Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Actress

Taylor swift is also an actress,please add this part too:/ Hellohell95 (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Per the guidance in MOS:LEAD, the lead should usually give only the most pertinent and notable things about the subject. True, Ms. Swift is an actress, but, in my opinion, that part of her career doesn't merit mention in the opening sentence. Rebbing 14:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Mezzo-soprano?

obviously soprano mates. the category should be removed --93.106.229.235 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done: There's no discussion or citation for her vocal range in the article, so, per WP:CATV, I removed the category. Thank you for pointing this out. Rebbing 14:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taylor Swift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160516063358/http://www.taylorswift.com/news/263633 to http://taylorswift.com/news/263633

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Use infobox person?

She is notable because her music, why not use {{Infobox musical artist}} instead? Hddty. (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Does that have any parameters we would use that are not in the current infobox? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think it makes much difference. An Infobox is just a template. Eric Cable  !  Talk  16:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The infobox was switched most recently by FrB.TG (diff) to provide (as relevant) the |net_worth= parameter. I think {{infobox person}} with the submodule looks cleaner. Also, it seems to me better to use the standard biography infobox, pulling in a more specific infobox only for the portion that is unique to musicians. Rebbing 01:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taylor Swift songs

A user has just deleted (redirected) the template "Template:Taylor Swift songs": [1]. If you need it, you can do something about it.

I'm afraid I am to blame for this cause I was the one who showed the template to this editor as an example of how templates are usually made/formatted. It happened here: Template talk:Demis Roussos. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll ping the user Woodensuperman. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is. Two templates are unnecessary as the navigation can easily be performed by a single template. Templates of this nature are regularly merged. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 10#Template:Adele songs as just one example. --woodensuperman 12:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a very bad example cause I can see users Primefac and Plastikspork voting for the "uncluttered" version of the Adele template, the version that would had songs divided by albums. But the next day after the discussion closed as merge, you came and changed the Adele template as you wanted: [2].
Pinging BU_Rob13 who closed the discussion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant to the point here. The fact remains that readers are better served by a single navbox, as they have ALL related articles available to navigate between, rather than just between the songs, or between all articles except the songs. Only when a navbox gets unmanageable should we consider splitting. That is not the case here. We also shouldn't split the songs/singles by year or by album, as this makes the navbox artificially large and a lot more vertical than is necessary. --woodensuperman 12:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That's relevant because you are changing all the musician templates on Wiki into you preferred layout with all singles combined into one section. In the Adele case, people voted for another version and you ignored their opinions. And here, too, you made navigation between song articles very difficult cause Taylor Swift has too many singles and no one will find anything in the version of the template you prefer. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)\

Oh, and incidentally, I'm not sure you're using "uncluttered" correctly. The split version is the cluttered version, as it contains extraneous information. --woodensuperman 12:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Non-cluttered". --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but you're using it to describe the more cluttered version! --woodensuperman 13:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's your version that is cluttered. If I wanted to find some single, I would have to search through a lot of text. I find it very annoying. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add all the associated acts to the info box😠

Isn't there anyone to add associated acts to the box?!It is so much important.why is it removed?!You did such a terrible thing to remove associated acts from the box below the labels.really shame on you. Add all the associated acts back immediately.😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠 Hellohell95 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the purpose of the |associated_acts= parameter: "This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career." Even if these qualified, it is unclear to me how having this field could be "so much important" and its removal a "terrible" and "shameful" occurrence—the article would stand on its own with the infobox removed entirely. Rebbing 16:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Another image discussion

The article was promoted with this image:

• 

which I prefer more than any other image of her currently available on Commons. This is the lead image at the moment:

• 

True this image is more recent (only a year younger) and gives more flattering view of her neck, but there is weird shadowing on her face and it is kind of blurry. If we must have the image from the Red Tour I find this one much better (although this gives a rather unflattering view of Swift's teeth):

• 

Any thoughts, @IndianBio and Rebbing:? FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we not have anything from The 1989 World Tour? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal preference out of these three is File:Taylor Swift Red Tour 5, 2013.jpg. Looks most natural while facing the front where doesn't have to turn much (if at all) to face the camera. Not sure what to say about necks, but File:Taylor Swift Red Tour 2013.jpg shouldn't under any circumstances be used here; the very unflattering view of her teeth is way too off-putting to be included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Image

Shouldn’t we change the picture? It’s too old — Preceding unsigned comment added by DontBlameMe (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any high-quality, recent image in mind? FrB.TG (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget the discussion at #Another image discussion. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Age is only one of many considerations in choosing a lead image; while it's true that the image was taken nearly five years ago, it is nearly indistinguishable from her appearance today, so this factor deserves little weight. We've discussed this topic many, many times, and I believe this image remains the most suitable. Rebbing 13:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

