Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Request for new article sections

The following are the two sections from List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift page that was removed and was suggested by User:FrB.TG to be here in the parent article. Take note that these are legit and are of worth to be in this article. Thank you! Mat 1997 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS AND MILESTONES

At the end of 2009, the Associated Press named Swift "Entertainer of the Year". In February 2010, Swift was awarded "Most Digital Song Certifications - Female Solo Artist" by RIAA for 25 songs achieving gold or multi- platinum status. Early in November 2010, Swift's third album (Speak Now) sold 1,047,000 copies in its debut week, making it the first album to do so since 2005. Later in November 2010, Swift was named "Entertainer of the Year" by Entertainment Weekly, making her the youngest Entertainment Weekly's Entertainer of the Year. On June 2011, renowned site Boot named Swift and Carrie Underwood Country Royalty, as they were the only female country artists to be ranked on Rolling Stone's Queens of Pop list. In 2011, she also became second female artist after Carrie Underwood to win back-to-back Academy of Country Music Awards (ACM) Awards for Entertainer of the Year (2011/12). On November 10, 2012, her fourth studio album Red sold 1,208,000 copies in the first week of release, making it the fastest-selling album and first album to do so in 12 years. On August 13, 2012, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Toger" was the Fastest Selling Single in digital History. The song reached the top position on the iTunes singles chart in 50 minutes, hence breaking the previous record held by Lady Gaga's "Born This Way", with a record of an hour. On October 11, 2012, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Toger" became the first song to top both country and Hot 100 charts since Lonestar's "Amazed" in March 2000. "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" sold 623K copies in its first week. On October 14, 2012, "I Knew You Were Trouble" sold 416,000 in its first week making Taylor Swift the first artist in digital history to have two songs that debuted with sales of 400,000 or more copies. 10 songs in digital history have sold 400K or more copies the first week out. Swift is the only artist with two of them. "I Knew You Were Trouble" became the 4th highest single-week download sales and 2nd best for a track not in its debut frame. Swift is the first artist since Beatles to have four consecutive albums (Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989) log six or more weeks at #1 on Billboard's Top 200 Chart. The Beatles logged six or more weeks at #1 with seven consecutive studio albums from Beatles ’65 (which spent its sixth week at #1 in February 1965) to Abbey Road in December 1969. In March 2013, Swift was named an immortal by Rolling Stone magazine. The 23-year-old and some of the post-millennial girl-power pop elite, including Beyoncé, were among 14 new immortals to join the pop culture arbiter's list of greatest artists of all time. "If Taylor Swift stopped producing hits right now, at 23, she could tour a killer oldies show for the rest of her life," Rolling Stone proclaimed. On August 20, 2013, Swift was honored by Staples Center Senior Vice President and General Manager Lee Zeidman and officials from Red tour promoter Messina Group for breaking the record of the most sold-out shows for a solo artist. Her four sold out shows occurring on August 19–20 and 23-24 began a wave of record breaking shows. On August 19 she surpassed Madonna and Justin Timberlake, who each have logged seven sellouts, and on August 20 she topped Britney Spears' previous record of eight sellouts. Following her August 23–24 shows she became the #1 Solo Artist and tied with Latin Pop Group Mana for most overall sellouts with 11. On October 26, 2013, Swift became the first solo female artist in 20 years to headline a national stadium tour through Australia, with the last being Madonna's "Girlie Show" tour in 1993. On December 4, 2013, Swift performed to a capacity crowd of over 40,900 fans at the Allianz Stadium: Sydney, Australia; becoming first female artist in history to sell out the stadium since opening in 1988. On April 2014, Swift Breaks Shanghai Record Selling Out the Mercedes-Benz Arena, which seats about 12,000 for a concert, in sixty seconds following the release of her tickets. This is the fastest ticket sale in Chinese history On June 1, 2014, the song "Mean" by Swift, was listed at #24 on Rolling Stone magazine's "Top 