Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Impact and recognition section

I do not think this section is without merit and should not be summarily deleted, as User:Popeye191 has done. It needs some editing, though much of the content is well-sourced and relevant.

Swift's work has received praise from veteran artists. Bill Withers says: "She's clever. Being a songwriter, I can appreciate her wit. She deserves all of her success." Neil Young describes her as "a great writer": "I like Taylor Swift. I like listening to her. I kind of like watching her respond to all the attacks. I like the ways she's defining herself. So I keep my eye on it." Stephen Stills defended Swift's confessional writing style: "That's what you do as a songwriter ... Wear your heart on your sleeve, then just write about it. Fuck 'em. If I was young, I would be one of Taylor Swift's conquests."

James Taylor, who performed with Swift on two occasions, said that "we just hit it off. I loved her songs, and her presence on stage was so great." Elvis Costello remarked: "I think she is quite interesting ... You can see a degree of self-possession there, and I'm intrigued by that." Judy Collins points to Swift as an example of a current star who is continuing on the lineage of being an independent-minded artist. Steve Earle said of 1989: "It's a really good record! She's a real songwriter."

In regard to Swift, Kristofferson said that "she blows me away. It's amazing to me that someone so young is writing such great songs. She's got a great career ahead of her." Janis Ian notes that Swift "changed the face of music, songwriting and guitar playing for girls ... There is an authenticity there." Nicks believes Swift writes "songs that make the whole world sing, like Neil Diamond or Elton John." She remarked that the younger singer's "Today Was A Fairytale" has "stayed in my heart forever. And it just reminds me of me in a lot of ways." Lindsey Buckingham named Swift as a current artist who may have the staying power of Fleetwood Mac: "I actually like Taylor Swift. I admire what she's been able to do."

Jon Bon Jovi describes her as "the real deal in every way, shape and form. She's a writer, she's a singer, she's a beautiful girl ... Like, she's going to be around." Parton is "extremely impressed with her, especially with her songwriting ... I'm real impressed with the depth of her sometimes. She's got the qualities that could last a long time." Etheridge remarks: "I love her soul, her spirit. I think she's going to surprise people and I think she's going to be around for a long time."

Swift has also received songwriting praise from contemporaries. Mayer was a supporter of Swift's early career—the duo recorded a duet and performed in concert together on two occasions: "You could put her in a time machine in any era and she would have a hit record." Ryan Adams described her as one of the "most fucking amazing writers I've ever seen. I've sat in this room with her before and heard a song she was constructing on the spot and it was unbelievable. It was pure alchemy." Kathleen Hanna is "totally into Taylor Swift. I think she has super-clever lyrics, and I love that she writes her own music." Shirley Manson remarked that Swift is "exceedingly talented at songwriting ... She drew her own door and walked right through it. We should applaud her balls for bucking the system. That's what artists are supposed to do." Lena Dunham, the creator and star of HBO's television series Girls, has described Swift as her "artistic kindred spirit." She also received praise from Drake, Tegan and Sara, Grimes, Kesha, Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson and Lady Gaga.

References

Bangabandhu (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I do wonder how notable - to pick a random example - Elvis Costello saying she is "quite interesting" (in a quote on a fan forum!) is. Or someone saying that they would, if actually asked, collaborate with her is. I'd do it, if asked, so should I be included? Lovingboth (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Well if your name is Miley Cyrus or someone with a similar level of recognition, I'd say its at least worth considering. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

EnderAtreides117 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

While it can useful to provide examples of other musicians recognizing her music talents, it is completely unnecessary to have such a large section just listing off praise from heaps of people. Nor does this paragraph contain any information on her impact on the music industry, unless you consider being like by people as an impact. THis is why the above section should be permanently removed and perhaps replaced with an impact and legacy section like many other artists.