White supremist fans

Here are a couple of stories about how Taylor Swift has acquired fans from the alt-right white supremists. She hasn't commented on them, but she has brought lawsuits -- which gained more attention, and many more WP:RS, making the issue WP:NOTABLE for inclusion in her Wikipedia entry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/07/aclu-scolds-taylor-swift-for-effort-to-protect-reputation/
ACLU scolds Taylor Swift for effort to protect reputation
By Travis M. Andrews
Washington Post
November 7, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/25/alt-right-white-supremacists-have-chosen-taylor-swift-as-their-aryan-goddess-icon-through-no-fault-of-her-own/
‘Alt-right’ white supremacists have chosen Taylor Swift as their ‘Aryan goddess’ icon, through no fault of her own
By Travis M. Andrews
Washington Post
May 25, 2016

--Nbauman (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I support this notion, as long as we don't portray Swift as such, as that would be an inherent BLP violation (especially considering she is suing someone for calling her such). --Aleccat 01:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with adding a carefully worded statement about Swift's alt-right fans, and Swift suing Herning.VR _talk 22:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Why? It does nothing but muddy the issue. Reporting on gossip is still gossip. The fact that she sued Herning shows that this is specifically not something she wants herself associated with. It is the scourge of society. Subuey (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not, if nazi bands like Skrewdriver or actual bands with contentious connections with a skinhead fanbase like The Exploited don't have a section regarding their fans then Swift certainly does not. Not every bit of tabloid rubbish is encyclopedic. In 100 years this will not be apart of Taylor's history or noteworthyness. The article itself does not even know if the alt-right fools are being comedic or serious. GuzzyG (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It probably doesn't belong in a biography of Swift at this point. If she had done something to explicitly recruit these morons as a fanbase, that would be worth including but pond life attaching itself to her isn't. The lawyer's letter to the blog and the subsequent (much-deserved, sorry Taylor!) slapdown by the ACLU might be worth including since it's garnered some attention in the mainstream highbrow press, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper; we don't have to report on everything the moment it happens. If we're still talking about it next week, it might be worth a sentence or two; if we're not, then there's your answer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

mild unconfirmed controversy isn't biographic. adding gossip is not the purpose of this website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmyyours (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Taylor Swift was absolutely in the right for suing a far-left SJW anti-white racist like Meghan Herning for defamation. Those commies are just as evil and racist as the Nazis. I bet so-called "white supremacists" aren't even fans of Talor Swift. It's probable just another leftist hoax (liberals call anyone they don't like white supremacists, including the president of all people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.14.178.72 (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring controversy?

Why isn't there any mention of her controversy with Katy Perry and Kanye West? these two issues have gained wild media and public attention and this article makes them seem like they don't exist?! Why not write about that? what is the reason? I really wanna know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.240.53.18 (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I second that this wouldn't be undue and that we could and should add this with sources and careful wording. --Aleccat 15:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

Taylor Swift made a song with Future and Ed Sheeran called "End Game". It was a big hit. It received more than 100 million views on YouTube, sold 500,000 copies on iTunes and reached #18 on the Billboard Hot 100. It should be mentioned on her article. 185.236.200.27 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See the Taylor Swift discography and List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

Correction: I was born on December 13, 1989, in Pottstown, PA. I moved to Wyomissing when I was 5 years old. TaylorAllisonSwift (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Deliberate Omission of Facts?

She dated actor Tom Hiddlestone and their relationship was highly publicized at the time, she is now dating Joe Alwyen. She had public feuds with Katy Perry and Kanye West which gained so much media attention? Why are those facts not included in the article? This article seems biased and attempts to polish the subject's image by not addressing those controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.240.53.18 (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

>I agree, the page should have mention of the controversies (without bias) but do relationships like her one with Tom Hiddleston, that we’re really just flings and ended after 2-3 months, count as notable? And other than tabloid speculation there’s no confirmation from her mouth that she’s dating Joe... Emily (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio warning

File:Copyvio detector.png

One of the results scores 99.1% using the detector

On the Earwig's Copyvio tool, I have seen that there is a very high copyvio source in this article with the photo proving the result. You would probably think that this source should be removed as, because I have seen it, uses the exact same words as in the article itself. This is probably not good for a good/feature article here (that's how I see it). I will remove/replace it with some confidence that there will not be a serious copyvio source elsewhere - probably there is. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Though the 99.1% website isn't in the article. Iggy (Swan) 21:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That website copied the Wikipedia article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Second sentence

@Gossamers and FrB.TG: The second sentence of the stable version of this article (the version that passed FAC and remained) reads One of the leading contemporary recording artists, she is known for narrative songs about her personal life, which have received widespread media coverage.. Gossamers feels this is "bizarre" and doesn't "focus on the facts". FrB.TG and I seem to agree that a sentence about Swift's songwriting style belongs in the lead. So, let's have a discussion here instead of in edit summaries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

