Jump to content

Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Requested addition

Recent footage and in-concert photos of Swift have shown what appears to be a sizable script tattoo on her left arm. However, according to this source it's not a tattoo but in fact Swift has apparently started to write lyrics from other songwriters on her arm as tribute, and they change from show to show. Aside from this being a rather unusual way for her to pay tribute to fellow artists, I think it might be worth adding on the basis that some folks apparently think it's an actual tattoo (not an unreasonable assumption given the fact a number of personalities such as Hayden Panettiere, Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox sport similar markings, but as full tattoos) and might turn to Wikipedia for the answer (as indeed I did initially when I first heard about it). In this case it's clearly a positive thing, so I can't imagine BLP being an issue since we have a source. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

Taylor Swift is of English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, Belgian (Flemish), German, and Dutch descent. She is the direct descendant of Thomas Prence. I got a reference from [1]. Just browse her family tree. GMA7 Powers 2008 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For further proof of evidence, here's the link: [2]. It indicates that she is of German, English, Scottish, Welsh, French, Italian, Irish, Dutch, and Swedish descent. 112.206.171.184 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Aside from the fact that neither of you are using a source that passes WP:RS, this is getting ridiculous. 6 different ethnicities? Just listing everything that someone in the family treee brushed up against? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 album

According to Gimmeetoo:

upcoming works should be discussed in prose, but not listed in discography until something more is known (apparently don't even know title); also unlikely album will be called TBA, so it wouldn't be in italics

Since when? I've seen other pages do this before...So why should this one be any different? I mean it was mentioned that Taylor is going to have a new album in 2012 but we can't post TBA (2012). I mean it's very obvious what TBA means, so I don't see why this can't be posted as TBA (2012) because it's informing that there will be a new album out in 2012. JamesAlan1986 *talk 05:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

On this page, there is a slight and very small error. In the acting section, the page says Swift is set to voice Ashley in "The Lorax", but the character's actual name is Audrey. So please change Ashley to Audrey just for accuracy's sake and so people will not get mislead. If you want proof that this is true go to "The Lorax" Wikipedia page, which is actually in the same sentence as the name error.


Ronnieandme (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Corrected the name. Dawnseeker2000 01:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to split the "2008–2010: Fearless and MTV VMA incident" section

The whole section is a massive block of text and it's quite hard to read. I think we should split it into the "2008–2010: Fearless" section, then "MTV VMA incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.201.139 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the entire article needs work in my opinion.Theodorerichert (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I too agree. Group participation and group discussion required. Please come forward. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Image

I think you should change the image in the infobox with this one:

File:Taylor+Swift+5th+Annual+ACM+Honors+Red+Carpet+wtEDzjjr dpl.jpg

It was shot in October, 2011.--Renesemee (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with changing it.Theodorerichert (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the picture should be changed, but maybe not to this one, since we don't know its source. If someone can find a free image, then we can change it.Murmuration (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Image is from the wiki blacklisted website, justjared.buzznet . Moriori (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The image has been tagged as a copyvio on Commons. Moriori (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
And has been deleted. Moriori (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bruno the Robot

In the filmography section, it is mentioned that she voices various character in an upcoming PBS cartoon, Bruno the Robot. Is this real, or just a case of vandalism? I haven't been able to find any references to it on the web. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Celeb Jihad Topless photo scandal

Shouldn't some mention be made of the topless photo scandal involving celeb jihad? http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/30/taylor-swift-celebrity-jihad-trademark-topless-photo/

Edit Request: 2011 American Music Awards win

It should be added that Taylor won artist of the year in the 2011 AMAs.

I was unable to find a winners list on the AMA site, but there is this Huffington post link. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/20/taylor-swift-wins-american-music-awards-artist-of-the-year_n_1104512.html

Boarder2k7 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Acting correction

Under the acting section in "Other Work," it says " In January 2012, Swift was offered the role of Eponine in the film adaptation of the musical, Les Misérables.[130]"

Please change this to point out that the article used for reference is from an entertainment site, but that according to the most recent update on the movies official website (http://www.lesmis.com/news/article/miz_film_its_official_aaron_tveit_is_confirmed_to_join_the_cast), there is no mention of Swift being attached to the role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.182.103 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article currently says that she has been offered the role, which is what the source also states, not that she has accepted. Official sites tend to not announce offers but when the role is accepted by the actor, probably to avoid embarrassment if they are declined. So as the article is currently is correct. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

I checked biography and found together with year of birth, this date '27 January 2012' on Taylor Swift biography-page! Please action be taken, thanks~ (Indusengineer (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

Indeed, I agree with the above mentioned post, the date "27 January 2012" seems to be a prank by someone, please, it should be removed and action taken against those who did it. thanks Rudvedic (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Her birthday was December 13, 1989 in Wyomissing Pennsylvania in a small town called Reding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.110.216 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Taylor-swift-straight-hair.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Taylor-swift-straight-hair.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Taylor-swift-straight-hair.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vocal Range

Her 2 octave range PhillieF (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift signature

Is it really correct to put 'Taylor Swift's signature' under what it actually her official logo in the box? It isn't her handwriting, it's actually her logo which was made using a slightly tweaked version of the Satisfaction font (a free font available on the web), which can also be seen on the cover of Sara Evans' CDS, so it can't be her handwriting. Is it possible that this could be changed to 'logo' rather than 'signature?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.149.42 (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

√ Done. Thanks for noting. —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think her two spots in the Guinness book of World Records should be included, Fastest Selling Digital Album by a Female Artist, for her latest CD, 'Speak Now,' as well as the Most Simultaneous U.S. Hot 100 Hits by a Female Artist, with 11 charting back-to-back singles.[1] Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearless.SpeakNow (talk • contribs) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mention of relationships

I thought it best to mention this here because it has been edited back and forth for a while. Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has removed a Personal Life paragraph which mentions Swift's relationships with Joe Jonas, Taylor Lautner and Jake Gyllenhaal. (The information about her relationship with John Mayer is still there.) Hullaballoo argues that "relationships whose duration is measured in weeks and have no discernible career impact don't belong in an encyclopedia, no matter how many gossip and celebrity pseudo-journalistic sources can be found parroting each other."

