Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Swifties

I'm wondering how others would feel about discussing Swifties in the legacy section. I've been working on a draft about Gaylor (which, to be transparent, I want to link in this article and I think a Swifties section would be a good place for that) and have learned a lot about how her fanbase and her relationship to her fanbase are very unique, and I think Swifties are a notable part of Swift's legacy. For examples, look at the section “Her Biggest Fans”.this article in particular stuck out to me. Tekrmn (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree put a section about swifties 70.189.52.225 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a couple paragraphs about them to the legacy section. I definitely think there's more that could be said about swifties and that what I wrote could use some tweaking if anyone is looking to get involved, but it's a start. Tekrmn (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The relationship between Swifties and Swift has already been mentioned and commented on in the "Public Image" section. Inclusion of further prose on the topic would be beyond the scope of this article. I have removed the content and it can be added back to an article dedicated to Swift's impact. Please see previous topics. ℛonherry☘ 07:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of the brief mention of her fans, however I think it's clear that her fanbase is more notable than that. I also don't agree that Swifties are beyond the scope of this article- One Direction fans have a whole section in the One Direction article, Justin Bieber's article has a large paragraph about his fans, and these are just the first two articles that I looked at because I know they also have somewhat notable followings, though I would argue much less so than Swift. There is currently no article dedicated to Swift's impact, so I think it's appropriate to add this content back at least until there is. I don't really see why this content needed to be removed for that purpose but everything else in the article can stay? Tekrmn (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"One Direction has this, Justin Bieber article has that"; this is not twitter. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and quality must be maintained. Articles of other artists simply do not matter. Even if they do, Taylor Swift is a featured article unlike 1D and Bieber's articles. Therefore, the TS article must adhere to various standards of quality to retain the status. The content you added reads as mostly WP:FANCRUFT and needs a nice pruning cum quality check. Moreover, now there IS an article for the cultural impact of Taylor Swift. Assuming you're a new editor relatively, I advice you to go through WP:NEUTRALITY, WP:V, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:ATTRIBUTION, and other related guidelines before adding content. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 16:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think other articles about pop stars with notable followings containing information about their followings shows that "pop star's notable fandom" is not outside the scope of "pop star." the BTS article is an excellent example of this. I said in the talk page that my addition needed editing, I am not arguing that pieces of my addition shouldn't have been removed or that what I wrote should not have been changed, but it's my understanding that just removing an entire edit of reliably sourced, notable content other editors have added rather than editing it, discussing it, or providing any solid reason why it needs to be completely removed from the article is not best practice either. I have read through these guidelines and I can see how NPOV was questionable (again, I came to the talk page to say my contribution needed editing) however I do not see how it wasn't verifiable. I did intend to mention in the talk page that there were claims made that were all sourced by the citation at the end of a few sentences, and this would be one of the edits that could have been brought up on the talk page or made to the content without a full revert. Tekrmn (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

I request a change of her picture to a new picture. 39.62.7.104 (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. check out WP:Image Use Policy, and if the image you have in mind meets guidelines, link to it here and reopen the request then Cannolis (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Image choice

The current image of Swift from her current tour is a poor choice-- MOS:IMAGEQUALITY recommends using a portrait of the subject, not a full body image. Surely there are better options, such as this one from 2019 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:191125_Taylor_Swift_at_the_2019_American_Music_Awards.png)? It is four years old so to my knowledge still presents an accurate representation of Swift.

Vegantics (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ronherry ItsMarkWbu I prefer the 2019 AMA picture over the current Haim concert photo tbh. What do you guys think? Ippantekina (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I do not oppose. ℛonherry☘ 03:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, the AMA pic is just fine. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taylor_Swift_2_-_2019_by_Glenn_Francis.jpg or one of its cropped versions instead—a higher resolution photo from the same year rather than a png of a compressed video screenshot, perhaps swapping the two in the article. Miklogfeather (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

But what's wrong the AMAs image? It looks great to me. ℛonherry☘ 06:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged break-up

Hey all. Numerous sources -- including reasonably reputable sources -- are reporting that Swift and Joe Alwyn, her partner of about six years, have split. I'm cautious about (1) whether we take these rumors seriously, since we're not seeing anything wildly reliable beyond ET and other sources copying them, and (2) how we go about adding this to the article. If it's true, it's certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the article. He's also mentioned kinda casually throughout the article; unsurprising, given how long they've been dating and that he's co-written several of her songs, but how we go about adding this is a bit tricky.

I'm thinking something along the lines of "On April 8, 2023 (alt: "April 7"? idk what time it was announced and what time zone we use for this), Entertainment Tonight (alt: just call it "ET"?) shared that Alwyn and Swift had quietly ended their relationship a few weeks prior (alt: "in late March"/"in early April"/whatever idc). ET's source shared that the split was "amicable" and that "the relationship had just run its course"."

We can use the primary source https://www.etonline.com/taylor-swift-and-joe-alwyn-break-up-after-six-years-of-dating-exclusive-202408 and simply googling "taylor swift joe alwyn" pulls up a buttload of relevant articles copying the main quotes from the

Additionally, lots of minor work to do; changing "partner" to "ex-partner" (alt: "ex-boyfriend"? probably "ex-partner" is best though), changing the "partner" detail in the infobox (should he be removed or just say "2016-2023"? much to think about!).

Does anyone see an issue with this? I think I'll just add it and anyone can/should make changes as seen fit. Aurora mc (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

ET is the only source claiming that Swift and Alwyn have broken up and all the other magazines are simply re-reporting ET. While the wide news coverage warrants the inclusion of ET's report in the prose, it does not warrant the change in the timeline in the infobox since ET is the only source. Biography articles are sensitive and should NOT be edited in a gist. They require multiple, strong, non ambiguous, perennial, independently published sources to make any changes regarding the subject's private life. So far, there is only a news cycle reporting on ET's news and no other independent source stating the same without citing ET as their source of information. In conclusion, the ET report can be included in the Midnights section as a claim but changes should not be made in the infobox until there are several independent sources. Please study Wikipedia:Independent sources and WP:TABLOID for further insight. ℛonherry☘ 06:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As this is becoming quite contentious (leading to edit wars on both pages), I've taken the liberty of removing both Swift and Alwyn from the "Partner" section of each other's Infobox altogether. Pinging all editors involved to talk it out before further changes are made: CAMERAwMUSTACHE, Ticklekeys, Gobonobo, C.Fred, Khang17092004, Ronherry, Aigbedion e, Batoenonghistoryador, Sunshine moonki, JackReynoldsADogOwner, Jaygopal Arora, Mdeblasio70, Paul Erik, YOÜ AND I baby, Hagshsjaka, FrB.TG, AverageLogic, GeorgiaPowell15, Rtfhj78i99, RoryGilmoreSeasonTwo, ItsMarkWbu. Regardless of what content sources are reporting, Wikipedia is not a tabloid and it is our responsibility to not confuse or mislead readers; the edit warring and disagreeing has already done just that. I'd like to assume that by pinging all of you, this means the constant edits will slow down and we can come to a consensus here before editing the page again. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean CNN says they confirmed the breakup as well, does that count? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/09/entertainment/taylor-swift-joe-alwyn-break-up/index.html They’re surely far from a tabloid and aren’t just parroting ET. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

just calm down and wait a few days til we have more concrete things, no point in changing this back and forth 2001:7D0:84B6:DB80:BD99:9998:6E0D:3637 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be more confirmation or other sources other than ET. There is a report by CNN that another user linked here but the source in that article is someone "close to Taylor", which is dubious. We need to wait longer than 12 hours to make any further changes to the article regarding their relationship so there can be further confirmation.