__

@HJ Mitchell and FrB.TG: OK, thanks for starting this conversation. Here's my reasoning: Swift has sold over 40 million records, has performed for millions of people, and has hundreds of songs in her catalogue -- yet we're relying on a perfunctory, subjective, and poorly articulated judgment of her career to lead the article. The sentence in question says "she is known for narrative songs about her personal life." No, she's known for being one of the best selling artists of all time. I think it's more encyclopedic to stick to saying "She is an American songwriter," and then lead into the biographical details followed by her career sales and statistics (a pattern seen in other articles for popular musicians) rather than make this odd and unsourced judgment about what she is "known for". Again, what's the source that the personal nature of her songs is what she's known for? I assume the writer of that sentence means "most well-known," but even *that* isn't specified. I don't like the subjectivity of the phrase, and this is an encyclopedia -- not a platform for unsourced opinions! (Gossamers 14:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Every artist is known for possessing a certain style, which is visible in most of their work. And Swift is known for writing about her personal life; it's not good it's not bad, it is what it is, you know like Lady Gaga who is noted for her outrageous style (which has been noted in the lede of her article). I completely disagree that this is an unsourced opinion; just about half of Taylor Swift#Songwriting is basically discussing it in detail. We even have a long quote from the singer herself admitting that. Do not make it something negative when it is not. FrB.TG (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. She's well-known for writing songs about her personal life. It's one of her trademarks and is discussed at length in the "songwriting" section. There could be room for discussion if you'd like to suggest an alternative form of words, but besides the two of us, that version has been thoroughly vetted at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell and FrB.TG: To be clear, you've both misconstrued my point. I'll concede that she does write songs of a confessional nature (which is a better way to put it than the lede does), but my argument is that leading with the claim that "she is known" for doing so implies that it is the primary source of her fame. That claim is unsubstantiated (and very difficult, if not impossible to do), and its resulting implication is nonsensical when compared with her general success as a recording artist. Anyway, I'm done with this argument as this is usually how Wikipedia talk page discussions go -- a token discussion that gets shot down by one or two guys like yourselves. (Gossamers 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

missing in the article

Breit
Taylor Swift Is An Alt-Right Pop Icon

Washington post
‘Alt-right’ white supremacists have chosen Taylor Swift as their ‘Aryan goddess’ icon, through no fault of her own
By Travis M. Andrews May 25, 2016 Email the author

Daily Mail
Taylor Swift hailed as 'Aryan goddess' by white supremacist groups in their bizarre claims she is a secret 'Nazi' White supremacists have claimed that the singer is a secret fascist
They believ Swift is waiting for Donald Trump to be elected so she can 'announce her Aryan agenda'
Andre Anglin, a far right blogger, described her as a 'pure Aryan goddess'
Swift came to the attention of neo-Nazis after memes featuring the Bad Blood singer next to Hitler quotes
The memes began as a parody in 2013 but were picked up by the far right
By Hannah Parry For Dailymail.com
Published: 23:25 BST, 25 May 2016 | Updated: 04:40 BST, 26 May 2016

Taylor Swift hailed as ‘Aryan goddess’ by neo-Nazis and white supremacists
By Meera Jagannathan
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
May 25, 2016 | 1:06 PM

Why it absolutely matters that Taylor Swift has never denounced her white supremacist fans

--Über-Blick (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this was previously discussed here. FrB.TG (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

update taylor swift's photo ProZion Afrika (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Provide us with a more current one that meets our image use policies. We're not affiliated with Swift, so we can't just go take one of her. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Change the image

We should change the image. It’s too old

This one is better

Swift performing at the Reputation Stadium Tour in 2018

DontBlameMe (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a good image; we can only see a side of her face, and its quality is debatable. Unless we find a good current image to replace with, let's stick to the current one. FrB.TG (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• The suggested image is not as strong as the current one. The current one is a clearer image of the subject. Being "too old" is not a good enough image to replace it. Swift has not really changed that much in between the two photos either. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry?

Why is there no mention of her ancestry on her article anywhere at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin the Otter (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

Abu Rahad (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Tylor Swift Biography

 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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2018

net worth is $400m 82.42.255.7 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No Personal Life?

Is there any particular reason why this Taylor Swift page has no personal life section? It seems to be the established norm among the majority of public figures. As compared to other pages on public figures, this page could stand to be improved by the addition. --65.157.96.234 (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@65.157.96.234: It seems like the personal life information is integrated into the "Life and Career" section. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe Alwyn

It’s confirmed now that they’re dating, can it be mentioned on wiki now? Her other much shorter relationships are... Emily (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Miarren: I don't see why we couldn't have a sentence in Taylor_Swift#2017–present:_Reputation about it. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done FrB.TG (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

References

New image suggestion

Swift performing at The 1989 World Tour in 2015

I see that the infobox image on the page is from 2013 so i wanted to suggest updating it with a newer one. here is one that i found.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybunny44 (talk • contribs)

• It is not a good picture for the infobox as it does not include a clear shot of her face. I also do not see an immediate need to change the image as Swift has not changed that much over the year (at least drastically). Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No Taylor Said Speak Now (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion I randomly came across, but I was looking at the French version of this article and they have an image of her performing in Detroit at the 1989 tour? I'd try and show it but I'm still learning... Calebh12 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It does give a good view of her face and she also looks more like a performer here than the current 5-year old lead image. FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Can her picture be updated to this one? Her face can be seen clearly, and it's not 5 years old. At least until we get a more recent one?Jesstan01 (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish we could get a more recent picture, at least in the Red era photo her hair looked as it does now. Emily (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the Politics subsection

