I know who Swift is (who doesn't?) this is not something I follow.

1.  Not done. Nicknames can be added if there's common usage, like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
2. Y
3.  Not done. Correlation does not equal causation.
4. See below
5.  Not done. We need context here.
6. See below
7. See below
8.  Not done. Already in "Politics and activism" section. Make another edit request for what you want to change in that section.
9.  Not done. See List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift.
10.  Not done. This seems very minor. If it's an actual holiday or widely celebrated, then it could maybe be added.
11. I don't know about this one. Make another edit request and see if someone else has an opinion.
12.  Partly done, she's modeled for sustainable fashion, but did she advocate for it? I've added the Stella McCartney collab in the "Product endorsements" section.
13.  Not done. Already in "Public image" section. Make another edit request for what you want to change in that section.
14.  Not done. Already in "Product endorsements" section. Make another edit request for what you want to change in that section.
15.  Not done. Already in "Politics and activism" section. Make another edit request for what you want to change in that section.

Various points about Swift's conflict with Spotify and standing up for music producers is in the "History" section, but I think a big, coherent summary under the "Politics and activism" section could work. File another edit request with a proposed paragraph discussing this.

Also, in the future, please don't file requests with too many changes at once. Instead, make many small requests with each change, so we can address each individually. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Artists, if not already included, are  Done, except for ones without WP:RS or if the article doesn't say for sure. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thanks for your edits! I am quite dubious about Fender though. Is it notable enough that a manufacturer discusses the so-called impact of rising guitar sales? (I mean, I wouldn't include a report from Steinway for pianos either). HĐ (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ: I'd be ok with taking out Fender's name in the article, but I still think keeping a short sentence about Swift's impact on guitar sales is justified. The Rolling Stone article does credit Swift as the biggest factor among female guitarists. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on "impact" 20 October 2020

Hi! Please change "impact" to "impact and legacy" and include the following informations on "impact" category. I want everybody to know these about Swift :

• Swift is credited for boosting music industry revenues to $20 billions dollars in 2019, the first time the figure has been reached since 2005.

•  Not done The source doesn't say that Swift is the only one who helped this change, HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Swift is one of the most vocal supporters of artists' rights to exercise greater control over their music, especially with regards to ownership of master recordings. She has condemned the "unregulated world of private equity" that is "buying up our music like it's real estate", stating vehemently that creators "deserved to own the art [they] make".

•  Not done This has been mentioned here: Her actions have fostered debate over reforms to on-demand music streaming, prompting awareness of intellectual property rights among younger musicians. HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Governor of the State of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, declared August 31, 2018, as the "Taylor Swift Day" in the state, honoring Swift's two consecutive dates (August 31 and September 1) at the U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis. He stated that, "through her personal and honest music, Taylor Swift has energized and inspired not only Minnesotans, but people all over the world, and is a positive influence on her fans through her example of truthfulness, grace, extensive philanthropy, and strength of character". (Note : this should be added because state of Minnesota did declare August 31 and September 1 as "Taylor Swift Day" just like how Minnesota declares May 23 as "Beyoncé Day", which they have included in the Beyoncé article.)

•  Not done This is already included in Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour. HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Update: "other stuff" rationale does not work. HĐ (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Swift has widespread influence on social media

•  Not done Already mentioned: Swift is one of the most-followed people on social media;[331] as of September 2020, she has over 140 million followers on Instagram,[332] 87 million followers on Twitter[333] and 39 million subscribers on YouTube.[334] HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Swift has been credited with the resurgence of polaroids and Instax cameras after featuring an instant photograph in the cover artwork for 1989 and her 2018 partnership with Fujifilm, respectively.

•  Not done The Polaroid impact is already included in 1989 (Taylor Swift album). Her partnership with Fujifilm can be discussed in "Produce endorsements". HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Swift and her work directly influenced numerous artists:

• Keith Urban

•  Not done Urban said nothing about how Swift inspired him. He only covered the song. HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sabrina Carpenter

•  Not done Unreliable source. HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Katy Perry
• Lady Antebellum Andyn724 (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done The band said nothing about how Swift inspired them. They only wrote songs together. HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Andyn724: I'll take a closer look when I have time, but you have not responded to my comments on the previous request (except for one). Again, refrain from making multiple requests in one, as it makes it hard for editors to respond to just a few points. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Andyn724: The majority of your edit requests have previously been removed per my previous discussion on this article's fancruft, which has been archived. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source, and information that are considered trivial and needlessly excessive will be automatically disregarded. (For example, articles that only "name-check" another artist do not qualify as a source for Swift's so-called influence. Or, lengthy quotes regarding how Swift is a feminist or how she opposes to free streaming should not be there, and should only be incorporated into a single, summarized sentence i.e. Swift identifies as a feminist or Swift is a vocal opponent of free streaming without expansive explanation). Since this article is designated as FA, the prose should meet the highest expectations and leave no room for trivia. HĐ (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Music video director as an occupation

