Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Taylor Swift singles discography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Taylor Swift singles discography

Featured list candidates/Taylor Swift singles discography/archive1

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split from Taylor Swift discography, this list compiles the singles and charted songs by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. I think it's ready for FL, as it is a comprehensive, meticulously referenced list that does not omit anything within its coverage. Thanks, HĐ (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments on the lead

State when exactly the RIAA said she had shifted 134 million units, and when she had sold 17 million singles in the UK
""Our Song", made Swift the youngest person to single-handedly write and perform a number-one song" - pretty sure she did not single-handedly perform the song (unless she played every instrument herself, which would surprise me)
"on the Billboard Country Songs chart." - the chart is called Hot Country Songs, not just Country Songs
"and the sleeper hit "Delicate", its longest-charting song" - needs a source
"setting the record for the most simultaneous debuts by a woman" => "breaking her own record for the most simultaneous debuts by a woman"
That's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the comments. I have revised the lead accordingly, HĐ (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;Initial comments on the tables (with my UK resident hat on specifically)

Ref 25 is being used to source UK chart positions below 100 in some cases, but the source does not contain any of that info (it only shows top 100 hits)
Ref 111 is to zobbel.de and shows the publisher as the Official Charts Company, but this is untrue, it is/was the personal website of some guy called Tobias Zywietz and thus is almost certainly not a reliable source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Record charts zobbel.de (Chart Log UK) is an archive site licensed by OCC.. And I think it's the only source where we can get chart positions 100-200. If there's a better alternative though, I'd love to include that instead, HĐ (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another point re: Zobbel - ref 111 only shows that "Breathless" entered at number 116. It could have gone up to number 101 the following week and peaked there, so listing its peak position as 116 might be wrong. Unfortunately I am not sure there is a viable source for peak positions below 100 in the UK....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate... I resorted to the zobbel.de sources as they are considered acceptable per WP:RECORDCHART. I updated the ref for "Breathless" and it concurred with the 116 peak. Oftentimes lesser-known songs like these would enter at a very low position and then fall off the charts, so I wouldn't doubt with the previous source either... Thank you for taking time reviewing the article, and I very much appreciate your help, HĐ (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to say that "Breathless" probably didn't climb any higher than 116, but as far as I can see we don't have a source to confirm one way or the other. Is there a way to show the peak position as "somewhere between 116 and 101" (but in a slightly less wordy way)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source I updated for "Breathless" (and also "Fearless" etc.) shows the peak positions for those singles as well, fyi (It's a database of all charted singles/albums by artists in the UK up to 2010).. I think that's justifiable enough, HĐ (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more UK comments

"If This Was a Movie" is listed against 2011, but the first Zobbel source says it peaked in the UK in November 2010, so it surely must have come out in that year
2011 was when it was released on iTunes, and usually I believe years listed are supposed to be released years and not charted years.. HĐ (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see how a song can have charted before it was released, but maybe that's my advanced age showing....... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second and third Zobbel sources only support the position at which the relevant songs entered, not where they peaked. I still think this needs clarifying..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I have no better source to prove it.. HĐ (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, so put a note something along the lines of ""Wonderland" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 171. It peaked below number 100.". If we won't definitely know that it peaked at it entry position, we shouldn't state it as fact. Life would be so much easier if the UK didn't have this bizarre concept of a section of the chart (101-200) which exists but unless you subscribe to some sort of obscure trade publication you don't get to see it......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's rather cumbersome so I reworded "Peak positions..." to "Chart positions..."; how does it sound? Agree that the UK charts are odd to include the 101-200 section... HĐ (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - suggest it might be worth having a discussion at WT:CHARTS about UK chart positions 101-200 and how to handle them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;More comments

"Songwriting credits" section is completely unsourced, but IMO it doesn't belong on here anyway. None of them are singles by Swift.
I still don't understand what a promotional single is as opposed to a "normal" single, but I guess that's valid
Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, promotional singles are distributed for free unlike a full-fledged single. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that "Crazier" was certified platinum because a million copies were given away for free? How bizarre -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with the details on that specific song, but I meant that promo releases aren't released for paid purchase the way singles are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from my knowledge promo singles could either be (a) released without radio impacts in order to generate a "buzz" for an album / (b) released for free (like some 2007 Christmas singles listed here).. HĐ (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS

I got a 404 error when checking the file source for File:Taylor Swift 1989 Tour at Ford Field in Detroit, 5-30-15.jpg. That makes it harder to verify the image was properly licensed. If you can't fix/replace that URL, then just get another image.