In the Politics subsection, Half way through, "LGBT" is mentioned and linked, and later it says "LGBTQ+" The caption on the instagram post used as a source contains "LGBTQ". I'm not sure which of these is the "right" acronym, but I think it's necessary that it's consistent. Sheikchilli (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - I don't know the "right" one either, but because LGBT is the more common usage, I have decided to stick to it. FrB.TG (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

1989 world tour photos

how could she be in a 1989, 250 million dollar tour the year she was born? got that in there multiple times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.110.52 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s the name of the tour, not the year the tour took place. Since the name of the tour and the year are both in the infobox caption, I think there’s a low risk of confusion. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong location

Taylor Swift is actually from a West Lawn, PA. Claiming she’s from Reading which is one of the most dangerous locations in Pennsylvania is absurd! Lat250884 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, she is. If you buy a copy of her album 1989 and open to the first page of the lyric booklet, "I was born in Reading, Pennsylvania on December 13, 1989" is literally the first sentence you read. Teddybearearth (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC-6)

References

Recent Image Suggestion

Swift performing on the Reputation Stadium Tour in 2018

Perhaps it's time to update the infobox photo to something recent? For the longest time, it was a photo from 2013, and it is currently a photo from 2015 which is a whopping 3 and a half years out of date and doesn't reflect Taylor's current appearance. This photo is only six months old at the time of my posting this. Perhaps it's time for this page to display a photo of her that isn't several years out of date. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddybearearth (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah you can update 👍 Redhotbowieboy (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Record Producer

(I did bring this up before in an edit summary & the whole edit got reverted, but I never got an actual answer to this).

I think it should be noted that she has co-produced all songs on Fearless & Speak Now, as well as half or close to half of the songs on Red, 1989, and Reputation, but she's still not noted as a record producer. I know she doesn't consider it as a career, but there are many artists who have done much less production yet they're considered a music producer. On the Fearless article it's stated that she "made her debut as a record producer, co-producing every song with Nathan Chapman."

What do you think? Calebh12 (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

She has been a producer on five of her six albums. I have included it in her infobox for now and will see what other editors think before also adding it in the lede. FrB.TG (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Taylor Swift's Wikipedia Profile

I feel like there needs to be a more recent picture of Taylor for her profile. The current picture is from May of 2015 during her 1989 World Tour, and the picture that I have recommended is from May of 2018 during her Reputation Stadium Tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiancore (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Christiancore: IMO, the image that is already being used is much clearer for use in the infobox; also, please correctly sign your posts by typing four tildes. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 23:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

please change (The jury rejected Mueller's claims and ruled in favor of Swift) to (The jury rejected Mueller's claims and ruled in favor of Swift who was awarded a significant $1 in damages. It was meant to serve as a symbolic gesture. She wanted to use her platform to make a point about sexual assault. After a powerful testimony in court, she wrote in a statement released following the ruling: “I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this, My hope is to help those whose voices should also be heard. Therefore I will be making donations in the near future to multiple organizations that help sexual assault victims defend themselves.”) because such powerful statement should be a part of her image as much as the media concern about her personal life. Moreover, many sexual assault hotlines reported an increase of outreach after her trial. Taylor and other women during that time inspired others to come forward. Over time it will be very easy to overlook women stepping up in such way to help other victims in finding their voices.

MariamAlkandari (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Unfortunately it goes into too much detail and is not neutral. Moreover, the sentence about hotlines reporting an increase in outreach is not supported by the source you provided. All information on a biography of a living person should be backed up with a reliable source. Shuipzv3 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

What happened to the "personal life" section?

Where do we find the names of all the men she dated such as John Mayer, Harry Styles, Calvin Harris, etc. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Some of them are interspersed throughout the article, under the respective years in the "Life and career" section. Shuipzv3 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah this needs to be put back under its own section. Articles on celebrities should in general have a "personal life" section detailing their relationships. It's normally the first part I read, to be honest. --Viennese Waltz 15:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No thanks, Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. I think covering everything chronologically is better. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Arha764 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)i would wish to change the photograph on the Taylor Swift page.

