Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

For a future "Legacy" section..

• Billboard: Love Story: The Impact of Taylor Swift's First Decade in Music

"The audience grew younger, oline metrics became a meaningful way to influence radio, social media became a way to engage the audience, young women felt they had a voice, Country music now thinks globally. Leaving the format no longer carries the stigma it once did." Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I've read the article and I do agree that this needs to be done. Additional infos may include the award named after her (which she and Michael Jackson only have), her battle against Spotify, the open letter to Apple for their streaming service, Apple Music (which changed their policy after and received praises from artists) and being named the most charitable celebrity 4 years in a row (the most from an artist). Mat 1997 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If the name is debatable since she seems so young, I think 'Impact' would be a great section. The information is there. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Legacy is much preferable since the section may contain her impact, acclaims, huge achievements, records, and influence to other artists (Cassadee Pope, Kelsea Ballerini, Troye Sivan, Camilla Cabello, Selena Gomez, Ellie Goulding). Mat 1997 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

From those, I would only include Ellie Goulding and Selena Gomez, who are actually calling her a direct influence. Two others are being fans, and Adele focused on Max Martin. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Edit: Camila isn't a songwriter yet according to 7/27 so is not clear what she is influencing. Sivan is ok. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Camila Cabello wrote a song in their (5th Harmony) debut EP and she co-wrote "I Know What You Did Last Summer" along with Shawn Mendes. And just so you know, I recently added Cassadee Pope and Kelsea Ballerini. Check their articles too. Mat 1997 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the topmost article, these may also help:

• How Taylor Swift's Apple Music Ads Helped Drake, Future, the Darkness and Jimmy Eat World
• Why Taylor Swift is the most important artist of the millennial era
• Five ways Taylor Swift is changing the world
• The power of Taylor Swift

Mat 1997 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft so far:

Before Taylor Swift's debut, country radio was perceived as a format targeting adult audiences offering grown-up songs. In the 2010s, country started being viewed more favorably in the media landscape than it was when Swift debuted in 2006, and while the singer didn’t create that change alone, she played a role in that shift as she introduced a new age group to this format because of her sound and writing. The number of females on the country chart increased since Swift inspired other younger female artists to follow her style and image. Cassetty Entertainment president Todd Cassetty stated in an interview with Billboard, "I think a lot of young women are trying to find their own voice now, but a lot of them were definitely inspired to pick up a guitar because of Taylor Swift.”. According to BBC News writer Neil Smith, with the releases of Red and 1989 Swift was "paving the way for crossover artists", as she was "forging a path for acts that don't wish to be typecast into arbitrarily separated musical genres." Several artists have cited Swift as an influence mainly for her songwriting; among them Cassadee Pope, Kelsea Ballerini, Ellie Goulding, Selena Gomez, Camilla Cabello from Fifth Harmony, and Troye Sivan.

References

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Would be great to have other opinions. Hey, SNUGGUMS, do you think the text justifies an "Impact"/"Legacy" section? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems short compared to similar sections on other pages, and I'm not sure if "Bustle" is a good source to use, but it overall doesn't look too bad. I see no major issues with including that as long as it's all credibly referenced and doesn't become filled with fancruft. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker & SNUGGUMS I do agree that the entry should be longer. We have enough articles to supply it especially in Billboard's article. Additionally, if "Bustle" isnt a good source, this article from Teen Vogue should do it. This is the original article where they acquired the statement from an interview with Camila Cabello. Mat 1997 (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Legacy" will not be justified if you didnt put her "important or iconic" chart achievements, records, and awards which you can see in similar sections on other pages. Examples include: her very own award like I always say, her permanent championship banner in Staples Center, Red Tour records, etc. Mat 1997 (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

@Mat 1997: please, feel free to add the text to the draft with reliable sources. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Teen Vogue is good enough and definitely better to use. Thank you for mentioning that link. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to my previous reply, these are also some notable achievements of Taylor:

• Taylor Swift ranked 2nd in Rolling Stone's New Queen of Pop index. She and Carrie Underwood are the only country artists.
• In March 2013, Swift was added to the list of "immortals" by Rolling Stone magazine (artists who will stand the test of time)
• Taylor was listed twice in Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People (2010 & 2015)
• First artist to be named Billboard "Woman of the Year" twice
• Youngest woman ever to be included on the Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women