I'm still not entirely in the loop regarding this strenuous situation, my edit this morning to the infobox was completely unknowing that there was even something going on. AverageLogic (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement here that things are a touch dubious at the moment and it is worth waiting to see how this shakes down. I do, however, find it curious that CNN has now separately/independently confirmed with a source of their own "close" to the pair and that does lend some credence as it has now exited the tabloids and is independent of ET. It will be interesting to see how this develops and if more sources confirm this. It would be ideal to have a public acknowledgement either way from one of the parties involved but that might not be something that happens. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

There's this People article from today: https://people.com/music/why-taylor-swift-joe-alwyn-broke-up-after-six-years-exclusive/ Rfl0216 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm adding it using this article. People is considered reliable under WP:RSP, and has been a go-to place for her team. Frankly, since it has been a few days, I don't expect more to come and I think this source is as good as we'll get. Shuipzv3 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You should not post this as of yet until it is officially confirmed by representatives of Swift or Alywn not some anonymous supposed “insider”. How many times have news outlets posted things based on claims by some anonymous “insider” that ends up not coming to pass? This happened recently with Swift when news medias started claiming an anonymous “insider” told them Swift was going to announce her next rerecording before embarking on her Eras Tour and that did not come to pass so any news outlet claiming they broke up by an anonymous source and saying that representatives for both parties haven’t responded for comment by the time of posting should be taken with a grain of salt and not be considered reliable or as factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11D:D5E4:39D3:839:C364:9B3C (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you all think it would be appropriate to add Joe Alwyn back on her Infobox, as he was a significant partner of hers from 2016 to 2023? a wiki editor 10:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think if their relationship was significant enough to be included in the infobox when they were together maybe it should still included even after their split? AIowA (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

One more reason not to be in such a hurry to add this information to the article: Brittany Hodak on TMZ ""Taylor Swift Making Most of Split to Publicize Tour, Says Marketing Expert | TMZ LIVE" Theys York (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

17 May 2023 - Please be wary of taking rumours as fact. I've changed "confirmed" to "rumoured" for the breakup, because it's still not confirmed by either party, just an anonymous source with no real agency. Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

I suggest to hyperlink all of the instruments listed (Vocals, guitar, banjo, piano, ukulele) to internal wikipedia pages for easy access to those around the world interested in learning more about the same instruments as the American singer-songwriter, Taylor Swift, plays. This same process of hyperlinking instrument names internally to their respective Wikipedia page already exists on other famous singer and songwriter pages. Caramelo77 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done AnnaMankad (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @AnnaMankad. Hi there, @Ronherry, ER = edit request. Vocals is listed under all artists Instrument(s) section if they use their own voice in place or in addition to other musical instruments. Wikipedia redirects hyperlinks of Vocals to the Singing. I would also argue that Taylor's vocals are the most important piece listed in this Instrument(s) section and most definitely should have a hyperlink to go along with it. Thank you for your understanding. Caramelo77 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course, vocals are the most important instrument for ANY singer actually. But I do not think it needs to be hyperlinked. It's a very very common term that does not require hyperlink at all. ℛonherry☘ 16:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

While I can agree it is a very very common term, there does exist the Singing page for a reason, and in the context that the word "Vocals" exist within this specific Instrument(s) section where all other instruments are hyperlinked, I find it more beneficial to have "Vocals" following that same pattern of hyperlinking to its respective Wiki page; again, just in this specific context. I do understand your perspective, but I hope that I am doing my best at communicating mine as well. Thank you :) Caramelo77 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I still do not find it convincing enough to hyperlink such a common word. I mean, the mere existence of an article should not be a justification for hyperlinking the word that's the subject of the article. Like, even "The" has an article. Anyway, if you want to hyperlink Vocals, then you can do it. I do not personally think a hyperlink is required. But such a small change is not worth having an entire discussion on either. So, yes, you can hyperlink it. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 16:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, @Ronherry. I understand we disagree, so I even more appreciate your willingness on this one. I do not yet have the required permission to make this change. @AnnaMankad, would you be king enough to re-add the hyperlink to Vocals in the Instrument(s) section? Thank you both! Caramelo77 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

Hey there! I suggest inside of the InfoBox, in the Instrument(s) section, to hyperlink Vocals to match the format of the other instruments in this specific sectin.

While I can agree Vocals is a very common term, there does exist the Singing Wikipedia page for a reason, the page that Vocals will be redirected to, and in the context that the word "Vocals" exist within this specific Instrument(s) section where all other instruments are hyperlinked, I find it more beneficial to have "Vocals" following that same pattern of hyperlinking to its respective Wiki page; again, just in this specific context. Thank you :) Caramelo77 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. ℛonherry☘ 16:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar

There are so many cases in this article where punctuation is placed after quotation marks weather it is in the middle of a sentence, or at the end of a sentence. Punctuation always goes inside quotation marks, and it needs to be fixed. 167.224.190.229 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses logical punctuation for its articles, which means that there are several cases where punctuation actually does go outside of quotation marks. Please see MOS:LQ for more information. SkyWarrior 17:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows 122.52.127.206 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Swift’s net worth

I’ve noticed that for a couple of years now Taylor Swift’s net worth, that appears in her infobox, at the beginning of the article she is the subject of, has been the same. Forbes recently published a list of the richest women in the USA, where Swift’s net worth was updated to 740 million US dollars, while on Wikipedia it is still at 360 million. So I think the number should be changed.

Here is the link to the Forbes article where her current net worth is mentioned: https://www.forbes.com/self-made-women/?sh=3ff08ef56d96

Falselakesgod (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

References

 Already done Lightoil (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical error in lede

This sentence, "Under Big Machine, she released six studio albums, four of which to country radio, starting with her self-titled album (2006)," is grammatically incorrect. It should say "four to country radio" or "four of which played on country radio". Anti-ideologue (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Anti-ideologue: Done. Bowling is life (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Philanthropy Effort on Tour

The philanthropy section does not mention her donations to food banks while on the Eras Tour. At each stop on her tour, she has donated to local food banks. I feel like this should be mentioned in the philanthropy section.

EDIT: I see it is now added, I think this must have just been done as it was not there when I previously read the wiki page

2607:F010:2E9:2:58D3:95F3:3AAD:94F7 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done ℛonherry☘ 08:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

some of the information is incorrect and i am a big time swiftie so i am super relibile for this correcting 13livvy13 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You'd be even more reliable if you pointed out what information is incorrect and proved that it's incorrect. $chnauzer 05:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional info suggestion

Wanted to suggest the following sentence be added as the last sentence in "2008–2010: Fearless", after he mention of hosting Saturday Night Live:

Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Cimino had also apparently eyed Swift for the lead role in one of his final directing projects. However, the film was not produced as the director died shortly thereafter.

Thought it would be best to enunciate the point that even at this early stage in her career, she was building a name for herself... and was truly loved by everyone, even 70-year-old filmmakers. The reason I suggest putting it in that particular section, is because the article mentions that he eyed her for the role "before she rode to fame," which I estimate was sometime in the late '00s. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think this is notable information. Plus, the source is not a reliable one. ℛonherry☘ 15:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The source is notable as the author, Kevin Jagernauth, is a critic and writer who has written professionally about music and film for over 15 years. This information is notable as it is a nod toward Taylor’s career as an actor which is not discussed thoroughly in this article. Abbie xo (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think its worthy of inclusion and I don't think other editors will agree with you either. Please read WP:UNDUE and tell me whether it changes your belief. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 14:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, why is your reply here in this talk page your only contribution ever? Are the accounts ZanderAlbatraz and Abbie the same person (you)? If so, please do not continue to do so. That's a violation of WP:SOCKPUPPET. Stick to one account in one discussion. ℛonherry☘ 14:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not affiliated with Abbey, although of course I agree with that point. I also don't see how the inclusion of that small piece of information could harm the article in any way. Fans might like to know that she was at least active in film, at least in some capacity, that early in her life, as well as the cultural impact she had. She even struck a cord with a New Hollywood filmmaker! That's all that was meant to do, and I thought it would pair nicely with the other stuff mentioned in "2008–2010: Fearless". I don't see what it hurts to be included, but if you really don't think it's worthy of inclusion then so be it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, Taylor Swift is one of the featured articles, which is a class of Wikipedia articles that represent the best, and it takes a great deal of work and time to make an article achieve the FA status. Any addition/deletion that could generally be tolerated in non-FA articles will be scrutinized when it comes to FA. It's important that the article strictly follows all the guidelines offered by Wikipedia. Trivial and superfluous information should not be included. "ThePlaylist.net" is not a reliable source. ℛonherry☘ 17:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Correcting dubious claims

I found these two claims in the article:

- and the only act to have five albums open with over one million copies sold in the US.

- Swift became the first act to have four albums sell one million copies within one week in the U.S.

The first one has no source but is clearly untrue, I'm not sure about the US, but Michael Jackson's Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, and History, all sold more than 20 million copies worldwide. For the 2nd one the source says that this is only since 1991, which is impressive, but again removes a long history of album sales. -Solid Reign (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

These claims are both correct and thoroughly sourced. Feel free to check her album eras' respective sections under Life and career. I'm bemused as to why you're invoking Michael Jackson's WW album sales, since both claims you've listed regard first-week unit sales in the US alone, not overall figures. Weekly US album sales have only been reliably tracked since 1991, as that year marked the beginning of the Nielsen SoundScan era. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

FTX

The article states that Swift's FTX deal collapsed after Swift questioned the company if it was selling "unregistered securities". This implies she or her team smelt a rat and avoided doing business with FTX. Now a completely different narrative has come to light stating that it was FTX who pulled the plug on the deal, not swift. See here and here Uhooep (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Taylor Swift has one more album please add information on Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) Zfufuvib (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Already mentioned in the article, what more information do you want added? Cannolis (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"April Gloria" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect April Gloria has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25 § April Gloria until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote to album?

In my opinion, it's standard to add a hatnote if there is one other primary topic WP:ONEOTHER and WP:SIMILAR. So I think the hatnote to the album should be brought back. RMXY (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I'm pretty sure this is REALLY needed.