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 09:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

New Photo of Taylor Swift

To Begoon: It's not my style to criticize other peoples photography. However, since you removed my photo without reason, I have no choice. The photo I replaced was a poor quality photo in almost every way a photo can be poor quality. Wikipedia is an exceptionally hi-quality publication, and so should it's content be, including the images. It's also not my style to boast about my work, but facts are facts, and the replacement photo I posted is far superior to the one that was there, in keeping with Wikipedia's policy presenting the best quality (and commonly most recent) photos available. Please revert your last edit. Thank you in advance.Glenn Francis (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I added another photo in case you like that one better.Glenn Francis (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

​I like the new one that Toglenn added better than the current one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JJMC89! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

great photo. appreciate the upload! Melodies1917 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank You Melodies1917! Glenn Francis (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have other shots of her from that night Glenn? This one just seems off for some reason. I'm not trying to criticize or anything, but it looks like it's edited/distorted compared to other shots I've seen from iHeart. Andrewc248 (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here because I saw offsite a before-after comparison of the photoshop on that image: the original apparently had a sort of speckled disco lighting obscuring her face and hair. The touched-up one seems to have an altered jawline shape, nose/nostril shape, cheek and under-eye shading, and retouched makeup. Wouldn't it be better to use a less-edited image? Cheers, gnu57 21:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a link to the imgur post I saw (which doesn't include any personally identifying info): [3]. gnu57 23:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks.Done. Glenn Francis (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to criticise, but the new picture still looks a bit gauzy/glamour-shot-edited to me, particularly across the jawline and under the eyes. (Compare with this other, non-free photo from the same event, where her lower eye lid area is darker/more prominent [4].) Has this photo been shopped as well, or is it just a trick of the light? Cheers, gnu57 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I wholeheartedly disapprove of using ANY photoshop version of Taylor for this page, the photo looks way better unedited. Please use that image, not one you've edited to remove reflections. All you're doing is messing up Taylor's face.Andrewc248 (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The second photo (the one containing the FOX logos) is the original photo - you can see the spots on her neck.Glenn Francis (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

TS7

On April 13, 2019, Swift announced the first single from her seventh album would premiere on April 26.https://www.taylorswift.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8300:1475:D84F:639B:8000:29C4 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The countdown could be the implication of a new release, but that would simply be interpretating it. Let's wait for an official announcement. FrB.TG (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

Add to the end of the "2017-reputation" section, given that she just initiated a countdown to her next album:

On April 13, 2019, Taylor Swift updated her website and social media accounts with a countdown leading to April 26th, sparking speculation about an impending lead single for a seventh studio album.

Here is a source: https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8506993/taylor-swift-countdown-clock-april-26 Here is a second: https://people.com/music/taylor-swift-drops-huge-hint-new-music-countdown/ 69.148.46.59 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See #TS7 — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

i think this would be important to add once we actually know what the countdown is for. it could be written as, "On April 13, 2019, Swift updated her website and social media accounts with a countdown to April 26. On the 26th, she announced single/album" etc. Melodies1917 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Change Taylor’s photo

Can we change the current photo of Taylor? It looks creepy. We can use this one instead https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Taylor_Swift_Reputation_Tour31.jpg Annaoue (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, it gives her the “I’m taking over the world” vibe she’s going after. Willueverwin (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the current 2019 iHeartRadio awards pic to the one proposed by Annaoue, mostly for clarity of subject. Elfabet (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In the image suggested by Annaoue she looks like a singer, a performer. Oh yeah, that's what she is. In the current image she looks like a -- what? A poser? A sugar baby? The pretty girl next door? Let's show her as she appears to millions who have seen her shows. Moriori (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

{{subst:trim|1=

"Later on in mid 2019, Taylor swift released two new songs; ME! Featuring Brandon Urie of Panic At The Disco! And You Need To Calm Down which made their way on the Billboard Hot 100."

 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. Danski454 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the leading contemporary recording artists

Some editors pointed out that this type of wording is Puffery. I understand that Taylor is indeed one of the biggest, if not the biggest, pop star right now, but I don't think including this in the lead is a good way to start the article, especially when the same thing can be said to a dozen of other artists. Any comment on this? HĐ (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if it's sourced, like in Kendrick Lamar or Eminem. For what it's worth I looked around at a few pages of female artists (e.g. Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Adele), and most of them don't have a sentence like what your brought up. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't rely on WP:OTHERSTUFF; that was not I talked about. What I meant was that the claim "one of the leading contemporary artists" can be said of a dozen of artists, not just one, so it's under the question whether it should really be included in the lead or not. And the two articles you brought up are not of upper-tier quality either. The Puffery link I included also indicates that instead of umbrella praising, facts and figures should be included instead. HĐ (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Right now I'm leaning to weak delete unless it can be sourced properly, like for instance "According to [reliable source], Swift is one of the leading..." Otherwise, I suggest changing it to something more objective and verifiable, like "A multi-Grammy award winner, Swift is known for narrative songs..." Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim can be sourced properly very easily (cue Forbes or Billboard) but it won't help the issue I brought up. I think the whole sentence can be cut down so that the lead can be structured with only three paragraphs. HĐ (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed. Statements that try and oversell an artist is what constitutes puffery, which is not the case here. The statement has been properly sourced, and if such sources exist for "a dozen other artists", then it should be mentioned for them as well. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Really, I'm ambivalent. It's a bit of a "nothing" of a statement in that "leading" is fairly undefined, so that what one has to do to become "one of" them is rather unclear. I think my old English teacher, way back in the day, would probably have put a red line through it and written "filler - elaborate or omit" in the margin, but she could be quite harsh. I suppose what I'm saying is I don't see a pressing need to remove it but I'd prefer us to say something more "tangible". -- Begoon 07:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Begoon; statements like this, though not necessarily oversell an artist, are very ambivalent and contain zero information -- a thing Wikipedia should avoid. That's not to mention the phrasing "one of the leading contemporary artists" is suitable for lightweight newspapers but not for an encyclopedia. Probably replace it with more concrete facts (or "tangible" like Begoon says), like "Noted for narrative songs about her personal life..." or "Having sold xx million records, she is one of the best-selling artists worldwide"? HĐ (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, that's the kind of thing I had in mind. Something notable, tangible, and sourced in the body of the article. Be careful with xx million records type statements because they date easily, and might require constant updating. I like "Noted for narrative songs about her personal life", and, maybe a mention of her musical style(s) would be good. "Grammy award winner" is ok too, but we should steer clear of making the whole thing too "gushing" if you know what I mean... -- Begoon 10:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