However, I feel that the relationships do warrant a brief mention because they have had a discernible impact on her career. Swift is a confessional songwriter known for writing songs about these celebrity relationships - her personal relationships and music are intertwined. The New Yorker sums up the situation better than I could: "Like Parton, Swift writes autobiographical songs, a technique that, in the Internet era, is a clever marketing device. After “Speak Now” was released, last fall, Swift became known for writing about her celebrity boyfriends: the “Twilight” actor Taylor Lautner, the Disney star Joe Jonas, the singer John Mayer. “Dear John” includes the line “Don’t you think I was too young to be messed with?” (Mayer was thirty-two when they dated.) After the album’s release, public scrutiny of her love life blossomed into something like a stalker school of literary criticism. One blogger analyzed the lyric “I ran off the plane that July 9th,” and figured out that the song was about Jonas: “She flew to Dallas on July 9, 2008, to sit in the audience for a Jonas Brothers show.” In its first week, “Speak Now” sold more than a million copies. Swift is tolerant of her fans’ interest in her love life, as she is of gawkers who approach her on the street. “It’s human nature!” she told me. While she doesn’t talk about dating in interviews, she helps amateur sleuths along, using capital letters to spell out coded messages throughout the lyrics in her liner notes that indicate which boyfriend the song is about."

For similar media discussion, please see: Chicago Sun-Times, Robert Christgau, USA Today (Taylor Lautner), People (Joe Jonas), Washington Post (Jonas), Vogue and Harper's Bazaar Australia (Gyllenhaal). I can provide many more sources if requested.

Please note that I didn't include any mention of Cory Monteith, Lucas Hill, Chord Overstreet, Garrett Hedlund etc etc because these relationships were never publicly acknowledged and are just gossip. However, the relationships with Jonas, Lautner and Gyllenhaal were publicly acknowledged and the sources used for relationship timelines in the article are recognised as reliable.Popeye191 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Those comments have very little to do with the disputed content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online edition of Tiger Beat. Listing who she dated in which weeks is not encyclopedic content, helpful as it might be to the students in that "stalker school of literary criticism." Reliable, well-informed secondary source material reliably discussing the interplay between her life and work would be useful. Interviews where she actually identifies the subjects of her songs may be useful. All of this claptrap about "coded messages" could easily come from her record label's marketing department; I don't see anywhere that she's asserted that it's more than the game-playing it appears to be. And how does routine celebrity journalism about paparazzi fit into this justification? Nobody claims she wrote a song about a traffic incident, do they?<br.>
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to dump fanboy-and-fangirl speculation about What The Lyrics Mean. Not a place for week-by-week dating histories. Not a cluster of "relationship timelines". Not a trove of personal trivia, marketing gimmickry, or rumors presented as facts. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
My comments are very much related to the disputed content. You stated that the relationships were not related to Swift's career and I have now made it clear that they closely connected to the subject matter of her songs. The length of her relationships with Jonas, Lautner and Gyllenhaal can be counted in months rather than weeks. Are the above links not "reliable, well-informed secondary source material discussing the interplay between her life and work"? If not, please be more clear about what you want me to provide. In the People link above, she directly mentions writing a song about Jonas. The "claptrap" in Swift's liner notes is written by her, not a marketing department. It is your opinion that she is "game playing"; surely Swift's own perspective on her relationships is of more importance here? Would it help if I opened the Relationship section with some quotes outlining Swift's practice of discussing celebrity relationships in song? I mentioned the LAPD helicopter incident to highlight the intense media interest in the Gyllenhaal relationship. I thought it was notable but I have no problem with removing that particular line. I am acting in good faith and did try to discuss this with you on your talk page a few weeks ago. Definitely have no interest in an 'edit war'! Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a question, why has her relationship with Jonas and Gyllenhaal been erased but not the one with John Mayer? I think those 3 relationships (and maybe Lautner) are notable since she writes about them in her songs.--Sofffie7 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Hullabaloo hasn't replied in a few weeks so maybe I will add the information again, including a line or two about how she writes autobiographical songs.Popeye191 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I notice you have removed all the information again. Please respond to my earlier comment here, thanks.Popeye191 (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I've replied above. Editors aren't required to keep restating their opinions just because somebody says "no it's not." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to post laundry lists of celebrity hookups, recite tabloid pseudo-journalism, or preserve fancrufty interpretations of song lyrics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you're engaging properly in this process. You have just reiterated your original point and have not responded to any of my concerns. I have tried to compromise with you by including discussion of Swift's tendency to discuss her relationships in songs and by removing all details of song subjects. Some of your edit reasons are quite dismissive ("yet again, wikipedia is not whohasTaylorSwifthookedupwith.com", "excruciatingly unimportant"). Popeye191 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Has Taylor announced that her next single is to be Both of Us?

It keeps getting posted on Eyes Open and I keep removing it per WP:CRYSTALBALL. What should I do? Is it going to be a single or is it just fan speculation cause I haven't found anything stating it will and they never place a source? Swifty*talk 07:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There are rumours it will be sent to radio as a single but there's no confirmation yet. Popeye191 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift is a supporter of the Future Farmers of America

It should be noted and thus added in her Wiki page that she is a "big supporter" of the FFA. She said it once (it was right before she started playing "Picture To Burn") when she played a private concert at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis back in 2008 for all the members of the FFA in attendance during the 80th annual meeting of the National FFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.107.54 (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Swear words

I object to the use of the swear word (f**king) in the paragraph about feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.165.72 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Oh my god! LOL! It is just a quote get over it. Swifty*talk 23:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned comment. Children read wikipedia as well as adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwilczyn (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTCENSORED. If I were writing an article I would avoid quoting such language but ultimately its against policy to remove it just because it is language. Toa Nidhiki05 00:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taylor Swift/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll write the review ASAP. Thanks! →TSU tp* 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