@Arivgao: Per {{Infobox person}} the Occupation parameter should include Occupation(s) as given in the lead. She isn't notable as a music video director. And yes, logically speaking her so-called occupations as a record producer and a multi-instrumentalist can be removed altogether. HĐ (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If possible I would like to hear comments from others as well. HĐ (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think music video director can be removed. But I don't support removing record producer and actress because those are very well notable and prominent. BawinV (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What about multi-instrumentalist? (It may be noted that singer-songwriter already implies that they play instruments) HĐ (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

well, even though she is a multi-instrumentalist, an instrumentalist generally refers to people who play instruments for other artists. So, I guess it can be removed. Moreover, it's evident she's a multi instrumentalist from all the instruments listed in the "Instruments" row of the infobox. Therefore, in my opinion, multi-instrumentalist doesn't really need a mention in "Professions". BawinV (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Swift is an award winning music video director, so I think it warrants at least a mention in the lead. Doesn’t have to be in the Infobox because she isn’t primarily known for directing music videos. She is also a record producer and an actress. I support record producer being removed from the Infobox as well, it’s not what she’s known for. Actress should stay because she has had many acting roles and is known for acting (among other things). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I can say that she's an app developer because she won an award for her Blank Space app. I think it boils down to what is/are notable of her. And when you search "Taylor Swift video director" on Google it shows minimal results. I am dubious about her occupation as an actress, but I'll leave it at that. HĐ (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why record producer was removed. It should stay. She has produced more than 80% of her music. BawinV (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would lean against including music video director since the videos she has directed are her own. I feel generally the same way about listing her as a music producer, but the sheer volume of her own music she's produced might make a difference. -- Calidum 20:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ, BawinV, and Calidum: we should probably gather consensus ASAP so we know what to add. If you all would state your opinions on her being a music video director, record producer, multi-instrumentalist, and actress, that would be great, as we can all try to gather as much of a consensus as possible. Any other editors are welcome to add their thoughts as well! Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For me: add singer-songwriter, actress; remove music video director (per my arguments above), multi-instrumentalist (per my arguments above), record producer (not what she is known for, though she does produce her music). HĐ (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For me, keep singer-songwriter, actress, and record producer; remove music video, for the reasons I stated above.BawinV (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep singer-songwriter and actress; remove music video director and record producer per my above comments. I would also remove multi-instrumentalist too because I don't believe reliable sources refer to her as such. -- Calidum 19:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion. From what I see, everyone votes to keep singer-songwriter and actress as those are notable professions/things she is known for. Calidum and HĐ vote to remove music video director, record producer and multi-instrumentalist as those aren’t notable professions, she isn’t really known for the former two, and the latter is a pretty common profession for a singer-songwriter. BawinV, before I go ahead and implement these changes based off of this consensus gathered, could you give an explanation to why you think record producer is valid and should be added? This kind of reminds me of the thing a couple weeks ago at Ariana Grande about the songwriter title. I’ll wait to make changes so that we can hear your perspective because it’s important to have everyone's voice heard. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Starting right from her 2008 album, Swift has produced her albums. She has been a record producer for a vast majority of her catalogue, and that's why I think it should stay. Record producer is one of her primary professions; it's not her most notable profession (because singer-songwriter is), and that's why I think it should be in the infobox but not in the first sentence of the lead. BawinV (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oftentimes (from my observation) a record producer refers mostly to those who produce for other artists (i.e. Max Martin, Shellback, or Jack Antonoff). If a singer produces for themselves, I don't think "record producer" is a notable mention, especially when they could co-produce within their artistic endeavor and not necessarily an occupation per-se. As such, I remain my vote to remove record producer. HĐ (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

However, the normal definition of a record producer doesn't have anything to do with working for other artists. Record producer is someone who's "the recording project's creative and technical leader". Not all record producers are singer-songwriters, and not all singer-songwriters are record producers. "Record producer" is one of Swift's three notable professions; not adding it to the infobox of someone who has produced her records for 14 years (2007-2020) is vehemently wrong. Therefore, I think we should keep it. BawinV (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

From this article I'm now more relaxed towards the inclusion of record producer as one of her occupations, and I'm generally happy with the current listing, singer-songwriter, actress, record producer, HĐ (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: So I guess it's resolved then. BawinV (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks so much! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

specific donations

In a recent edit, several mentions of philanthropy were added. If there are so many, and they don't seem to be related to Swift's career or similar - just act of kindness - might it be better to just say that she has given large donations to specific individuals on multiple occasions, instead of writing details of each instance? Kingsif (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur that a brief mention would be sufficient. We can cite this BBC News article, which says that she's made a number of impromptu donations to fans whose stories she has read about online. KyleJoan^talk 12:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning each specific occasion would be going into too much detail for a FA article Rfl0216 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about in a previous discussion (which has been archived) but no-one was engaged in it whatsoever... Either way, yes, a summary sentence should be more than enough, especially when these acts of kindness are universal among celebrities nowadays, HĐ (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed; a single sentence about she has donatesd to many individuals is more than enough. BawinV (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, since the large edit was already removed, I have added such a summary in this edit, though I'm not sure about the word "many". Kingsif (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

taylor swift's birthday is on the 13th of October and she was born in 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaynaswift (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also her birthday is December 13, 1989, aka today. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"Partner" rfc