    • If possible I want to have some comments from FrB.TG, one of the main contributors to the article. HĐ (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Its accurate and it conveys that Swift is more popular/ bigger selling than most of her contemporaries at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's just blatant peacocking. HĐ (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not puffery or peacocking if it's a fact. And the fact is that Swift is indeed one of if not the leading artists - millions of record sales, Person of the Year, Time 100, hundreds of accolades, more than a decade of career. It should stay in my opinion. FrB.TG (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: As I noted above the phrasing conveys little fact that needs to be known. She is indeed a megastar, but what Wikipedia should do is to let readers know how influential she is by citing facts (like what you did with multiple articles i.e. Scarlett Johansson or Emma Stone), instead of blanketing it with the wording "one of the leading contemporary artists". If that doesn't make the article look good, I suggest we could cut the whole thing and make the lead three paragraphs. HĐ (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think an alternative to this whole spheal is, instead of stating something that is open to interpretations, we cite her record sales/link to best selling artists and say something along the lines of "One of the best selling artists of all time", etc. Jezebelle 16:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Like others, I support taking out the "leading contemporary recording artists" bit because it's vague and replacing that with something more concrete like records sold or something about her material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve done here what I had done with the Lady Gaga article. I don’t like placing her record sales and the listings in the first paragraph and then going on about her accolades in the final. So what I’ve done here is merged the first two paragraphs, leaving out the bit everyone is complaining about, although I still don’t agree that it’s vague, peacock-y or puffery when it’s a very well-sourced factual statement. This is as true as Michael Jackson is considered the King of Pop. FrB.TG (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably because the title "King of Pop" has been well established ever since, while Swift's only known title is "Princess of Country", which has gone obsolete since the day she shifted to pop. Still, the puffery example in the MOS is about Bob Dylan -- no one can deny his influence, but we should still avoid such phrasing as "one of the defining figures of his/her era" etc. I'm pretty sure the Michael Jackson article atm should also be rid of such phrasing as well. HĐ (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A section about Taylor Swift's Boyfriends is needed.

Taylor is well known for having dated many high profile boyfriends. There is a conspicuous lack of information about her relationship with many of her ex-boyfriends in this article. A list of them and a brief description of their relationships are needed, since this has been the subject of the media's attention for many years. ---Aceus0shrifter (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Her romantic relationships are already mentioned throughout the article, no need for a separate section. Rfl0216 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox pic

@Begoon: yes, sorry. Don’t you think the original cropped version of the picture looks much better tho and is what we usually go for on Wikipedia rather than the square version of the picture which is more of a CD cover format? Best. ArturSik (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

ArturSik, heh... As a matter of fact I agree with you, and I prefer the version you altered it to... So why did I revert? Well, because there's a comment asking for discussion, and I know there have been various opinions expressed on this page - so, rather than a 'scuffle' potentially breaking out in a featured article, or folks being upset, I thought it would be better to honour the request in the note, have the discussion, and only change the image (or not) when everyone has had a chance to air their opinion. -- Begoon 11:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Begoon absolutely agree with you but since i wasn’t changing it to a different picture just a different version of the picture we already had I didn’t think there was need for that. My bad. Let’s see what others say. ArturSik (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week now, with no further comment, so I reinstated your change. -- Begoon 22:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Allegations against Scooter Braun

IP editor 195.210.186.130 (talk · contribs) has assessed that despite having media coverage, discussion of Swift's resentment for Big Machine Label Group being acquired by Scooter Braun is a violation of WP:BLP because her allegations are a contentious claim not yet supported by legal action, and references to the larger celebrity responses constitutes a soapbox. Does anyone agree with this position? ViperSnake151  Talk 

I don't agree. The acquisition made news, her public complaint is news and so was Braun's response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Image in the infobox and on the main page: photoshopped?