Not needed. People interested in the album will be able to find it easily in the biography. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: No, you can't oppose. WP:ONEOTHER states that "if there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." RMXY (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, because of the relationship of the two topics. The album is easily found at the bio, and vice versa. Binksternet (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with RMXY. The hatnote should stay. ℛonherry☘ 18:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ronherry: Why not make this an RfC? RMXY (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this a Rfc-level dispute. It's such a minute change, and in my opinion, I don't know why editors are even have a discussion over it. But if you think this talk topic should become an Rfc, please initiate it. ℛonherry☘ 08:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I just noticed you had already initiated the Rfc. Cool. ℛonherry☘ 08:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Restore hatnote to album

The following discussion 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.

---

I see that the article for Taylor Swift’s self-titled album exists at wikipedia. But in April 2023, someone removed the hatnote to the album. I tried to bring it back twice, but it was removed again both times. From what I saw, WP:ONEOTHER states read before "if there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article."

So, do you think shall we bring back the hatnote to Swift’s album? RMXY (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Restore. This is a featured article, and I think a hatnote would be useful to readers who are actually looking for her self-titled album. It doesn't harm the article to have the hatnote either. ℛonherry☘ 08:45, 29 July 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

taylor swift was born in pennsylvania, not nashville. 2607:FB91:1442:D7FB:F069:A9B:6169:2237 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That info is stated throughout the article already. $chnauzer 19:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

Under 'Instruments' change to 'banjo guitar'. Taylor plays a six-string banjo, which is tuned and played the same way as a standard six-string guitar. A banjo typically is typically considered to be either a four-string tenor banjo, or a five-string bluegrass banjo (the latter being most common). A six-string falls under a hybrid of a banjo. The tuning, picking, chords, and progressions of a banjo are vastly different.

Sources: 2A01:B340:65:D7CD:1595:954B:B609:A269 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Are you sure that Swift plays the banjo guitar instead of the banjo? Could you please reference this? NotAGenious (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct; Swift plays a six-string banjo. Just made an edit for precision's sake. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

Change Madonna to Madonna StormWillLaugh (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Done: Bowling is life (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

To add Taylor Swift's mom's and dad's names to the 'relatives' part of the infobox. Their names are Andrea Swift and Scott Swift. Here is a Hollywood Reporter article stating '...his management deals with Swift and parents Scott and Andrea Swift'. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/taylor-swifts-ex-manager-sues-28925/ BlackandWhitePandas (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Only notable parents (own Wikipedia articles) are listed in the infobox. FrB.TG (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

YouTube stats

This was rejected as Taylor Swift is not a YouTuber, merely a musician with several billion views etc.

The template is here in case someone wants to sum up awards, videography, etc.

Taylor Swift
YouTube information
Channel	Taylor Swift
Years active	2006-Present
Subscribers	53,000,000+
Total views	30,800,000,000+

Twillisjr (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Twillisjr (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

Nickname: The Music Industry 2806:107E:C:5650:386C:FBB1:3DA7:28CD (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

new documentery

The taylor swift team announced a new documentery about the eras tour concerts. 2A02:A03F:E25D:4100:7462:3985:C2D4:C15E (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

In the line in which it is written as Taylor swift is an American singer-songwriter, director should also be added as she directed many music videos of her 49.207.211.112 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: presuming you mean in the first sentence, no. We generally reserve that for what someone is best known for, otherwise we would have to tack on model, actress, etc. Do already have "director" listed in the infobox Cannolis (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm not "extended confirmed", so I cannot fix it myself, but in 2008–2010: Fearless and acting debut, there's an errant comma that needs removed:

"The first single, peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100 and number one in Australia."

~ Thank you. Ursa Major 22:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done: Looks like MonarchOfTerror fixed it about an hour and a half after you originally posted this on the 15th.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 15:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Ursa Major 15:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ray Stevens

Some people don't realize who Ray Stevens is. He was a superstar in the 1960s and 1970s. A huge hitmaker. For those who haven't figured out who he is. Well, he is the "Everything Is Beautiful" guy. - "Everything is Beautiful" (hear it) That was his serious side. He had a bunch of other hits; most were fun stuff such as "Gitarzan" and "The Streak" etc.

• Taylor Swift: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Well, Taylor Swift's prominence doesn't lessen an inclusion of Ray Stevens. Karl Twist (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Coverage

• USA Today, Feb 24, 2015

Ray Stevens says Taylor Swift is stalkin' him

. . . . . . . . .

• The Boot, March 2, 2015

Ray Stevens releases "Taylor Swift is Stalkin' Me" video

. . . . . . . . .

• Billboard, 03/24/2015

Ray Stevens Returns With ‘Taylor Swift Is Stalkin’ Me’

. . . . . . . . .

• Country Thang Daily, 29 Jan 2023

Ten of the Best Ray Stevens Songs You Should Add to Your Playlist

. . . . . . . . .

• The Tennessean, April 6, 2015

Ray Stevens pokes fun at Taylor Swift on new album

. . . . . . . . .

• Hometown Country Music, February 24, 2015

Video: “Taylor Swift is Stalkin’ Me” by Ray Stevens

. . . . . . . . .

• Roughstock, Tuesday March 24, 2015

Ray Stevens “Here We Go Again!” Tracklist & Cover Art

. . . . . . . . .

And some folks think that there's no coverage of "Taylor Swift is Stalkin' Me". This is good enough!

It can be heard below

• raystevensmusic channel - Ray Stevens - Taylor Swift Is Stalkin' Me
• raystevensmusic channel - Ray Stevens - "Taylor Swift Is Stalkin' Me" (Live on CabaRay Nashville)

  Worthy of inclusion! Karl Twist (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It belongs in Ray Stevens, not here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not here? Stevens is a very prominent recording star. What lessens his inclusion? Karl Twist (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen. Based on the above listed sources, seems like releasing a song namedropping Swift was a press moment for him, not for Swift. It fairs dull compared to numerous namedroppings and celebrity facts about Swift that are not included in this article simply because they are really not relevant to a biography. Multiple artists mention Swift every day and publications cover what they say. There are many songs by other artists that refer to Swift. These factoids should be included in those artists' respective articles, and not Swift's. ℛonherry☘ 11:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Taylor being apart of the lgbtqia community

As confirmed by glaad and stonewall Instagram accounts I feel this should be added so people know and can feel seen heard and understood. 2601:806:C300:DE70:1D0D:D1CC:3B73:44F9 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Swift hasn't said so, so No. ℛonherry☘ 11:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

The article says “whom he considers an ‘economic genius’” about Alan Krueger, who died in 2019; I think it should be “considered.” Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"TayTay" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TayTay has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § TayTay until a consensus is reached. Ippantekina (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

Swift was seen at Kansas City Chiefs Chicago Bears game sitting with Travis Kelce's mother. Dank117 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, so? Cannolis (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's an explanation for why we are not going to accept your request. The information you want us to add is trivial/not relevant at all. She was seen at Kansas City Chiefs Chicago Bears game sitting with Travis Kelce's mother. So what? How is that relevant? Bowling is life (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

She is mentioned on his page? Trivial for her, not for him?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kelce#Personal_life Ssalava42 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ssalava42: Just because something exists in another article doesn't make it ok. This request is trivial and not relevant. If and when they confirm a relationship then that can be mentioned in either but absolutely nothing should be said in either page until Kelce or Swift confirm a relationship.--Rockchalk717 04:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Personal life

This article seems to be missing typical biographical info, such as relationships, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not missing that info. You’ll find details of her personal life throughout the life and career section. Rfl0216 (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I too was confused by this; most articles for celebs have "personal life" details in its own section, as it's rather a separate timeline from her overall career. Suggest this be refactored.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a separate "personal life" section. 2603:800C:3A40:6400:3D09:B6AA:EE17:1940 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree 2600:1700:5DB8:2450:1042:2983:F8EA:6A7C (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

i couple little blurbs are not "details". its weird how she doesnt have a dedicated personal life section like most 74.50.252.20 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can edit anonymously when your fans are protective of you they can control the narrative 2601:703:180:D320:6DBF:2AF:3EE8:C896 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

Swift was the biggest winner at the 2023 MTV Video Music Awards. With the most nominations, and left with nine wins, including artist of the year, best pop, song of the year and video of the year. Jzheng66 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It's unclear how you'd like this information to be incorporated into the article. This is already mentioned to an extent in Taylor Swift#2021–present: Re-recordings, Midnights, and the Eras Tour. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Adding a non-free vocal sample to the voice section

An article about a singer in which readers do not get to hear the singer seems necessarily incomplete. Among the non-free content criteria, #8 "contextual significance" is often the stumbling block, but I think there is a compelling argument here given that the entire "voice" section is devoted to describing her voice. The standard of its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is met in my view, given that it's ultimately not possible to describe a voice solely through text, particularly since most non-musician readers will not know what possesses a mezzo-soprano vocal range actually sounds like.