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

---

There's been some discourse/disagreements about this for a few years now, so I wanted to open up a discussion. From what I see, there's two sides to this argument; per the Infobox Manual of Style, it states that essentially life partners/cohabiting long-term partners/common law spouses, etc. I believe. The view reflected on this page is that since Alwyn is Swift's boyfriend, but not legal spouse/fiancee/long term partner in the style of, say, off the top of my head, Amy Adams and her husband dating for years and starting a family prior to their "official" marriage". The view that's been reflected in prior edits is that since Alwyn has been referred to by news outlets and Swift (arguably) as a long-term partner/boyfriend etc., it warrants mention in the infobox. I'm curious for this issue to be discussed so a consensus can be reached for this page, instead of going back and forth every once in a while. Personally, I think it's valid for it to be included, but it is mentioned in the article's main biography.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support I agree it's valid to be included, the RS refer to Alwyn and not any of Swift's past long-term boyfriends as partner, so there is some distinction in reality that should be reflected. This infobox param has been widely debated for a long time, it and several others seem to have criteria that are too high for practical use. A good RS that supports the fact should make it indisputable. Kingsif (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Template:Infobox person "partner" refers to "unmarried life partners" who are engaged in a domestic partnership. Swift and Alwyn are an A-list couple, but they—at least according to what is reported—have not been involved in a so-called domestic partnership, but sort of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. Unless they publicly announced that they have moved in together or have engaged, then it would be appropriate to add Alwyn to the infobox. But for the time being, I do not think adding Alwyn would comply with MOSBIO. HĐ (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per comments made by HĐ. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per comments made by HĐ. — Jack Reynolds(talk to me!)_{Happy New Year! and Goodbye 2020!} 17:22, 2 January 2021 (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 (singer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Taylor (singer). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Taylor (singer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus has been reached as follows: Occupations in infobox: singer-songwriter, record producer, actress, director. Occupation(s) in lead: singer-songwriter (per MOS:LEADSENTENCE)

---

@Andyn724, Bowling is life, and BawinV: I advise all of you to use this space to talk about the things you are edit warring about. Instead of disrupting the article, let’s talk on a talk page instead of through edit summary. The big question here is should Swift have "record producer" in her list of occupations? As well, now that I have initiated dispute resolution, the correct thing to do is to not revert anymore. If this edit war persists beyond this point, I will be warning editors as well as making a request for full protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: ping didn't go through. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andyn724: we should put Swift as a record producer because she IS a record producer. if she's not then why is she credited as a record producer in 70% of her discography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyn724 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andyn724: She created three perfumes, but she’s not a perfumer. She has directed multiple music videos and is an award winning director, but she’s not listed as a director. She has played instruments in lots of her songs, but she’s not posted as an instrumentalist. As well, I don’t get why record producer would be included in the lead sentence but not actress. And the article doesn’t even detail her record-producing, so it doesn’t make sense why we would mention it at all. The article mentions her as a singer-songwriter and her as an actress, but record producer never comes up. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: If you look in the Artistry section, under music videos, it talks about her directing her own music videos. Music video director should be included. As for musician/instrumentalist and record producer, we should add these to the Artistry section with sources so they can be included in the lead and infobox. I feel like that is important info for her career that is missing at the start of the article. Bowling is life (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: I won’t support adding three professions to the lead, much less the lead sentence. I’ll support music video director being added in the infobox, but not in the lead. She is not known for directing, playing instruments or record producing. She is more known for singing and songwriting (80% of the article). Adding a mention in the Infobox is fine, but mentioning it beyond that is extraneous and unnecessary, because it takes away from the fact that she makes the most money off of singing and songwriting, as that is her main profession. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andyn724: people know that Taylor Swift directs video from watching her music videos and her end-credit scene. people know her playing instruments from watching her concerts. have you ever seen how Swift plays instruments constantly in her concerts, as well as in music videos? and people also know Swift producing music because of how she was credited in 80% of her albums. you can go to Genius to check out the credits. she co-produced a lot of her songs from Fearless album up until now, so she IS considered a record producer. you can't tell me that she is not known for directing, playing instruments or record producing. (let's chat!) 10:28, 1 February 2021 (CT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyn724 (talk • contribs)

Am I daft, or did Andyn724 add the above remark with a different user’s signature by mistake, according to the diffs? For reference, the “signature” button is typically located third from the upper left, if that helps.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they added something by mistake. Either way, I added an unsigned temp. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