• 
  Cassidy Wolf
• 
  Janice Dickinson
• 
  Bianca Vierra
• 
  Aubrey Addams

I believe that the image of Swift in the infobox and currently on the main page may have been photoshopped: Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in the summary of the featured article, this March discussion and this before/after of a similar image of Swift edited by the same photographer, User:Toglenn, which was posted on Reddit a few months ago. The same photographer has contributed other images of women which appear heavily edited (please see the examples above), and has talked in the past [5][6] about manipulating a photo of a BLP subject. Would it be possible to replace the current photo with a different one of clearer provenance? gnu57 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We're in the unfortunate position to not have any photos of her in good quality on commons over the past few years, so unless pre-Reputation Taylor Swift wants to be featured, it'll have to be no. Kingsif (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Alterations to remove blemishes, shadows, odd lights, are acceptable as long as the person has the rights on that work to make the alterations (which appears to be the case here, made by the person that took the photograph who is in the position to be able to take that photograph). I see nothing wrong here. --Masem (t) 06:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: If you haven't, please take a look at the similar before/after image: those alterations lightened and darkened areas of Swift's face to suggest heavier makeup, changed her jaw and nose shape, and removed the texture of her under-eye area. The current picture appears to have the same old-lady/Melania Trump glamour editing and reshaping. gnu57 07:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For comparison: Billboard's image of her in the same spot. She at least looks more fake, sticky, and white in the current article image. Kingsif (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I looked. I see nothing wrong. Even if it was photoshopped the image is still clearly of Taylor Swift, and does not introduce any demeaning elements (that is, and going by what Toglenn posts below, it is not the most glamorous shot of Swift and appears to have her in mid-blink, but it wasn't like Toglenn had much choice - but it is a tons better shot than any editor at WP is likely to be able to get of Swift as a free image and certainly not degrading). As long as Toglenn has that ownership, they are free to make the small edits and the like as long as that version is licensed freely. And per Kingsif, we should be fortunate that someone who can get seated at a major event like the IHeartRadio red carpet to grab pictures is willing to license them freely for us to use, and should not be shaming them for the small "glamour" alterations that are quite common with celeb photos in the real world (assuming that they are doing that). --Masem (t) 13:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m sick of seeing these delusional disruptive rantings of User:Genericusername57. He’s a fraud. He registered his name about a month after I posted Taylor’s photo and hasn’t made even one contribution other than to come here to disrupt this article with his lies and spiteful agenda. His so-called ‘proof’ is total B.S. In reference to the link by Kingsif, the photographer who took that photo was in the front row of press pen. I, unfortunately, was in the last row on the Riser (a Riser is tiered rows stacked behind each other like grandstands. This is the worst place to be. He was about 5 ft. from her while I was at least 20 ft. Anyone who’s ever taken a photo before knows that the closer you are to the subject the more detail you get. That is why some of other photos you see show much more fine detail than mine. Anyway, this whole subject is totally moot and a waste of Administrators valuable time. As users Kingsif and MASEM correctly explained, “Alterations to remove blemishes, shadows, odd lights, are acceptable.” Thankfully someone knows what’s going on. Don’t be fooled by gnu57‘s nonsense and whose only purpose of being on Wikipedia is to disrupt this Article. He should banned indefinitely per WP:CBAN

By-the-way: This photo is on Wikipedia’s “Today’s Feature Article” (08/23/19), and links to over 500 pages. Glenn Francis (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

As somebody with a lot of experience working with Photoshop, there is absolutely nothing wrong or misleading about the way this photo was rendered. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank You Simonm223! Much appreciated.Glenn Francis (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, to expand on what I said above, let's get this clear: the image is photoshopped. It perhaps does not look exactly lifelike. However, it is a quality image, and the alterations are almost definitely an improvement on the raw image. It's the clearest photo representing the individual depicted that's uploaded to commons in at least 3 years. Without a good reason to just not use photos by Glenn Francis, which the OP seems to be asserting but which isn't apparent, there is no good reason to not use this photo at present. I don't think this discussion needs to go further, as besides the OP the view on the image is to keep. Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

more proof

For me, I've never really thought about boys versus girls. I've never thought about any kind of prejudice about women in country music because I never felt like it affected me. I was fortunate enough to come about in a time when I didn't feel that kind of energy at all, and it was always my theory that if you want to play in the same ballgame as the boys, you've got to work as hard as them. I was always playing just as many shows as they were and playing on the same shows as they were. I was willing to pay my dues as an opening act, playing in clubs and bars and playing in tiny venues. The new male artists were doing the same thing, so I never saw an issue there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.221.5 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is addressed in her most recent Vogue piece, among other sources. Basically, she realized she was wrong as she got older and was no longer seen as a novelty. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Earned 700 million if it weren't for taxes totally a feminist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.67.207 (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

need change to 'instrument'

she can play piano, 6-string guitar, 12-string guitar, ukelele and banjitar. Vu mtrang (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

She is NOT a feminist

Can someone remove the parts that say she is a feminist? She is NOT. She deflected feminist questions 10 years ago by saying things like "Oh, I don't really think of boys vs girls", and "I chose to do music, don't ask me such questions, I don't run the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.221.5 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The statement is sourced from an article about five years ago. Things can change since. Shuipzv3 (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In many interviews for major magazines circa 2015 and from 2018 to 2019, Swift has both said and taken actions in support of feminism. Please update your source. Vu mtrang (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Relevant discussion at User_talk:Iridescent#Taylor_Swift. Benjamin (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Signature

I reverted the addition of the signature, because its inclusion has been rejected several times as purely decorative, with no context or discussion of significance. I was one of the editors who had previously removed it, for full disclosure. I'm still not in favour of its inclusion, but it might be best to establish a proper consensus, because it's possible I'm in a minority.

