Talk:1989 (album)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

ALBUM SALES FEBRUARY 2016 = 5.7 MILLION

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/grammys/6867207/taylor-swift-1989-grammy-album-of-the-year-spotlight

Add timestamp. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 February 2015

In the third paragraph of the article I believe there should be a footnote to the sentence "The total U.S. sales figure from the debut week of 1989 was the highest since 2002, and made Swift the first artist to sell one million or more copies of an album in a week-long period for three albums". The added piece of information should be, "The 1989 album was so grand that it made up 22% of the entire 5.8 million total albums sold in the market for the week".

I believe this added piece of information is needed because it gives viewers a better picture of just how well her album sold in comparison to others. The specific data of her making up 22% of the album market is a huge deal that should be noticed. People will comprehend that she has increase sales figures since, like in 2002, but the footnotes gives a better idea of what those specific numbers look like. Lily Middleton (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"The 1989 album was so grand" is NOT a neutral statement. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 24 February 2015

The album has now sold over 510,000 in the UK.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2015

Sylvesterr (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Taylor swift sales for 1989 is 8.6 million so far!

Sylvesterr (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2015

Another iTunes exclusive single was released today in the US, "You Are in Love". It should be added to the singles box. 190.195.13.110 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"You Are in Love" is not a single, only "Wonderland" is. If it is a single released on its own, usually on iTunes, the word "Single" would be added after the song name and a dash. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, still doesn't make it a single, for example, if I see "Bitchcraft (Caravan Palace Remix) - Single" It does not appear in very many sources, and was only called a remix, so I stuck it in promo singles. Not sure if "Wonderland" was released to radio. "You are in Love" hasnot as far as I know, if so, find a better source. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are in Love is being released in the same way Wonderland was. New Romantics comes out next week i think—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The bonus tracks from Speak Now were released on Itunes just as these are, and they were not released as singles. An official single is only a single if it is being released to radio, which these are not. "Wonderland" should be removed and no others should be added until another track is released to radio. (Cajalden (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

actually Ours was, and Wonderland was released after fan pressure to “pull an Ours” and make it a single—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Quote Missing Closing Marks

A quote is missing its closing marks. It should read, "Send me that track." The closing marks are missing from that quote.—BDE1982 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Said closing marks were added by me after the protection level expired.—BDE1982 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 February 2015

The bonus tracks from the physical album is already available for purchase in the iTunes store but it is not an "official" single. Shake It Off, Blank Space and Style are the only released singles from 1989. I believe there has been a misinterpretation on that part. Please make sure to correct the article as soon as possible. Thank you! Mat 1997 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Mat 1997 (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done As explained, "Wonderland" is a single since it is released as a separate purchase from the album. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

IndianBio, but "Welcome to New York" and "Out of the Woods" were released separately as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Superman" and "If This Was a Movie" were released as separate purchases (with the " — Single" suffix on the name on iTunes) in the same way from Speak Now. (see below) If "Wonderland" isn't being released to radio or promoted in any other way, what makes that song a "single" while those two were determined to just be album tracks? Songsteel (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• "iTunes — Music — If This Was a Movie — Single by Taylor Swift". Itunes.apple.com. November 8, 2011. Retrieved November 16, 2011.
• "iTunes — Music — Superman — Single by Taylor Swift". Itunes.apple.com. November 8, 2011. Retrieved November 16, 2011.

Actually wtny and ootw were album-only, if I recall correctly you had to preorder the album to get them—♥ Kelvinsong talk 20:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kelvinsong is right, you had to pre-order the album to get "Out of the Woods", as well as "Welcome to New York" automatically, but you can buy it separately from the album. However, it was not just released as one track under one album. It is released together with the album but not together with the other tracks that were only revealed at a later date. This Taylor Swift fan knows everything, bye. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Polish Chart Comment

Please change album position in Poland. 1989 is #17 in Polish Chart: http://olis.onyx.pl/listy/index.asp?idlisty=922&lang= Mihelpl (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 February 2015