When people think of Swift, they think of a singer-songwriter. When people look up her biography, it’s typically to research her singing and songwriting, which take up a majority of the article. This goes by her description given by the majority of notable sources, not opinions or crediting. The average, casual listener most likely has no idea that Swift produces her music or directs her own music videos. Her career primarily revolves around singing and songwriting, not instrumentation. Her primary notability stems from singing and songwriting, and the rest of her credits remain respected in the infobox.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: I concur. Anything that’s not her most notable work but is prominent in her career goes in the Infobox. Besides, there was a consensus made about two months ago to have singer-songwriter and actress be added to the Infobox (record producer as well), and to not include music video director/instrumentalist. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why I have been tagged here. I wasn't edit-warring. I only made only one revert yesterday, as per the consensus made on including "record producer" on Swift's infobox. Swift is a record producer, and therefore it will be in her infobox. However, it is not a very notable profession of hers, hence it won't be included in the lead sentence. This was the consensus. And I stick with this consensus. I don't have any further comments. BawinV (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV: I like to tag everyone who was involved, so there can be multiple viewpoints. I agree with you, it should be included in the Infobox but not in the lead sentence. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Because is a verifiable thing, those other "occupations" are ok in an infobox. Depends on artist's case every attribution no need a mention in a lead and there are levels of details. Also how an article has been written. With those factors that's why in my opinion those attribution to her as "video director" and even maybe "record producer" are fine only in the infobox. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: I agree, the Infobox is more appropriate for these type of occupations. Thank you for your comment. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: and @Doggy54321: So, should we add Music video director the the infobox? Bowling is life (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with "video director". She has directed more than 3 videos solo, which also received wide notability. I think we should also consider rounding it off to "director" because Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions was directed by Swift herself. I'd like to hear what others have to say. BawinV (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: I agree with director (per BawinV) being added to the Infobox along with actress, singer-songwriter and record producer which are already there. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So, to sum up: include singer-songwriter, actress, record producer, director in the infobox, and singer-songwriter only for the lead. Is this the consensus? HĐ (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. BawinV (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Very good. I concur with the outcome and it is good to see the issue is resolved with civil discussions. I would proceed to close this discussion if there is no further disagreement. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2021 (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.

Draft Notice

This is a notice that there is a draft for Fearless (Taylor's Version) at Draft:Fearless (Taylor's Version) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 15:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 15:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Discography inclusion

There’s obviously quite a bit of edit warring occurring on this page regarding the inclusion of re-recorded albums in the “Discography” portion of the article. I’m having difficulties pinging each user on mobile, but this clearly warrants conversation of merit on the talk page. Please discuss such changes before changing any further.

Should the 2021 re-recording of the album Fearless be included alongside her other releases as full studio albums? Bettydaisies (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: Of course not. Unless we are willing to include all her EPs, live albums and compilation albums, why should we include the reissue? D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 17:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not, the discography section is for studio albums only. Reissues, EPs, and others go in her discography page. Bowling is life (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The general consensus is that the "Discography" section in BLPs of musicians should include studio albums only. Including reissues / EPs would constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. HĐ (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No! Discography should consist of only unique studio albums. Eventhough Fearless (TV) is a rerecorded/remastered album, it is still a reissue by book definitions. Reissues have no place on discography. BawinV (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Master controversy article

I was thinking of creating a new article on the Taylor Swift v Scooter Braun master controversy, given that the music business publications have covered this issue extensively. There are even analyses from big-name news corporations such as BBC and Variety. While this may meet WP:GNG, I would like to see more opinions on whether a separate article is needed. HĐ (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If encyclopedic content on the subject is too lengthy to be DUE at either article, a new article should be created. Given Swift's long career and FA status, and Braun's short article, it only seems reasonable for a new article. Kingsif (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that dispute has way too much of media attention to not have an article. BawinV (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Granted. I have created an article at Taylor Swift masters controversy. I would very much welcome anyone that could expand the article, as that would be a rather large one. HĐ (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Year formatting

@HĐ Hi! I observed that you edited the phrase “2020 - present” to “2020 - 2021” in the article. I observe that the former appears to be consistent styling in most entertainers articles, such as Katy Perry, Dua Lipa, Amy Adams, etc. Is there a certain circumstance/MOS regarding this? Thank you for your substantial contributions to this page and have a wonderful week. Bettydaisies (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no carved-on-the-stone policy on this, but the consensus tends to discourage against the usage of MOS:CURRENT (phrasings such as "currently", "at present", etc.). A time frame like 2021 is sufficient, I believe. I hope this clears things up. Thank you for your queries, and have a great week ahead. HĐ (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Years active

In October 2016 when this article was classified as Featured Article it said that Swift was active since 2004. Now I come across this current version that says she is active since 2003 and asked me why she is active since 2003 or 2004 if her first song was "Tim McGraw", recorded and released in 2006. Alexismata7 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexismata7: Swift signed her record deal in 2004, and has been active since then. I do not know why it has been replaced with 2003, though. HĐ (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Track 5

I added a section explaining the significance of track 5 on this page under songwriting and it was quickly removed. Track 5 is a large part of Swift's work, is widely known among her fans, and many articles by music critics like Billboard are dedicated solely to Taylor's track 5. I have tried to create a new page for it instead, but I think it best fits on her personal page. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicWriterABC (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for missing out on this comment earlier. Regardless, an AFD discussion has started for Track 5 (Taylor Swift), so you might want to leave some comments there. HĐ (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

I noticed a small typo in the following sentence: Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the U.S. Billboard 200, where in spent 157 weeks—the longest stay on the chart by any release in the U.S. in the 2000s decade. It says, "where in spent 157 weeks.." The word "in" should be changed to "it". This sentence was in the category "2004–2008: Career beginnings and Taylor Swift", the last sentence in the second paragraph. Teeestorms (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Indeed, it did. @Teeestorms: thanks for the vigilance! —Belwine (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

occupations

We should add two occupations to Taylor Swift's infobox :

• Instrumentalist - Swift is known for paying lots of instruments such as guitar, piano, banjo, ukulele,... in her concerts, live shows,... If you don't believe you can search any performance of Swift outside Wikipedia.
• Philanthropist/Humanitarian - Swift is also known for her humanity and philanthropy. She has done charities since the beginning of her career and she never stops. You can check the "philanthropy and activism" section. They are all the sources so this should be added in the infobox.