100 Greatest Country Songs of All Time". Taylor Swift is the first and only act to release three albums (Speak Now, Red, & 1989) that sold more than one million copies in a week. On January 22, 2015, Swift surpassed Katy Perry (72 million) as the best selling digital singles artist in the United States, with cumulative G&P Digital Single Certifications of over 77 million including downloads and on-demand streaming. Making Swift the second artist to surpass the 70 million digital award threshold. Previously Swift was holding strong in second place with 69.9 million digital singles. On March 10, 2015, the RIAA increased Swift's cumulative G&P Digital Single Certifications to over 80.5 million including downloads and on-demand streaming. Making Swift the first artist to surpass the 80 million digital award threshold. On March 18, 2015, the RIAA increased Swift's cumulative G&P Digital Single Certifications for the 3rd time in 2015 to over 82.5 million including downloads and on-demand streaming. On April 21, 2015, the RIAA increased Swift's cumulative G&P Digital Single Certifications for the 4th time in 2015 to over 84 million including downloads and on-demand streaming. On May 18, 2015, the RIAA increased Swift's cumulative G&P Digital Single Certifications for the 5th time in 2015 to over 86 million including downloads and on-demand streaming. Taylor Swift is the second woman in history to have more than one album log more than 10 weeks at no. 1 in Billboard 200 chart (Fearless & 1989). In total, only seven acts have gained this: Whitney Houston (with three), Taylor Swift (with two), The Beatles (with four), The Kingston Trio (with three), Henry Mancini (with two), The Monkees (with two) and Elvis Presley (with three). Taylor Swift is among an elite group of acts that have charted multiple songs (two or more) in the Hot 100's top 10 simultaneously for at least 19 weeks. Here are the acts to do so: Usher (41), 50 Cent (38), Akon (27), The Beatles (25), T-Pain (25), Rihanna (23), Ludacris (22), Mariah Carey (20), Taylor Swift (19), Ja Rule (18), Kanye West (18). On August 26, 2014 "Shake It Off" debuted at No. 12 on the Billboard Pop Songs chart tying it with "Dreamlover" by Mariah Carey for the highest debut in the charts twenty two-year history. Taylor Swift was listed in Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People twice in 2010 and in 2015. Stevie Nicks and Mariska Hargitay wrote essays on Swift for the magazine. In May 2015 Swift's single Bad Blood jumped from No.53 to No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100 becoming Swift's 49th Top 40 Hit, tying her with Madonna with the most Top 40 hits for a woman since the charts inception. RANKINGS Year Title Rank 2008 Forbes Top-Selling Musicians of 2008 1st Maxim Hot 100 57th 2009 Askmen Hot 100 British FHM's 100 Sexiest Woman 76th Forbes Most Powerful Celebrities 69th 2010 Askmen Hot 100 51st Billboard's Hottest Music Stars Under 21 1st British FHM's 100 Sexiest Woman 60th Singapore FHM 100 Sexiest Woman 90th Forbes Most Powerful People in Entertainment 12th Dosomething Celebs Gone Good 3rd 2011 British FHM's 100 Sexiest Woman 61st Forbes Most Powerful Celebrities 7th Singapore FHM 100 Sexiest Woman 72nd Maxim Hot 100 20th Dosomething Celebs Gone Good 2012 Billboard's Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2012 1st Forbes Highest-Paid Celebrities under 30 Dosomething Celebs Gone Good British FHM's 100 Sexiest Woman 99th Maxim Hot 100 26th 2013 Complex 100 Hottest Women 15th Billboard's Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2013 British FHM's 100 Sexiest Woman 12th 4Music Pop Powerlist 2013 6th Forbes Most Powerful Celebrities Forbes Top Earning Women In Music 3rd Maxim Hot 100 13th Men's Health 100 Hottest Women 12th MTV's Hottest Summer Superstar 10th Dosomething Top 20 Celebs Gone Good 1st 2014 Askmen Hot 100 30th Barbara Walters's 10 Most Fascinating People of 2014 3rd Billbord's Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2014 1st British FHM's 100 Sexiest Woman 27th 4Music Last Fan Standing 1st Forbes Highest-Paid Country Musicians 2nd Forbes Most Powerful Celebrities 18th MTV's Hottest Summer Superstar 8th People's Best Dressed 1st CapitalFm SEXIEST Female Singers Of 2014 6th Forbes Top Earning Women In Music 2nd Forbes Highest Paid Celebrities Under 30 3rd Forbes Highest Paid Musicians 8th MTV's Stars Dosomething Top 20 Celebs Gone Good 1st Billboard Music's Top Earners of 2014 15th 2015 British FHM's 100 Sexiest Woman 15th 4Music Pop Powerlist 2015 1st Fortune Magazine's 50 World's Greatest Leaders 6th Maxim Hot 100 1st Forbes Power Women List 64th References