In order to comply with the music samples guideline, the sample can be at most 30 seconds long or 10% of the length of the song, whichever is shorter. I'm interested to hear from editors more familiar with Swift's catalog — which 30-second segment would be most iconically representative of her voice? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: After consulting with a Swiftie friend, I chose "All Too Well" and added it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK concerns

I notice that two instances in the early life section appear to have MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK concerns: attended preschool and kindergarten at Alvernia Montessori School and performed in four Berks Youth Theatre Academy productions. How would we prefer to resolve these? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ronherry, would you have any thoughts on this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

As per the MOS, I believe the blue link should be removed in both the instances. ℛonherry☘ 05:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. The Montessori link is the one I think readers might be more interested in, so I found a way to add that nearby that only introduced a few words. For Berks I just removed it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Great! ℛonherry☘ 06:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Reputation and 1989

As a swiftie I think that 1989 and Reputation shouldn’t be together because they are completely different eras and on the middle of them there was a long time, it doesn’t make sense if they are together. Trevorx 10 (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point those subsections is to simply couple a few albums together to split up the large section; grouping them based on musical or aesthetic associations is NOT the goal. ℛonherry☘ 06:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Artists praising Taylor Swift

I am dubious about the significance of listing artists that praised Swift (paragraph 3, "Legacy" section). Musicians routinely praise each other, and although the names listed are notable (i.e. Springsteen, McCartney etc) so are those not mentioned (e.g. Kris Kristofferson praised Swift back in 2010 or Neil Young in 2011). This raises the question as to what criteria these names are included and what value is added by including them. If it is to highlight Swift's songwriting prowess there is academic/professional criticism, and this bit reads especially lightweight. Ippantekina (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not about praise, because yes, musicians routinely praise each other. That bit you're concerned about is more about how senior musicians, some of whom have been cited as an inspiration by Swift, view her artistry. Yes, critics' analysis of her artistry is included in the article, so why not include little bit of peer acknowledgement too? We can for sure accomodate both of them, with less weightage to the latter as evident in the article. As far as I know, legacy commentary is not purely restricted to critics alone even though they form the majority of it. ℛonherry☘ 06:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Swift philanthropy

Reading the philantropy section, i noticed this:

"and offered a signed guitar for auction to raise money for the National Health Service.."

This is reference 616 at the time of writing this post. When reading the reference page, there is an hyperlink to the auction page in Bid-in website. I provide this archived page as complementary proof that the guitar was donated: https://archive.ph/VIJgY

Anyone with editing rights can add this archived page as another reference for the "signed guitar for NHS" piece of information.

References

Paladium (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Swift life app

why was the line about Swift Life app removed? It was a very relevant business venture. The article can and should include her failures. 75.104.108.14 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It was probably removed when the article was copyedited to adhere to FA standards. I personally do not think it's a very notable piece of info for her biography. ℛonherry☘ 06:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Just dropped by in this Talk page randomly but allow me to add to the discussion: Wasn't the Swift Life app launched during the Reputation era? It could get added there to further illustrate how she promoted the album. In a way, she tried to create a safe space for Swifties. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Given how much coverage there is of Swift overall, the WP:DUE bar (the amount of coverage needed on a particular topic to warrant mention here) is high. If there is enough coverage of the app for it to have its own article, then I'd be more inclined to consider a one-sentence mention here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think a line about this short-lived app can be to added to Swifties instead of this biography, since it was basically an app for the fans. ℛonherry☘ 12:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

the swift life app was important because it is one of the few examples of an app created specifically to interact with a single person, who is also, infrastructurally, a user of the app. taylor swift agreed to create the app because she was tired of the ritualized stampede that came with the blips on istayontumblr.com and she wanted a platform she could control completely. even though the app was a failure i think it is still really interesting because on most platforms the user accounts are classes, but on the swift life app there was a class specifically for one individual that all the other features are meant to regulate interaction with.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life

This page needs a personal life section. It’s visually unappealing to see random pieces about her relationships, humanitarian efforts and family life strewn together alongside her big life & career section. Please fix this. 69.123.143.43 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm two-minded about this, but in fact, I'm not a fan of the concept of having "Personal Life" as a separate section honestly, but it's a pretty common sight on Wikipedia. I think other editors should weigh in on this. ℛonherry☘ 06:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly ambivalent. The argument against it would be that Swift's life and career are so interwoven that they're best presented together in a single "life and career" section. One argument for it would be that it'd give us a better place to put info like her pets (which are currently rather awkwardly wedged into the "public image" section). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

About the first part of your comment, I absolutely agree. Her life and career are so interwoven that it's best to put them together chronologically. Coming to the second part, LOL yes; the cats are however often associated with Swift's public image as an unapologetic "cat lady". It was me who placed the cats info under Public Image as it seemed the best section for it, but if you can suggest a different location, you have my ears. ℛonherry☘ 13:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting it up has been discussed several times before - for example here, here and here. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wasn't aware of these. Thanks. ℛonherry☘ 12:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Shuipzv3 One element of a "Personal Life" section that hasn't been previously discussed is the controversy around Swift's personal life. There has been extra weight put on the amount of relationships she has had compared to other artists and she has made statements regarding the media's treatment of her relationships and her mentions of her relationships in her music. I think it may be beneficial to separate her relationships from her musical accomplishments so they aren't disrupting the flow of her career, as previously stated. I feel the best format for a "Personal Life" section for Swift would be something to the effect of: "Swift dated DJ Calvin Harris from March 2015 to June 2016. She began dating actor Joe Alwyn in September 2016, and the two separated in April 2023 She has been previously romantically linked to Joe Jonas, Taylor Lautner, John Mayer, Jake Gyllenhaal, Conor Kennedy, Harry Styles, and Tom Hiddleston; in interviews, she has made statements about the age gap between herself, Gyllenhaal, and Mayer. Responding to criticism regarding her references to her relationships in her music, Swift has stated: 'Most singers do that.' She has been romantically connected to football player Travis Kelce since September 2023." Or something to that affect. Just something to make the relationships less jarring, and to add some of the comments Swift has made about her personal life. Ap1015 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I also think it's worth noting that in a previous discussion, someone mentioned digging through the article to find information about Swift's personal life. I think, in keep in line with the spirit of Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia, it's worth remembering that Swift's personal life IS a big topic of discussion, and Wikipedia would be a go-to source of information for what the facts are regarding her personal life. I think making information accessible would be better than forcing people to dig. Ap1015 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I won't sugarcoat this; making a separate section for personal life would basically be asking for trouble. That could easily become a magnet for gossip, speculation, trivia, undue weight, fancruft, etc. It's not worth the risk of getting filled with excessive detail. I'm particularly worried right now that somebody would bloat it with speculative Travis Kelce details when (unless I missed something) neither has confirmed a romance so far. Phrasing like "romantically linked to" or "romantically connected to" would be gossipy and we should only stick to relationships that are known for certain to have happened. See WP:NOTGOSSIP for more. Additionally, when there are times when she's worked professionally with partners (starring with Taylor Lautner in Valentine's Day plus making music with John Mayer, Calvin Harris, and Joe Alwyn), having them interspersed within "Life and career" helps avoid redundant mentions of such endeavors. The negatives of splitting it outweigh any positives. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

i agree with SNUGGUMS' prediction. and the public image section is the right place for the cats. isadora of ibiza (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

change the Relatives section to Austin Swift (brother), Andrea Finlay (mom), Scott Swift (father), Marjorie Finlay (grandmother), Rose Swift (grandmother), Archie Swift (grandfather), Robert Bruce Finlay (grandfather) Insomnia Eras (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: out concern for privacy, we generally only put notable folks in the infobox, i.e. people who have met WP:Notability and have their own articles Cannolis (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Hello, I love Taylor swift and I am a true swiftie 🫶🏽. I know everything thing about her and I wanted to add a few things, like her reletives, etc. 2600:8800:2508:F300:D174:49C7:18F0:5B1 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Tollens (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

"Nine of her songs have topped the Billboard Hot 100,"

to

"Ten of her songs have topped the Billboard Hot 100,"

following Cruel Summer's Number 1 on the Hot 100. Arsoniel (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done FrB.TG (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Cruel Summer hit number 1 on billboard

And now her song cruel summer hit number 1 most recently Shrekleigh (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in career section "...and "Cruel Summer", which became a resurgent success in 2023 and reached number one on the Hot 100." FrB.TG (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding more about her politics and role in 2024 election

In the "social activism" subsection under cultural status, I was surprised there wasn't any mention of Swift's fray into politics. She has explicitly endorsed/condemned politicians before, and each such instance of this political advocacy has gained significant media coverage.

Two notable examples include:

• Her endorsement of former Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen for senate in 2018, which was both widely praised and criticized at the time. Her subsequent reaction to Marsha Blackburn's win of the senate race - when she said Blackburn was "Trump in a wig" - also received coverage. The Guardian CNN
• Her condemnation of Donald Trump and her pledge to assist in "voting him out of office", from 2020. Billboard; WaPo.