Anyway, thanks! ADTN1210 (talk) 22:12 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@ADTN1210: I agree with adding philanthropist and instead of instrumentalist, we could add musician to the infobox. Bowling is life (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

She can play multiple instruments and has made many charitable donations; but for occupations to be added, WP:RELIABLE sources documenting her as an instrumentalist/musician and philanthropist is a prerequisite.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: I thought we have a "philanthropy" section contains all the sources? And the musical style section contains every information about Swift playing guitar, banjo, piano,... They have sources? -- ADTN1210 talk 12:28 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, the issue isn't her ability, it's the media referring to her specifically as a notable instrumentalist/philanthropist, in my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I oppose both labels unless there are multiple notable sources that refer to her explicitly as either, subject to discussion by other editors.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to instrumentalist, neutral on philanthropist. Swift is already listed as a singer-songwriter, which is basically a three-in-one deal of singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist, so listing "instrumentalist" would be redundant, and that is why I strongly oppose adding that. I don't exactly agree that a giant part of Swift's career is philanthropy, but there is an entire section related to it with lots of sources, so that's why I'm neutral on that one. Thanks! D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: How is listing "instrumentalist" to Swift's infobox "redundant" when it's the fact that Swift plays instruments most of her career? ADTN1210 talk 14:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@ADTN1210: I explained that above. Singer-songwriter is already listed, and that is a combination profession of being a singer, a songwriter and a multi-instrumentalist. So, in the same way that it would be extraneous and redundant to add "singer" or "songwriter" to the Infobox when "singer-songwriter" is already listed, it will also be extraneous and redundant to add "instrumentalist" to the Infobox when "singer-songwriter" is already listed. If we're going to list instrumentalist, then we would need to list singer and songwriter as well, or else that would give undue weight to the instrumentalist profession. It's like saying "ADTN1210 and Doggy54321 are a team of editors who collaborate under the username 'ADTN54321'. But, on their userpage, they list their name as 'ADTN54321 and Doggy54321'", as that would give undue weight to me. Hope this clarified everything for you! D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Ok so do we all agree that we should add "philanthropist" or "humanitarian" as an occupation in the infobox? Because I strongly agree and I would not think otherwise. ADTN1210 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@ADTN1210: There is only one editor other than yourself who has supported philanthropist, one editor opposed, and one editor is neutral. That is not a consensus. I don't think any sources have noted philanthropy as one of Swift's main professions, which is what I tend to look for when I'm giving my opinion on adding/removing professions. But, there are lots of sources noting Swift's philanthropy. That is why I am neutral. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Singer-songwriter" already implies she plays the instruments on her songs. I don't see how this is important. Seriously... why making a mountain out of a molehill? HĐ (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The 4 instruments mentioned in the infobox clearly convey that she's a multi instrumentalist; we don't have to mention it again. I feel neutral about philanthropist though. Her numerous acts of philanthropy have garnered widespread attention, therefore, I do think it should be added; however, a question arises—is being a philanthropist a profession? BawinV (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-recordings

I think it would be worth mentioning why the albums were re-recorded. Rkhieu (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree! Ev666 (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't simply a matter of voting. Show that professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources discuss the reasons in a way that would show that they're noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Placement of Fearless (Taylor's Version) in Discography

Fearless (TV) is a full-fledged album release by Swift, and therefore deserves a place in her discography section in this article. It's not an EP or a compilation album or a live album. Fearless (TV) is a key record of her career, and we should also consider the fact that not mentioning Fearless (TV) in that section affects the WP:NPOV of the article in the way the whole masters controversy is about. BawinV (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. While it is not considered her 10th album, I would consider it to be part of her discography.

Album sales claims

I was reverted by Doggy54321 (talk · contribs) in regards Official Charts Company citing album sales for Taylor Swift of 114 million (his edit). I think nobody can't argue against Official Chart Company is a reliable source and an authority reference for music industry. What I'm arguing is the claim/figure which appears to be higher if not inflated. As of 2019, her album sales were about 37,3 million in US and 3,34 million in UK. She released more albums, but appears to me that CONTEXTMATTERS. Based on her certifications listed at List of best-selling music artists: her main record sales (albums/singles) came from the Anglosphera (mainly US) and about 10 million in certifications came outside US/UK/AUS/NZ/CAN. She sold of course more based in countries not listed and most notorious reports of 1 million in China for three different albums. As Official Charts Company is reliable, I think we can also apply the same analogy for countless of media sales reports for albums/artists that we usually avoid for being "inflated". BTW, the original update was made in her albums discography, by an user that practices same for artists such as Celine Dion (see her albums discography: 250 millions "albums"). I might be biased. Any thoughts? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Apoxyomenus, I agree that the 114 million figure is inflated (I am pretty sure OCC refers to album-equivalent units which comprise streams and digital track equivalents), given that the jump from 50 million in 2016 to 114 million in 2021 is remarkable. HĐ (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think OCC was referring to the 114 million in "total album consumption" (which is physical sales + digital sales + album-equivalent streaming units). The current album consumption figure listed in the article is 97 million as of Feb 2020 (up-to Lover album), therefore yes, a 114 million figure is definitely the album consumption sum after the releases of Folklore, Evermore and Fearless (TV) alongside back catalog units. BawinV (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This BRITs source also implies that a portion of the 114 million is calculated from her 78 billion global streams. The last update on the article mentions a 54 billion. BawinV (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes I also agree that OCC was probably using that method without mentioned it. OCC is not clear and I think can't be used for the concept of "album consumption" (for her current 97 million claim) and probably (depends in this discussion) for her traditional album sales. I've mentioned within this discussion her sales based on certifications/"average markets" to have a general print of a notorious number/jump in the perspective of the original change which was for her traditional albums sales and the same goes I guess, if we find other sources alleging that number ("album sales").