AdabowtheSecond kindly put this article forward for consideration. He's not a regular contributor to the article so I'm not sure if he'll be around to respond to any issues raised. If not, I'm happy to make any changes necessary.Popeye191 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made a quick view over the article and it looks pretty good, but there are just few issues which can be solved. Having 850+ edits is a great thing. If this gets promoted, then it is for sure that the credit goes to you. Great work.. →TSU tp* 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
i don't want to take the credit in anyway at all credit goes to Popeye191 in my opinion. I adore this article it is really great. I'm a big fan of Swift so i hope this page will be one time a featured article i think Popeye191 can take it there. Popeye is a amazing contributor to the page and should get all the credit. Finally i'm a regular editor on One Direction related articles, the main article of 1D is now nominated for GA aswell so i won't be around for the issues raised for this article. I hope Popeye191 can take it from here AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and I know you don't mean to take credit - it's flattering that you thought the article was ready. Best of luck with the One Direction nomination! Popeye191 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget me guys! Bit busy in my real life, but will find time for this one. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is atrocious, riddled with fancruft, synthesis, wretched sourcing, and inaccuracy. One needs look no further than this disputed content [3][4], where neither the factual claims nor the assertion of significance in the edit summaries are properly supported by the Wired magazine piece cited as the key reference. This bloated mess would be better cited as a BLP violation than a "good article", little as that designation means. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ouch! The article is far from perfect but I feel confident in saying that it's much better than it was a few months ago. I am very open to suggestions for improvement and had intended to ask for a peer review before GA nomination. I find you to be a very poor communicator. And now to address the "disputed content" - you deleted information because the source was a blogger. I referred you to the Wired article, where The Lefsetz Letter's music industry standing was discussed. If you are unhappy with Wired's credibility (?), here are alternative links to The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. Popeye191 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It would help if you read the sources you cite. The Washington Post piece, for example, states "Lefsetz is something like Jim Cramer with a country-music obsession and a distaste for the synthetic drums of Top 40 pop. Basically, he comes off as kind of a nut." That's hardly consistent with your characterization of his work as "highly respected." This dissonance between what is claimed here and what sources actually say is one of the article's major flaws, as is documented repeatedly by my edits. Now please respond to the points I actually made rather than changing them into statements you find easier to dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of Lefsetz's musical taste or writing style is irrelevant. I supplied the Washington Post reference to show that he is considered influential and, in the opening paragraph, he is described as "one of the music industry's most influential analysts". I am acting in good faith and am doing my very best to respond to your concerns. If anything, you are the one misrepresenting the article, which states: "Basically, he comes off as kind of a nut. Yet his acumen draws readers who include some of the most powerful figures in the music business." Popeye191 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. First of all, I quoted a complete. discrete paragraph, and your suggestion that it's misrepresentation wouldn't come from a reasonable editor arguing in good faith. Second, it's hardly on point to argue about his purported influence, since I objected to your description of him and his work as "highly respected." The Post article pretty much characterizes him as the music industry's equivalent of a loopy talk radio personality, a field in which respectability and influence are not exactly solidly associated. Third, a point you're conspicuously avoiding, the Wired article doesn't support the claim it's cited for, just another example of the slipshod sourcing and OR/synthesis that permeate this dreadful article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In my edit summaries, I argued that The Lefsetz Letter is a reliable source - the reasons I gave were that it is "highly respected" and "a highly influential industry newsletter". I stand by those assertions and believe they are supported by the Washington Post link. To be clear, you think that The Washington Post does not characterise him as highly influential and respected by those in the music industry? If so, we need outside assistance to end this disagreement.
I still feel that the Wired article supports my assertion that The Lefsetz Letter is a legitimate, reliable source: “At every label,” says Scott Rodger, manager for Paul McCartney and Arcade Fire, “from the mail room to the A&R department to the chairman’s office, I guarantee they all read him.” The Wired reference is used three times during the article. On the first occasion, it is provided as a second source to give more background to Lefsetz's relationship with Swift. On the second occasion, it is used to support the statement: "Bob Lefsetz, one of the most vocal critics of her 2010 Grammy performance, has said he believes the song is addressed to him." The Wired article states: "In the album liner notes, Swift’s highlighted letters spell out the message “I thought you got me.” (Lefsetz says she told him “You get me” several times.) [I have now also added a second link to Lefsetz's blog, in which he mentions Swift writing "that damn song about me".]. On the third occasion, it is used to support the statement: "Swift and Lefsetz had corresponded occasionally by email and telephone." The article states: "Swift got in touch with Lefsetz, occasionally emailing or calling him." Which use of the reference to you object to?Popeye191 (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You know, I couldn't have found a better demonstration of my point than this. First of all, that "link to Lefsetz's blog" you claim to have added is actually a duplicate link to the Wired article [5]. Second, as should be clear from the text excerpts you posted, that article does not adequately support the claim you cite it for. Third, when one actually tracks down the quote you provide from Lefsetz's blog, it turns out to be from the opening sentence of an April Fool's Day spoof piece! [6]. There's a reason that, outside of your edits, Lefsetz is mentioned here in only two other artist articles, and both of those are borderline-deleteable puff pieces masquerading as articles [7]. The whole Swift vs the middle-aged blogger silliness is utter fancruft, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And while it's an unusually bad sourcing failure, it's far too typical of the lousy, BLP-violating sourcing in this mess. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I copied and pasted the wrong link - I obviously intended to link to Lefsetz's blog rather than Wired. This has now been rectified (using a newsletter other than the April 1 one, which I accept confuses the issue). Do you approve of the new link?
Your original argument was that The Lefsetz Letter is not a valid source. Is this still your contention? You believe that The Washington Post does not characterise Lefsetz as highly influential and respected by those in the music industry?
Your new argument is that the Lefsetz criticism is fancruft and should not be included on that basis. I would argue that the Grammy criticism was one of the biggest moments of Swift's career to date, and that her return to the Grammy stage two years later, singing a song about the event, is also worthy of inclusion. Other wikipedia articles are not the place to ascertain Lefsetz's relevance to Swift's career. Even The New York Times mentioned some of Lefsetz's criticism in a Swift profile. Popeye191 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Do I approve of the new link? Of course I don't; it doesn't support the claim it's cited for. A vague reference by Lefsetz that Swift wrote something about him somewhere doesn't come close to supporting the claim that he's the principal subject of a specific song. The rest is conjecture, synthesis and OR, and, like so much of the article, isn't BLP-compliant. And you misconstrue my arguments wrt Lefsetz as well. The Post article most certainly does not portray him as "highly respected" in the industry; it presents as a well-known and popular crackpot, a Glenn Beck (or, if your politics prefer, Keith Olbermann) for the music industry. That none of the non-Swift music articles (dubious puff pieces aside) cite his views shoul be taken as a telling indication of his significance for an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The two links read together are quite clear. Also, the sentence originally said "it is believed" that "Mean" is about Lefsetz but I changed it after you objected. (There are plenty of very reliable, broadsheet sources which support that particular statement). What is "the rest"?
Respected v influential is just semantics - "one of the music industry's most influential analysts", in the words of The Washington Post, is as valid a source as a "respected" analyst. However, because it concerns you, I dug up a Daily News article which refers to Lefsetz as "a respected music industry reporter". Again, I don't believe references to other wikipedia articles make for a convincing argument.
We've hit a brick wall in this discussion and probably need outside input.Popeye191 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Edited Popeye191 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Review

