Talk:Taylor Swift

Did you know nomination

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

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

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that fans consider track 5 on a Taylor Swift album to be special? Source: "a pattern started to emerge of track five denoting the moment on each of her albums where Taylor really, fully gets cathartic ... there is a certain vulnerability that comes with a Taylor Swift track five, and there is always a heightened level of anticipation for what these songs will hold." ([1])

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 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)

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)[2]. 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), [3]. Rihanna has 53k [4], Beyonce has 24k [5], Adele has 67k [6], Lady Gaga has 176k [7], Madonna has 23k [8]; 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. [9]. 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 [10] and Bangladesh [11]. 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)

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)