More recently, after a commentator on the View stated that she has the power to help defeat Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential Election, many significant sources have released articles discussing how, by way of her fanbase, Swift has the possibility to swing the 2024 Presidential Election. Governor Gavin Newsom of California released a statement that her support would be "powerful" and she is poised to play a "major role in the election". USA Today Los Angeles Times Variety

I am happy to make these additions, but I know that this is a high-profile FA and wanted to seek some consensus first. Cheers, Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The due bar is very high for this article given the extraordinary level of press coverage around everything Swift does. The section currently talks about her 2020 presidential endorsement and political views, but I think it might be undue to go into her more local endorsements, unless these were somehow more vigorous than a typical celebrity endorsement. Cultural impact of Taylor Swift#Politics has room for more detail, so if the information is not there, that'd be a good place to add it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

this stuff should go in the Swifties article, not this article. most of taylor’s interactions with US politics were consequences of things that happened among the fans and their social media, and the threshold for adding synthesis about the political views of a living person is high. isadora of ibiza (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Indie genre

She should be considered covering for indie genre as well right? Majority of songs from folklore and evermore has that indie hybrid with alternative/folk 2405:3800:875:65BE:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Please replace the link to the 2022 Ticketmaster controversy under the "2021–present: Re-recordings, Midnights, and the Eras Tour" part of Swift's life and career section with Taylor Swift–Ticketmaster controversy. Not only is it unnecessary to use the redirect link, it also would be a more befitting title given how the article is about Taylor Swift. Poxy4 (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute about age

Age listed incorrectly. She is 34, not 33 184.96.240.234 (Lauren 01:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Birthday December 13, 1989 makes her 33.$chnauzer 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

There's a little box that says the Reputation Stadium Tour was the highest grossing North American tour of all time. That doesn't sound right because I think the eras tour made more money? I could be wrong but that info may be outdated Augustphobia (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Album "eras"

'She has been credited with legitimizing and popularizing the concept of album "eras".'

This doesn’t really seem true and isn't supported by the articles cited. Many, many artists have gone through various distinct album cycles throughout their career long before her. Matthewcharlesconte (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Voice clips

At Taylor_Swift#Voice, the first sample opens a pop-up window for me, whereas the second just plays. Is that the same for others? Any idea what's causing the difference, and how we can get them to behave the same? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: The pop-up one has a TimedText file (though without timestamps). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, in that case we should add/improve the TimedText files, it seems. Anyone who knows how want to do that? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Philanthropist added to beginning of article

At the beginning of this article she is listed as just a singer-songwriter. She is at least a philanthropist as well. Why is this not listed? 71.161.209.115 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@71.161.209.115: The lede sentence (the first sentence of the article) establishes notability. Her notability is as a singer-songwriter. Philanthropy isn't why she's notable.--Rockchalk717 04:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Relationship history

Instead of just lazily plopping a mention of her relationship with Travis Kelce in her music career section, why isn't there a personal life section? Especially for someone with as extensive of a celebrity exes list as she has. If there's information out there about hobbies and interests outside of her music career, possibly even political beliefs, it could be placed there as well. What about a mention of her beef with Katy Perry? While it's uncommon I edit outside of sports related pages it does seem relatively common place to mention relationships with notable people just in my random browsing I do on here sometimes.--Rockchalk717 04:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Not lazy at all. See my comments here for why splitting off personal life is a bad idea, and going into "beef" is to gossipy/trivial to include per WP:NOTADIARY. I don't see how non-musical hobbies and interests would be worth adding either when that feels minor in comparison to professional endeavors. Political stances are already discussed within the "Social activism" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed NUMEROUS times. Though an perceived issue can always be re-discussed, please do not assume a topic or concern has never been addressed just because it is YOUR first time venturing into an article. Like SNUGGUMS said, I do believe a "personal life" section is superfluous. A person does not live two lives, literally. "Life and career" is all-encompassing and gives a better chronological track to the article. It contains both "personal" and professional facts side by side, which are often related and influence each other at different points of time as well. ℛonherry☘ 07:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, "beef with Katy Perry" is not a romantic relationship crucial to a person's biography, a featured article in that. This article makes brief mentions of her romantic partners, and mentions feuds only if they are turning points in her career, such as Kanye West. The Katy Perry one is not notable in this article, relatively. It is, however, mentioned in Public image of Taylor Swift. ℛonherry☘ 07:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You can't avoid discussing something in an article just purely for the fear of what it could lead to. I'm not using that as an argument for inclusion of this just more of a general statement. And yes, there are two lives for everybody (well kind of). With some people, like musicians who write about their personal lives (Swift as an example, Eminem is another good example) they intersect. Sometimes, they stay separate. But that's an inaccurate statement to claim someone's personal relationships is the same professional career, regardless of if they're a celebrity or just regular people like you or I. I have no further comment on this matter but I will end it with I strongly disagree with your arguments. I just don't think it's worth my time trying to talk to you out them for an article I only care about because she's dating one of my favorite players on my favorite NFL team.--Rockchalk717 16:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making your intentions clear. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 19:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This article is a complete mess. Every other celebrity article has a Personal Life section. Randomly hiding her dating history in the midst of lengthy paragraphs about her musical career, makes for a very disjointed read. Why is this article being handled in such a different manner than every other celebrity article? Jozsefs (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Complete mess" is such a strong wording, but nevermind. I want to let you know that every article is to be assessed independently. The "it's like this in A, why is it not like that in B" argument is borderline WP:POINT. I was not here when this article became a featured one, but in my opinion, it is one of the best FAs I've come across. For an individual whose personal life and songwriting are so intertwined, I think a single Life and Career section is the best way readers can navigate her biography. @FrB.TG: Hi! Would like you know your comment on this! ℛonherry☘ 17:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a mess at all. Just saying "I don't like it that way" and making arguments devoid of policy, rationality, or even any comprehension that this is an encyclopaedia and not a celebrity gossip magazine. This article does an excellent job of putting everything in context rather than unduly highlighting any particular aspect of the subject's life and career. There may be subjects whose personal and professional lives are obviously separate but there is usually relatively to say about the personal lives of those subjects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. I've always felt like a "personal life" section for musicians and television personalities is quite pointless as their lives and careers are tightly bound together. To me, a "personal life" section only makes sense for sportspeople, actors and professions of that sort where the job is completely unrelated to their personal life. In case of musicians, television personalities and social activists, their personal life is what that inspires a specific song/album, or a show/product, or a social cause/movement, respectively. ℛonherry☘ 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're considering WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's worth noting that featured articles on artists like Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Michael Jackson combine life and career details. Similar to Swift, these artists have intricately linked personal lives and songwriting. Swift's personal life extends beyond relationships, encompassing friendships, feuds (e.g., with Kanye West), and confessional songwriting, all intertwined with her music career. Consolidating these aspects into a single section called "Personal life" would result in a disjointed and awkward presentation. The current organization, established over seven years ago during the article's promotion to featured status, effectively places these details where they naturally belong—under Life and career, Songwriting, and Public image. FrB.TG (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

please change the First picture of taylor swift to a picture of her at the 2022 AMAS (provided) [swift at the 2022 AMA's] Bm676278382 (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:Image Use Policy - looks like your image was taken from Getty Images Cannolis (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Typo; can't edit

Taylor_Swift#Social_activism there is a typo: '... and ha donated ...' should be '... and has donated ...' 2A02:C7C:6B77:4600:79FC:F43C:305E:C2C3 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for catching the error! I'd encourage you to create an account and join the Typo Team. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Taylor Swift Won Time's Newspapers Person of the year again on December 6, 2023. Thisisgonnabe (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Already done - Fuzheado | Talk 15:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023 (2)

Two typos: In this sentence, change "and she sings in an upper regiser" to "when she sings in an upper register"

Musicologist Alyssa Barna, in a study of Evermore, said that Swift's timbre is "breathy and bright" and she sings in an upper regiser and "full and dark" when she sings in a lower register.[223] Sneakers2929 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those typos, Sneakers2929. They were introduced in a misguided edit removing the voice clips, which I have reverted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

childhood hobby

The artist's family owned several quarter horses and a pony born in Shetland. The singer's first hobby was horseback riding. Her mother first put her in a saddle when she was nine months old, and later she competed in rodeos. 2A01:11:8B40:210:588E:C649:71E4:1E59 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

yes, they need to put that in Lizziestartford (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

name

Swift was given the gender-neutral name "Taylor" because her mother believed it would help her form a successful business career. 2A01:11:8B40:210:7085:E190:32B5:CB22 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Source? I have seen in Parade that she was named for James Taylor. That's all it said.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sample usage

Sdkb included two samples that are meant to portray Swift's vocal range. I'm not against this practice but I am dubious about the use of two non-free files, citing WP:NFCC criterion no. 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is, for me, barely justified for the inclusion of these two non-free files.