I agree that the length is excessive and the content is highly repetitive and redundant. It also reads like a puff piece. Don't any of those artists have anything besides adoration for Swift, like a suggestion about how she could improve? My concern is with summarily excising such a large portion of the text - especially when many of the citations could speak to Swift's impact and legacy. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Then include maybe a couple noteworthy examples and scrub the rest.--EnderAtreides117 (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There's a paragraph, or at the most two, of actually notable material there. Her legacy will only be known when she's dead or retired. Lovingboth (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Its nicely referenced, too. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't have a strong opinion either way. I'm the one who compiled all the quotes together in the section. However, when the article lost Good Article status, this section was cited as one of the reasons why.Popeye191 (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't get the issue with this section either. To me, it's no different really than The_Beatles#Legacy. Maybe it could be trimmed, but wholesale deletion doesn't seem appropriate. Calidum T|C 05:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• EnderAtreides117 said it all; the section was undue weight with basically just a bunch of "Taylor is awesome!" comments. Unlike the Beatles' "Legacy" section, it didn't go into how she impacted the music industry or influenced other artists. One's legacy doesn't soley consist of being praised. Having a section in one's biography entirely dedicated to praise would be just as bad as one that purely focuses on negative criticism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Snuggums. Undue weight filled with puffery/peacocky statements does not make for an accurate and balanced Legacy section. In fact, that's not a "Legacy" section at all. More like a "Positive praise only" section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The section should not be blanked, it should be pruned; WP:PRESERVE. Weed out the fluff/trivial stuff (e.g., "we just hit it off...", "stayed in my heart forever..."). This section should also include what RSs have written about the significance of Swift's commercial success today and her widely-covered music streaming decisions, as well as any honors she's received, as that is all part of "impact and recognition". Lapadite (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taylor Swift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090606150614/http://www.tunebinder.com.au:80/2009/03/14/new-taylor-swift-love-story-live-at-sound-relief-sydney/ to http://www.tunebinder.com.au/2009/03/14/new-taylor-swift-love-story-live-at-sound-relief-sydney/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Remove it; it's indecent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpyouup (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2016 January 8 (UTC)

Piano added as instrument

Most of her songs like "All To Well", "Back To December" and her new version of "Love Story" have piano backing. She plays the instrument often enough for it to be noted. Especially during live performances. Finaltwo (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Finaltwo and Riot kiddo, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument, which states: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used." Hunter Hayes can play 30+ instruments, and we only list "Vocals, guitar, and piano", because that is what he is known for. Taylor is only known for guitar, and possibly banjo. I've never seen her play piano live, by searching "Taylor Swift live", you only get her with guitar, and rarely, banjo. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Prasad: Your first revert on the instruments was the addition of "Piano". Adding piano is hardly coatracking or a violation of the MOS for infoboxes on musical instruments. As far you saying you have never seen her play piano, take a look at this link. Now you cannot say you've never seen her play piano in a live venue. I can see why you might be skeptical about the other instruments, but not so fast: Take a look at this link. Now you cannot say you've never seen her play banjo in a live venue and that she is not known for playing it. Next, take a look at this link. Now you cannot say you have never seen or heard of her playing ukulele in a live venue. Keyboards? That's taking it a bit far and trying to find anything source-wise that indicates Swift is considered a keyboardist is pretty much impossible. I think leaving out keyboards is appropriate. The others? I believe they have a place in the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I said I looked up "Taylor Swift live", which is a good indicator of what's she's known for. We don't just place every instrument artists have ever used in the infobox. Like I said with Hunter Hayes, he can play 30 instruments. Are we going to place 30 instruments in the infobox? No. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying she can play 30 instruments. No one is putting 30 instruments in her article's infobox. Three is not thirty. There is no harm in putting three instruments she is known for playing in concert in the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it anywhere state her as a pianist, or any of these other terms, or is she ever featured prominently with these instruments, besides guitar, like in a music video? I don't think so. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think so: [1], [2], [3], [4]. There are many more. Would you like me to post them? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Search "Taylor Swift Grammy Performance" she sing "All Too Well on a piano and on tour she sung "Wildest Dreams","Enchanted", And "Love Story" all on the Piano. She also played the piano in the film "The Giver". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finaltwo (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I said, prominently, not just a couple of performances. She has to use them on a constant basis, or have used them a lot over time (for those with very long musical careers). It's supposed to be instruments someone outside of the fanbase (not a "Swiftie") would know and not have to look for. And okay, so in really only live performances? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If she's playing them in concert (and there are plenty of videos showing as much), that's "prominently". If she's playing it on the Grammy's (which, she has), that's "prominently". Your qualifications listed above aren't valid and are your own opinion. In other words, you're wrong on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And isn't that your opinion? Exactly. I see Adam Sandler play guitar for his single, a cover of Neil Young's "Like a Hurricane" on Late Show with David Letterman. Does that mean he gets a guitar in the infobox? No. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