In regards the current claim from her "album consumption" (currently 97 million) not sure if could be a good idea keep that info as well. (Personal opinion), I don't see how useful is that data when probably only could led potential circular reporting darkening actual/traditional sales considering that the "traditional way" still use (I'm refering to [inster number] millions in "album consumption", not [instert] billion streams). Minor point: current figure of that album consumption came from her record company/press releases from them (such as WP:PRNEWSWIRE) which as far I understand most editors avoid figures from record companies for variety reasons such as "promotional" purposes and so on (de facto accepted in the List of best-selling music artists in which Taylor is included). I guess context really matters as usual. Regards and stay safe everyone. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems that there is already an agreement here, then. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

Can we please get an updated picture of our girl Taylor? 2601:680:C402:3380:9864:FDE8:B402:AA56 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The current photo is less than 1-1/2 years old. Any newer photo must be freely licensed. Are you aware of a newer and better freely licensed photo? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Cullen328 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Add occupations: businesswoman

I would like to add "businesswoman" as part of Taylor Swift's occupations in the infobox

Sources:

--DDTN49 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• @DDTN49: User:JennKR/Baking a cake doesn't make you a baker--HĐ (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Nearly every entertainer would likewise qualify as a businessperson if we decided to list Swift as one. -- Calidum 15:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Definitely not; WP:CAKE. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would have opposed this a few years back; I would not now. I believe WP:CAKE does not apply here, since every discussion is unique to the subject and we should not simply generalize the request by the look of it. Thinking about the fact that every popular music artist could be called a businessperson, but not every artist gets such wide recognition as one like in Swift's case, I do think businesswoman should be added to the infobox, and infobox only. BawinV (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

HĐ, D🐶ggy54321, -- Calidum, I know that "baking one cake does not make you a baker". But in Swift's case, can you tell me any other musical artist who could get widespread recognition in the business field like Swift? I remember only people like Madonna or Beyoncé. I can totally give you more sources if you want me to prove my point stronger. So we should add "businesswoman" as an occupation in the infobox. I agree with BawinV. DDTN49, (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct the first song Taylor Swift learned to play on the guitar

This article states that "Cowboy Take Me Away" by the Dixie Chicks (now The Chicks), was the first song Taylor Swift learned to play on the guitar. The linked article says that during dialogue in her concert, before playing a cover she states that this was the first song that made her want to learn to play guitar. The first song Taylor Swift played on the guitar, according to her interview with Vogue in 2016 and an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon was "Kiss Me" by Sixpence None the Richer (see 3:44-4:06) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAS1989 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

She has indeed mentioned this multiple times, and I will make that change now. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections Taylor Swift in popular culture be split into a separate page called Cultural impact of Taylor Swift. The content of the current page seems notable and would fit with other pages such as Cultural impact of Michael Jackson and could definitely be expanded. Noah ^💬 13:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:UNDUE. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per UNDUE. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 13:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree yes, maybe we could make a separate article called "Cultural impact of Taylor Swift" to discuss about Taylor Swift's cultural impact on music industry, politics, feminism, queer and gay, popular culture, millennial era,... we can also include list of artists influenced by Swift too. ADTN1210 (talk) 12:55PM April 3, 2021 (CST)

@DMT biscuit @D🐰ggy54321 I need y'all to explain in detail why you oppose so others could understand. Just giving some of Wikipedia's pages about policies is so difficult to comprehend. ADTN1210 (talk) 12:59PM April 3, 2021 (CST)

@ADTN1210: I don't believe Taylor Swift's impact is so evident to warrant a separate article. And one would result in neutrality being defied and us, inadvertently, astroturfing the cultural perception of Taylor Swift. DMT biscuit (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@ADTN1210: Is I'm opposed to splitting the article because I believe it would be a violation of the WP:UNDUE policy better? If not, I really don’t know what to say, as that is how I feel. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 18:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: What policy/rule would the article be violated if the article is splitted? Does it harm the main article of Taylor Swift? You said that it's just how you feel but you need to explain in detail. You just said that it would be a violation of the WP:UNDUE policy. No, I don't understand what you mean. You can go to that page and cite some information there and explain how that information supports your argument. Thanks. ADTN1210 (talk) 01:14PM April 3, 2021 (CST)