Not done: The article can not be above WP:TOOBIG size. You may add them back in List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift page. Androktasiai (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Stance Against Free Streaming

Should her stance against free steaming and compensation for songwriters be added somewhere. She just took a stand against Apple and its currently getting a lot of attention. Finaltwo (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in the article.--Nowa (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Image from Billboard

I've just reverted an infobox image added without discussion since it doesn't appear to be copyright-free. We can't just lift an image from Billboard, say that it doesn't belong to Billboard, and then simply use it -- SOMEONE took that photo, and that person owns the rights to it.

In any case, we discuss major changes to infobox images, unless the infobox image is so objectively bad or on-MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! :) Am new here, & my apologies, BUT, don't see where else to address the fact that someone erroneously short-changed, well, everyone, in posting on this page that "Style" only reached #6 on Billboard's charts. When, Not only the News section on da Dear Taylor's Official Site, But Also, an article, written by 1 Mr. Gary Trust on March 16, 2015, @ 4:25 PM EDT, on Billboard's Official Site, rightfully report dat "Style" 'flew' to Number 1! Now, rightfully so, da Dear Taylor's page here on Wikipedia is Protected; SO, then someone there @ Wikipedia, behind the scenes needs to either make da True, Rightful changes; Or, please allow me to do so, with all dat dat entails...I'll be patiently waiting; so wot's it gonna be?... Signed, G.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Famous Teddy R. (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

In the article it says "She was named for James Taylor"

Is this meant to mean that she was named after James Taylor? I don't understand why James Taylor would tell someone to name their child after him. 2601:645:4300:B185:2859:AE2A:80E5:39D0 (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift vs. concert photographers

Some stuff here and on petapixel. Gaining momentum in the news, and is a corollary to the Apple story, needs covering. I won't have time tonight to do it myself. Cheers. Samsara 22:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose adding until we find more mainstream coverage. Until then, it's just the grumblings of some unhappy photogs. Calidum T|C 23:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Grumblings of unhappy photographers is what it is. As for mainstream coverage, have you tried a web search? Samsara 23:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's already there. Samsara 07:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

PROMOTION

Hi guys! The rankings and notable milestones & achievements of Taylor Swift has a separate article: Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift. Please feel free to expand it :) Thanks! Mat 1997 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD of Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift

I just noticed Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift was AfDed 6 days ago. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like to edit Taylor Swifts Article under Product endorsements:

Original: While promoting her fourth album Red, Swift offered exclusive album promotions through Target,[406] Papa John's Pizza[187] and Walgreens.[407] She became a spokesmodel for Diet Coke and Keds sneakers,[408]

Change to: While promoting her fourth album Red, Swift offered exclusive album promotions through Target,[406] Papa John's Pizza[187] and Walgreens.[407] She became a spokesmodel for Diet Coke as well as Keds sneakers,[408] Diet Coke signs Taylor Swift as brand ambassador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowFlowers208 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

She communicated with fans using social media platforms such as Twitter and personal video blogs and co-hosted the pre-show for the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards.‪[64]‬ For her preteen fans-and there are plenty-she drops to one knee and converses at eye level. Those who asked for hugs didn't receive an awkward, half-hearted embrace: Even the girl holding an "Ohio Loves Taylor" sign who nearly tackled Swift got a warm response. And so begins the transition of Swift from rising country superstar-her 2006 self-titled debut album has sold 3.4 million units, in addition to 7.5 million single downloads, according to Nielsen SoundScan-to just plain ol' superstar. In tandem with the promotional push behind the release of new album "Fearless." out Nov. 11 on Big Machine Records, Swift landed partnerships for women's apparel and toys-and will attempt what to date has been almost impossible for a country artist: to make an impact overseas.