He should. Sandler is known for playing guitar. At least one film role highlighted his guitar playing. Look, you said she isn't seen playing piano or banjo, I showed you she is. You said she wasn't shown in videos playing piano, I showed you she is. Your arguments are not based on reality. Taylor Swift is a pianist as well as a banjo player and both instruments should be included in the infobox. Ukulele, too. Four instruments in the infobox is not a tragedy, it's not against policy, it's warranted and encyclopedic because it's true and verifiably so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But again, it is what the subject is known for. Taylor is not known for banjo, and piano. Ukulele especially. And I said "music videos", not one-off or a few off live performances. And that's five as vocals is considered an instrument. I said she isn't seen if you just search her live with no other instrument included, which is a good indicator for what someone is known for. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in—and this is just my opinion, so take it as no more than such. Since "primarily known for using" is in black-and-white on the template page, it seems the issue—and, admittedly, quite the subjective one—is what constitutes "primarily known for". A Google News search for "taylor swift" "concert review" piano gave me 519 results; not a lot, but several note her switching back and forth between guitar and piano, including the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and PopMatters, which specifically reads, "At almost all of Swift’s concerts, there’s a dedicated slot for impassioned piano-playing." Rolling Stone covered Swift's piano-accompanied performance of "Out of the Woods" at the Grammy Museum's Clive Davis Theater. The same search for banjo returned 260 almost-entirely unrelated results, except one I found that specifically mentioned her not playing it. The same search for ukulele turns up results for someone else playing the uke. I can't find any reference to her playing keyboards that were not a piano.

Given these results, were it up to me, Swift's infobox would include vocals • guitar • piano only, and in that order. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I second this. Only "vocals, guitar, piano". The others are certainly not qualified, and I'm still not entirely convinced that Piano should be, but I think we are ok to list it. — DLManiac (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Piano should be included for all the reasons listed above. Dare I say banjo should also be included? Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Per my research, I would want to see something supporting "primarily known for" banjo (or banjo guitar). I don't—not yet, anyway. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Per my research, there a a good number of YouTube videos with Swift playing Banjo guitar. That's sufficient source-wise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; however, what's missing for me—and, again, stating my opinion—is a lack of the critical commentary necessary to support "primarily known for". 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this should come down to WP:IAR. "Primarily known for" is POV/subjective to begin with. We don't make such distinctions in the lede, the infobox -regardless of MOS (which is pretty must a discretionary guideline, anyway)- should be different? Guitar, piano, banjo guitar are neither inaccurate nor inappropriate. Her in-concert and video watching fans would no doubt disagree with your assessment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as IAR; it neither improves nor hurts the encyclopedia to list—or to not list—every instrument she fiddles with (sorry ) in her infobox. (The lack of critical commentary tells me, videos notwithstanding, that the guitar banjo is something she whips out occasionally, and that's supported by some accompanying comments expressing surprise.) Meantime, her fans—and my fellow editors—are 100% entitled to disagree with my conclusion. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

She doesn't play a normal banjo she plays a Guitar Banjo. It's a 6 string banjo played like a guitar. It's different. Finaltwo (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Still a banjo, but it can be noted as a Banjo guitar in the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've done some more checking, and I still find nothing that convinces me the banjo guitar is more than an infrequent flight of fancy. That said, a compromise of sorts strikes me:

• Vocals
• guitar/banjo guitar
• piano

Thoughts? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

She plays the instrument in her concerts. There's plenty of video and photo evidence to support it. Obviously, if she's playing the instrument in her concerts, it's not "an infrequent flight of fancy". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do not see the "evidence" you see. I found four videos of her playing banjo guitar, for one song each, and two were of the same performance. I find no critical commentary thereof—at all. To me—and, again, this is one editor's opinion—this fails "primarily known for", no matter how subjective the phrase, and invokes UNDUE. That said, this doesn't address the suggestion. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Vocals/ Guitar/ Piano is the way to go. Finaltwo (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

critical commentary on Swift banjo: Independent, The Sydney Morning Herald, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Holywood Reporter, MTV, Boston.com... should I continue?
She played a banjo at the Grammys, iHeartRadio and her tours. That seems like enough to include the instrument here. דיידרים (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of your list, only the last one (Boston.com) offers actual commentary other than that she plays it; one of your links mentions the banjo but not who is playing. Nevertheless, that certainly supports my compromise suggestion. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As stated, Taylor Swift plays the piano on almost a constant basis. Aside from performing using a piano on concerts, she also uses the piano prominently during award shows (Grammys, Grammy Museum, ACMs, etc.) which makes it one of her major instruments and other public performances. Same thing with the banjo. If the policies state to not include non-major instruments, then ukelele and keyboards can be omitted (she only used the ukelele during the Speak Now Tour, and synthesizer keyboards are limited to her live performance of "Love Story" in the iHeartRadio Music Festival, BBC Radio 1 and 1989 World Tour). However, I believe this discussion has proven that the piano and banjo are also two of Taylor Swift's main instruments. Riot kiddo (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, as above—uke and keyboards a definite bye-bye. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Am proposing updating the infobox image to a portrait style in order to enable readers in seeing her face more clearly. Have taken the current infobox photo and cropped it, retouching it slightly to brighten up her face a bit. Nothing else has been altered. Posting both here side by side for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs)