In reference 44 (What If Taylor Swift's 'Style' Music Video Was Actually for 'Wildest Dreams'? (VIDEO)) within the Songs section, please change the date parameter to date=13 February 2015, which is a valid date format that matches the format of the accessdate parameter. kennethaw88 • talk 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Now the "1"s are done. kennethaw88 • talk 23:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1989 iTunes Singles

I have a question here that I find strange. Why is "You Are in Love" that only one not credited as a single in iTunes? here here here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I know, I am thinking that Taylor Swift takes promotional singles as a single too, therefore the "-Single" suffix. This actually means, as you can see on the aforementioned conversations, that "Wonderland" and "New Romantics" might be promotional singles (as they are obviously not singles), and she did the same to Speak Now 5 or 4 years ago, and strangely, Red did not have such marketing strategies. The one problem is that "Superman" and "If This Was a Movie" are NOT promotional singles or singles, but yet they are still credited as singles. Perhaps it is just a typo error, Taylor makes typo errors quite frequently, I must admit. I should create a Tumblr account and ask Taylor everytime such shit occurs. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I could ask her on Twitter, but with Social Media, no guarantee of an answer. And artists type these in themselves? So, what makes a single a single? Let's use an example, not a Taylor Swift song, but would this count as a single? Or promotional? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: I don't know, music is very complicated. And Taylor don't reply on Twitter, she only replies on Tumblr and like photos on Instagram. ~~

Actually no. I have been responded to. On both Twitter and Facebook, -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Spotify

Why is there no discussion in this article about Swift's decision to not include this album on Spotify? Much was made about this in the media and it certainly warrants inclusion. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 18:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember adding it once, but surprisingly can't find it now. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Canadian certification

For some reason, no certification for 1989 exists on Music Canada's site, yet according to the Billboard article the album has sold 314,000+ units. Given that the threshold for Platinum certification through MC is 80,000 the album should be 3× Platinum (314,000/80,000 and round down) and possibly 4× if it has sold at least 6,000 more copies in 2015. If we take the sales amount as verified due to coming from the reputable source of Billboard (who got their numbers from Nielsen SoundScan if memory serves), would it be fair to list 3× Platinum be as the certification level in Canada with a footnote indicating that this certification is derived from the sales amount rather than a direct Music Canada source? Songsteel (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Certifications are not automatically generated and music labels need to apply for it. BMR needs to apply to Music Canada who will audit and provide the certifications for the amount of album shipped to retailers. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! Songsteel (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

"Bad Blood" is not the next single. Source is not reliable, and it says next music video, not single. 104.161.12.144 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Done From what I can tell, it seems rumored that it will be the next single but per this, it seems "Bad Blood"'s status as a single has not yet been confirmed Cannolis (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

India

Please add that the album reached 3x platinum in India! Source: http://www.radioandmusic.com/entertainment/editorial/press-releases/151110-taylor-swifts-1989-becomes-highe

--46.243.80.129 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, can you provide a source from IMI? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Awards and accolades

Taylor Swift, 1989 and its singles has been a album with so much awards and accolades in the past year, including eight awards at the 2015 Billboard Music Awards, four at the 2015 MTV Video Music Awards, three at the American Music Awards of 2015 and the 2nd iHeartRadio Music Awards, with Swift becoming to be the most awarded in all of these awards. She also has won two awards at the 2015 MTV Europe Music Awards, three awards at the 41st People's Choice Awards (being the most awarded music act), four awards at the 2015 Teen Choice Awards and an award at the 2015 YouTube Music Awards and the 2015 Radio Disney Music Awards. Swift also won the International Female Solo Artist on 2015 Brit Awards and was nominated for seven awards, including Album of the Year and Song of the Year for the third time and Record of the Year for the fourth time.

When it comes to accolades, she received the Dick Clark Award for Excellence on the 2014 AMAs, was given her first Emmy Award for Original Interactive Program for the Blank Space "American Express Unstaged: Taylor Swift Experience" app, was included in the Guinness Book for "Most Million-Selling Weeks on the U.S. Albums Chart with Three Consecutive Albums", and received her third nomination for "Album of the Year" (folling her 2010 victory) at the Grammys.