She was also given and inducted to numerous songwriting awards and lists:

• Taylor Swift Award (see previous reply for reference)
• 7 Songwriter/Artist of the Year Award by NSAI (most of any artist)
• prestigious Hal David Starlight Award
• Rolling Stone Top 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time ranking at #97
• The Telegraph 60 greatest female singer-songwriters of all time ranking at #16

References

Praises from artists and celebrities:

• Steven Tyler
• Tim McGraw
• Oprah Winfrey
• Madonna

Mat 1997 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I also found out that Tegan and Sara were among the artists that was influenced by Taylor Swift. Mat 1997 (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi protect request 18 July 2016

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/1477011/taylor-swifts-wikipedia-is-vandalised-as-trolls-rename-her-taylor-slithering-snake-becky-with-the-good-lies-allison-swift/

Until the attacking of Ms Swift simmers, can we semi protect this BLP, please? -- Zanimum

Disregard, I see this has already been done. Not visible in mobile. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Article length again

Re-adding my concern regarding this bloated up article again. @FrB.TG: as suggested in your talk page, a pruning is definitely needed, over 200K of readable prose is laughable at this point. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, IB. Yes, I am also planning to do something like that, though it's going to be a slow one. In addition, I will try to merge the acting, personal life and endorsement sections all with the career section. FrB.TG (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point, her personal life especially has been a tabloid fodder for a long time and quite a violation of WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY the way any flings are mentioned whether they are notable or not. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of living location from infobox

@SNUGGUMS: I feel like her current living location is actually notable. She wrote a song about it (Welcome to New York (song), and her transition from Nashville to NYC marked her shift from country-pop to full on pop. Thoughts? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Her move to NYC certainly can be mentioned within article prose (probably best for the 1989 section), but I removed it from infobox as it's not something she gets lots of attention for (at least compared to things like her genres themselves or even for how she moved to Nashville as a teen to start her career). On another note, the "[1]" that came after it in infobox wasn't a functioning reference as it was just in plain text. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I hadn't realized that the move wasn't mentioned in the body. Will find a good source and add it when I have the chance. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 06:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bloated, Self-Indulgent Mess

This Wikipedia entry needs some serious reduction as well as a more balanced view of the talent of the person being profiled. What is currently posted here is so congested with names of other artists and praises from "critics" and such that it comes across as exceedingly desperate in tone. Its actually quite laughable! Taylor Swift must be terribly insecure if she needs to put forth this much information to prove that she's relevant. P.S. She listens to Doris Troy? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.247.236 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@76.178.247.236: Thanks for your interest in the article. I believe that FrB.TG has already recognized the situation and is reworking the article to address your concerns. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. When reading through the article, it just seems to be a compilation of all the great things people say about her, without much useful information. —General534 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It was bombarded with praises but it's now much better and more neutral. FrB.TG (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

True, the article has been drastically soap-cleaned. The prose is much better now. I don't know what the original poster and the two subsequent posters are reading. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

What happened to the 'Personal life' section?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.254.7.160 (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's possible it was integrated into the Biography section. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 06:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Right! It was so magazine-y before the way any rumored relationship and flings were mentioned. FrB.TG (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Name

Swift hasn't changed her name, so the use of the |birth name= parameter isn't appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, she dropped the Alison from her name, and goes professionally by her first and last name only. So I believe that including the birth name is an useful information. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

She uses her first and last name like about 95 percent of people, and hasn't dropped anything by not using her middle name. The parameter should go. Calidum ¤ 12:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The documentation appears to suggest it's appropriate to use {{{birth_name}}} whenever the subject's birth name is different from her common name, as is the case here; "Taylor Swift" != "Taylor Alison Swift". I think it should be included it in the infobox, but I wouldn't consider it a great loss if it were removed. Rebbing 13:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The documentation could be interpreted in several ways, but there hasn't been consensus on that view at template talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

By "appropriate," I meant that it's acceptable, not that it's mandatory. Anyway, template documentation is really only a polite suggestion. Rebbing 08:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

And there hasn't been consensus on it being acceptable at template talk. The parameter is appropriately used for maiden names or other cases where someone has changed their name; that isn't applicable here. There's no compelling reason to include it, so per WP:INFOBOXUSE that means it should be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't consensus at the template's talk page against using the parameter this way. By its plain terms, the parameter is used for the subject's "name at birth" and is used when the subject's name at birth is different from |name=. Here, |name= is Taylor Swift. Ms. Swift's birth name is Taylor Alison Swift. Notice the "Alison"? If you're arguing that Taylor Alison and Taylor are the same name, despite the obvious fact that they aren't, you should probably seek to have the template documentation amended. A quick survey of FA-status biographies shows that it's common to include |birth_name= when a person's common name has removed a given middle but is otherwise unchanged.

