Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The Introduction Template

Considering the following statements I think it wouldn't hurt, and it actually might be a good idea to change the introduction template for this article:

1- Almost all the other articles on Wikipedia that are about performing artists, now have template boxes for persons as their introduction template boxes, and they look more professional, and usually contain more elaborated information about that person. take a look at: Katy Perry, Jennifer Lopez, Kesha, ... 2- Taylor Swift's article on Wikipedia has gone through a lot of changes from 2006 and has grown a lot since, I personally think that it is almost time to make it look more professional. Plus looking more professional doesn't hurt any one at all if it doesn't make people happier. 3- Creating a person introduction template box for this article opens the opportunity to other information about Taylor Swift, thus looking more Wikipedia like.

With these statements in mind I propose reverting Joseph Prasad's kind revert back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Swift&oldid=648927808 if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironnail (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There isn't really all that much to add with infobox person, and signatures do not belong in articles. They are irrelevant, not notable, and no way to prove it's hers. And you propose reverting, yet you already reverted. That is not a proposal. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I won't revert, change, or edit without providing reasons anymore, sorry if it upset you. Thank you anyways. Don't talk until you make sure! (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: The signature is indeed hers, though she connects the heart to the ‘r’ now 1 2—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Any other ideas from other contributors around this subject? Should the current format of the article be preserved or there are others who might agree with my editions and change of the picture of the article? Don't talk until you make sure! (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, but Joseph Prasad is right about the signature. Anyone else? דיידרים (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Also maybe we should remove that detail about the parents, but I think it would be OK, considering the fact that her parents are the main reason for her success, and were very kind towards her. What about the new picture that I chose? Isn't it also a tiny bit better than the current picture? Don't talk until you make sure! (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How is your image better than the other one? The current one in no way looks bad. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I like Ironnail’s picture, as the lighting is better, but neither image is representative of Taylor within the last 12 months. Her appearance has changed a lot since. But that picture is still recognizable though (albeit as RED taylor).—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, @Joseph Prasad: The RED tour image does not look "bad," I agree; however, I think it is appropriate to update the picture, as her look has continually evolved since that time, and the current time in her career is significant on personal, professional and artistic levels. There is a lot of 1989 material, so hopefully someone can find one, if others agree. A Polaroid image would be especially effective for the page. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I found this picture on flickr. What do you think? דיידרים (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Many fans who went to the secret sessions I think have polaroids with her, but they might not own the rights to the pictures since I’m not sure who took them—♥ Kelvinsong talk 20:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong: Thank you very much Kelvinsong, That is exactly what I was, and still am after; a new picture that both has a good lighting and also shows Taylor's over all personality, ambitions, and spirit in a better way, also maybe one that is more recent and updated. But after going through wikicommon pictures for about an hour and a half that one that you see in my version was the only one I thought might be good looking and suitable, yet there might be a better candidate available. And this all started happening after listening to Swift's style music video... amazing lyrics, amazing video... awesome singer, what can you say. But I needed to keep with Wikipedia's standards. Don't talk until you make sure! (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@דיידרים: Dear דיידרים, that is a good picture, but we might need one that shows almost all of her face and head, I must be honest I hate those out of focus to the side pictures you sometimes see, that if you wanted to ID the stars on Grammy awards based on them, you would never be able to. Your picture has that(I mean good shade and her face is almost completely visible, which is awesome, thank you for that), but a little bit of the top of the head is not present. Also are you sure we could take pictures from flickr and post them on wikipedia articles? no copyright issues?? Don't talk until you make sure! (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Ironnail's picture is the editor is saying her spirit, personality, and ambitions. Like first, why? No one else dictates that as a reason. And two, her eyes are squinted in the picture to the point where you can't even tell what her eye color is. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ironnail, it's not my picture, but it's the only picture on flickr that represents her current look and has no copyright issues - see Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. Maybe we better wait for the 1989 Tour which will probably give us some great pictures. דיידרים (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And it is not that vital compared to other articles, that only have images from 2007-2011. This is not in much need of a change compared to other articles. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Relationships

Removed the following from the section:

In a January 28, 2015, interview with Access Hollywood, Swift explained that she had found happiness in being single again, as it signified a state of independence that was worth protecting. Swift said that she felt "happy," "free" and "independent," and told the interviewer that "it's important to really explore" and "embrace" one's life when it "completes itself." She also advised people in their twenties that they should not "use other relationships as a band-aid if one doesn't work."