I think that, even if the era isn't over by now, the 1989 era has enough material to put a "Awards and Accolades" section on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.188.146.160 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion IP user. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that 1989 has received so many awards and accolades, a table (like the one I'm providing below) may be added to the awards section. By distributing the awards by organization, it will make it more organized and easier to see which awards and nominations the album received at each award show. --152.168.120.35 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Year	Award	Category	Recipient	Result	Ref.
2014	American Music Awards	Dick Clark Award for Excellence	Taylor Swift	Won
	Guinness World Records	Most Million-Selling Weeks on the U.S. Albums Chart with Three Consecutive Albums		Won
2015	American Music Awards	Artist of the Year		Nominated
		Favorite Pop/Rock Female Artist		Nominated
		Favorite Adult Contemporary Artist		Won
		Favorite Pop/Rock Album	1989	Won
		Song of the Year	"Blank Space"	Won
		Collaboration of the Year	"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar)	Nominated
	Billboard Music Awards	Top Artist	Taylor Swift	Won
		Top Female Artist		Won
		Top Billboard 200 Artist		Won
		Top Hot 100 Artist		Won
		Top Radio Songs Artist		Nominated
		Top Digital Songs Artist		Won
		Top Social Artist		Nominated
		Top Streaming Artist		Nominated
		Billboard Chart Achievement Award		Won
		Top Billboard 200 Album	1989	Won
		Top Hot 100 Song	"Shake It Off"	Nominated
		Top Digital Song		Nominated
		Top Streaming Song (Video)		Won
			"Blank Space"	Nominated
	Brit Awards	International Female Solo Artist	Taylor Swift	Won
	Emmy Awards	Outstanding Original Interactive Program	AMEX Unstaged: Taylor Swift Experience	Won
	Grammy Awards	Record of the Year	"Shake It Off"	Nominated
		Song of the Year		Nominated
		Best Pop Solo Performance		Nominated
	iHeartRadio Music Awards	Artist of the Year	Taylor Swift	Won
		Song of the Year	"Shake It Off"	Won
		Best Lyrics	"Blank Space"	Won
		Best Fan Army	Swifties	Nominated
	Kids' Choice Awards	Favorite Female Singer	Taylor Swift	Nominated
		Favorite Song of the Year	"Shake It Off"	Nominated
	MTV Europe Music Awards	Best Song	"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar)	Won
		Best Video		Nominated
		Best Collaboration		Nominated
		Best Female	Taylor Swift	Nominated
		Best Pop		Nominated
		Best Live Act		Nominated
		Best Look		Nominated
		Best US Act		Won
		Best North American Act		Nominated
		Biggest Fans	Swifties	Nominated
	MTV Video Music Awards	Video of the Year	"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar)	Won
		Best Collaboration		Won
		Best Art Direction		Nominated
		Best Cinematography		Nominated
		Best Direction		Nominated
		Best Editing		Nominated
		Best Visual Effects		Nominated
		Song of Summer		Nominated
		Best Female Video	"Blank Space"	Won
		Best Pop Video		Won
	People's Choice Awards	Favorite Female Artist	Taylor Swift	Won
		Favorite Pop Artist		Won
		Favorite Song	"Shake It Off"	Won
	Radio Disney Music Awards	Best Female Artist	Taylor Swift	Nominated
		Radio Disney's Most Talked About Artist		Nominated
		Song of the Year	"Shake It Off"	Nominated
		Best Song to Dance To		Won
	Teen Choice Awards	Choice Music: Female Artist	Taylor Swift	Nominated
		Choice Summer Music Star: Female		Won
		Choice Music Single: Female	"Shake It Off"	Nominated
		Choice Music: Break-Up Song	"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar)	Won
		Choice Summer Song		Nominated
		Choice Music: Collaboration		Won
Choice Music: Party Song		"Blank Space"	Nominated
Choice Summer Tour		The 1989 World Tour	Nominated
YouTube Music Awards	50 Artists to Watch	Taylor Swift	Won
2016	Grammy Awards	Album of the Year	1989	Won
		Best Pop Vocal Album		Won
		Record of the Year	"Blank Space"	Nominated
		Song of the Year		Nominated
		Best Pop Solo Performance		Nominated
		Best Pop Duo/Group Performance	"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar)	Nominated
		Best Music Video		Won
	iHeartRadio Music Awards	Female Artist of the Year	Taylor Swift	Pending
		Best Tour		Pending
		Album of the Year	1989	Pending
		Song of the Year	"Blank Space"	Pending
		Best Collaboration	"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar)	Pending
		Most Meme-able Moment	Taylor Swift's "Crazy Girl" with Running Mascara	Pending
		Best Fan Army	Swifties	Pending
	Kids' Choice Awards	Favorite Female Singer	Taylor Swift	Pending
		Favorite Song of the Year	"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar)	Pending
		Favorite Collaboration		Pending