Sorry for getting here late (was at hospital). Lets do it in steps, first of all fixing minor. When you'll address the issues, I'll be also doing few minor edits to help or to direct. Once the issues are resolved, add  Done after the task.

  • I see that there are many pictures of her, but they all probably lack WP:ALT. See my edit. Please add such alt to all images
 Done
 Done
  • Refs in the lead. They are not causing any trouble but it is better to not to have refs in the lead a the topic gets covered so remove those 2.
  • Also see that the topics in the lead are covered properly in the article later.
 Done

→TSU tp* 20:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I have read through the article and I hardly find any problems. It is just near to pass but few minor issues exists:

  • "2012: Upcoming fourth studio album" - rename this header to "2012 - and present"
 Done
  • There are many refs without name of the author so please see that you can at least fix 80% of them.
  • Few refs are WP:Bare urls.
  • The lead says nothing about her style or her personal life and influences and her public image and her relations.
 Done
Added public image, songwriting style
(edit conflict)Lead surely talks about where she comes from, but relationships are things which I din't found in any of the Wikipedia articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and didn't add personal life information for this reasonPopeye191 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I agree that it should not be in the lead.
  • remove this from the lead as it has already been covered later in the article: "The New York Times considers Swift to be "one of pop’s finest songwriters" while Rolling Stone describes her as one of the best songwriters in contemporary "pop, rock or country"" And also mentioning a particular review in the lead aint a good idea at all.
 Done

Fix them and it is clearly a pass :) →TSU tp* 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Influenced by [[]], [[]], [[]] and [[]], Taylor Swift is recognized for her artistry profoundly for her celebrated songwriting style. for the lead; I don't know who particularly influences Swift. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is 1 more thing,

In the see also section, there is TBA (2012). Is it the confirmed name of the album? If not then please remove it don't put anything unless it is declared.

 Done
Few minor fixes
It makes sense to me - The New Yorker uses commas in the same place. Popeye191 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Swift released a cover of Tom Petty's "American Girl" exclusively through Rhapsody in June 2009 - exclusively? either re-word or remove the word
 Done
  • In November 2009, Swift became the youngest ever artist, and one of only six women, to be named Entertainer of the Year by the Country Music Association. -> In November 2009, Swift became the youngest ever artist and one of only six women to be named Entertainer of the Year by the Country Music Association.
  • Swift was included in Time's annual list of the 100 Most Influential People in 2010 - at which position?
The Time list doesn't use rankings Popeye191 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Swift released her third studio album, Speak Now, in October 2010 - no need of ,
See above Popeye191 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Swift's song "Mean" won Best Country Song and Best Country Solo Performance.[236] She also performed "Mean" during the ceremony - Make the Mean itallic and remove ""
I think songs are supposed to have " " while album titles are italicizedPopeye191 (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in the first one. I have a doubt weather it is necessary to include " " again as it is just repeated in the previous line. Sorry about asking for itallic, and what about replacing "Mean" with It? — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 08:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the second mention to "the song" Popeye191 (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Bob Lefsetz, one of the most vocal critics of her 2010 Grammy performance, has said he believes the song is addressed to him -> Bob Lefsetz, one of the most vocal critics of her 2010 Grammy performance, believes that the song is addressed to him
 Done

That is it. Few problems like over use of , can be found at other places also but it is good to go for GA now after this. — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Have gone through the article more then 5 times now and don't see any major issue. Great work! I have passed it though if someone is planning a FA for this, then it is still a long way to go. — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