Tucker, Ken. "Taylor Swift Goes Global." Billboard - The International Newsweekly of Music, Video and Home Entertainment Oct 25 2008: 22-5. ProQuest. Web. 20 July 2015 .

Kitkat 5775 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The text of your request is a copyright violation from the article you are citing. (page 22 of this Billboard magazine) Cannolis (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

I would like ti add more to the end of this paragraph. "An episode of The Ellen DeGeneres Show was dedicated to the album launch and Swift appeared on many other chat shows.[64][93] She communicated with fans using social media platforms such as Twitter and personal video blogs and co-hosted the pre-show for the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards.[64]". it would show how invested Taylor is with her fan.

She drops to eye level to see eye to eye with her young fans and gives them heartwarming hugs. Hugs that show how she really cares for her fans.

Kitkat 5775 (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: aside from being a near copyright violation from the same source above, "For her preteen fans-and there are plenty-she drops to one knee and converses at eye level. Those who asked for hugs didn't receive an awkward, half-hearted embrace", it's editorializing and WP:OR - you're calling these hugs heartwarming hugs and saying that they show that she really cares. Cannolis (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

image

i know this has been a subject of discussion on this talk page before, but now that there are hq photos available of her from the 1989 tour, would it not be best to change to one of those? considering that they are the most up to date and accurate of her - including her appearance and the sort of clothes she wears (i.e. short hair and crop tops and skirt/shorts combos?). sorry if this out of place, i've never used a talk page before.

Angelcupcakeanna (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I just updated it. Calidum T|C 18:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Take the photo down; it's indecent and shows too much skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atthecopa (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You're an idiot. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What about this image? Or this one? It is already used in Taylor Swift discography page, but it can be exchanged. Her face is actually visible in these images. King Cobra (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The first one you list which was taken and posted by me was already poo-pooed on by the people who think they own the article. Eric Cable  |  Talk  11:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a good photo. The removal was maybe because the cropped one was too big and appeared a bit blurry. I uploaded a clearer and also a brighter version. King Cobra (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and swapped the image used on the discography page and the one used on this one. Calidum T|C 04:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks King Cobra (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:TAGBOMBING and WP:GAR

Evidently a Good Article Review of this article has been pending for a while. Evidently the entire review was posted a few hours ago, and then the article got tag-bombed. I don't personally find it in any way helpful to tag-bomb as popular and widely read (~20,000 views/day) article as this without some talk page notice and discussion. I'm personally glad someone has removed the tag-bombing. I think it is more helpful to post the link to the GAR here and have community input on it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift/GA3. Since page watchers often don't notice what goes on up in the mastheads of a talk page, I think it best to have public discussions about the GAR posted here, or at least the link posted here in a call-out section so it is noticed. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea to close the current individual GA reassessmemt as keep, and initiate a community reassessment instead to seek consensus. Snuggums is clearly WP:INVOLVED in this article given his prior contributions, and in my opinion the GAR is conducted more like a FA review than a GA review (for example citation style consistency is not a GA requirement). This is not the first time Snuggums has failed to allow for 7 days with GA reviews. sst^flyer 15:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid removing relevant details from the article ...

Some noteworthy details which are useful to the reader are being removed from the article. I'm going to replace some of them. Please avoid removing relevant details without community consensus. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

I would like to request an addition to the Musical Style section at the end of the second sentence in the first paragraph. I would like to add: "After the release of her 2012 country-borderline-pop album, Red, Taylor said, "At a certain point, if you chase two rabbits, you lose them both." This quote from Taylor helps reveal why she decided to focus more on Pop music in her future musical directions. Jarvisc1 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Any comments from other editors? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone loves Taylor??