In the meantime, INFOBOXUSE says that "which parts of the infobox to use[] is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Here, you and another editor think the parameter should be removed; I and another think it should be included: contrary to your edit summary, there's no consensus either way. Since we are deadlocked, the default is the stable version, not your preferred version. Rebbing 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Right! Let's just maintain status quo and move on. FrB.TG (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Her "name at birth" is her current name - no amending is needed. I will amend my earlier comment, though: I intended to link WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which states that unnecessary content should be excluded. In this case, the use of an additional parameter is unnecessary. Consensus is based on argument, not "let's just keep doing what we've been doing just because". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not: check the title of the article if you don't believe me. Do you see "Alison" in it? No? Then it's probably not the same name. Naturally, you find your own argument most persuasive. In this discussion, you have three editors who are presumably aware of the relevant guidelines and think it ought to be left and two who believe it should be removed. If anything, that's consensus to keep. Moreover, the guideline leaves to editorial discretion what constitutes "unnecessary content." You think "Taylor Alison" is irrelevant; I think "Alison" is somewhat more important than the description for the infobox photograph, her city of birth, and the labels to which she's signed. Rebbing 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We could title this article "John Smith" and her current name would still be Taylor Alison Swift, as it says in the first line. If you prefer we can use |name=Taylor Alison Swift to match that, though it isn't necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That would likely be a misuse of the parameter as Ms. Swift's common name is Taylor Swift: per the documentation, the common name is what goes in the |name= parameter. Her birth name is Taylor Alison Swift, which is not the same as either John Smith or Taylor Swift. Rebbing 02:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Anyway, template documentation is really only a polite suggestion". The best solution IMO would be simply to have |name=Taylor Swift and no |birth name=, but if you think Alison must be included in the infobox then that's one way to do it. Her current name is Taylor Alison Swift, which is why it says that in the first line. If you would like to argue that that's not her current name, then it shouldn't be there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Ms. Swift's current name is. Her "common name"—a term of art meaning the name most commonly used by reliable sources—is plainly Taylor Swift, not Taylor Alison Swift. A subject's common name is what's used for titling the article, and, per the template documentation, it's what goes in the |name= field; the |birth_name= field is for a birth name that differs in some way from the common name. Per MOS:FULLNAME, the subject's full name, Taylor Alison Swift, not her common name, is given in the lead sentence. Rebbing 11:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Length

So, 14,300 words. Very impressive. Yawn. Sca (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you've appeared in my watchlist to post unhelpful comments about the word counts of articles about female singers. Do you have any suggestions how to improve the article? Acalamari 19:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Image

The current image is a little bit dark. How about this one? In this image, Swift is looking directly toward the camera with a smile on her face. She is also looking gorgeous in it, although it's a little bit old. What do you say? FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Her neck is a problem there. It's not a bad photo, but for an infobox pic... Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should aim for a more current picture. Something like the pre-revamp image. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 06:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also love a more current photo, but the problem is finding a good image. None of her pictures taken during her 1989 Tour are good enough. I agree that it is a little bit old, but she has not changed significantly (talking about look) and compared to the 1989 Tour images this one is a gem. FrB.TG (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What about something like this or this, cropped version of this maybe? Tour ones? There's gotta be some good ones out there... – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 09:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

All of them are non-free copyrighted images. If you can obtain permission to use those images, they can be. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see, I hadn't read WP:NFC#UUI. That's unfortunate. I'm kind of like the pre-revamp image over these older images, because none of these older ones offer that much of an improvement compared to it. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)}