References

Out of the Woods Single Release Date

So how many sources are we waiting for before confirming Dec 31 2015 as the release date? Andrewc248 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a video, not single release. Two different things. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

But everyone is reporting it as a single, so per my question what are we looking for to specifically say this will be the single release date? Andrewc248 (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We are looking for a source saying when the song is released to radio, Andrewc248. It doesn't matter if it's reported as a single, we know that. We don't know when it was officially released as a single. Even a Facebook post or Twitter tweet from Taylor herself would help. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Austria

Please add that the album reached 2x platinum in Austria source. Thanks! --94.16.73.212 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ireland

Please add that 1989 is 2015's 7th best-selling album in Ireland source! --94.16.64.102 (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added both for 2015 and 2014. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(Mainland) China

Hey, Taylor's album 1989 had got 5 Platinum Certification (100,000 copies) in China!
[Source] from Universal Music China WeChat account.
[Source] from Universal Music China Weibo.
--Judieant (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

None of which we can consider since its from a record label and not from the official certifying body. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In China, State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) is the certifying body under IFPI's authority. As far as I know, SARFT won't announced record certification directly under normal circumstances. In general, the record certifications are announced and given by record labels.--Judieant (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Then that's of no use because Wikipedia does not go by record label's word of mouth regarding sales and certifications. They are prone to inflation and false data. —IB <>[ Poke ] 16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Besides, Taylor had announced on The 1989 Tour in Shanghai in the second source's Weibo Video.--Judieant (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1989 (Taylor Swift album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117022847/http://gawker.com/5965470/who-has-taylor-swift-dated-a-brief-history-of-all-the-men-in-the-universe to http://gawker.com/5965470/who-has-taylor-swift-dated-a-brief-history-of-all-the-men-in-the-universe
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.gr/charts_en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://centrodedesarrollodigital.com/amprofonanual/100.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centrodedesarrollodigital.com/amprofonanual/100.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2016

69.125.219.77 (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Add in Wonderland (Taylor Swift Song) to single 9

@69.125.219.77: Do you mean in the track listing? It's already listed. Just make sure you expand the deluxe edition tables. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 05:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland

Looking at 1989's chart run in Switzerland, it is very likely to assume that it's at least eligible for platinum, which is going to be announced one day for sure. What we already know as of now is that it received gold (as is written correctly), which, however, indicates (at least) 10k copies sold according to the year of release, not 15k! Please change that to have it correct that way until the certification is updated by the official database!