That said, I am open to discussion as per WP:ORMEDIA: "Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources." As long as they are justifiable for non-free media (important). Ippantekina (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ippantekina! To clarify the timeline a bit, I added only the first sample. I believe it was Ronherry who added the second one, which is a decision I agree with.

The NFCC#8 compliance is described on the file pages. Quoting from a relevant portion: The sample is used to illustrate the character of the article subject's voice, to accompany critical commentary on that subject in the Taylor Swift § Voice section, which is devoted to discussing her vocal style. It would not be possible to describe it solely through text, because its qualitative aspects cannot be captured through words. For instance, readers unfamiliar with musical terminology would not be able to understand what the subject's voice sounds like solely through the text description of her vocal range in the article.

I provide a bit of further rationale in this thread from the talk page here a little while back. Hope that's clarifying! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments @Sdkb:! I appreciate your rationale behind adding these samples. I still have a little ick that the samples have their captions saying "lower register", "upper register" without corresponding sources. Don't get me wrong.. I'm for the inclusion of samples but the definition of what constitutes "upper"/"higher" register might be subjective. It might be more preferable if we have sources explicitly saying that Swift's vocals on the two tracks indeed employed her upper/lower registers, or else let's find other song examples. Ippantekina (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that vocal samples are a lot less common than images, that's an understandable concern — we're not in uncharted waters, but certainly less-chartered ones. My reading of the ORMEDIA snippet you quoted above is that, so long as we're in agreement with each other that the samples use Swift's upper/lower register, we're permitted to make that judgement call ourselves. That said, adding sources certainly wouldn't hurt, so if you find any, please feel free to add. And we're not beholden to these particular tracks either if you find sources for others (although we should make sure any tracks we choose are well-suited: exemplifying her best work, featuring her "normal" voice to the extent possible, free of distracting effects or background noises, etc.). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2023

She departed from her country image with Red (2012), SageXY (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The political stuff is in recent years - Taylor Swift did not start out as a political figure.

The article gives the impression that Taylor Swift has always been an active political figure - campaigning for abortion, BLM, Gun Control, and-so-on. In reality this political activity only really got under way in recent years - and appears to be a standard Corporate marketing move. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:302D:EE6E:2ADA:8B87 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What changes would you propose to the article? Where does it give that impression? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It took her fans criticizing her on Twitter for her to even come out against trump. She only does things when they’re necessary to maintain her public image. 2601:C6:8301:84B0:C071:5E18:217D:F88D (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why isn’t anything negative about her on her Wikipedia page? Who is making the decisions to censor anything negative about her? 2601:C6:8301:84B0:C071:5E18:217D:F88D (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Change the pictures

i respectfully wanted you to change all of the pictures. I am a swiftie, and i beleive they don't excacly represent the album circles (the "eras) of her career.

WikiWikiEditor13 (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

Taylor swift married nfl player Travis Kelce 26 December 2023 according to tmz. 2001:8003:1618:2F00:45B8:F016:4E81:66F3 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We should wait for a better source. See WP:TMZ RudolfRed (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Do better

This page has been perfectly manicured and doesn’t include any negative or controversial press regarding Taylor Swift, including her private jet use, her celebrity beefs, critiques of her handling of LiveNation, or her being sued by other artists for copyright infringement. The entire page looks like it has been written by her PR team, and I think that’s a serious conflict of interest with the goal of Wikipedia being free and honest information. No other artists page I’ve ever seen has avoided any negative commentary the way Taylor Swift’s page has 2601:C6:8301:84B0:A83B:FD82:7D31:F8E (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This isn't an actionable edit request. Much of this is mentioned at Public image of Taylor Swift, which is prominently linked in the "Cultural status" section. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Why does every other artist on the planet not have a main Wikipedia page completely devoid of critical information? 2601:C6:8301:84B0:B8D8:144:C5EE:DAFA (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Even the page you linked to casts a skeptical outlook on briefly mentioned critiques, even so far as to put criticisms in quotes as if to emphasize that they aren’t valid. I think it’s highly likely her PR team is editing both of these pages for her 2601:C6:8301:84B0:B8D8:144:C5EE:DAFA (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not the hard working editors of Wikipedia are willing to let that type of media manipulation slide is up to you apparently, but I would take some time to examine why her page is uniquely and almost completely devoid of any negative information about a fairly controversial public figure 2601:C6:8301:84B0:B8D8:144:C5EE:DAFA (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a swiftie but the label "a fairly controversial public figure" cannot really be made without reliable sources to back it up. Celebrity beefs don't really equal being a controversial public figure, whereas something like literally saying you like a lot of things about Adolf Hitler (like a certain someone did last year) obviously would. Name a celebrity, in the music business especiallly, who hasn't had beefs. Media manipulation isn't a factor here as Wikipedia articles are built on what reliable sources say, and I have reason to doubt the logic that all these sources are written by her PR team. --195.99.227.0 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting take. Virtually every other artist of her caliber has a “controversy” section of their page.

Taylor’s page is written front to back like a fan bio. She’s untouchable. That’s not what Wikipedia is about.

I would argue critiques of her private jet usage, her endless celebrity beefs, her father’s investment her obtaining her first record deal, sketchy business practices like selling opening night tickets to her movie and then pushing back the release date to sell opening night tickets again.

i could go on and on, but it definitely seems like no one is willing to write even the slightest negative thing about her on her Wikipedia page. 2601:C6:8301:84B0:C071:5E18:217D:F88D (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of these things might be worth including but the article is a biography. It should be, as it is, written in chronological order. Important events and details are covered in appropriate chapters in a subject's life. That way we get a rounded article and achieve due weight. Controversy sections tend to become bloated as well-meaning editors add every lurid tabloid headline and they are of course skewed to the negative aspects of a person's life. Swift is notable for her singing so the article should be about her music career. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell "encyclopedic - comprehensive in terms of information" "Biography - an account of someone's life written by someone else."

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a biography of a persons life. It's supposed to be an easily accessible and digestible source of information on the subject matter. Making this article a biography makes it completely different than literally any other wikipedia page based on a human being. The current layout of this page only serves to obscure, if not not completely remove, any negative information on the subject. This should be an objective article to provide information on the subject matter. Deciding to change the standard format of a persons wikipedia for this specific subject reeks of bias at best to me, and paid propaganda at worst to be completely honest. StoopsPark (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@StoopsPark It's consistent with most articles I'm familiar with but I don't write many articles about people. I'll dig up some examples tomorrow of other biographical featured articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Michael Jackson, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Kareena Kapoor Khan are some good examples of how such articles are written. FrB.TG (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Reads like state run propaganda when it should be an impartial biography, warts and all. Tiedtails (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so can we include a controversies section? It does not need to be as comprehensive as the 'public image' article, but still important to add. 130.43.180.67 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Controversies sections are a bad way to write encyclopaedia articles. Any "controversies" should be dealt with in context to give a well-rounded perspective. That is how we achieve neutrality. Happy to talk about how we include any particular "controversy" or incident you have in mind, but we're not going to have one section at the bottom of the article for everything negative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I do find this cry of “Neutrality!” incredibly ironic the moment that anyone suggests adding anything remotely controversial or negative about Taylor they’re swarmed like a hive of enraged bees. Just admit you can’t be an impartial editor of the article and step aside. The community will be better for the impartiality as opposed to editing gatekept by rabid and heavily biased Swifties looking to uphold a certain narrative of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiedtails (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not looking to uphold any particular narrative. I'm a fan of her music; I don't really care about her personal life. True balance is achieved by having everything in its place and in proportion, so what is missing that you think should be included? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Why Indie is not included as her genre in the genre section????

Folklore, evermore even some songs in lover, red, midnight has indie touch in it. Even songs like Renegade is classify as indie 2405:3800:874:82EF:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The first problem is that the infobox template instructions at Template:Infobox musical artist say "Aim for generality" and "preferably use two to four." Right now the infobox lists five genres, so it's already more than recommended.