@ADTN1210: Well, DMT biscuit pretty much summed it up. Like them, I don't think Swift's cultural impact thus far is enough to warrant an article. It's like how your draft, Draft:List of celebrities influenced by Taylor Swift, or Track 5 (Taylor Swift), both got redirected/denied because the subject didn't warrant a stand-alone article. Adding on, both Swift's influence and her infamous track fives are listed in this article. They just don't warrant a page quite yet. And this is basically what undue weight is: mentioning things more than they need to be mentioned, like when someone decided to create an article about Swift's "Blank Space" performance at the 2015 Brit Awards even though none of the other performances had articles, and the coverage between performances was the exact same, which is why it got deleted. I hope this clears it up for you. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 19:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321:, Okay, the reason why I created an article "List of artists influenced by Taylor Swift" because there are more number of artists listed in this article that are influenced by Swift (about 100 artists and even non-musicians). Other artists such as Michael Jackson, Madonna, Beyoncé and Eminem have their own articles about their influences so why can't Swift when I have more than enough sources and evidences to create one? In this page, so many things are limited so creating another article and then sum up everything here should be the best choice, shouldn't it? Also, if you said that we should not "mention things more than they need to be mentioned" then maybe we should not have an article about "list of awards received by Swift". ADTN1210 (talk) 03:06 PM April 3, 2021 (CST)

@ADTN1210: If you feel that way about her awards page, you can request it be deleted/redirected through AFD. If your draft didn't get accepted but it was actually prominent enough to warrant an article, maybe the cause of decline was that the article had lots of Twitter references. Maybe you want to remove those and re-submit, and then we can get clarity. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 20:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: I used Twitter references as sources because they are the tweets come from verified accounts, which means the artists have said carefully that they are influenced by Swift. And I put out List of awards received by Taylor Swift article as an example to what you said about mentioning things more than they need to be. It's not like I want to delete that article. ADTN1210 (talk) 15:20 April 3, 2021 (CST)

@ADTN1210: The article has a ratio of about 40:60 social media to other sources. Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, an article can't be heavily based off of these sources. The draft has social media as well as other sources, which is fine if the ratio is 10:90 social media to other sources, but not when the ratio is almost equal. If ten years from now, if have a verified Twitter account and tweet "Taylor Swift influences me" when I could have a 9-5 desk job (just an example), would you include me on this list? If yes, then the list criteria need to be reassessed so that the list isn't overwhelming large, which it is already turning into. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 20:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose--Undue and potentially fancruft. Taylor Swift is arguably among the biggest (if not the biggest) pop stars of the 21st century, but we will need to wait until further critical/scholarly analyses until such an article exists. On another note, there is another similar debate regarding the status of Cultural impact of Beyoncé. HĐ (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Commercially speaking, the biggest women of the 21st century in music are Rihanna (the biggest hitmaker), Beyonce (the biggest touring artist), and Adele (the biggest album seller). Taylor is the biggest artist of the 21st century based on Billboard chart points (the U.S. only, though)[7]. Nevertheless, I agree with you that this kind of article is a big target of fancrufty, and we need to give it more time. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not just the US, she has 874k likes on Baidu (the most popular search engine of the biggest country in the world), [8]. Rihanna has 53k [9], Beyonce has 24k [10], Adele has 67k [11], Lady Gaga has 176k [12], Madonna has 23k [13]; considering the big leap in numbers and the fact that sales data is not widely available in China or the fact that touring on a normal level is not as easy in China as other parts of the world; it's reasonable to presume she is up there. (remember China has more people than Europe/North America/Oceania combined, the main markets for these Western charts). Going by the next biggest country in the world; India - it seems like Swift dominates interest there too. by google searches at least. [14]. I'd have to put such a dominant interest in the two biggest countries with over a billion population over smaller Euro countries with a more documented music sales market. Not to mention other big countries like Pakistan [15] and Bangladesh [16]. These countries may not have as good as a sales tracking system as France or the UK and performers may not tour them as much as other "world tours" confined to Europe and the US/Canada but they should matter just as much if we're talking about the world. Just saying, i don't really like how the music industry goes by "hits" or "tours" when they're predominantly in western markets, but inadvertently leaving out some of the biggest populations, whose support matter just as much in determining the "biggest" artist - not that such a thing is trackable anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I said "commercially". The number of likes/search has nothing to do with "commercial success". Janet Jackson was the most Googled singer worldwide in 2004 (Super Bowl malfunction), and it was her least successful year commercially. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

My assessment was completely subjective... so let's not argue about who is the biggest artist. Taking each metric then each artist is more/less successful than some others. HĐ (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree - Since her debut, she's made substantial changes to the fundamentals of the music industry and they way people perceive female songwriters; for example, her refusal to join streaming platforms is the only reason why musicians are getting paid during the free trial period on streaming platforms. In my opinion, her influence and her commercial success (the emphasis on album units, being the biggest female touring act of the 21st century in a time when stadiums are getting harder to fill et cetera) have given her enough notoriety to write a separate article on the topic. LikeAVVirgin^(talk) 16:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Agree - She is definitely one of the biggest and most influential singers in the world, so I don't see why an article like this would be a bad idea. ElliesPoetry^(talk) 16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons below:

I'm sorry but I see less obvious the split of a stand-alone article based in policies such as WP:UNDUE and the spectrum of word "cultural". As a musician/songwriter her impact have been distribuited in both her main article or some of her albums/songs. Also, her impact in the "streaming era" as both musician/public figure can been found in sections such as "public image" that include data of her social media metrics, for example.