--94.46.65.38 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, the 10,000 is for domestic releases, its higher in the International. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do your job correctly! It is 10k for non-French/non-Italian releases and 7.5k for French/Italian releases source! --94.46.86.58 (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada

Please add that 1989 is Canada's No. 17 album of 2016 source! --94.46.86.58 (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

Aubreeprincess (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I need to edit the accolades

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Australia

Please add:

Decade-end charts

Chart (2010–2019)	Position
Australian Albums (ARIA)	8

--2A02:B98:473F:1434:E91F:9469:6A99:1D9D (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Certification

I wanted to add another Brazilian certification (for the physical album), but every source for the certifications have this "(Country)TaylorSwift1989Cert" note — none of them, however, actually have this note in the box editing. Music01 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have correctly added the Digital album and the Physical album certifications separately. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If Billboard/Spotify/Youtube can be cited, so should be QQMusic/Baidu/Netease... some of you may have not heard of them, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable, they are the dominant and authoritative platforms in the greater China region, just like Spotify or Billboard in the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.M.L athony (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

GQ source

@HĐ: Just wanted to let you know that an article in GQ has recently been published about the album (linked here). Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on 1989 (Taylor Swift album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117022847/http://gawker.com/5965470/who-has-taylor-swift-dated-a-brief-history-of-all-the-men-in-the-universe to http://gawker.com/5965470/who-has-taylor-swift-dated-a-brief-history-of-all-the-men-in-the-universe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211064427/http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillBoard0.aspx to http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard0.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101030807/http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-40-biggest-selling-artist-albums-of-2014-3387/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-40-biggest-selling-artist-albums-of-2014-3387/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on 1989 (Taylor Swift album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626121827/http://mobi.iol.co.za/ to http://mobi.iol.co.za/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Fancruft

Since the last time I kept an eye over this article, most of the prose now turns into blatant fancruft that focuses on commercial sales and cherrypicked praises that are not encyclopedic. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid news source, I shall start revising the prose, and comments and contributions are always welcomed, HĐ (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Platinum Certification presented by Universal to Taylor Swift for sales in India

Leading Newspaper's website 'The Times of India' reported that Taylor Swift's album '1989' has been certified triple( 3x) platinum in India. The source is completely reliable. In India, the IMI ( Indian Music Industry) which is similar to RIAA In the USA , is the body which provides certification but does not release much information on the certifications provided to the artists on any platforms . It is mainly reported in newspapers or by the artist himself on platforms such as Social media. If a leading newspaper has published that the certification is presented by the record label Universal , though it does not mention anything about IMI , I think it should be added to the certification and sales column on the wikipedia page . As it is certified triple platinum, it can be said that minimum of 90,000 copies of the album have been legally sold in India as per the criteria for certification provided by IMI on its official website. Please put your suggestions. IndieOKB (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@IndieOKB: Could you provide any verification that "It is mainly reported in newspapers or by the artist himself"? Often times certifications that are reported through record label press releases are not reliable and we need third-party sources, which in this case are the certification providing bodies. And the claim that "it can be said that minimum of 90,000 copies" needs verification as well, given that occasionally certifications are provided not based on sales threshold given by the IFPI (for example South Korea). HĐ (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Answer to Your first question, it is quite difficult to find another publications by a newspaper regarding the Certification cause no daily newspapers in India ( atleast the leading one's such as Times of India , Hinsustan times, India Today) publish about certifications awarded to artists as a weekly/daily/monthly input . I don't know if newspaper does . Artists declares in the sense that he puts a photo or video or announces on Social media regarding the achievement on their official pages. Nothing else is involved in announcement of the award received to the public otherwise. IMI, the body which governs the Music Business in India ( similar to RIAA in the USA) and also provides the plaque as certification award . The IMI does not release any information on certifications awarded to musicians , through any of the sources available. Hence it is difficult to obtain information from them.

Regarding the 90000 topic. The official website of IMI has listed an official scale to calculate the total sales figures. The factors considered are Track/Album streams on the internet, Track/Video Streams on leading Video viewing websites and track downloads.