"Indie" is less a style of music and more a statement of independence from the major labels. We don't need to make this statement in the infobox genres. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with Binksterent's claim that indie is less of a statement; it was born as a statement, yes, but it evolved into its own music style/genre over the decades with a distinct sound. Nevertheless, I do agree that "indie" does not describe Swift. The terms that have been used by publications to describe 2020 Taylor were "indie-folk", not just "indie" per se; and many critics include indie-folk under the "alternative" music umbrella. Genres in the infobox must be broad as much as possible. ℛonherry☘ 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Folk being included definitely covers indie folk while rock being included covers indie rock and pop covers indie pop. All three of those genres are also probably included under "alternative" which is there despite it not even linking to a page on a genre, just a list of genres with alternative in the name. I don't see a need to included indie. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it annoying when critics just describe an album "alternative" or call an artist alternative (such as "This is XYZ's first venture into alternative music") and don't really mention what they really mean -- whether they mean it's alt rock or alt folk or alt pop. But I guess that's the point; recent music albums (post-2020s at least) have been lingering on a grey area where non-mainstream pop, folk and rock sounds meet. It's easier for critics to call an album "alternative" than try to place a whole album of songs into one box. The critical reception of Folklore and Evermore were exemplary of this. Imagine hearing "willow", "cowboy like me" and "closure" in one album and trying to assign a genre label to the album in your review -- "Alternative" seems to be a no-brainer. ℛonherry☘ 18:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Sound Spelling

Am I hallucinating, or am I actually looking at a sound spelling for Taylor Swift, 2 easily pronounceable words? I did not think Wikipedia could get THAT condescending. Get rid of it. 130.156.22.252 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Removed. FrB.TG (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Every appearance by Taylor at a Chiefs game is an event

Am I missing something? Does Wikipedia have anything about this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It'd fall under WP:NOTNEWS in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And yet the whole world thinks it's the biggest story of the year. It just doesn't seem right not to say anything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: recent Times article on part of the phenomenon. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's already documented in Public image of Taylor Swift: For instance, Swift's relationship with American football player Travis Kelce has had a considerable cultural impact. National Football League (NFL) games of Kelce's team, the Kansas City Chiefs, drew record viewership following new reports about the advent of the relationship.[112][113] The NFL and NBC Sports used the relationship for social media content and to promote subsequent games.[114][115] Dressing up as Swift and Kelce was a trend during Halloween 2023.[116] FrB.TG (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Comma in lead section

In the lead section, I linked Rolling Stone magazine's article for informative pursposes, but the comma next to it is italicized and I do not know how to undo it. Feel free to undo my entire edit if that is the best solution. Ded Meem (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Your edit removed the {{'s}} markup after Rolling Stone's name, which is needed so that the "comma" (actually an apostrophe, unless I fixed the wrong thing) is not italicized. SkyWarrior 03:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Taylor's Verison vs. Taylor's version (MOS:MUSICCAPS)

Per MOS:MUSICCAPS, it states: For titles of works and releases, descriptive phrases in parentheses or after dashes, such as "remix", "acoustic version" and "remastered", should not be considered part of song titles and should not be capitalized. So, per this, shouldn't the re-recordings be credited on Wikipedia as Taylor's version vs. Taylor's Version? livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"Taylor's Version" is not a descriptive phrase like "remix" or "acoustic version". Rather, it is a part of the title. glman (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section

I believe there have been enough third party reliable sources criticizing her carbon emissions to warrant a discussion if such a section should be included in the article. Seems to be signifigant as there is now a legal battle related to her jet useage. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I have added it in this edit. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Good work. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

New article for Area which made the jeans that Swift wore at this years Super Bowl

I just created an article for Area which designed the jeans that Swift wore at the Super Bowl this year. She has worn other clothing by the brand as well. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

New image

What do you all say about changing the infobox image to one of the Golden Globe ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisteveb4 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Witchcraft Allegations

Why haven't the witchcraft allegations surrounding Taylor Swift been addressed yet on Wikipedia? 76.64.181.63 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Because they're not remotely plausible and haven't been covered sufficiently in reliable sources to be included in the article without lending them undue weight. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 02:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Cause that's dumb….. Johnsosd (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Because they are patently false. Please read the news for once. Jwilli39 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Alleged “hobbies” that appear to have a single source as a joke are not Wikipedia material. Nate Rybner 07:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs)

No personal life

I know this has been discussed many times previously but it makes no sense to not have a "personal life" section here. It's commonplace for almost all celebrity profiles. I understand this potentially makes this rife for gossip, however that then makes the article bias for protecting the subject. It seems the only reason a personal life section doesn't exist here is because fans are running the article and deciding how it portrays the subject, thus making is a completely biased and useless article to have an on encloypedia.

The argument that her personal life is scattered throughout the career timeline doesn't make sense, in theory then all information should be one single block without accordions put upon the reader to decipher what to ingest. The omission of this section seems to compromise the entire legitimacy of the article as a whole. 109.255.14.34 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This! No one wants to do anything about the fact that this article is literally reads like a fan-made biopic. She’s untouchable. No one can say or write anything critical of her. 2601:C6:8301:84B0:C071:5E18:217D:F88D (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Long time reader etc etc. I only came here to read the "Personal life" section as finally I gave into my curiosity on how this larger than life artist life is. And I came to this very comment section to see why it was missing... I wasn't after gossip or anything but the regular Wikipedia write up destilled through the process. 2A02:1406:5:DC19:4D70:CF0D:89CC:118E (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:1406:5:DC19:4D70:CF0D:89CC:118E, @2601:C6:8301:84B0:C071:5E18:217D:F88D, @109.255.14.34, you guys should check Public image of Taylor Swift. Her romantic relationship and controversy are already covered in that article, so there isn't a need to for it to be in her biography. Yotrages (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yotragesthat article is even worse than this one for bias and gloss. Still no "personal life" or "controversies" section on that.

It's also common practice to have a shorter section on the main topic page and a link to the larger, dedicated sub page at the top.

For example:

Personal life

See: link to 109.255.14.34 (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@109.255.14.34 you're wrong, the article contains her contains her personal life and controversy check those links. Yotrages (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

no, you're wrong and have a lame justification for not having a Personal Life section that summarized but links to that biased and poorly written page. Really wrong how the Wikipedia police pick and choose their little biases. The favoritism and bias in how this site is moderated is misguided at best. (2603:90D8:440:CB:AD8F:7ED0:10A6:6B98 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC))

Fortunately, this is the site that anyone can edit, and that includes making suggestions. So let's hear how you think the article should be improved and how to go about it. Would be far more productive for you to offer a plan, unless your goal here is to rant about Wikipedia being "biased" just because something does not match with your worldview. Acalamari 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there should be a section that includes a link to Public image of Taylor Swift but then also abridges that article for those who do not want to look further. Jwilli39 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Those links do not lead to a full personal life section, I think it's clear someone should make a personal life section that is respectful.

If a celebrity is trending on social media constantly, it's rather embarrassing for Wikipedia to not have a complete article.

I searched a few other names of major celebrities, and I couldn’t find another that was exempt from this. Nate Rybner 08:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs)

RCA Records?

Swift did sign a deal with RCA Records but it was a "development deal" and not an official record deal. Based on this information, Swift was not an artist officially signed with RCA, so this label should be removed from the infobox. Ippantekina (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this information that I could look at? Jwilli39 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's in the article: "After performing original songs at an RCA Records showcase, Swift, then 13 years old, was given an artist development deal and began making frequent trips to Nashville with her mother."

Also, according to a source that I found, NBC: (Swift) "I played [RCA] a few songs. And they said that they wanted to sign me to a development deal. A development deal is an in-between record deal. It's like, a guy saying that he wants to date you but not be your boyfriend. (laugh) You know, they don't wanna sign you to an actual record deal or put an album out on you. They wanna watch your progress for a year." Ippantekina (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Jwilli39 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for TFA

Hello everyone. I would like to inform you that I am planning this article for WP:TFA again. The page appeared on the Main Page last August 23, 2019 coinciding with the release of her album Lover. The TFA rule states that five years must pass from the date featured on TFA before having a re-run. This makes five years from that date be on August 23, 2024, and now's the time I propose the TFA to be featured on her 35th birthday (December 13, 2024). What do you guys think? And does the article still meet the Featured Article criteria? ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:FACR, is this page fully neutral? Some biased language can be seen in this page. But overall, I think it still meets the FA criteria.

P.S. I'm new to Wikipedia, so correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks! Cineyas (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think some additions to the article lately have been on the WP:RECENT side, which is somewhat inevitable due to the amount of news articles and such published about her daily, but I also applaud the good work moving them to other pages like her cultural impact or her political impact as appropriate, or removing them in other cases. I think with continued effort, there's no reason why we cannot maintain the FA status. Incidentally, last time I proposed a Taylor-Swift related article to Did You Know, there were complains that the Main Page had too much Taylor Swift. I hope it wouldn't be the case with this TFA. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Don’t listen to them buddy. (we need more TayTay on the Main page) Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this article should be excessively worked on should we decide to feature it as TFA. This page has changed tremendously since its FA promotion in 2016, so I can see that the prose is occasionally plagued with recentism and puffery. Ippantekina (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

When I have sought to reduce the TFA re-running period, it's so that FAs like this one can appear more often. This article will be significantly more to Main Page readers than most of what appears there.