I replaced it with a more recent image from the Reputation tour. I believe that it's self-published, HĐ (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead feels overly US-centric. I realize she's had lots of success there and that a few other places do get mentioned, but I feel you could discuss more like how "Love Story" went number one in Australia or how three songs from 1989 topped the charts there as well as in Canada.

I think it's because Swift's strength primarily lies in the States where she's a media darling... I'll try to incorporate more info wherever possible though, HĐ (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hit" isn't very professional tone. There are multiple instances where that should be changed.

Changed at some places. Kept at others (i.e. "Shake It Off" can be naturally described as a "hit" imo), HĐ (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When not credited as a lead or featured artist, I don't see any point in including songs where Taylor was only a songwriter.

Removed, HĐ (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the ref#109 bundle, I recommend putting in some title for those links on Scottish numbers like you have with ref#108 and its Australian peaks.

Done, HĐ (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above should be manageable, and media review is currently pending until the image concern is addressed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms with File:Taylor Swift Reputation Tour1 (cropped).jpg, so good job with the image replacement :). Now passing media review. As for the lead, you could replace "hits" in "five top-10 hits" with "songs" or "entries", and SIO can be "biggest success in the United States" (based on time spent at its summit) in place of "biggest hit". Something I forgot to bring up earlier is that "several" is an ambiguous term that's best avoided when specifics are known and that you should signify that Billboard Hot 100 pertains to the US upon its first mention there. While both of us clearly know that already, not all readers are familiar with chart names and affiliations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "hit" is unencyclopedic tone, as defined by the Oxford dictionary as "a person or thing that is very popular", which is identical in meaning as "success" (both of which are rather neutral tone instead of POV imo). Though I have reduced the instances of "hits" to one, which I think is acceptable. Agree that "several" is a vague term. Specified that the Billboard Hot 100 is a US chart. Thank you very much for your comments :) HĐ (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I now support following the improvements made to this list. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from User:SatDis

Comments from SatDis

Great work, here are a few suggestions:

For the Australian charts references, there are a few floating references in the chart (obviously because they're from below #50). However, could you put these in the reference at the top as a note? I have done it here Noah Cyrus discography#Singles, if you look at ref [7]. I believe it looks neater.

I bundled the refs altogether, HĐ (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you've gone for the method of linking the publisher's first mention, but ARIA is linked in both [32] and [36].

I linked them all, HĐ (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why "Beautiful Ghosts" is the only main single that has a citation next to it?

There is a rule of thumb that singles which did not chart on any chart should have a citation next to it.. Or that's what I've been told, HĐ (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the songs from the 2007 Christmas single all listed separately? Could you list them all as one single or somehow put it into a note? Just interesting!

I merged the chart and sales column and added a note, HĐ (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed only 59 references are archived, but 114 listed. Are these able to be archived as well? Asking because I've suffered from links going dead before!

I'm having a problem with IAbot... I'll check it later, HĐ (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SatDis (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, SatDis! HĐ (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, the references look great... and that makes sense re "Beautiful Ghosts". Christmas single looks good. I will support the list on the basis of excellent referencing and ease of reading. I just recommend checking out the citation archives for your own sake. I didn't know bots could do it so I ended up doing it all manually for my articles, haha! Well done on the article. SatDis (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – To confirm what the previous reviewer said, the reliability and formatting of the references look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. This source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. HĐ (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.