I think it reads like something in a celebrity profile rather than an encyclopedia. It's already mentioned in the 1989 section that she was stressing the importance of female friendship in this album cycle, following earlier backlash surroudning her dating life.Popeye191 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It simply uses Swift's exact words to describe a significant change in her career that has also been the result of intensive media scrutiny, which continues in 2015. If Swift sounds like a "celebrity profile" to you, then Wikipedia is not the place to explore that. The reason I included it was, as I have explained to you on your Talk page, because the period surrounding 1989 has signified a major new direction for the singer—as shown in the sectional title change—and the details are worth articulating. If it was merely a change of look or the enlistment of a different producer or backing band, then I can understand the use of a basic sentence, but this is not the case for Swift. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift shares a special bond with many of her fans. Being recognized as "Swifties", Taylor's fan culture is immense. The reason for the connection between Taylor and her fans stems from Taylor's drive to make the lives of her followers better. There are frequent instances where Taylor has set up meet and greets, as well as sent money and gifts to her beloved fans. Taylor most recently sent one of her fans $1989.00 to assist her with student loans. Taylor does many acts of kindness for her fans to express her gratitude for their support. It is clear that Swifties are very devoted to Taylor because she treats each of them as if they are her best friend, providing them with the intimate connection that they expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vduff12 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2015

Additionally, Swift hosted 5 intimate gatherings at each of her residences (New York, Nashville, Rhode Island, Los Angeles, London) with 89 fans whom have never met her to listen to her 1989 album. Swift posed for pictures taken only by a photograph with Polaroid camera which were later tweeted by the 89 fans with the hashtag #1989SECRETSESSIONS. All fans were stripped of their personal phones and cameras. The album was never leaked prior to its release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cammallerin (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Nashville house hosted 178 fans, no? Or was that the NYC apartment

Also important that this was before the release of the album. PS I don’t think it was from anyone at the SS (they signed nondisclosure things anyway) but the album did leak several days before, it was us fans that prevented it from getting too out of hand.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I got the 89 people fact from this episode of Ellen when she interviewed Taylor Swift: http://www.ellentv.com/episodes/a-taylor-swift-special-event/

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

#1989SECRETSESSIONS

Additionally, Swift hosted 5 intimate gatherings at each of her residences (New York, Nashville, Rhode Island, Los Angeles, London) with 89 fans whom have never met her to listen to her 1989 album. Swift posed for pictures taken only by a photograph with Polaroid camera which were later tweeted by the 89 fans with the hashtag #1989SECRETSESSIONS. All fans were stripped of their personal phones and cameras. The album was never leaked prior to its release date. Cammallerin (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Erm, you've already filed an identical request in the section above. Could you respond to the question asked there? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Above. Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Public Image

Swift has bolstered a very strong fan base, and frequently finds ways in which she can interact with them. Deemed the 'Swifties', Taylor has said of her fans, "I try to figure out ways all the time to thank them...Because they just go out of their way, non-stop to make my life really fun" . During the period surrounding the release of 1989, Swift further developed her use of social media to connect with her audience. Furthermore, through social media Taylor is able to heavily involve her fans in her aspects of her life and career. In addition to the participation of 100 fans in the filming of the "Shake It Off" music video,[343] Swift sent Christmas gifts to a selection of fans by post and in person.[344] Swift also continued to assist fans who reached out to her on the Tumblr social media network at the start of 2015.[ Jwsab (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2015 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Image

The image in the article is slightly blurry, it is easier to see her with the previous picture. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not all that blurry. Besides, it can be cropped down slightly and still show who she is as a performer (a solo singer with her guitar), which I think is a better portrayal of her than the other, more glam photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

