This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Taylor Swift(pictured) is the first act to have three albums with opening week sales of one million copies in the US?
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Country MusicTemplate:WikiProject Country MusicCountry Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article was
copy edited by
Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 19, 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Previous copyedits:
/
This article was copy edited by a member of the
Guild of Copy Editors on 12 December, 2015.
This article was copy edited by a member of the
Guild of Copy Editors on August 31, 2016.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
Track 5 (Taylor Swift) was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 6 March 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Taylor Swift. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
I observed that in the infobox about occupations list, it states that she is a Singer-Songwriter and a Musician. Are these two roles not synonymous? Additionally, I have noticed that it is uncommon for Singer-Songwriters and Musicians to be listed separately on the encyclopedia pages of her colleagues, as they are typically referred to simply as Singer-Songwriters.
ShakiraFandom (
talk)
09:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think intro is promo/written from fan point of view
A subject of widespread public interest with a vast fanbase, she has influenced the music industry, popular culture, and politics through her songwriting, artistry, entrepreneurship, and advocacy.
Lot of celebrities has widespread public interest and vast fanbase - whats special here?
And many artists has influenced pop culture.
It should be something like
Swift's career began in country music, but she has since transitioned into pop and alternative genres. She is also known for her narrative songwriting, which often centers on her personal life
The editor here also omits her career trajectory as an opening act for several other artists' concert tours in the early of her career, a common format inclusion on a musician's Wikipedia. It is clear that this page is managed by fans.
WP:NOTFANWEBSITE
I believe it would be helpful to implement some of the OP's proposed changes, though I have no particular suggestion on how the lead should appear. That aside, I agree with the inclusion of
this tag, as I believe there are other issues there. Some examples:
Putting "songwriting" and "artistry" next to each other seems excessive. Do we need both terms?
What makes one a "professional" songwriter? It's not a sport where there's a commonly accepted difference between amateur and pro.
Are "chart-topping" and "number-one" necessary (or appropriate) descriptions? Isn't it similar to saying "award-winning"?
With
WP:RECENTISM in mind, are her directorial projects more noteworthy than the titles of films in which she's acted? She was in one the worst and commercially unsuccessful films of all time. How is that less noteworthy than a concert film?
The lead says Swift is the second most streamed artist on Spotify. The body says she is the most streamed. Which is it? Why is Spotify in the lead at all?
How are the American Music Awards, Billboard Music Awards, and MTV Video Music Awards due here, especially the lattermost? I believe the Brit Awards would be more appropriate to insert than any of these three.
Thank you for agreeing with me. I also concur with your points. We should begin cleaning up the article. There are many Swifties here who are often aggressive in reverting changes, as they view it from a fan’s perspective. I haven't read body - who knows how much fan point of view is there. Since this is a featured article, it’s all the more reason to elevate it to higher standards. I’m tagging @
FrB.TG as well.
Gsgdd (
talk)
06:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gsgdd: While waiting for others' responses towards a consensus, please refrain from reverting edits repeatedly (
WP:3RR) and
assume good faith, since your comment regarding how "aggressive" Swifties are is practically bad faith.
@
KyleJoan: I agree that the lead is marred with recentism and there needs to be adjustments, but I disagree with your disregard for Spotify (which is arguably the most-discussed metric for song streams/artists' relevance in the streaming age), number-one songs (charts matter, no?), and awards like the AMAs or VMAs (why not?)
Ippantekina (
talk)
07:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ippantekina, please do not revert the tag without discussion. We need to reach a consensus, particularly from uninvolved editors. The tag will help ensure broader review from the wider wiki community, not just from the original authors. Previously, you have reverted my other good faith edits as well. I felt such reverts were aggressive, and calling it out is not bad faith
Gsgdd (
talk)
08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue with Spotify as a metric is its numbers fluctuate too often. A featured article is expected to be stable to some extent, and yet, even with all the editing that goes on here, there's still not an agreement between the lead and body about whether Swift is the most streamed or second-most streamed. That's a major policy issue
The description "number-one" is too ambiguous. Where does a song need to reach number one for it to be appropriate? A specific country? A specific genre chart?
A fan-voted award is almost never more important in the way sources document it compared to industry-voted ones. I guarantee you that there is more source coverage of Swift's appearances at the VMAs than that of her VMA wins.
KyleJoantalk10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What about something like "one of the most-streamed artists on Spotify"? I still think Spotify is an important metric for a 21st-century musician, despite its (understandably) volatile nature. We can change "number-one songs" to "commercially successful hits" but then that could be POV. I'm thinking of reorganising the lead of this article in the style of other singer-songwriter FAs like
Bob Dylan or
Paul McCartney if that's a good idea.