MTV VMA incident in heading

I added this clarification back to the Fearless heading because, as stated in my edit summary, that section is not only about the Fearless album. Because of this, it should be clarified. The MTV incident, while having to do with a song from that album, is so much more about the incident itself. It is a huge moment in Swift's career and people will be looking for information on it. Past consensus was for keeping that qualifier in the heading because of this. But I see that editor Popeye191 has taken over heavily editing this article and that there has been edit warring against Popeye191, especially by editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If Popeye191 removed this clarification from the header, I'm stating right now that I am not interested in getting into an edit war over this and will not revert if Popeye191 reverts me. But these things should be clarified in the headings. It's that way for all of the WP:GA and WP:FA articles of musical artists on Wikipedia. And if this article is to be GA, the point about accurately describing that section by way of its heading will likely be brought up. Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I find this quite over-dramatic, to be honest! I am only editing heavily in an effort to improve the article, as anyone is entitled to do, and don't feel I have engaged in 'edit warring'. I have no problem with the VMA incident being included in the heading, especially if that is what has previously been decided by consensus. Popeye191 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Popeye191, I didn't mean to come off as over-dramatic and I don't find the above to be so. If you look in this article's edit history, there was indeed edit-warring being committed by you, especially when it comes to you and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. See what WP:Edit warring says. I just wanted to make clear that I'm not looking to revert and add to the edit warring that's been going on at this article lately. I didn't mean to insult you or Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and I apologize if you felt insulted. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm being too sensitive! I just felt you were presuming I would take issue with any edits made. No offense taken. I tried to discuss my disagreement with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on his talk page and, when the issue was not resolved, I opened a new section here. Popeye191 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries, and I can see how you'd conclude that from my initial comment. Again, I apologize. And thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Popeye191, I just want to point out that we aren't allowed to use YouTube as a source, unless it's coming from an official YouTube page of a reliable source (like CNN, etc., a star's official YouTube page) or is used to support information about a YouTube star (such as Chris Crocker, Jenna Marbles, etc.). So you should find a different source for reporting that Eminem weighed in on the Kanye incident. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've now replaced them.Popeye191 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. And another thing, Popeye191... Why'd you add "and media backlash" onto the title? I don't feel strongly about that addition, but it makes the section sound as though there was media backlash against Swift. It's misleading because the backlash was against West, as we know. Sure, readers will find that out when they read that section, but that part of the heading is still misleading and unneeded. The word "incident" covers it all, because everything after that is about the incident. I think we once had "controversy" in place of "incident," but the word "incident" is usually preferred over "controversy" on Wikipedia with regard to titles. However, it's a case-by-case thing. Flyer22 (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Or did you add the "and media backlash" part in reference to Swift's bad performance mentioned near the end of the section? If so, the add-on to the heading is still ill-placed because the criticism for that performance wasn't so prominent in the media that it requires being part of the heading. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I see the latter is why you lengthened the heading. If the performance was widely criticized, then I agree with your altered version of the heading. It's just not something I think I remember hearing about. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the "media backlash" does refer to her Grammy performance. Maybe I should mention media backlash at the beginning of the paragraph to make it easier for readers to find. Long profile pieces (e.g. The New Yorker) usually refer to that as an important moment in her career. Popeye191 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see. And the paragraph is fine the way you have it. No need to change it to the way you suggested. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why was the image of the incident removed? That image is more relevant to the section than the two images that are there. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to this question by Popeye191, I direct editors to what is stated at File talk:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg. Especially see my comment about its relevance (though I was not strongly for keeping or deleting the image). Flyer22 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings either. If consensus established that the image should be included, that's fine with me. Popeye191 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"so far"

At one point the article says that according to Forbes she had earned $57 million "so far in 2012". This violates WP:WORDS#Relative time references. It should say "as of May 2012", as the linked Forbes page does. --65.92.2.230 (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. Acalamari 07:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing information

Okay here are some suggestions I have to make to help this article along to GA. First and foremost, the re-issues of her eponymous debut album in both November of 2007, including minor information of the new songs and DVD, and March of 2008 and it significant difference from the prior two, the release of Fearless: Platinum Edition and it's new songs.

Here are some great hints:

In November of 2007, Swift re-issued her eponymous debut album as a Deluxe Edition. It consisted of three new songs, and a phone conversation between Tim McGraw and Swift. The re-issue also consisted of a DVD which contained music videos, behind the scenes footage, performances and the GAC Short Cuts episode, "A Place in This World". A Target exclusive was also released containing bonus performances from the Soul2Soul II Tour.
In March of 2008, Swift re-issued her eponymous debut album for a third and final time. The album consisted of the three bonus songs from the Deluxe Edition with the phone call replaced by a pop version of "Teardrops on My Guitar". The album also replaced the "First Grand Ole Opry" performance with the music video for "Teardrops on My Guitar" as the bonus enhanced feature.
In October of 2009, Swift re-issed her sophomore album, Fearless, as Fearless: Platinum Edition. The re-issue consisted of five new songs and a bonus piano mix of the song "Forever & Always". It also contained a bonus DVD which featured music videos from the album, four behind the scenes footage, photo gallery, and the "Love Story" parody, "Thug Story" video. Two exclusives, one from Wal-Mart and one from Target, were released each containing two sets of different performances.
  • Note: Source, Source, Source, {{cite album-notes|title=Fearless: Platinum Edition|artist=[[Taylor Swift]]|format=[[Compact Disc|CD]]/[[DVD]]|year=2009|publisher=[[Big Machine Records]]|publisherid=BMRCTS0250}} and {{cite album-notes|title=Fearless: Platinum Edition|artist=Taylor Swift|format=CD/DVD|year=2009|publisher=Big Machine Records|publisherid=BMRBTS0250}}
  • Note 2: The two {{cite album-notes}} are from my copies of both the Target and Wal-Mart exclusive versions of Fearless Platinum Edition with correct ISBN numbers.

Hope this helps. ^_^ Swifty*talk 07:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's too detailed. People who are interested will most likely click through to the albums' pages, where that kind of information is available. Popeye191 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You're choice but might help. ^_^ Swifty*talk 11:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The {{About|artist|eponymous debut album|Taylor Swift (album)}} should be restored. ^_^ Swifty*talk 11:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrea

I noticed a line about Andrea having spent her childhood in Singapore. This is an article about Taylor, not Andrea. Perhaps such information should either be placed into a new article about her or scrapped entirely? Spelling Style (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It helps make it clear that Taylor came from an upper middle class family. It also explains how, later in the article, her grandmother and first influence came to be performing opera in Singapore. It's also of interest that, as a country singer, one of her parents was partly raised in the South.Popeye191 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2012

I work with Taylor Swift and would like to edit this article. I have registered. What do I need to next in order to make some changes