She is an actress as well, though. By your logic, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Justin Timberlake, Rufus Wainwright should all have a similar image. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The "by your logic" comment makes no sense. Why would we want to have uniformity in images? Besides, we are talking about Taylor Swift's photo, no one else's. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to other articles is valid. It is done on other articles, almost all Wiki articles have the same basic format. Again, it is a way more clear image. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparing images makes no sense since you cannot have uniformity with photographs we get from all over. Uniformity in style and MOS format is a totally different topic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the previous image as well. Better quality image. Gloss 03:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Swift performs in St. Louis, Missouri in 2013.jpg is clearly the better image here. Better quality and also looks more like how Swift looks now. Why would you propose a blurrier image which is not even any more recent than the other? -- MaRAno ^FAN 08:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, mainly because the other one is older. We generally prefer more recent photos. -- Calidum 12:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't choose photos only because they are "more recent", we choose photos because they best depict the article subject and give the best first impression. According to MOS and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic...[and are]] primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate...". Personally, I think this photo [File:Taylor Swift (6820712114).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taylor_Swift_(6820712114).jpg] is the one that should be in the infobox because it best illustrates who she is as a musician, performer, entertainer. The close up was just her at a microphone and it doesn't show succinctly who she is on stage. MaranoFan added the photo inappropriately and should have proposed it here first, but it seems to be the photo that is best suited to the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If such an image is necessary, I think that this one would be better. It is already used in the article. And, it is also not blurry or anything. If not, the other older one was good. Plus, there are more clearer images of Taylor Swift with her musical instruments. King Cobra (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be good with the one Winkelvi suggested. The one here, I'd take it, I like it, it shows the insturment playing, in no way blurry, it's good. Also, I think actress should be included in the lead. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(←) I'm really not sure what's wrong with the current image (the one that was used before all this edit warring started). It's good quality and a closeup of her face. I don't like either of the guitar pictures that were being warred over, and the current one has been stable for awhile. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91, exactly what I've been saying. Sorry about the edit war, though I only reverted twice the editors who tried to add the current picture. The picture we have, the one Chase said, should be left there. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Chase and Joseph. MaRAno ^FAN 07:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I do believe even though it’s older File:Taylor Swift (6820712114).jpg is by far the best image to use. It is a fairly high quality image, instantly recognizable (though somewhat dated), and also shows the 13 on her hand she used to have, and also you can see her arm lyrics. && Taylor’s appearance did not change significantly between 2012 and early 2014, so no need to use “the most recent” image from that time period. BTW based on the dress she most likely was singing Sparks Fly when this photo was taken—♥ Kelvinsong talk 14:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Kelvinnsong, that image is the superior photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC started below in order to reach consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 March 2015

Add link for "Boy Scout" -- Boy Scouts of America|Boy Scout Relbats (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done I can't comprehend what is being asked here, and it isn't obvious. I presume that Taylor Swift, being a girl, isn't a Boy Scout, so I'm more than a little confused as to the relevance of this request. Also, from the template you used, "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately." J^♯m (talk | contribs) 08:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Grammar change in lead section

Not very mandatory, but I was wondering if you could change

from

"Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Raised in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, Swift moved to Nashville, Tennessee, at the age of 14 to pursue a career in country music."

to

"Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Raised in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, Swift shifted to Nashville, Tennessee, at the age of 14 to pursue a career in country music."

shift SHift/ verb past tense: shifted; past participle: shifted

   move or cause to move from one place to another, especially over a small distance.
   "I shift the weight back to the other leg"
   synonyms:	move, slide, slip, be displaced
   "the cargo has shifted"

Thanks. Smarty9108 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for this request. I have never seen the verb "shifted" used in the context of "Person X shifted to City B" in all my years of using English, and I can't understand how doing it here would improve the article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 08:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hatting

The off-topic, personal comments between two editors in the above RfC have been hatted and need to stay that way or be removed altogether according to WP:TPG. See above which reads, "This is not a forum for general discussion about Taylor Swift. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The comment on using images from her website is fine in a discussion on images; the others can stay hatted. -- Calidum 23:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Then that's what you should have done all along, rather than edit warring and being disruptive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015

Please change that she is single because she is not, now she is dating Calvin Harris. Labiba Rahman (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You must cite a reliable source for this claim. Otherwise, it will be a violation of WP:BLP. IPadPerson (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore "dating" does not stop someone being "single". - Arjayay (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

???—♥ Kelvinsong talk 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

last I checked neither of them have confirmed yet. && even if it was, it’d have to last a while before I’d consider it notable enough—♥ Kelvinsong talk 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Reasoning, please?