For a stand-alone article the information need to be backed by academic point of views, not only flood sections with comments and keep adding comments that are "pop and media commentaries" (aren't bad but, I mean maintain a ratio of academic-scholarly references/comments). Take note that probably Beyonce and Lady Gaga are the two females with most academic attention in the past decade, but also as far I understand with same policies and other many factors, need a broader definition in the world of academia that means, among other things a figure can't be only been eclipsed in the point of a one whole decade since retrospective views/assessments are major factor. Because Swift is part of this list of super-seller artists, keep in mind many of them have received more than one course/appeared in an academic journal but we need avoid fall in a possible WP:SYNTH if one of them received 10-20 courses because their figure need to be definied as "academic topic" (a definition from them). If WP:WORLDVIEW counts, that include not only an American perspective (or even Anglosphere).

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. All these kind of articles were recently deleted from Wikipedia with some being merged right now, from artists with even a bigger cultural impact such as Michael Jackson and Madonna. It will just be deleted once more. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

You should update the net worth as of 2021 AlishaRocks123 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 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. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"1989 (Taylor's Version)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1989 (Taylor's Version). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 20#1989 (Taylor's Version) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

• This article has become unweildy. It needs to be shortened, and to have spin-off articles created for it. Seriously. This has to break apart now. It is time. A loose necktie (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What spin-off articles do you think we should make? Just a reminder that we already have a lot of them (albums and singles discographies, a list of songs, awards and nominations, a videography, live performances, the ongoing masters controversy and the sexual assault trial), so I don't know if splitting another section into a separate article is due weight. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

can i edit 168.69.254.102 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop vandalizing pages at random. Hobomok (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

Add Partner: Joe Alwyn (2016 - ) 141.136.131.198 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life

There should be a "Personal life" section here, with info on whom Ms. Swift has dated or been engaged to. Like every other public figure, as a standard format. "Public image" is not enough. Something about her personal beliefs could also go here. There are several documentaries on Ms. Swift, just on Netflix, YouTube and Disney+ alone. Tropic Wolf (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Relevant details about her personal life are throughout the article, in the life and career section. Check the archives for previous discussions about this, if you're interested. Rfl0216 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying those facts can be moved to a Personal life section. Putting her relationships and beliefs under "Public image" makes her sound more like a product than a human being. Brad Pitt and Billie Eilish, for example, have both a "Public image" and a "Personal life" section. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I'd like to see Taylor Swift get the same standard format of every other person on Wikipedia, at least by the time she gets married and has children.Tropic Wolf (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this, I'm good with having or not having a "Personal life" section, but I do wanna comment on this bit: by the time she gets married and has children. We cannot assume she will get married and have children. BawinV (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Her relationships aren’t in public image, they’re in the life and career section. This is similar to a myriad of other articles with “Life and career” formats, such as Lana Del Rey and Lady Gaga. It makes sense for her - especially since her personal relationships have been so reported upon in the context of her career - to have it integrated into her biography. Bettydaisies (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bettydaisies. That makes sense. We do not have to homogenize all biography articles. "Life and career" seems fine the way it is now. BawinV (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I had not seen the precedent of Lana Del Rey and Lady Gaga. Very well. I will delete this section.Tropic Wolf (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to! I restored this. You don't have to delete discussion just because you changed your opinion. We shall let it be and the archive bot shall archive this topic soon. BawinV (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Height

Is height (and/or weight) trivial? I see it's also been added at Mary Steenburgen. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Yes, unless the information is crucial to the person's notability and career. For example, the height and weight of Taylor Swift, a singer-songwriter, would be trivial, since her height and weight are not crucial to her career and they did not make her famous. But, for a basketball player or a model, where their height/weight is crucial to their career, it would not be trivial. As well, the height and weight of people like Jon Brower Minnoch and Robert Wadlow, where, if not for their height/weight, they would not be notable, is not trivial. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously height is non-trivial at Robert Wadlow, it's the only reason he's notable. I thought all basketball players were pretty tall. That's not true of actors, of course. I would have thought it was basic biographical detail that an interested reader might wish to know. It appears, of course, at Alan Ladd and Richard Kiel. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. As well, that was also my point - basketball players have to be of a certain height to play, and height is a highly discussed topic in the sport of basketball. Singing and songwriting? Not so much. The definition of trivia is details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value, and that is what I believe Swift's height to be. Aside from the occasional "Taylor Swift is tall" from a media outlet, her height is not talked about, so it is not of importance. To your point about her height being a fact that an interested reader might wish to know, I encourage you to read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We could list all of Swift's relatives, all of her boyfriends, and all of her cats, complete with detailed descriptions of each, but we don't, per INDISCRIMINATE. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware she had any cats. But thanks for all the encouragement. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)