One other thing to bear in mind is authenticity. File:TaylorSwift Signature.svg says it was vectorised from File:Taylorswiftlogo.png, which says it was the "own work" of SFLANY, with no other indication of provenance. That user doesn't seem to have edited anything else at Commons, or to exist here. The 'png' has 'logo' in the title so perhaps it's copied from some merchandising or other?

I'm in favour of leaving it out just because it seems like gratuitous decoration without context or significance, but the (questionable?) provenance and accuracy is an issue for me too. -- Begoon 07:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My only concern is the fact that it is the logo of her self-titled album; this suggests it is a replica of her signature, but doesn't guarantee it and gives away where it was taken from which is unlikely to be commons. Otherwise, I think signatures are fine as long as they're good quality. Kingsif (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be picky, it would suggest it is a replica of how she wrote her name when asked to do so for the album artwork - as you say there's no guarantee she uses that as a day-to-day signature, although I guess it would be likely. To be super-picky, unless it's documented somewhere, there's no actual guarantee she even wrote it herself - it could, I suppose, just be something the cover designer thought would look 'nice'.

You'd need to ask the copyright experts if it's ok to take a part of a copyrighted album cover and use it this way. A standalone signature would usually be fine, copyright-wise, but if it comes from the cover I'm not certain.

That's not my main concern though, as I said above - I just don't see what it adds to the article except uninformative decoration with no discussed context or particular significance. I know others disagree and think decorating articles like that is a good thing to do, which is why I thought a discussion would be a good idea. -- Begoon 08:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the advice on the essay Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons and oppose the addition of a signature. Like Begoon said, I think it's pure decoration and serves very little purpose. The file itself also seems quesstionable in origin, and unless someones gets hold of one of the 20,000 signed booklet Swift recently did for a particular issue of a single, I don't think its authenticity can be confirmed. Shuipzv3 (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I see a different signature has been added. This looks more like the 1989-era signature. I think there are good reasons to include signatures generally, with both informative and decorative purposes. In addition, they can help readers know what a genuine signature looks like. This could valuable on this article, but equally we want to make sure that it is the real signature displayed - if we can't ensure that, I don't think it should be included. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that one is even tagged on Commons (since 2017) with: "The factual accuracy of this signature is disputed. The file's source is listed as "Taylor Swift" only in text, not providing any URL or other tangible reference to confirm authenticity. For all we know without verification, this could've been fabricated."

I'm still not sure what you mean by it being "informative" or why we would want to "help readers know what a genuine signature looks like" - let's face it, anyone trusting wikipedia for authenticity of a signature is setting themselves up for a fall if there's any importance attached to that judgement. That just doesn't seem to me to be what an encyclopedia should be doing.

If there was something distinctive or interesting we had to say about it, based on reliable sources commenting on it, then using it to illustrate that content would be another matter, but without that I don't see how it satisfies our image use policy, which says "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." On top of that, there's Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons, already linked above, which contains a number of content and legal cautions which I really don't think are satisfied by just plonking in the signature because it exists and we think it looks 'nice', which is what it would basically amount to, imo.

There's another little niggle in my mind which won't go away too - the placement of somebody's signature on something is commonly taken as a kind of endorsement of that thing - can you, hand on heart, honestly tell me that if the signature was present not a single person would come to the article, look at it, and think "well, she's signed it, so it must be true". I'm pretty certain more than zero people might do that (remember, our target audience is 'everybody', Joe Public, not just people familiar with our workings and content policies... I can easily imagine a casual reader coming here through google search and imagining this was some "official" TS biography endorsed by her, and having the signature reinforce that misconception) - and we would have done each of them a dis-service. As I say, it's far from my main concern, and it's not really a huge one, but it's there, nevertheless. -- Begoon 06:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You have good points, except the last one, since I'm fairly certain it is in the region of zero people who expect Wikipedia to have official biographies of any sort (many still think it's full of misinformation, in truth), and the presence of a signature wouldn't change that, especially if presented in a list of statements (infobox). But, yes, if we can't confirm it's actually her signature, best not to. Kingsif (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. well I did say the last one was a "little niggle" and far from my main concerns of relevance, significance, authenticity and related issues. It's just that sometimes the "little niggles" take the most words to describe properly, so I probably said too much about it. As I say, I just don't see what it adds to the article except uninformative decoration with no discussed context or particular significance. All the other concerns are additional to that. -- Begoon 01:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)