Vandylover (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Become autoconfirmed, 10 edits and 4 days, details at Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users; please also read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, especially both sections on Self-published sources; finally, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Note that this would have been better addressed at your user talk page using the {{helpme}} template. Good luck. Dru of Id (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012

Right, this page says Taylor Swift is dead and gives the most horrible reason why, this is atrocious please can someone edit this immediately! KamLehial13 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrea and Scott Swift divorcing

It was announced last month that Taylor's parents decided to divorce. Unless they cancel abruptly like Miley Cyrus's father did, I think it's safe to say that this page will have to be changed soon to state that her parents have divorced. See 1 2 3. Regardless of the fact that her representatives did not want to comment, she herself stated she felt very sad because of her parents split and her next album will feature just that. Spelling Style (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Star Magazine is the source of this story. It could be true, but we should wait until fourth album promotional interviews, where it will be mentioned. I have my doubts - there's a youtube video of them hugging each other at a Taylor concert last summer (the reports say they split a couple of years ago) and today gossip blogs have a twitter picture of them enjoying lunch with Taylor and her new boyfriend.Popeye191 (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course if their daughter is already so closed to revealing the news, they're going to put up a facade. Last summer was awhile ago, they probably did that for the sake of civility. The reports do not say they split a couple of years ago, just vaguely "sometime in the past two years". Could be as recent as this year, they were too secretive. Good about hiding it... I knew someone would bring up the lunch thing, but the fact of that matter is, I read about the lunch before it happened and each source cites "her divorcing parents". They're trying to stay calm for their daughter and the media. See more and more and more. Still could be false, but it seems suspicious that she deleted all the threads regarding this issue on her official website. Spelling Style (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
We should not report the rumour/info unless it becomes official. --Sofffie7 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Taylor Swift Pictures

Taylor Swift's article only has a few pictures in it. Even though you aren't suppose to put so many pictures in a article, Taylor Swift's article is very big and it has a lot of only text at the end of it. There should be at least two pictures in that space. There are many pictures here from Wikimedia Commons that you could use. CPGirlAJ (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Then add some. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I Like Taylor Proforming in 2007 and thumb|left|Taylor being Interviewed 2009 If you want to take note of that.--BellaFan262 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC):)

Sales statistics

If you are interested, you may find these 2012 Billboard published career sales statistics useful. It has all the CDs and many singles. http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-taylor-swift-s-career-sales-1007888752.story Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


Someone should add the time she was on an episode of The Buried Life to her filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.228.36 (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Template issues

Taylor Swift is a singer. Thanks to Gimmetoo we are still able to continue editing and expanding Taylor Swift, the page has hit it's max with over 500 sources on this page and will continue to act up if we do not start using {{fcite}} from here on out. To see further information please see my talk page. ^_^ Swifty*talk 16:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

{{fcite}} conclusion is "mark as experimental and not for article use; develop and test before deployment." See extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_15#Template:Fcite MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
When the alternative is break the page? Yeah that makes sense. Nevertheless, changed to cite quick per note on my talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not the number of templates that's directly the issue, but their "expand size". Using a lighter-weight template helps, as would eliminating some template uses. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
why are so many citations used? Like, even the simplest statement has three citations. Plus there are 9 dead links (I removed one.)
  • e.g. does this statement need four citations: "In May 2012, Swift contributed vocals to "Both of Us", a Dr. Luke-produced single from B.o.B's second album Strange Clouds.[267][268][269][270]"? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we should make Taylor Swift's article's into more than one article, such as her artistry or filmography, those could different articles. CPGirlAJ (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone! What's exactly the problem with cite web, cite news? I don't know if we should create subpages; the article maybe only needs to be summarized? Either way, we should ask Popeye191's opinion because she/he is the one who significantly edited the page ;) --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up some. Combined about a half dozen duplicates, for example. I've also flipped it to the {{vcite}} suite, which at least is an established suite of templates that is lighter weight. This is what has been done on a few other over-the-top pop-culture articles, such as Elvis Presley, Brad Pitt. Wikid77 knows that there is significant opposition to his efforts to fork the standard cite templates and has been advise to focus his efforts on improving the existing template implementations. This article needs serious pruning. That's the message to take away from topping-out like this. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the article from vcite to cite quick, as the original change was against CITEVAR. This template works and does not fall under the discussion noted above. --Nouniquenames 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

Please add this to the section about the 'Red' album.

Even though she usually doesn't discuss who her songs are about, Swift told Broadway's Electric Barnyard that she would agree to disclose the inspiration for "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" for a six figure donation to charity. Following in the footsteps of one of her idol's, whom she mimics quite often, Carly Simon.[2] Orangesmiles1025 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll say no then. Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Teen pop

Add "teen-pop" in the genres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.55.246.12 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends, do you have any reliable sources? CPGirlAJ (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Denise Oliver

What about her roll in Spy Academy, Wayside and various other shows under the name "denise oliver? clearly this is the same person. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CPGirlAJ (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift and Walgreens

Taylor Swift has a store of her in Walgreens. Could we add that to the article somewhere? Here are the sources:

CPGirlAJ (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a mention of her special album promotion through Walgreens in the Red section of the article.Popeye191 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't know. CPGirlAJ (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2012

Hahahaj111 (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy: LGBT support is given undue weight

Regarding Swift's philanthropy efforts, her LGBT support appears to be given undue weight by being given it's own section. For example, other separate sections show that she has pledged $4 million for the Arts, $250,000 for children's literacy, $100,000 for natural disaster relief, and $45,000 for childhood sickness. The LGBT shows no financial support at all other than participating in an anti-bullying campaign commercial related to the death of a homosexual teen. I do believe that the article should mention her support for anti-bullying of homosexual persons, but the emphasis shouldn't have greater weight than (for example) her support for Elton John's Aids cause which is listed in her "other" philathropy endeavors. Let me know if I'm missing something here that I may be overlooking. Thanks! Stylteralmaldo (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that we should be mindful of weight when dealing with this sort of material, after looking over that section, I do not think her LGBT support is being given undue weight. She has publicly spoken out against LGBT discrimination, filmed a PSA, been nominated for an activism award related to the subject, and been acknowledged as a part of this "new wave". I think, regardless of any financial consideration, she has been sufficiently involved in LGBT philanthropy to warrant the weight the article has given it.  Chickenmonkey  06:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

122.59.230.143 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC) it says taylor swift is in a relationship with harry styles THIS IS NOT TRUE. It has not been confirmed so please take it out. now.