The pre-vamp image was disgusting and looked like she was constipated. So definitely not supporting it. I had this image which was used in the infobox at one point. Don't know why it was removed since its pretty awesome. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the current photograph to anything else I've seen so far: it's pleasingly composed, technically correct, and comes across as appropriately polished and professional (despite the arguably unflattering view of the subject's neck). That one looks like it was carelessly taken with a potato: it's blurry, low-resolution, oddly lit, emphasizes the lines around the subject's chin, and partially obstructed by a microphone. Rebbing 09:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just an idea, but is there anyone here who is maybe active on a Taylor Swift fan forum that can encourage someone there to upload their good, recent, own-work photo to wikimedia commons to use for this page? I do like the current image, but if a more recent photo is preferred, that's one way to have it updated. Melodyschamble (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead advice

I clicked through to take a peek when I saw the request for mentoring. The lead has an odd structure. The first paragraph quite suddenly jumps into a chronology of Swift's career and breaks at an arbitrary point into the second paragraph. I'd suggest rewriting the lead by—for example, the first paragraph establishing who she is and what she's best known for (this can be short—the paragraphs don't have to be the same length), and the other paragraphs focusing on a single topic—say, keeping the chronology of her life & career in a single paragraph. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything odd about it. There are quite a lot of articles that follow this structure. I don't think a single paragraph would be enough to discuss her life and career as you can see it is discussed throughout two paras which I don't see the need for shortening or anything. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you justify why it breaks where it does? It's arbitrary and bizarre. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I don't think I can place so many lines in one paragraph and her second album marked the beginning of a new era where she also incorporated the pop genre, and she finally released her fifth album as a pop-focused one, marking a departure from her previous albums. FrB.TG (talk)|

So you prefer arbitrary and bizarre. Okay, I'll keep my advice to myself next time. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: We both have an opinion which contradict with each other, but I was, by no means, dismissing your opinion if that's how you feel. Anyway, I have dedicated the first paragraph to introduce her. Her career is still discussed in two paragraphs; have a look if you still feel it's bizarre, I could probably merge them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with Mr. Hiddleston?

Where da Tom Hiddleton shit bro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.40.141 (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It was removed in mid-July as being irrelevant, which seems like the right call to me: we aim to report things that have lasting significance, not every event in a subject's life. See WP:NOTDIARY. Otherwise, articles become too long to be useful. Compare how this looked at the end of June (13,600 words and 536 footnotes) against the current, cleaned-up version (9400 words; 319 notes): At least in my opinion, the trimmed-down version is clearly superior. Anyway, Ms. Swift and Mr. Hiddleston broke up earlier this week after three months together, so it's definitely not worth mentioning. Cheers! Rebbing 11:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: the article is currently at 6.4k words, not 9.4k. FrB.TG (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh! my mistake. Is there a tool for calculating word count? I mean for Wikipedia articles specifically; my text editor does it, but it also counts links and headings. Rebbing 14:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, you can use this script to count the prose. Click on "page size" on your left in preview mode once you have installed it. In case you don't know how to do that, refer to User:Ohconfucius/script/install. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Becky and Taylor

Please, read the news about Becky and Taylor carefully. Removing new sentences is easy, but gathering new and real sentences is so difficult. (Mj thenovelatre (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)).

The "Becky" thing is a silly meme that does not merit mention in this article. Also, the MTV piece you provided doesn't support the claim that Becky is Ms. Swift's nickname; rather, it clearly explains that the name was invented by Tumblr, and that Ms. Swift was merely playing along. Rebbing 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments

I see the PR's closed so I will place them here. I've also made some edits directly.

• "it marks a departure from her previous country albums" marks or marked?
• Check all press like "Newsweek stated" to ensure all are in the past tense assuming that is what was intended.. I changed two.

I usually write it in past tense unless the timeframe is unknown e.g. "The New York Times states.." or "In 2012, The New York Times stated..". A detailed explanation is given by Moisejp here. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• "She has also spoken fondly of contemporary singers and songwriters " I worry about possible misunderstanding with "contemporary classical music.
• Regardless of the current dispute over quote boxes, if you make one screen-wide or nearly, you're drawing undue attention to what's inside. Especially since we're getting Swift's point of view in opposition to others.
• "Fairytale imagery featured on Swift's second album, Fearless. She explored the disconnect "between fairy tales and the reality of love"." At this point, the paragraph feels a little more random in subject matter than it should be.

I have rephrased, and think it's a little bit better, but still..