WordSeventeen, please explain the reasoning for your reversion of the edits made earlier so we can discuss. You gave no explanation in your edit summary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Family subsection

I fail to see why the content in this section is necessary in a biography about Swift. Typically, a "Family" section or subsection is about an article subject's spouse, children - not about them buying a house for their parents, where their brother goes to school and lives, and the health conditions of their parents. From what I can see, the subsection basically amounts for fan-cruft. Reminder: Wikipedia is not a fan-site. I would like to see the subsection removed as WP:UNDUE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of two minds about it. It really depends on the level of fame of the article subject. Since Swift's level of fame is very great, there is some reason to have more adult/ongoing family-of-origin information in the article than is the usual case (after all, some family-of-origin members of some very famous people have got wiki articles simply because of that relationship). In this particular case, the only part that I personally think is de trop (and should be removed) is ", however they would like to encourage other parents to go to the doctor and get regular checkups to help aid in early diagnosis". Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the fate of this subsection, the cancer warning content can be removed now and I have done so. Thank you Softlavender. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and editing on the article, Softlavender and Soulparadox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on April 19 2015

Please change

Her father is a Merrill Lynch financial adviser and

with

Her father is a Merrill Lynch financial adviser.

for ending a sentence. Vitez Hirald (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done albeit I have made a slightly different change - changing "financial adviser and Her mother" to financial adviser, while her mother" to avoid very short sentence, or using a comma before an "and". - Arjayay (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Detail about family in Early Life section

Three sentences have been removed from the Early Life section by Winklevi. The sentences are: "Scott Swift was raised in Pennsylvania, and is the descendant of three generations of bank presidents ... Swift's mother, though American, spent the first 10 years of her life in Singapore, before returning to the U.S. and settling in Texas. Her own father was an engineer who worked throughout southeast Asia."

Both sentences offer context to Taylor Swift's early life. Her parents were born into wealthy families and were not 'self-made'. The above facts have been considered notable in many Swift articles, including this one in The New Yorker. The discussion of her grandfather's work in Singapore also helps explain how her grandmother came to perform there (as mentioned in the Influences section). Also, the mention of the states in which her parents were raised adds to the country/not country debate that surrounds Taylor - her mother was partly raised in the South. Popeye191 (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed them because they have more to do with the parents of the article subject than with the article subject. The events occured prior to Swift's birth. What I see you suggesting above, Popeye191 is that the content provides a form of WP:SYNTH. As far as the "debate", where ones parents or grandparents were raised really means nothing in terms of legitimacy behind the music they perform. Wikipedia's job isn't to quell a debate amongst those in the music world or her fans. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally support replacing the material. To my mind it is interesting, relevant, and cited from prominent reliable sources, and adds value to the article on a major very famous celebrity. If this were a FA (which requires comprehensiveness and thoroughness), this information would be kept. I personally see no reason to omit it now, since this is a lengthy article about a very prominent person. I would however keep "her own father was an engineer ...." in the same sentence with the previous sentence about Taylor's mother (with a semi-colon); otherwise, it's confusing exactly whose father is being discussed, plus it doesn't really merit being its own sentence. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, you say that the content adds value to the article - how so? You also say that if this were an FA, the content would be kept - based on what criteria and Wikipedia policy? BLPs are to be about the article subject and any content contained therein is meant to help the reader better understand the article subject. Exactly how, in your opinion, does this content help the reader better understand Taylor Swift when the content being discussed isn't about Taylor Swift, but about her parents? Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to understand your argument for the content as such an argument relates to Wikipedia policy and guidelines for BLPs. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The content under discussion relates to Taylor Swift's grandparents. If it's acceptable to discuss public figures' ancestery on Wikipedia, two sentences outlining the (unusual) careers of her grandparents doesn't seem excessive. Winklevi feels the sentences are a form of WP:SYNTH - there are sources including The New Yorker who discuss the wealth of her family. I can include a quote that explicitly references wealth from one of these sources in the text if that would help? This information absolutely relates to Taylor's career and how she came to make it as a musician. She had a comfortable early life and came from old money on her father's side of the family. It's relevant - her family had the resources to send her to Broadway for music lessons, move to Nashville, buy a share of her record label etc Popeye191 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