Ippantekina (
talk)
11:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Both of those changes would be improvements–I'd prefer "song" or "single" over "hit" for neutrality. I don't believe there's any POV issue with "commercially successful" since that description is easily demonstrable as due. A major reconstruction appears to be necessary. Too many parts read as excessive, a glaring one being the different album musical styles, which sound like inappropriate attempts to illustrate Swift's versatility when the body includes nothing that suggests some of these claims (e.g., Lover being "eclectic"). Why not keep it simple and write that Swift originally established herself as a country artist, pivoted to pop starting with Red, fully became a pop artist with 1989, and delved into the indie genres with Folklore and Evermore?
KyleJoantalk13:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm thinking of the intro paragraph like this:
"Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. She has explored musical styles across
country,
pop,
rock, and
folk. Her personal songwriting with details from real-life relationships and experiences has made her a major figure in popular culture and earned her a
devoted fanbase."
This is the same theme - devoted fanbase, major figure etc.... still fan point of view. I understand you are keen to show off devoted fanbase wiki. But think more neutral. Every artist has devoted fanbase. Swifties are not superior to other fanbase
Gsgdd (
talk)
18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As a drive-by comment after seeing the DRN post, some thoughts on the article: The first paragraph... isn't a complete paragraph. It's a weird construction that doesn't organically grow out of the opening sentence and appears to be phrased the way it is to embed somewhat easter-eggy links to sub articles. I think part of the feel of it coming off as weirdly fannish is that there's no elaboration on this, and it makes much more sense discussed with her wider commercial success later on in the article.
The Beatles is structured similarly, so there are articles that try and give a quick capsule overview before diving more into the subject in the subsequent lead paragraphs, but I think manages to explain the importance of the subject better and has much more concrete examples of influence and importance actually demonstrated.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would argue against `Swift's music career has made her a subject of widespread public interest and an influential figure in popular culture.` in first paragraph. Popularity is subjective and changing. If you look at Forbes Celebrity 100 - she never been no. 1. I would argue some political leaders more popular than Swift or have more public interest.
Swift's popularity 2006–present is heavily documented in sources. Any historical perspective would include it as one of her defining qualities. Any aversion to suggesting she's very famous and influential would create a separate NPOV issue. Swift's standing in comparison to other public figures is irrelevant, as that would make it inappropriate to mention one's fame or influence because somebody else might be more famous or influential.
KyleJoantalk01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
See i still think `widespread public interest` is not something to mention in opening paragraph. Imagine, people adding it to every celebrity and popular people. It can be mentioned in the body or later in intro. I prefer to keep opening para - something unique and most interesting thing about the artist. Is being famous the most interest thing about Swift? That's all i have to say about it. Do as you please
Gsgdd (
talk)
02:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Swifties exist as an article. Swift's fan base is definitely over-the-top. I'm not sure why do you keep insisting on removing an obvious fact that she is arguably the most popular artist right now lol.
Ippantekina (
talk)
02:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Toa Nidhiki05: 1) "Beatlemania" is not in the first paragraph of the lead but it does exist in the lead, so are you arguing against its inclusion or notability?, and 2) "They are regarded as the most influential band of all time and were integral to the development of 1960s counterculture and the recognition of popular music as an art form," with a link to
Cultural impact of the Beatles.
Ippantekina (
talk)
07:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
KyleJoan, I like your lead quite a lot and would support it being applied in the article. I think it's a big improvement on the
current version that trails off without completing the sentence while conveying almost nothing about Swift's notability.
Hydrangeans (
she/her |
talk |
edits)
04:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Lots of celebrities have attracted widespread public interest and a vast fanbase - what's special here? And many artists have influenced pop culture."
Most artists don't have full-fledged lengthy articles dedicated to their fanbase, influence, political impact, and public interest like Swift does. That fact alone is an argument as to why they should be linked.
ItsMarkWbu (
talk)
12:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Like i said before - im ok it being included in other than opening paragraph. Her `fanbase` is not what defines Taylor swift. Opening paragraph should be about taylor swift. Not about her fans. It should highlight her major achievements
Gsgdd (
talk)
12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree but I'd not mention the films that she directed or acted it. Not the thing that makes Swift notable anyways. Some of my other suggestions:
We might as well not need to mention that many songs, maybe leave out the current hits ("Fortnight", "Willow" etc.) to leave room for discussing her musical evolutions/experimentations.
Ippantekina (
talk)
07:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Why did you implement your own version without a consensus when you never even proposed it? It introduced new issues, such as the undue weight placed on the reception toward Folklore and Evermore.
KyleJoantalk08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
also "autobiographical songwriting with details from personal life and experiences" this is no good. autobiographical already means its from personal experiences. please revert it
Gsgdd (
talk)
09:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Gsgdd. I'm going to open an RfC to have users cast !votes based on different versions of the lead section. Can you write your own version of (or point to which version of) the second, third, and fourth paragraphs you would like to see with your proposed lead paragraph?