• "From 2011–15, she appeared in the top three of Forbes' Top-Earning Women In Music with earnings of $45 million, $57 million, $55 million, $64 million, and $80 million respectively.[242][243][244][245][246]" I might separate these out individually so as to avoid the string of cites.
• "The singer is involved in a number of charities which provide services to sick children. " This reads as a topic sentence, but much of the remainder of the paragraph isn't about sick children and it's quite some time in the paragraph until we get back to them.

• That's it. I would suggest that you take it to FAC. I think it's ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you tremendously for your helpful comments. I will take it to FAC as soon as I get a response from IndianBio who helped me with its improvement. I don't want to take any step without consulting him. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I have now nominated it for FA. - FrB.TG (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with the FAC you implemented the improvements from the peer review. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the wish and your edits trying to fix little things. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Spam link

When logged out of Wikipedia, the entire page of this article becomes a clickable link to the following webpage: [link removed by Bongwarrior]

It looks like this article is protected so there is no way to edit out this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenZetterlund88 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized one of the templates, not the article itself. It has since been fixed. If it's still giving you trouble, try purging the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Public Image (Abercrombie & Fitch - "Slut Shaming")

The statement provided is very vague and misleading. The citation source is also lacking almost all of the information in regards to this claim. Please try to refer to another source to support this idea, if not, perhaps there can be an attempt made to edit this portion of the article and remove this particular claim being made. --Kathy.s28 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

Can someone add the author and publication date for ref 215, please? Thanks, 2A02:8108:1BF:AB8C:864:30C:AC75:23C9 (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Done (diff). Rebbing 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal life section missing

Why doesn't she have a Personal Life section? Almost every famous person on Wikipedia has one. 174.117.121.225 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ms. Swift's personal life is covered chronologically within the other biographical sections. This is preferred as it helps maintain the article's focus and avoid the tendency towards tabloid gossip. Rebbing 00:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016

50.154.250.174 (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to edit this page because I saw some information that are wrong, and I will like to fix it. thanks.

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. Rfl0216 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Act not Person

This might be semantics but the second-to-last sentence of the third paragraph says...

The album received three Grammy Awards, and Swift became the first woman and fifth person overall to win Album of the Year twice.

Two problems with the word person: First, a number of people have won Album of the Year more than once as a producer, etc. Second, the five ACTS that have won more than once are Frank Sinatra, Stevie Wonder, Paul Simon, Taylor Swift, and U2. The last of which is not a person, but a group. Therefore, I think the word "person" in that sentence should be changed to "act." I thought about just changing it, but I know how... I guess I'll say concerned people can be about edits to this article. Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This is why some artists are trying to make sure people recognize the differences between, as example, Taylor Swift the band and Taylor Swift the person. Rob Zombie the band, had nothing to do with directing the movie Halloween. How do you distinguish between the two just by using the name "Rob Zombie".

And "Artist" implies a singular. Which, a band like U2, works as one, therefore is singular. The singular artist U2 is comprised of multiple artists. Perhaps "Act" is the better word.

Ignoring producers and dealing with just the musicians - as long as your facts are right and you didn't miss a couple (making a difference between 5 people or 7 acts), I am fine with you changing it to "act". Maybe "musical act" is better? That way someone doesn't come back wanting to talk about the producers. Kellymoat (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Album of the Year has a long write-up. Eric Cable  !  Talk  20:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropy

On December 13, 2016 Taylor made a $100,000 donation to Dolly Parton's My People Fund Telethon. Taylor's donation matched the donation made by the Academy of Country Music and was presented by the ACM during the live Telethon. The money was being raised for the victims of the Gatlinburg Fires which caused 14 deaths and the loss of 100's of homes and businesses. The families who lost their homes will receive $1000 a month for 6 months to help with expenses. Tntinker (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Added FrB.TG (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

In the 2014-preset: 1989 section - first paragraph - sentence 4.

The current sentence says "Credited as her "first documented, official pop album", it marks a departure from her previous country albums."

Change to " Credited as her "first documented, official pop album", it marks a departure from her previous country albums, and a clean break with her country audience."