While I didn't ask you for an explanation (you already explained why you think the edits should remain), I will respond nonetheless. Your explanation above for keeping some of the content was: "Both sentences offer context to Taylor Swift's early life. Her parents were born into wealthy families and were not 'self-made'. The above facts have been considered notable in many Swift articles, including this one in The New Yorker." Her parents' families' wealth doesn't have any bearing on Swift herself. By including it for the reasons you described, you are asking readers to draw conclusions about Swift's upbringing. That does fall into the WP:SYNTH category in the following manner: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. (1) Because I'm not one to reach conclusions via assumption, I fail to see how this content regarding her parents' upbringing has any relation to how Swift was raised (as you suggest it would); (2) You are asking readers to make a judgement based on connecting A+B to = C. That's SYNTH. If a source said something along the lines of "Taylor Swift's grandparents' wealth was distributed to her parents and allowed them to give Swift a more privileged childhood", that would bring a direct correlation between her upbringing and her grandparents' wealth. But I don't see that in those sources. Do you? If so, where is it? (because I missed it). Her parents both had careers that paid pretty well - why couldn't that have helped pave her way into show business? I just don't think you can draw conclusions based on something not specifically addressed in a source - and Wikipedia guidelines say it's not appropriate, either. And, by the way, the link you provided doesn't work - can't verify anything from it. I still would like to hear from Softlavender. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• To Winkelvi -- my reasoning was already thoroughly detailed in my post; you may re-read it if you like. If you don't agree, you don't agree. I don't intend to further prolong this discussion, which is simply to establish what the consensus is. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace

The extant Reading Eagle citation DID NOT support the claim that she was born in West Reading. The newspaper article only calls her a Wyomissing native, which could mean born or raised there — although if she were born in West Reading, the Reading Eagle would have said so. And AllMusic.com specifically gives her birth place as Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. We cannot make uncited / non-reliably sourced claims of where she was born. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As does Biography.com. Adding that cite. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Stone and TV Guide both say she was born in Reading. Obviously, there is some discrepancy even with reliable sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wording has been rewritten to reflect that sources vary on where she was born, and the Rolling Stone reference added. One reference attached to the birthplace content said nothing about where she was born, it was removed. The allmusic.com reference states Reading, not Wyomissing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, AllMusic, to its shame, says both: The prose reads, "Swift was born in Reading, Pennsylvania...." while the infobox says, "Born December 13, 1989 in Wyomissing, PA." As you note, "sources vary" is indeed the best way to put it. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Change back to Reading

In my opinion, we should not consider reliable sources when they are clearly wrong. Swift said, on her official site: "I was born in Reading, Pennsylvania on December 13, 1989." She said the same thing in her official Twitter" and Facebook accounts. See also Readingeagle, Vanityfair and Vogue. What do you think? (Tenebrae, Winkelvi). דיידרים (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't know if Swift put that on her site even though it's written in first person, it's a primary source, we don't accept Facebook as a reliable source. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and reliable sources vary as to where she was born. Just as it already states in the article, דיידרים. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Which image for the infobox is best?

The following discussion 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.

---

Of the three listed below, which is the best image of Taylor Swift for the infobox?

1. image 1
2. image 2
3. image 3

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• #2 as nom. I believe it is the cleanest, most professional looking and depicts Swift most succinctly as a performer, entertainer, musician, singer, and songwriter - showing relevance to her career thus far. #3 is too dated, #1 is just a closeup that doesn't represent who she is completely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• #1. I believe it is the cleanest, closest (with Swift's eyes open), also with a mic. The mic fulfils the purpose for performing, Swift looks like how she looks today, and it best identifies the person as the most recent image, which is the only purpose of infobox images. MaRAno ^FAN 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Most recent image" is not the purpose of infobox images and is not in line with MOS for infoboxes. I challenge you to find policy speaking specifically to what you are claiming, MaranoFan. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Further, MaranoFan, you need to remove "as nom" from your comments above. You were not the person who started the RfC. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The most recent image doesn't matter, as far as I know, it's mostly about quality and representation. And none of these images is how Taylor Swift appears today, as her hair is shorter now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Looking at image 2, it's clear Swift has writing on her left arm. Since this isn't a tattoo or a regular thing for her, we really can't use the image. -- Calidum 03:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What does writing on her arm have to do with whether or not we can use the photo? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Winkelvi. Why would the writing matter? It's still a good photo. I love 1, but I'll take the one with the "13" on her hand as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing. Consensus is clearly for