Who wrote the impact and recognition section? Her manager? You mean no one has ever criticized Taylor or her music?--76.76.237.23 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

May you put this article back to good articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.138.220 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

• In case we have to have this debate about every female pop star (see Trainor, Meghan for one such example) Swift is clearly a singer-songwriter, regardless of the fact the she might collaborate with others. See Chicago Tribune Rolling Stone The Guardian New Yorker Newsday or even the Encyclopedia Britannica for starters. And while we're on it, this was brought up back in December. Calidum 23:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• So let's address the original research assertion that she can't be a singer-songwriter because she's collaborated with "many, many other writers" [4]. Swift wrote every song on Speak Now by herself. She wrote 7 of 13 songs on Fearless; there are a total of four co-writers on the album and no song has more than two others. Nine of 16 songs on Red are solely hers; the other songs have seven co-writers (which includes two artists featured on individual songs) and once again no song has more than two co-writers. On 1989 and her debut album, a majority of songs have co-writers, and again no song has more than two. And if it wasn't clear, not one song included on Taylor Swift's studio albums has been written solely by someone who's not Taylor Swift. Calidum 23:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, she's not a singer-songwriter, clearly or otherwise. It's been shown to you previously how it's not possible for pop singers and songwriters like Swift and Trainor to be classified as singer-songwriters, Calidum. Walter Görlitz is correct on this, just as I was months ago at Meghan Trainor. That you and a group of editors who know nothing about music history and what it truly means to be a singer-songwriter choose to fight a battle to keep incorrect content in an encyclopedia is beyond my understanding. There really is more to citing sources in Wikipedia beyond "the reliable sources say so, therefore, that's the last word". Some actually edit and use references that are accurate just on principle and out of an ethical framework. I'm one of them. My hope is that this time around, more editors with knowledge of music history and genre, as well as a commitment to accuracy in Wikipedia will join in on this discussion. Let us all remember what the purpose here is supposed to be: an online encyclopedia well - not easily - referenced and done so without prejudice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"You're wrong because I say reliable sources are wrong" is wrong and not how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, per WP:V, one of our fundamental policies. This isn't about winning some sort of pissing contest; it's about providing readers with accurate information as presented in reliable sources. Calidum 00:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We shall see. As far as it being a "pissing contest", that's precisely what the content dispute over this same subject became the moment you and a few others called those of us who correctly supported singer, songwriter, "snobs". Over and over again, in fact. Well, save but one editor: you wisely didn't refer to Drmies as a snob. And just for the record, I never said what your are ascribing to me. My argument is for reliable sources that get it right. After all, not all sources deemed reliable get it right 100% of the time. It's our job as non-biased (and hopefully wise) editors to apply common sense, know the difference between error and accuracy, and insert same into what are supposed to be encyclopedic articles. What we get when we only go by sources in today's news-saturated online environment is laziness and regurgitation of incorrect information. Why some are perfectly fine with pasting such incorrect and erroneous garbage into Wikipedia, I will never understand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain for the rest of us the specifics of what makes one a singer-songwriter versus a singer and songwriter, and what disqualifies Swift and Trainor from the former group? clpo13_(talk) 01:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I perceived from this discussion, "singer-songwriter" is essentially a genre while "singer and songwriter" is an occupation. -- Chamith (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz has provided several cites in that discussion indicating singer-songwriter is an occupation, which would seemingly make Swift one. Walter had tried to remove singer-songwriter from the article, but now seems willing to accept its use here [5]. Calidum 18:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just noting I have notified recent major contributors to the article as identified at /GA3,all users who commented there and WP:TAYLOR about this discussion using {{please see}}, in accordance with WP:APPNOTE. Calidum 01:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• There is also a parallel discussion here. Calidum 04:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly a confusing issue, as Walter brings up at the WP Musicians discussion linked above. There are many sources that make the term "singer-songwriter" out to be someone who simply performs songs they've written or co-written (even if they perform songs written by others frequently). However, given the history of the word and the definition at singer-songwriter, I think we should stick to a narrow definition of the term, which would exclude Swift. There is still, however, the issue of reliable sources referring to her as a singer-songwriter. As editors, we shouldn't be determining on our own if the sources are right or wrong, so perhaps mention could be made of the authors of those pieces referring to Swift as a singer-songwriter? clpo13_(talk) 06:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You mention using reliable sources, and then include the singer-songwriter article as a source. Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source.. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, singer-songwriter references reliable sources for its definition. I didn't say we should use the article itself as a reference. clpo13_(talk) 07:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So, she's a singer and a songwriter but not a singer-songwriter because she is not a folk singer? Nyth63 11:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because she doesn't work alone.  — Calvin999 12:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Each one of Swift's albums includes songs she's written alone, remarkably Speak Now which was written solely by Swift. She has writing credits for all of her songs. Anyway, singer-songwriters may co-write. Neil Diamond did it too. So did Bob Dylan in Knocked Out Loaded. דיידרים (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused Winkelvi. Above, you said "There really is more to citing sources in Wikipedia beyond 'the reliable sources say so,'" but in another content dispute you're involved in you stated "As far as the wording: we go by what the sources say"[6]. Looks like someone has taken the hypocritical oath. Calidum 18:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than nagging each other we should focus more on the context. It's obvious that the term "singer-songwriter" can be reliably attributed in this case, whether it's correct or not. Although the editors who are against the inclusion of it have a good point, they mustn't ignore the fact that encyclopedia is basically a type of reference work. -- Chamith (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliably sourced to a muddle of descriptions whereby critics can't even agree on what the term means.  — Calvin999 10:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Can we get a percentage (approximate) of the songs she sings that are written by her? If they are co-written by her, can we get a sense of that, too? Generally a singer-songwriter (as opposed to a singer who also writes songs i.e. is also a songwriter) sings almost exclusively songs written by themselves, unless they release a Christmas album or add in some standards. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I referenced it above. Swift has written or co-written every song on everyone one of her studio albums (excluding a Christmas album). A majority of her songs have been solely written by her and no song has more than two additional co-writers. So even if we were to ignore numerous reliable sources, she would seemingly qualify as a singer-songwriter. Calidum 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I just looked through her discography and I wouldn't call her a singer-songwriter. I'd call her a singer and songwriter. Too many of the songs are collaborations (there's only one album solely by Swift), and too many collaborators. Softlavender (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that's your opinion. The problem here is that editors are arguing over each other's opinion. To summarize, Calvin999 points out that even critics can't get the meaning of "singer-songwriter" right while Calidum says that's his personal synthesis. -- Chamith (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarify who "Taylor" is

The paragraph starting:

While Swift was completing her fourth album in the summer of 2012, Taylor invited her to appear as a special guest during his Tanglewood set

is unclear. One has to look back a few paragraphs, to a long list of names of folks Swift performed with, to learn that "Taylor" appears to be James Taylor, and even that is only guesswork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisborne~enwiki (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuit

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/13/taylor-swift-copyright-judge-lyrics

Majinsnake (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

In Background Information section, under "Born" change Born December 13, 1989 (age 25) to Born December 13, 1989 (age 26) 50.82.171.52 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Her age is calculated using the template {{birth date and age}}. It will likely update sometime soon. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift former Future Farmers of America member

Swift has stated, especially in concert, that she was a Future Farmers of America member (Hendersonville, Tennessee chapter) in high school and dedicated "Picture to Burn" to the members of the FFA in a private concert at Lucas Oil Field in Indianapolis in 2008 during the 81st National FFA Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.84.33 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015

In Taylor Swift's bio, her age is 26 now

66.170.45.71 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Already done. The number will automatically update. /wia🎄/tlk 14:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

'became the youngest songwriter ever hired by the Sony/ATV Music publishing house'

Does Sony/ATV "hire" songwriters? Nothing about a staff of songwriters in the linked article.

No citation for being the youngest songwriter to have a song owned by Sony/ATV either. Lovingboth (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

This contribution was recently reverted with the claim that "not appropriate; we don't do "gotcha" claims like this". Here's the text:

• Later in 2015, Swift promoted her album using a drawing by New Orleans-based painter Ally Burguieres without prior the artist's permission. Swift's spokesperson said that Burguieres' claim was an effort to extract more money and publicity, while Burgieres said that the "four-figures" she was offered, a portion of which had to be given to animal causes, was not adequate compensation.

It is balanced, well-sourced, relevant, and entirely appropriate. What constitutes a "gotcha" claim anyway? Bangabandhu (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

References

And since the artist in question pointed out that Swift has taken a big public stand against Spotify because she doesn't think it compensates artists enough, something which is in the article, this is very relevant (and Burguieres claims that Swift's people wanted her to donate all of it). See this source, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, and I hope that User:Popeye191 and User:Calidum will agree with me. Your contribution has several problems: WP:UNDUE and WP:N for a relatively small event with no affect; These sentences should be if anything under 1989 (Taylor Swift album)#Release and promotion. This information will be relevent if and when a court decision is made. In addition, and more importantly, WP:BLP - it seems like what has actually happend was aמ innocent mistake: Swift saw a fan-made artwork (with credits to the fan, not the real artist) and retweet/repost it on her social media accounts (with a credit to the fan who she thought was the artist). Given that information, writing only "Swift promoted her album using... without the artist's prior permission" is simply misleading. דיידרים (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain more what makes you think this is a small incident? It has received international recognition and has triple digit citations, only a few of which were in the text you deleted. The incident is highly relevant given Swift's previous stance on copyright, a point noted in many of the sources. As for your characterization of it as an "innocent mistake" that's the depiction of Swift's PR people, a point perhaps worth noting in text, but nothing that any of the articles confirm as fact. That the issue is not settled is not grounds for excluding mention. This entry described her dispute with Spotify long before it was resolved. Also, please make sure you're keeping with WP:CANVASS when you involve other editors. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Swift gets international headlines for her latest cat photo on Instagram. Last week, she took a photo with an Australian look-alike fan. It recieved recognition from the CNN, The Telegraph, Billboard and more than 200 other sources. Should we include it in the paragraph on her relationship with her fans? Of course not. It's not notable and will not be mentioned again by next week. On the other hand, her dispute with Spotify and her Apple letter are still mentioned to this day ([7], [8]) and have a clear influence on her career. Currently, it seems like just another news on Swift and not a worthy part of her biography. In addition, it's not for newspapers or for us to decide if the artist's claims are true, but your entry states that "Swift promoted her album using... without the artist's prior permission". If included, it should say "New Orleans-based painter Ally Burguieres claimed that ..." To avoid a violation of WP:BLP.

You did not address my claims that this entry is WP:UNDUE and that it should be a on 1989 (Taylor Swift album)#Release and promotion (I'm not sure it's worth mentioning there either).

I only mentioned User:Popeye191 and User:Calidum because both of them reverted your edit but explained their reasons shortly in the edit summary. Tagging other top contributers to join the discussion User:Acalamari, User:Sofffie7 and User:Soulparadox. דיידרים (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the content does not belong in a section about the 1989 album release and promotion. I'm supportive of another section and heading, but couldn't decide on where that might go and what, exactly, it would be called. So placing it with the other discussion of copyright seemed appropriate, if imperfect. You've got a point that google hits are not the best measure of notability, especially in this case. But the comparison to the Australian lookalike is inapt, as there's no broader context for the importance of that story. If Swift had been outspoken about lookalikes or corporations that sponsored lookalikes or made it a high-profile issue, we would probably want to include mention of the Australian lookalike. With copyright, she's done exactly that, which is why mention of this incident does not give it undue weight. As to your concern about accepting the artist's copyright claims as fact, it's my impression that all parties involve acknowledge that its Burguieres' original work, but there is uncertainty about whether it was manipulated before Swift reposted it. I could reread the sources with an eye to that issue. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)