Not done: Styles himself has confirmed the relationship in an interview with E! News. Regardless, People.com is recognized as a reliable source.Popeye191 (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Taylor swift is 9 years

she dates every month lmost all of her singles are country pop or country. On Wikipedia articles you can check. Out of her 4 albums, the ONLY singles that are listed as pop or otherwise on Wikipedia articles are "The Story Of Us" (from Speak Now) and "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" and "I Knew You Were Trouble." (both from Red.) Other songs on albums that aren't singles might have a pop sound, but most of her songs are classified as "country music". On her WP article, her genres are supposedly "pop, pop rock, country pop, country." I changed it to "country pop, pop, country, pop rock" because I feel it more accurately portrays her music/musical genres. What do you think? Should her genres be listed as more pop or more country? Kayp22 (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not really matter which order they are listed in, as long as the applicable genres are listed.  Chickenmonkey  09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I am awesome! We are using very few country music signifiers in her latest work. The only album which could be described entirely as "country" was her debut, and even that was decidedly country-pop. The genres used on her other wiki entries are irrelevant ; they're edited by fans. Can you provide any reviews by reputable sources which argue that her recent music is primarily country? I think you'll have a hard time... The dominant media narrative is that Red is the album where Taylor accepted her status as a popstar. Popeye191 (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Which genre we list first is almost entirely meaningless. Listing one genre before another will not cause the reader to think she is more one genre than the next, as long as all of the listed genres are accurate (i.e. as long as nobody tries to list a genre of which Taylor Swift is not a part). She is a pop star; she is a country star. Okay, we list the country and pop genres in any order, and the reader will understand that she is both a pop star and a country star; the body of the article will inform the reader of the path her career has taken and in which genre she most often fits.  Chickenmonkey  20:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that genres should always go in ABC order, to keep conflicts like this from happening. It's neutral.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be a good way to keep these kinds of conflicts from happening.  Chickenmonkey  21:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Alphabetical is most certainly the best way in my opinion. —AdabowtheSecond 21:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

70 million song downloads worldwide?

Where did you get that? Taylor sold total of 50 million records as 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.105.177 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, with source.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source? Because 26 million albums and 75 million song downloads is what I keep reading http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/11/19/CL16153 Popeye191 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Press releases are not reliable sources, due to the fact that sales are normally inflated. Third-party sources are to be used.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's a third party source: http://blog.gactv.com/blog/2012/11/23/taylor-swift-closes-in-on-three-million-copies-of-red-sold-worldwide/ The above source is outdated (before her fourth album was even released) and only measures US sales through Nielson Soundscan.Popeye191 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that source is that it is getting its information from the press release. Some sentences are even copy and pasted. Billboard is the most reliable source for album sales. They get their information on their own, and don't copy if from other websites.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Billboard said in that September that she had sold 22 million albums. Red was released since then. It went triple platinum in a month (certified by RIAA) - http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/SummerConcert/story?id=4747695 Since, then it has been selling 250,00 + copies per week http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/taylor-swift-s-red-album-rules-at-no-1-bruno-1008054832.story http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/taylor-swift-s-red-headed-for-seventh-week-1008062972.story And then there's international sales. The figure seems accurate to me? Popeye191 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I never said that the figure wasn't accurate, it seems very much to be. But you need a reliable source (that's source isn't a press release from a record label) for it. You can't use a press release and add 2+2 for a source. It may be outdated, but that's what we got.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to make my own additions using lots of Billboard articles? Popeye191 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Billboard article from September said she sold 22 millions albums. So can I add up all the weekly Billboard chart updates since then myself and post one figure in the article (citing all my sources) Popeye191 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No, you can't do that. See WP:SYNTH.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Billboard will hopefully provide another summary soon then. Popeye191 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Most likely. They usually do once a year. And after all the weeks of Red being number one and stuff, they are sure to do one very soon. Maybe around the time the Red Tour starts.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Her ethnicity

she has Irish ancestry,it should be noted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.222.199 (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 

    No she doesn't.

Personal Life

Seems like she is no longer dating Harry Styles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2258623/Taylor-Swift-splits-Harry-Styles-almighty-row--heads-home-romantic-holiday.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 58.6.100.34 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.219.36 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Taylor Swift occupation

I think we should add philanthropist to Taylor Swift's occupation section. She's done lots of charitable work and her "Philanthropy" WP section is pretty long with the acts she's done. Kayp22 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox picture

  • First picture
    First picture
  • Second picture
    Second picture
There is a clear difference between the two images in terms of lighting colors and size also.
  • First picture - Lighting color is good, and also the appropriate size.
  • Second picture - is a very dark, Size is also much smaller.hey tt
Comment. This is a good article, and the picture in the infobox should be a better than that. Please do not change the image, but when we see the opinion of other users. Thanks. --Oz Steps (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When I searched in images of Taylor Swift, I saw this picture looks excellent:

  • Third picture
    Third picture
And also better than the second image. What is everyone's opinion. --Oz Steps (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I prefer the second image (not over-exposed) and I think a close-up of the face is best for an infobox image. The original image should probably be left in place until consensus is reached?Popeye191 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013

TaylorSwiftfan23 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC) I would like to rename this page Taylor Alison Swift because one of her albums is named after her.