I did a thorough read of this article in January, and can confirm that it was up to current FA standards (the same as I would use reviewing at FAC) at that time. It's had lots of editing since then, but it also looks like there is a group of experienced editors watching it. Sdkb ^talk 23:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson

I removed the bit about Emily Dickinson (supposedly a "sixth cousin, three times removed" of Swift). Per consanguinity second cousins onwards are barely blood-related, let alone a sixth cousin. Also I'm thinking of removing Charles C. A. Baldi from prose for the same reason. The section "Early life" is supposed to be about Swift's upbringing and direct family (up to Marjorie Finlay), not some distant ancestors back in the 1800s. Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That is fine to remove Emily Dickinson even though a reliable source says as much. Your edit on her ethnic background is unclear. She is half German and half Scottish on her mother's side; and mostly Scottish and English on her father's side. She mentioned her Italian ancestry and she has mentioned her great -great grandfather who is notable. This is standard procedure on Wikipedia - or you disagree? Patapsco913 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Patapsco913: What do you mean by "standard procedure"? Ippantekina (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well. I guess I would ask you, you don't think bios include a subject's ancestors? Have you ever looked at a bio or edited a bio other then Taylor Swift? Patapsco913 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Patapsco913: What is the point here? If I recalled I did not (nor I intend to) remove Baldi from this article. Ippantekina (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A sixth cousin thrice removed is a little distant, don't you think? It should be removed because it's not really relevant to her early life, and also a wide range of people could be related to Dickinson. Jwilli39 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I already removed Emily Dickinson. I agree it's trivia. Someone else else added it back. I disagree with removing Baldi since he is the reason Swift asserts her Italian heritage and he is notable. Patapsco913 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone put it back. Jwilli39 (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@CallieCrewmanAuthor: @Ronherry: Might you guys wanna chime in regarding Emily Dickinson? I see Ronherry re-adding Dickinson on grounds of a Google search, but to me it could fall under recentism and newspaper-like reporting. Ippantekina (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Also re. William the Lion. Ippantekina (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should add Swift's relation to Dickinson in the page. They are related, and Dickinson is a notable figure who Swift has said made an impact on her life. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't think WP:NOTNEWS can be pulled up at every single reporting one finds non-notable for inclusion lol. Do I see why some editors could find it recentist? yes. But I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS like you said. WP:NOTNEWS lists four points; the challenged factoid is neither original reporting (the sources are secondary), nor "a coverage of a routine event" (it's literally ancestry), nor the concerned individual is non-notable (Dickinson is the most famour American poet, arguably), nor gossip/diary.

I myself believed Dickinson should not be included, but that before the wide secondary coverage. I think editors should be aware of the fact that media coverage evolves over time, in a span of days at that, and should be more amiable towards acknowledging including the concerned information based on how the coverage has developed and not be unreasonably stubborn in sticking to their old opinion. Consideration must also be given to what the subject of the article (Swift) has done or said. Swift has spoken highly of Dickinson, and though that is not related to this ancestry information, it is a fact we have to consider while deciding on inclusion. Also, Swift herself confirmed her Scottish roots through the king (William the Lion) during a concert in Glasgow and clearly, Scottish media outlets made a note of it.

Weshould not tolerate trivia, but I don't think this is trivia. We are not talking about Swift's favorite ice cream flavor. ℛonherry☘ 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it over at Emily Dickinson and William the Lion; discussion should take place, but I think it's Trivia. Lectonar (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I had a thought. What if we made a section of the article listing Swift's influences and how they influenced her? It's okay if we can't do that; I just thought it might be a better idea. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar May I ask what you mean by "trivia"? Sorry; I've only been on Wikipedia for a few months and I'm still learning the ropes. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Patapsco913: (i) Dickinson's relation to Swift has garnered widespread media coverage, unlike Baldi. (ii) Swift has never acknowledged her Italian ancestry, and even if she did, she has never mentioned Baldi. Very odd to me that Baldi, who neither has the required press coverage nor an acknowledgement from Swift, would be included while Dickinson, who has the press coverage and has been mentioned by Swift many times, would not be included. It's my belief that either both of them should be included or none of them. ℛonherry☘ 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I lean towards excluding both unless they had some noteworthy impact on Swift that we can talk about. If either of them had an impact on her career or artistry or upbringing, I'd support inclusion but a sixth cousin three times removed is barely or a king from 900 years ago are really just genealogy trivia. If we're going for connections that distant, you could probably connect any two people of the same ethnicity, especially white people in the United States. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

+1. Lectonar (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dickinson did have an impact on Swift's life. Evermore was inspired by her, as was Folklore and possibly The Tortured Poets Department. Swift said so herself. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Swift has mentioned Dickinson many times. As a writer, she has had an influence on Swift. If a connection "that far" is not notable, then there would not be so much press coverage from reliable publications. There is such coverage because of the fact that they're both writers; that two of the most famous writers in history are related. Swift has spoken of Dickinson many times before, and now it's revealed that she's her distant cousin, and that's what has garnered the widespread coverage. ℛonherry☘ 05:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"She mentioned her Italian ancestry and she has mentioned her great -great grandfather who is notable." I'm sorry but am I missing something? Swift has never mentioned Baldi as far as I know. Can you cited a primary or a secondary source or two, please? The only ancestor Swift has mentioned by name is Dickinson. I would understand believing William the Lion should not be included (I would not contest his exclusion from the article) but I strongly disagree with Dickinson's exclusion. It is not our place to make up criteria to make it look like Baldi is relevant to Swift, when in fact, both Baldi and Dickinson are not alive in Swift's lifetime. Wikipedia is at the mercy of reliable sources, and as per them, Dickinson is more relevant to Swift than Baldi, not to mention both Dickinson and Swift are writers. ℛonherry☘ 21:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If Dickinson was indeed a creative influence on Evermore or other albums (supposing we have reliable sources) we can include her in the "Artistry" section with a brief mention of the distant cousin relationship; rather than "Early life" because Dickinson was irrelevant to Swift's upbringing and family. Ippantekina (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. ℛonherry☘ 05:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If Dickinson was one influence (among others) for one album (amongst many), is there a need to include it? And: can it be sourced? And even if: not everything that can be sourced must necessarily be included. Lectonar (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I support including it in the artistry section if the influence can be sourced, especially if reliable sources go into detail about what the influence looks like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar I believe Dickinson is more significant than the others as they are related and both writers (in their own way, of course). And yes, there are reliable sources such as TODAY, CBS, Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/goodbye-earl-to-emily-dickinson-a-rundown-of-taylor-swifts-influences-on-evermore-1102620/), and many others. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina @Ronherry Yes; perhaps this is a better idea. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Better idea. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So is it settled then? Will we include the stuff about Dickinson in the Artistry section? CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure WP:BEBOLD. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. ℛonherry☘ 07:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One more question. What section of Artistry should I put it under? Genres, Voice, Songwriting, Performances, or Video and Film? I would assume Songwriting, but I may be wrong. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Songwriting, yes. ℛonherry☘ 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What about Baldi the entrepreneur and William the Lion? I'm in favor of removing both of them tbh. Ippantekina (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm for removing them both as well. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it! CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I just added it. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, although I removed the undue weightage on Dickinson's 190th birthday release that is rather trivial, and the "supposedly influenced" bit as per WP:SPECULATION. Ippantekina (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Uploading photos of Swift to Wikipedia

I'm not sure if I should bring this matter to the Teahouse or here, but since this question is mainly about Swift, I guess I'll just ask it here.

I found a bunch of photos online that I can download for free. I don't *think* they're copyrighted? But once I download them, and they are mine, would I be able to upload them to Wikipedia?

If you want to see for yourself, then here's the link: https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/taylor-swift-golden-globes.html

Thanks! CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

They are more likely than not copyrighted. What evidence do you have that they are under any kind of creative common license? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't; I just clicked on the image for info and it didn't say about copyright. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I examined the URL you gave us. Apart from the copyright symbol next to the username, which I assume copyrights the person's username? I don't think there is any other copyright on the image itself. The usage license seems to be free. Though, I'd like other editors to weigh in. Image copyrights are not my specialty. ℛonherry☘ 07:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I just read over the terms of use for that site, and I think that, so long as they are tagged as royalty-free and you use the download button provided on the site, then you can download them. I would suggest that, when you upload to the Commons, tag it as fair use to be safe. Jwilli39 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ronherry@Jwilli39 Thanks! CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jwilli39, CallieCrewmanAuthor: You can't upload fair use images to Commons, and royalty-free does not mean it is compatible with Commons' licensing. However, there's a few photos of her in the same dress, in the same event already in commons at c:Category:Taylor Swift in 2024.

@Ronherry: The copyright symbol next to the username copyrights the photo. Dreamtime's royalty free license places restrictions on what the photo can be used for, which is contrary to CC-BY-4 licensing. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you suggest otherwise, then? Jwilli39 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a pressing need for photos of her, but you can always search other places on the internet (Flickr, Youtube, etc.) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Would that not run into the same issues of copyright, no? Jwilli39 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Flickr allows photos to be licensed under a compatible license. For example, this is liscensed under CC BY 2.0, a compatible license, and is now on Commons.

Youtube also allows videos to be licensed under CC BY SA. For example, this shows it has been compatibly licensed when you expand the description. A frame from the video can be, and was, uploaded to Commons, and now serves as the infobox image for Justin Trudeau. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)