Jump to content

Talk:Taylor Swift

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleTaylor Swift is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 23, 2019.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
July 18, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 16, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 7, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 6, 2016Good article nomineeListed
September 17, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
October 31, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
March 4, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Taylor Swift (pictured) is the first act to have three albums with opening week sales of one million copies in the US?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 13, 2017, and December 13, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

RfC about {{POV lead}}

[edit]

Should the article include the {{POV lead}} maintenance tag until the discussion about the lead section reaches a consensus? KyleJoantalk 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC about {{POV lead}})

[edit]
  • No. It should not have a tag unless the discussion comes to a consensus that there is a serious POV problem in the lead. Until then, it should not be tagged. This is a WP:FA, which means that numerous experienced editors agreed that it should be promoted to FA, including its Lead section. If there are specific issues with the lead, like any WP:PEACOCK, or if you think that some awards are more WP:NOTEWORTHY than others, that should be easy to fix without a tag. Discussion and consensus of specific issues is the way forward. I would start a heading for each specific objection to the Lead and get a consensus on that discrete issue, fix it, and move on to the next one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the current lead section looks comparable to how it did seven years ago during the article's FA promotion? KyleJoantalk 07:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pointless question. Use the Talk page now to fix specific problems you see, not to reconstruct the past. If you think that a particular sentence or phrase was better in the FA-promoted version, feel free to suggest that phrasing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Ssilvers. Having such a tag while claiming that this article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer is contradictory and very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Let's focus on addressing said issues than preoccupying with a tag. And the lead has improved since Nosferattus's bold edit. I have made further changes here that address issues raised in the afforementioned section. If there's any disagreement over them, we can obviously discuss it further. FrB.TG (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — what POV tag? It's already been removed twice by HJ Mitchell who said don't do tgat to featured articles (sic). And unfortunately, he is right, featured articles tend to have a walled garden around them, and editors are certainly not going to allow any sort of maint tag on a FA, regardless of whether the tag is legit or not. You might as well close this RfC. Furthermore, I disagree that a maint tag placed on a FA is very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. That's hyperbole. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Using the logic that the lead is "written from a fan's perspective" or whatever, just about any band's article could be tagged for POV. Check out the lead for the Beatles, another Featured Article, for example. I'm not saying there can't be improvements, but tagging at this point seems unnecessary and WP:POINTY. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's a dispute over a single sentence, and one that (regardless of how one feels about it) does not seem to be fundamental to our coverage of the topic one way or another. Tagging the entire article over it is wildly disproportionate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, articles should only be tagged with {{POV lead}} when there is consensus to do so. Time should be spent in the discussion coming to consensus and not adding needless tags. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as per the above cited reasons. ℛonherry 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming FAR

[edit]

I intend to nominate this article for FAR soon for neutrality and stability issues. No consensus was reached in any of the discussions about the lead's neutrality–users almost unanimously agreed that the page should not include a {{POV lead}} maintenance template but did not conclude that the page does not suffer from the issue the tag raises. An egregious WP:BLP violation remained in the body for over a year.[1][2]. The article has more than doubled in size.[3][4] Its two primary authors only began editing it after the FA promotion.[5] Two distinct edit wars just this year. The (understandable) difficulty in maintaining FA quality due to Swift's stardom (and sources' continual, voluminous coverage) alone is enough to warrant a review. KyleJoantalk 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of other BLP vios

[edit]
  • "Reviews of Swift's later albums were more appreciative of her vocals" is improperly synthesized from three individual reviews and five critics from one publication
  • "Critics have highlighted Swift's versatility as an entertainer" is improperly synthesized because neither of the two sources cited (one being an individual review) wholly supports this
  • "Critics regard Swift as a rare yet successful combination" is improperly sourced with one transcript documenting a host and a critic suggesting this
  • "According to publications, Swift changed the music landscape ... and her ability to popularize" is improperly synthesized, as each part of this claim is supported by one source
  • "Journalists [note] how her actions ... reshaped ticketing models" is improperly sourced with only one source suggesting this

KyleJoantalk 04:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

[edit]

In the 2023 - 2024 section, it says that The Tortured Poets Department stayed atop the Billboard 200 for 13 weeks; we should change that to 14 nonconsecutive weeks as it has been updated by Billboard. Bellsisatollin (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CloakedFerret (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift's family

[edit]

I don't think this article does enough justice to Taylor Swift's family. As I know Taylor's mother being diagnosed with cancer had a profound impact on her life and career and there is nothing about it. JustElf13 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]