!!! The writings are called arm lyrics. Often on tour when she performs songs live she’ll change some of the lyrics based on her mood that day. They are an important part of her character. The 13 is a good luck charm (her mom used to draw it on her hand every time she went out to perform I think); 13 is her lucky number. 13 is integral to swifties lol.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Number 1. As indicated it's more recent than number 2 and number 3 is too blurry to use. While there is no policy that says we must use the most recent image, common sense says we use more recent images of living persons. As MaranoFan noted, image 1 also clearly shows her singing into a microphone, so it shows she is a performer. -- Calidum 04:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd think that an image for a popular artist should showcase them as they look either now, or at the height of their popularity. An image that clearly identifies the subject. I definitely agree that #3 is too blurry. But I'd say the same thing about #1, although weaker. #1 isn't as bad, but #3 is clearly blurry. I don't know about these things, but don't singers have promotional images that we can freely use? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, not sure what you mean by promotional images, but what I'm guessing is, those wouldn't really have the correct license to have the image on here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Prasad, yeah, that's what I'm talking about. "Official" images off her Web site for use by... um... wikipedia? You're probably right, it probably doesn't exist. But I'm at work and am more comfortable on Wikipedia's site than on Taylor Swift's for the present. I may check later, or someone else can. J♯m (talk | contribs) 05:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hatting off topic discussion per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK - Do not modify -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah, I get you, don't wanna be made fun of, Jsharpminor. I used to care of what others thought about me, sometimes still do, but me being a 16 year old male Taylor Swift fan, I don't care, I'll go on her site, playing her Baby Taylor guitar signed by her at my school for all I care. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Um, no, it has more to do with filtering and tracking software, and a desire to not be fired. If I cared what people thought, I wouldn't be editing this page. ;-) J♯m (talk | contribs) 06:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, yeah, well, I'm pretty sure that they track my school computer and school-given chromebook activities, I'm surprised they haven't done anything. Might I ask why you're on Wikipedia at work anyway? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) At some jobs there is literally nothing to do for hours on end. It sounds fun, but gets old fast. (If I'm gonna be stuck wasting my life here, couldn't I accomplish something while doing it?) Some jobs don't even care if you browse Wikipedia, but there are links from Wikipedia... and pages on Wikipedia, come to think of it... that can get you fired. J♯m (talk | contribs) 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• #1 - This article could use a close-up picture of her. There are already 8 images of her in this article "performing", which are more than enough to satisfy the criteria of - "who she is completely". Isaidnoway (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that #1 is the best choice. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• #2 for reasons I already explained in the “Image” section.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Calidum & @User:Winkelvi can y'all stop edit warring and shuffling my comment back and forth?! people like you are the reason taylor left tumblr OMG...—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• #2 Its nice and clear. It also shows she is not just a singer, but does play and instrument. AlbinoFerret 23:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• #2. I agree with the above rationale. It's clear and crisp. The other images don't look as good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing - Consensus is clearly for #2. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 9 April 2015 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2015

Please remove the sentence about Calvin Harris. "It is widely reported", does not mean they are dating, they could just be good friends, neither have confirmed it yet, regardless, it is not notable.

104.161.12.148 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the "Wealth" section really even needed?

I've never seen this sort of section on any decent entertainment BLP article on Wikipedia. In my view, it should be deleted as irrelevant. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon. Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson (yes I realize he's not a living person) both have similar sections. Those articles are FAs. Calidum T|C 12:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a "Wealth" section on Paul McCartney. I do see one ("Earnings and wealth") on Michael Jackson, but it's several paragraphs long and also has a subheading and a chart. Plus Michael Jackson was the most successful entertainer in the history of the world. Taylor Swift is just a 25-year-old singer, and the "Wealth" section here is just one sentence long, which already violates WP:MOS. Personally, I think it should be removed unless there's some very good reason put forth for it to stay, and also unless the section is expanded to become at least a paragraph or two. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if other stuff like it exists in Wikipedia, it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, in my opinion. As you pointed out, Softlavender, Jackson was the wealthiest entertainer in the world, so the section is germane. In this article, it really provides nothing encyclopedic and doesn't help the reader better understand the article subject (something a BLP content is supposed to do). I think it should go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Winkelvi and Softlavender, the wealth section is irrelevant, and is not encyclopedic in nature. I think it should be removed as well. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• OK, per the current consensus, I've removed the section, at least for now. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that wealth is relevant and germane to this article. Swift is one of the most successful artists in our generation. I'm sorry Softlavender, but "I've never seen this sort of section on any decent entertainment BLP article on Wikipedia" is an other stuff like it exists in Wikipedia argument. This argument might be valid, but you can't use it when so many articles on Wikipedia have this content in one way or another. Paul McCartney has this information under the Business section. See Beyonce (Net worth), Dr. Dre (Income), Katy Perry (article's body) are all GA and FA. The point is that the name of the section is not important, change it if you want. Swift was included many time in Forbes' 10 Highest-Paid Women In Music list: #2 in 2011, #2 in 2012, #3 in 2013 and #2 in 2014. She topped Billboard's money makers list and Forbes' Highest-Paid Celebrities Under 30 list in 2012. These are achievements we should not ignore of. 213.57.109.191 (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Want to be taken seriously anon IP? Sign in using your real account (if you're not blocked for some reason) and stop hiding behind a proxy server IP address. No way you are that familiar with policy/essays and only have three recent edits (including this talk page). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm a bit offended, I'll take it as a compliment. I simply read the policy you linked to. I also read other policies such as Wikipedia:IPs are human too, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And regarding your concern about me being blocked, well, I'm not. It happens that you edit when you're logged off. 213.57.109.191 (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts

Am I the only one who feels the associated acts section in the infobox could use a cleanup. The relevant template says not to include one-time collaborators. That would mean Kendrick Lamar should go, and there are probably others that should as well. Calidum T|C 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deleting the whole thing. Swift's fame and significance rests on her own work, not on occasional collaborations or co-performances. Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the whole thing needs to go as per Softlavender. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Softlavender too. 213.57.109.191 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean Jack Antonoff And Ed Sheeran should definitely be noted at Associated Acts. Taylor is one of the only solo acts not to have this list. Also I had no idea this page existed sorry.Finaltwo (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack Antonoff is only a songwriter and producer (in Taylor's case) which means nothing around these parts and one time collaborators unfortunately do not count so there is no person who would qualify unless they collaborate with Taylor more then once, Finaltwo. GuzzyG (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean Jack Antonoff would be a collaborator as he help produce/write four songs and two separate occasions. Jack is his own act as the looks of fun. Is just about over. As well as Ed even through they've only ever had one song together, their careers are so intertwined with each other. With them constantly performing with each other. I mean Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and even Ed has this list. Why doesn't Taylor? She didn't get to the top solo. Finaltwo (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

I think there should be a more current photo as the main article photo. Like these ones? 1989 World Tour, Bossier City, May 20 http://taylorpictures.net/albums/concerts/2015/1989tour/bossiercity/normal_018.JPG

1989 World Tour, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 22 http://taylorpictures.net/albums/concerts/2015/1989tour/batonrouge/normal_041.JPG http://taylorpictures.net/albums/concerts/2015/1989tour/batonrouge/normal_044.JPG http://taylorpictures.net/albums/concerts/2015/1989tour/batonrouge/normal_045.JPG

(I love Taylor and I'm very picky haha)

203.97.108.86 (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Those photos are all copyrighted (note the watermark) so we can't use them. Calidum T|C 02:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life - Friends

Should her friendships be listed in her personal life. I mean you have relationships, residents and politics listed and Taylor's friends are starting to become famous for being her friends. Jaime King is naming her the God Mother to he child and friends that range from Lily Aldridge to Gracie Gold. I mean if Joe Jonas and Harry Styles is mentioned so should some of her friends. Thoughts?Finaltwo (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTINHERITED as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Put what you learn from all three into mind and you should understand why the answer is: No. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Calvin Harris

Is a three month relationship worth noting? Just wondering. -- 76.14.125.113 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2015

Product Endorsement -Taylor Swift is no longer with Spotify!!!

Thewisestwizard (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Should Swift be listed as a feminist?

Swift identifies as a feminist. Should we then add her to the categories "Feminist musicians" and "American feminists"? My stance on the subject is that, in the words of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, "Whoever says they’re feminist is [a] feminist." A user named Softlavender disagrees. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

If reliable, unbiased sources do not identify her as a feminist, then we really can't attach the label to her, either. The threshold of inclusion is verifiability over truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple: The Independent and The Guardian, the latter calling her a "feminist role model." She recently called feminism "the most important movement" she could embrace [1]. Calidum T|C 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Swift refers to herself as a feminist in this article: The Huffington Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

Swift referring to herself as a feminist is a primary source - not enough for inclusion. The two publications/websites provided by Calidum are secondary, reliable sources. Those are enough for supported inclusion. That said, her feminist label should be in the article and supported by those references for the category to be added. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I added Swift to the aforementioned categories and used the aforementioned two sources as sources. Thanks for the input! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

Great work team! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't automatically exclude primary sources. Please refer to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Nyth63 12:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)