Link for the Sales criteria : https://indianmi.org/imi-representing-the-indian-recording-industry/?id=10720

THE Times of India's website , is a reliable source to check for references and information. Hence, I consider that the certification figure should be mentioned in certification table. IndieOKB (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@IndieOKB: No, it does not ensure absolute reliability, especially this article is undergoing an FAC, so the prose must be immaculate. If a source provides weak reliability then I would object to its inclusion. I am aware that the IMI has its database, but what I am saying here is that some certifications, if not provided within the certification provider's database, will differ from the threshold. (For example, IFPI indicates that South Korean cert is <= 50k if I remember correctly, but the current certification is 250k which has not been updated in the IFPI threshold database). Times of India may be notable for news coverage, but report on this certification (which is allegedly by Universal and not the IMI) may be false and/or unverifiable. HĐ (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. Thanks once again. So ,It seems that only if IMI declares from its database that it has certified it as triple platinum, then only we can put it up on the wikipedia page, am I correct? According to me there is no other third party with whom we can confirm . IndieOKB (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@IndieOKB: Yes, that's the only source that is absolutely reliable, HĐ (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok . Thanks a lot. Respects. IndieOKB (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "New Romantics" as a single from 1989

Template:Infobox album#Singles says Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album. Given that the deluxe edition is not a re-release, and Swift's announcement ([2]), it is pretty clear that "New Romantics" is an appropriate single from this album. It is not a complicated case where it "may not be obvious that a single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of the album on which it appears" that is controversial. Also, given that Template guideline is not rigorous, it can be adapted case-by-case. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Australia

Please add:

"In its 159th charting week, 1989 returned to the Australian top 10, climbing from No. 12 to No. 9, outcharting its successor Reputation source and making it only the fourth album being placed in the top 10 that deep in its chart run, following Ed Sheeran's + and x and Adele's 21 source." --2A02:B98:473C:71D4:54FD:46B8:BD37:C533 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This strikes me as quite a bit too much detail to include in the article. In addition, I'm not sure where it would fit into the article since there's currently no written discussion of the album's chart performance in the article. (Singles charting is written, album sales is written, but album charting is in tables.) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Bad Blood Remix

I’m a little confused as to why the "Bad Blood" Remix (ft. Kendrick Lamar) is listed as a single from the album when it wasn't even on the album to begin with. The remix version was clearly the version that was promoted as a single, and the solo version was treated like any other song that wasn’t a single. So, with that in mind, I’m proposing that we take "Bad Blood" out of the Infobox, and that we adjust the "Bad Blood" page so that the Infobox in the lead says "song" (because the solo version was only a song) and then we include another Infobox in a different section that says "single" (because the remix version was a single). I don’t know how this managed to slip between the cracks of GA/FA review when the song isn’t even on the album to begin with. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Judging from the promotional campaign of 1989, I believe it is fair to say "Bad Blood" was a single from the album. Billboard reported that it was specifically the fourth single, as did Republic Records. Oftentimes, a "single" report may be skeptical, but this single had a very specific order of being the fourth (to note, both Billboard, a magazine that closely observes the US music industry, and Republic Records said so). Typically, a single may indicate that the song itself is on the album tracklist, but I believe in this digital age, as long as a song serves as a promotional tool for an album, as specified by the label and the artist, then it is qualified. It may be noted that the solo version was (probably) released to US A/C radio. HĐ (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2021

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

---

1989 (Taylor Swift album) → 1989 (album) – The only other album with an article with this title is a cover album of this album. This album is clearly the "primary" album [3]. Tree Critter (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Covers or not, the Ryan Adams album charted in the top 10, so I do not think it can be said to be so obscure that no one would look for it. I'm also still not convinced partial disambiguation is ever especially useful. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nohomersryan. 1989 (album) is indeed incomplete disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Nohomersryan and Roman Spinner Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 11:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose pageviews do show a dominance though I'm not sure its enough and partial disambiguation is generally a bad idea. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose moving to incomplete disambiguation per reasons stated by everyone else. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Including the name of the artist in the title about a song or album is generally helpful and not awkward, and incomplete disambiguation is undesirable, and it's not a TWODAB since there are four other albums topics listed on the dab page besides these two, and the Ryan Adams album is quite notable – not just something obscure, but rather a top 10 in the US market. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Mediafanatic17 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with the reasons provided by everyone else. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 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.

"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!)} 12:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)