Not done: The title of the article is the most common name of the subject, not their full name. (See Bill Clinton for comparison.) If Swift were to record professionally as Taylor Alison Swift for an extended period of time, that could warrant changing the page title. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

-'Intensified media scrutiny' question-

I'm not sure the article should deal with the media scrutiny around her love life even if famous people have commented it. And if we want to write about it, wouldn't it be better to do that in the Personal life / relationships section rather than in the musical career section? --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish her love life wasn't related to her career but a great many outlets, including The New York Times and Vanity Fair, have written and published articles discussing the negative impact it is having on her career, reputation and marketability. So I think it belongs in the career section. The paragraph is very much a work-in-progress and is way too quote-heavy at the minute, so I've moved it to my sandbox until I've fixed it a bit. Popeye191 (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2013

=P

The article refers to her as an "eight-grader". This should be "eighth-grader". Even some clever people do not have correct punctuation, don't you agree? 50.78.171.165 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

User:Popeye191 recently restored an image of Taylor Swift's face with spittle (or skin) flaking off of her lips with the edit summary "more flattering angle, a close up, performing in this photo too". I'm afraid I disagree. I do not see anything flattering about spittle or dead skin flaking off of her lips, and I prefer File:Taylor Swift - Red Tour 08.jpg as it shows her performing as a musician, and not just a pretty face being objectified for her looks. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

New Girl character description is not accurate

In the Acting career section, the last sentence has an inaccurate description of Elaine (Taylor's New Girl character): "a scorned ex-girlfriend who tries to stop a wedding." If you read the eonline article cited, you see that it says "Sources tell us exclusively that Swifty's character is also Shivrang's ex and she will try to stop the nuptials." In other words, the author was speculating based on unverified sources, without having actually watched the episode. The article date was 3/28/2013, while the New Girl episode aired 1.5 months later on 5/14/2013. Obviously eonline wanted to draw a parallel to the plot of the song "Speak Now" even though it wasn't actually true.

You can watch the New Girl episode on Fox's web site: http://www.fox.com/new-girl/full-episodes/30024771808/elaine-s-big-day After watching the episode, you will see that Elaine does not attempt to stop a wedding. First, the bride expresses doubts about getting married because she's in love with someone else. Then the groom says it's OK, because he's actually in love with someone else too. At that point he calls out for Elaine, and that's when we see Taylor's brief 30-sec cameo, where Shivrang and Elaine profess their love for each other. Elaine does not try to stop the wedding. She merely responds after the bride and groom have already called it off. There is also no indication that Elaine should be described as a "scorned" ex-girlfriend. That adjective wasn't even in the eonline article.

Here's an article that describes the episode plot: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liat-kornowski/new-girl-season-2-finale-recap_b_3276805.html

So what would be a better, more accurate description? Perhaps: "an ex-girlfriend who attends the wedding of a man she's still in love with." 96.227.75.194 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Jay

Thanks. I've changed the wording. Hope it's ok now. Popeye191 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

66 North American RED Tour dates

In the section "2012–present: Red and intense media scrutiny" please update the part that says "She is playing 64 dates across North America" to reflect the actual current number of 66.

Official news announcement from Taylor's web site: http://taylorswift.com/news/10643 If you carefully count the number of dates listed, you will come up with a total of 66 North American RED Tour dates.

Note: I'm still waiting for someone to make the corrections to the "Red Tour" article I've posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Tour 96.227.75.194 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Jay

New Zealand RED Tour dates in November

In the section "2012–present: Red and intense media scrutiny" please correct the part that says "The Red Tour will visit stadiums across Australia and New Zealand in December 2013." The 4 Australia dates are in December, but the 2 New Zealand dates are in November. Also, the 2 New Zealand dates are in an arena, not a stadium. 96.227.75.194 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Jay

cat named by 4chan

Her cat was named by DLB when she undercover had a thread asking what to name her cat for whose post met the ID no. criteria. The next day it was named what someone chose who got the sought after ID no. and was appeared in many news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.171.178 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Luke Barth--75.131.171.178 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2013

Red Tour On August 20, 2013, Taylor Swift was honored by Staples Center Senior Vice President and General Manager Lee Zeidman and officials from Red tour promoter the Messina Group for breaking their record of the most sold-out shows for a solo artist. Her four sold out shows occurring on August 19-20 & 23-24 began a wave of record breaking shows. On Monday August 19th she surpassed Madonna and Justin Timberlake, who each have logged seven sellouts, Tuesday August 20th she topped Britney Spears' previous record of eight sellouts. Following her Friday August 23 & Saturday August 24th shows she will become the #1 Solo Artist and tied with Latin Pop Group Mana for most overall sellouts. with 11. [3]

Rikripley (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Three problems, as I see it. (1) The source you cite is reporting on a future event which presumably has now happened—or has it? We can't presume, so we need a newer source. (2) The wording is unclear. For instance, when you write "breaking their record", exactly whose record are you referring to? It also doesn't make clear that the records at issue are for just one venue, the Staples Center, or did I misunderstand? (3) This may be too much detail about one discrete part of Swift's current tour, and a much more concise summary might be preferable. Please see this essay for guidance on covering current events. Rivertorch (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit request

Sorry if I'm doing this incorrectly. Under the Relationships section, Conor Kennedy is referred to as a "political heir". This is a rather inaccurate description as he isn't the heir to any political office. He merely comes from a family known for being politicians. If he needs to be qualified, replace "political heir" with "Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s son" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.197.232 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2013

Taylor Swift Art Of Photography Infinity work (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Why would we add these images or a link to them? There is no encyclopedic value in them. They are pretty much just WP:FAN material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

More about Vma 2013 ?

It only mentions that she won the Vma for Best Fmele Video with I Knew You Were Trouble, however, her Vma acceptance speech and stfu incident were discussed by the media a lot after the Vmas. So, there should be more information about the Vmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.101.38 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is NOT a gossip site. --Androktasiai (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Height

Some resources said that her height is 180 cm.

  1. ^ http://www.theboot.com/2011/09/14/taylor-swift-guinness-book-of-world-records/
  2. ^ "Broadway's Electric Barnyard".
  3. ^ Taylor Swift ties record for most sold-out shows at Staples Center | LA Times
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taylor_Swift/Archive_4&oldid=1246189271"