Proposed infobox photo

Current infobox photo

Images for infobox - current and cropped version of same

Support the change. Lapadite (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. I don't see why not. -- ChamithN (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: It's been almost three days and nobody else has responded to the discussion, which suggests they don't oppose your proposal. So, I guess you should just go ahead and change it to proposed version. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

LEGACY SECTION

Taylor Swift should have a "legacy" section where it is stating Taylor's NOTABLE MILESTONES like:

• On August 21, 2015, Taylor received a permanent championship banner at Staples Center for the most sold-out shows by an artist, with 16, breaking her previous record of 11. The banner is permanently displayed at Staples Center in LA.
• Taylor Swift is the first ever artist to win both the Grammy Award for Best Country Album (which she won in 2010) and the Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album (which she won in 2016).
• Taylor Swift is the first female artist ever to win the Grammy Award for Album of the Year twice for her own albums (Fearless and 1989).
• AND MANY MORE...

The "Legacy" section idea is taken from other Wiki pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga#Legacy
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_%28entertainer%29#Legacy
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears#Legacy

Mat 1997 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There was one and it was inappropriately blanked, instead of being copyedited and pruned accordingly. See this archived discussion. Lapadite (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, that section wasn't a "legacy" section at all; it was essentially just a bunch of "Taylor is awesome!" comments rather than any meaningful information like how she impacted the music industry or influenced other artists. Secondly, it was quite rightfully removed as WP:UNDUE weight; having a section or subsection solely dedicated to praise is just as problematic as one only focusing on negative criticism. Third, the "Awards and achievements" section is a perfectly suitable place to put the achievements listed above. Finally, just because certain articles have "legacy" sections doesn't automatically mean others should. Musical artists should only have such sections when they are shown to have impacted society and/or the music industry, have influenced other artists' work, etc. They're not just places to only list accolades and praise. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, "instead of being copyedited and pruned accordingly"; WP:PRESERVE applies. There is enough information per RSs to warrant a section on legacy or impact. Perhaps it should be merged with the achievements section (which is barren - not even the latest "first woman to win Grammy's Album of the Year twice" is mentioned). Lapadite (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

Please add next in the labels RCA in the infobox. Even though she didn't release any albums with RCA she was signed on to the label and it is clearly described in the Career beginnings and Taylor Swift section of the article. 71.220.157.64 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done I will add RCA into the infobox after clearly reading the early career section. Thanks for spotting that- Adamtb24 (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2016

Taylor Swift Was a Grammy Winner in 2016

32.210.211.35 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing the main photo

The photo displayed of Taylor at the top, at the moment, is not nearly as great as the several other photos of Taylor there are, not to mention it is from 2014 and Taylor has, since, changed her hairstyle. I suggest we use this image from her opening the 58th Annual Grammy Awards. ^{(non-free image removed)}Jazzywazzy27 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Images need to be public domain or otherwise meet rather strict policies. We cannot use a screencap of the Grammy broadcast or a publicity photo released by them. The photo you suggest appears to be a copyright violation and has been tagged as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Concern

The way this article is going, any point it would need drastic reduction. Each and every album does not need its own section and are better off combined. If anyone does not object I would work with FrBTG and maybe Snuggums in making this article a little more encyclopedic. Look at Katy Perry (I'm not joking) for example, its a FA. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. At nearly 22,000 words, it's laughably long. Sca (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yea, but Katy Perry sucks and Taylor Swift is awesome. Also not joking. Seriously, I would leave it as is. Eric Cable  !  Talk  19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Joking aside, by print length it is comparable to Queen Victoria. Eric Cable  !  Talk  19:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am underawed. Sca (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We would seriously need to consider undersizing the content and making it flow better. There are too many WP:UNDUE details here for the biography article, that might be suitable for the respective album article etc. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

proceeds donated to African Parks Foundation of America

Taylor Swift article says her official website is taylorswift.com ,which links to youtube.com/user/taylorswift ,where she posts "All of my music videos", including Wildest Dreams. The video ends with this message:

All of Taylor's proceeds from this video will be donated to wild animal conservation efforts through the African Parks Foundation of America.