Reference for added part "a clean break with her country audience" :Aswad, Jem. "Taylor Swift, 1989." Billboard - The International Newsweekly of Music, Video and Home Entertainment, vol. 126, no. 36, Nov 01 2014, pp. 69-70. Music Periodicals Database</ref> Kelnlen (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017

Halla65 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Swift's sister is named Mrs. Roberts.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Drinking of alcohol

User:Emir of Wikipedia, I've deleted the reference to abstaining from alcohol. At the time of that interview, Swift was underage and even mentioned herself in the cited source that it would not yet be legal to drink. Since turning 21, she has mentioned drinking alcohol in multiple interviews including [thesehttp://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/22-things-you-learn-hanging-out-with-taylor-swift-20140910 these] two. I don't believe it is necessary to state that her position has changed; it would've be notable if she publicly drank while underage, but it's not particularly notable that she abstained until it was legal.Popeye191 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Jewish

Why is there no mention of the fact she is Jewish? https://medium.com/@resnikoff/nobody-talks-about-the-fact-that-taylor-swift-is-jewish-heres-why-it-matters-64aececd20b (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:D36:520D:526C:745E (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC))

Because she is not. This is no more suitable than the link you posted to serve as a citation, nor is this, but they make clear that the Medium piece was satire. We'll need a better source than that if you think one exists. General Ization ^Talk 17:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

shes also a record producer so it should be added to occupation 2A02:C7D:21F2:FE00:7065:EDEF:BC2A:C305 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

I believe there should be a section called Personal Life as Taylor's life, specially her relationships, has been of great talk in the media and has been of great inspiration for her songs. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to vote 'no' on that. She's not married, she doesn't have kids. And, as you said, most of her songs are based on her life, which means it has already been discussed elsewhere.Kellymoat (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I also am opposed for the reasons previously discussed. Rebbing 13:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As a reader, I would like to see a section on her personal life. Most other pop stars have such sections in their entries. You don't have to marry and have kids to qualify for having a personal life. I don't listen to her music, so "most of her songs are based on her life" doesn't wash with me either.

And it's the only reason she's "famous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontheweighdown (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexual assault civil case

How come nothing has been added regarding the sex assault case going on between Swift and David Mueller? It's a major news story and has not been discussed here.--67.86.57.216 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not a 24 hour news channel. When there's an actual result something might be added. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a development, the judge in the case dismissed Mueller's claim, but her countersuit is still ongoing. Will you NOW add it to her page?--67.86.57.216 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)--67.86.57.216 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)--67.86.57.216 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Sofffie7 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Social Media Silence

If it is indeed a new album, who are the men who she's singing about? Doeadeere (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Only time will tell. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

First sentence:

"One of the leading contemporary recording artists, she is known for narrative songs about her personal life, which has received widespread media coverage."

should be:

"One of the leading contemporary recording artists, she is known for narrative songs about her personal life, which have received widespread media coverage." Qingles (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

China

Is there truth in that the Chinese government banned T.S. from appearing in China because her initials and year of birth match that of the Tienanmen Square protests? confirm: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3170971/Is-reference-Tiananmen-Square-Taylor-Popstar-launches-TS-1989-clothing-range-China-risks-upsetting-Chinese-government-barring-talk-massacre.html youtube china uncensored video

deny: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/22/taylor-swift-china-banned-1989-merchandise-censorship/ http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/936438.shtml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11755679/Taylor-Swift-Chinese-clothing-line-with-TS-and-1989-touches-Tiananmen-Square-nerve.html 77.125.5.185 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexism?

"One of the most popular contemporary female recording artists..."

Wouldn't this still be true without "female"? Why qualify her success with her gender?

I propose removing the word "female" from this sentence.

Tantrie (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it sexist but yeah it can also do without 'female'. Removed. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible better infobox image

As discussed above the current infobox image isn't to everyone's liking. I propose the following image. What do you think ? Perhaps you have an opinion, @FrB.TG:

• 
  Current image
• 
  Proposed image

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the current image is one of the best we could possibly have so I don't see the need for a change. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I also prefer the current image. True, the proposed image provides a more flattering view of Ms. Swift's neck and has less shadowing on her face, but her band mate's hair in the background is distracting and makes the image look sloppy and unplanned. Rebbing 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: If your problem is with the hair we could either take it to the photography workshop and get it edited out, or look on Commons for other pictures from the same event. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! The proposed image is from Category:Speak Now World Tour. I found three images I think are worth considering:

