Talk:Taylor Swift

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

TS7

On April 13, 2019, Swift announced the first single from her seventh album would premiere on April 26.https://www.taylorswift.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8300:1475:D84F:639B:8000:29C4 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The countdown could be the implication of a new release, but that would simply be interpretating it. Let's wait for an official announcement. FrB.TG (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

Add to the end of the "2017-reputation" section, given that she just initiated a countdown to her next album:

On April 13, 2019, Taylor Swift updated her website and social media accounts with a countdown leading to April 26th, sparking speculation about an impending lead single for a seventh studio album.

Here is a source: https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8506993/taylor-swift-countdown-clock-april-26 Here is a second: https://people.com/music/taylor-swift-drops-huge-hint-new-music-countdown/ 69.148.46.59 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See #TS7 — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

i think this would be important to add once we actually know what the countdown is for. it could be written as, "On April 13, 2019, Swift updated her website and social media accounts with a countdown to April 26. On the 26th, she announced single/album" etc. Melodies1917 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the leading contemporary recording artists

Some editors pointed out that this type of wording is Puffery. I understand that Taylor is indeed one of the biggest, if not the biggest, pop star right now, but I don't think including this in the lead is a good way to start the article, especially when the same thing can be said to a dozen of other artists. Any comment on this? HĐ (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if it's sourced, like in Kendrick Lamar or Eminem. For what it's worth I looked around at a few pages of female artists (e.g. Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Adele), and most of them don't have a sentence like what your brought up. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't rely on WP:OTHERSTUFF; that was not I talked about. What I meant was that the claim "one of the leading contemporary artists" can be said of a dozen of artists, not just one, so it's under the question whether it should really be included in the lead or not. And the two articles you brought up are not of upper-tier quality either. The Puffery link I included also indicates that instead of umbrella praising, facts and figures should be included instead. HĐ (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Right now I'm leaning to weak delete unless it can be sourced properly, like for instance "According to [reliable source], Swift is one of the leading..." Otherwise, I suggest changing it to something more objective and verifiable, like "A multi-Grammy award winner, Swift is known for narrative songs..." Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim can be sourced properly very easily (cue Forbes or Billboard) but it won't help the issue I brought up. I think the whole sentence can be cut down so that the lead can be structured with only three paragraphs. HĐ (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed. Statements that try and oversell an artist is what constitutes puffery, which is not the case here. The statement has been properly sourced, and if such sources exist for "a dozen other artists", then it should be mentioned for them as well. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Really, I'm ambivalent. It's a bit of a "nothing" of a statement in that "leading" is fairly undefined, so that what one has to do to become "one of" them is rather unclear. I think my old English teacher, way back in the day, would probably have put a red line through it and written "filler - elaborate or omit" in the margin, but she could be quite harsh. I suppose what I'm saying is I don't see a pressing need to remove it but I'd prefer us to say something more "tangible". -- Begoon 07:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Begoon; statements like this, though not necessarily oversell an artist, are very ambivalent and contain zero information -- a thing Wikipedia should avoid. That's not to mention the phrasing "one of the leading contemporary artists" is suitable for lightweight newspapers but not for an encyclopedia. Probably replace it with more concrete facts (or "tangible" like Begoon says), like "Noted for narrative songs about her personal life..." or "Having sold xx million records, she is one of the best-selling artists worldwide"? HĐ (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, that's the kind of thing I had in mind. Something notable, tangible, and sourced in the body of the article. Be careful with xx million records type statements because they date easily, and might require constant updating. I like "Noted for narrative songs about her personal life", and, maybe a mention of her musical style(s) would be good. "Grammy award winner" is ok too, but we should steer clear of making the whole thing too "gushing" if you know what I mean... -- Begoon 10:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

    • If possible I want to have some comments from FrB.TG, one of the main contributors to the article. HĐ (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Its accurate and it conveys that Swift is more popular/ bigger selling than most of her contemporaries at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's just blatant peacocking. HĐ (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not puffery or peacocking if it's a fact. And the fact is that Swift is indeed one of if not the leading artists - millions of record sales, Person of the Year, Time 100, hundreds of accolades, more than a decade of career. It should stay in my opinion. FrB.TG (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: As I noted above the phrasing conveys little fact that needs to be known. She is indeed a megastar, but what Wikipedia should do is to let readers know how influential she is by citing facts (like what you did with multiple articles i.e. Scarlett Johansson or Emma Stone), instead of blanketing it with the wording "one of the leading contemporary artists". If that doesn't make the article look good, I suggest we could cut the whole thing and make the lead three paragraphs. HĐ (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think an alternative to this whole spheal is, instead of stating something that is open to interpretations, we cite her record sales/link to best selling artists and say something along the lines of "One of the best selling artists of all time", etc. Jezebelle 16:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Change Taylor’s photo

Can we change the current photo of Taylor? It looks creepy. We can use this one instead https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Taylor_Swift_Reputation_Tour31.jpg Annaoue (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, it gives her the “I’m taking over the world” vibe she’s going after. Willueverwin (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the current 2019 iHeartRadio awards pic to the one proposed by Annaoue, mostly for clarity of subject. Elfabet (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In the image suggested by Annaoue she looks like a singer, a performer. Oh yeah, that's what she is. In the current image she looks like a -- what? A poser? A sugar baby? The pretty girl next door? Let's show her as she appears to millions who have seen her shows. Moriori (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

{{subst:trim|1=

"Later on in mid 2019, Taylor swift released two new songs; ME! Featuring Brandon Urie of Panic At The Disco! And You Need To Calm Down which made their way on the Billboard Hot 100."

 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. Danski454 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)