Does that belong in Taylor_Swift#Philanthropy? How do you paraphrase it so it's not plagiarism? or is quoting not plagiarizing in this context?

71.121.143.188 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

error in caption?

Taylor_Swift#Philanthropy has a pic with the caption "Swift performing at the Speak Now Tour Hots in Sydney, Australia (2012)" but the word "hots" does not appear in the Speak Now World Tour article. Probably not supposed to be in this caption either? 71.121.143.188 (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Videography

I have started work on creating a separate page on her videography here. Any help will be appreciated, including addition of entries. FrB.TG (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

Please remove country as she does not do country. 198.52.13.15 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Setting aside the published sources which describe her music as country, Ms. Swift has won nearly a dozen CMA awards. Rebbing 23:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

Please add "Taylor Swift is a light-lyric soprano that has a vocal range of 2 octaves and 3 notes" in the first sentence of the Vocals section. These are the references that all agree to the said statement:

• concerthotels.com
• criticofmusic.com
• divadevotee.com

Additionally, these sites are also used by the vocal section of wiki pages of Lady Gaga, Beyoncé, and Britney Spears. All of which are considered as good articles; a proof that these are reliable sources. Mat 1997 (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Diva Devotee and Critic of Music are personal blogs, which aren't usually considered reliable. The Concert Hotels piece, while fancy, gives no explanation of its methodology (for instance, did the author evaluate Ms. Swift's entire catalog?) and doesn't even have a by-line or date; worse, according to the provided Time article, Concert Hotels got its data by inquiring on a forum called The Range Stuff. Had these references passed GA review elsewhere, it would only serve to highlight the sheer volume of work faced by reviewers—Beyoncé currently has 392 footnotes—but none of them did: Lady Gaga was last assessed for good-article status in October 2013, and these are nowhere to be found. The same is true of Beyoncé and Britney Spears. Cheers. Rebbing 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016

On Taylor Swift Bio you don't have it documented that she's currently in a relationship Tim Hiddleston.... However you do have the relationship documented on his page. Why is this?

98.18.71.196 (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: There is insufficient reliable sourcing to include it in either article. It was removed from the Hiddleston article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dating Hiddleston

On June 23, Tom Hiddleston and Taylor Swift went out on a romantic date at the Adele restaurant in Nashville, doesn't that technically mean they're dating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocus47 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 June 2016‎ (UTC)

I think all we can infer from two people having dinner alone is that they had dinner. The word "dating" suggests more than merely having dinner alone together. Per SYNTH, I don't think we're permitted to extrapolate a romantic relationship out of news that two people have been seen spending a lot of time together and were photographed kissing.

Of course, there are sources that draw that conclusion for us; these are from now-reverted edits to the article:

• Pallotta, Frank (June 16, 2016). "Taylor Swift Photographed Kissing Tom Hiddleston". Entertainment. CNN.
• Schilling, Dave (June 16, 2016). "Tom Hiddleston and Taylor Swift Pictures: As Close As We'll Get to Two Memes Dating". Music. The Guardian.
• "Taylor Swift Has a Brand New Boyfriend". Celebrity news. Vogue Australia. June 15, 2016.

I believe these all count as BLPGOSSIP and should not be used: by my reading, they all boil down to tabloid-like reporting about who was seen kissing whom behind the bleachers after fourth period, and aren't they just adorable‽—which doesn't mean they're wrong, just that they're not reliable. However, I'm prepared to be wrong. Flyer22, do you have a moment to comment on this? Rebbing 19:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect Hiddleston will show up in this article at some point, but this isn't a newspaper, and all we have so far is that they have been photographed together "kissing, holding hands, and walking on a beach." I don't think any of the sources say "dating" so that would be a conclusion on our part, which is not acceptable in a BLP. The Vogue headline doesn't count, headlines are written by copy editors and are not subject to the same standards as article content. So all we really have is that they've been photographed together, which does not rise to encyclopedic standards. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

To respond to the original question: Do you have a source? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/06/taylor-swift-tom-hiddleston-meet-the-parents Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see Adele restaurant mentioned in that story. But this is a lot more solid than anything I've seen so far. It talks about "the singer’s relationship with Tom Hiddleston" and calls them "the couple." I'm not an expert in gossip and don't know whether Vanity Fair is considered RS for this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Adele restaurant is a different story, it was just mentioned on that page as a related article. I think Vanity Fair is reliable. It already appears as a source in 4 separate Swift references in her article. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this source. Rebbing 16:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)