• 
  R1
• 
  R2
• 
  R3

(I can losslessly crop these if needed.) Thoughts? Rebbing 18:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I really like image R3. I may have a few suitable ones from the Speak Now tour myself. I will try to upload later. Melodyschamble (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Melodies1917: Did you have any suitable ones, or should we pass our votes now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 15:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: A discussion was started here, but no consensus was reached hence why I tagged it as bold. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this because somehow I completely missed this discussion. I would say R3 is definitely the strongest. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure R3 was used in her infobox sometime ago. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 14:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if R3 used previously I don't think that is a reason to discount it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think R1, R2, and R3 are all superior to the current image and the previously proposed image. Plain Text (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@John Shiner 13 and Kellymoat: The discussion is here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, new user here. I believe that the original picture should be kept because it is from her Red era, which is after her Speak Now era. It's a newer picture, so until a different, newer picture is found, that is the one to use. Allikattm (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@SawOnGam: Please discuss here about any alternative image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly recommend R3 It's far better than the present Image coz the present image is of 2012 and its too old Sawongam (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The page should feature a more recent picture of Ms. Swift. Nthomps1 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't not understand why FrB.TG choose these pic for this article. Common Wikipedia has many better pic.

• 
  Current image in Infobox. It looks like she was sitting behind the grid. Can you see the green diagonal?
• 
  current image in Song writing - This pic is too dark and Swift was frowning

I suggest to use these two image. They are more beautiful.

• 
  Using for Infobox, it is more recent than GMA 2012
• 
  Using for Song Writing

—Phamthuathienvan (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: I have left the message here for about three day but no response. Can you discuss with me about it? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

All users above was discussing about the possibility of changing pic. No one said that the Taylor Swift GMA 2012.jpg must be used for the infobox or in this article, similar to the Taylor Swift Cavendish.JPG. I've already present the reason why the article should use those two better pic.Phamthuathienvan (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why FrB.TG keep using the GMA 2012 pic for Taylor Swift info box. The Red Tour one is definitely better. It actually shows Swift's face directly and clearly, and more recent than GMA 2012. The GMA 2012 is not a quality pic, it was shot by a photographer who stood outside the studio-where Swift did the interview and behind Swift's back. That why, there were some green diagonals across the photo as well as Swift's face–that can be seen easily.

This is the GMA 2012's original version

And what do you mean when you said "it looks a little weird with the plain black background"?—Phamthuathienvan (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggets that we update the picture in the info box to this:

• 

The current one is poorly lit, old, and doesn't accentuate that she is a performed in the was the suggested picture does. Angusaditus (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a newer picture (from The 1989 World Tour or even newer) should be used. In my opinion Angusaditus's suggested picture would look good, but i suggest using an image with less chromatic aberration. MartinWinkelmann (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC) This account appears to be new and the comments here are the only substaniative edit they have made.

I also think a newer image should be found and think Angusaditus's suggestion looks fine.Popeye191 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur it should be updated, and Angusaditus's suggestion is good. Andrewc248 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) This accounts has only made around 36 edits at the time of this note

After trying to find a better image licensed under a free license I agree that Angusaditus's suggestion is most likely the best one. MartinWinkelmann (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC) This account appears to be new and the comments here are the only substaniative edit they have made.

I agree with Angusaditus that this updated picture works better than the current one! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC) This comment is the only edit the newly created Piccprincess has made

I still prefer the previous one. It shows Swift's face clearly and is brighter than the new one. In my opinion, there is no better picture to use for this article's infobox at the moment, except these two pic: Taylor Swift Red Tour 5, 2013.jpg & Taylor Swift Speak Now Tour 2011 4.jpg. Hopefully, in the future, Common Wiki will have really good images for Swift.—Phamthuathienvan (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone remembers, but there was a good image of Taylor Swift uploaded by a user, but he requested it to be deleted as the image was never used anywhere else. It appeared for a day or two in the infobox before it was removed. Here is the discussion. King Cobra (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Taylor's infobox image needs to be updated to something more recent like her 1989 tour. How about changing it to this?

• 

Jeff.Abney99 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeff.Abney99 The image that you choose has already placed in the section 2014-present: 1989. Moreover, it does not show Swift's face directly.

The current image is better and also the most suitable image for the article's infobox at the moment. I understand that it is old and many people want to update the image that more recent. However, there is no quality image from 1989 Tour on Wikimedia Commons. Some biography articles (such as Michael Jackson) are still using image from many years ago. Probably, we should wait until Swift go on next tour and/or maybe some kind people will take good pictures of her then upload to Commons.Phamthuathienvan (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)