KyleJoantalk09:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
KyleJoan Hay, For into paragraph this is my proposal.
Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. She is one of the world’s best-selling artists, with 200 million records sold worldwide. Additionally, she is the highest-grossing female touring act and the first billionaire with music as the main source of income. Known for her narrative songwriting, which often centers on her personal life, Swift is an influential figure in popular culture.
Thanks for writing it up. To everyone voting - goal is to choose version that align with neural point of view and not fan point of view. Review previous talk for details
Gsgdd (
talk)
10:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since attempt to fix article intro is being sabotaged by
User:FrB.TG - i'm placing this POV lead tag.
User:Ippantekina who mostly edits taylor swift page is a FAN - and i believe has conflict of interest. Both these users have engaged in disruptive edits and reverts in the past - please see talk/page history for details
Gsgdd (
talk)
11:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Refrain from making personal attacks and accusations or calling others disruptive when you have engaged in an edit-war with multiple editors over the last few days. All I did was restore the slight tweak made by Ippantekina to their own proposed lead before voting had begun. It's not my fault if that little change caused the removal of RfC.
FrB.TG (
talk)
11:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have not reverted more than 3 edits in 24hrs - and issue is only with you two who have engaged in disruptive edits/reverts. It can be proven should you choose to take it up to admin. If not stay out of it and do not revert any more of edits on this matter from users
Gsgdd (
talk)
12:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
When you edit 99% of time on Taylor swift pages - it begs the question if you have some kind of affiliation or relationship with Taylor swift - which is conflict of interest. Or maybe you are just a hardcore fan - who cant see neutral point of view.
Gsgdd (
talk)
13:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Drive by comment here from DRN; and I've noticed that the fan POV has been an issue with this article for a very long time. I wouldn't say that there was a specific editor, moreso that as she got more in popularity, the amount of fan POV edits about her have skyrocketed. For example, why are there two completely different articles about the impact of her entire 15+ year career verses the impact of a single (albeit major milestone) tour? Why is cultural impact and public image completely different articles with no possibility for a merge? What exactly is so relevant about her politics (which she was infamously silent on for a while) that demands a seperate article that cannot be merged into a general "Impact of Taylor Swift"? Is all of the article content so notable for inclusion that they cannot be in a more concise page? I believe that as Taylor becomes more popular and beloved by the general public, we will receive an excess of Swift-related information; I think Gsgdd is right and I believe most of his points.
PHShanghai | they/them (
talk)
19:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
DRN mentioned fan POV as a major source of issue for the quality of the writing in this article, with fans continuing to make unsupported
WP:PEACOCK statements about Ms. Swift. Considering your replies to other editors on this page, and your history as a Swift-only editor, I can't say that the DRN claim is inaccurate.
PHShanghai | they/them (
talk)
21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ippantekina, I really like your proposed lead. I have made a few tweaks here and there. For example, "Known for her autobiographical songwriting, Swift's music career has made her one of the.." - the way this is phrased it sounds like "Swift's music career" is "known for her autobiographical songwriting". I like this version better since it specifies the genres of Midnights and TTPD instead of just "she released these albums". I don't like the idea of writing about her film career in the lead paragraph, which you have avoided here. So all in all, this proposed lead should be implemented IMO.
FrB.TG (
talk)
12:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm confused. Your endorsement here means this proposal has consensus to be implemented? Does that mean that my proposal, with two users' support, had consensus to be implemented as well?
KyleJoantalk12:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No, I was merely stating why I think this lead is better and should be implemented. That doesn't mean consensus has been reached to implement it.
FrB.TG (
talk)
12:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Removed some bits to avoid undue weightage (the critical reaction to Folklore/Evermore). Btw are we still deciding this on number of votes?
Ippantekina (
talk)
13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I changed it to "United States" to keep consistent with other Swift album/song FAs so that's more of a personal preference, but I don't see why it shouldn't be that way.
Ippantekina (
talk)
02:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SchroCat: The guide you cited literally says: "Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality."
Ippantekina (
talk)
16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's sometimes preferable, but in an article this long, bloating it further and so often is poor. Given you changed it recently and people picked up on it to query it, I'm not sure there is a consensus for the longer form repeated endlessly here. Maybe just let the conversation proceed without edit warring to what you've already admitted is your personal preference? -
SchroCat (
talk)
16:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I did explain that doing so is to keep it consistent with other Taylor Swift song/album FAs that spell out "United States". And how do my edits constitute an "edit warring" when there is no outright objection but rather queries to which I explained--also considering this is not a contentious issue, at least based on the responses here thus far?
Ippantekina (
talk)
16:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't edit any links. It looks like there was a conflict which overwrote the bot. I won't change them back again: the bot will revisit shortly to change it back. -
SchroCat (
talk)
16:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply