Talk:Taylor Swift

RfC about {{POV lead}}

Should the article include the {{POV lead}} maintenance tag until the discussion about the lead section reaches a consensus? KyleJoan^talk 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC about {{POV lead}})

• No. It should not have a tag unless the discussion comes to a consensus that there is a serious POV problem in the lead. Until then, it should not be tagged. This is a WP:FA, which means that numerous experienced editors agreed that it should be promoted to FA, including its Lead section. If there are specific issues with the lead, like any WP:PEACOCK, or if you think that some awards are more WP:NOTEWORTHY than others, that should be easy to fix without a tag. Discussion and consensus of specific issues is the way forward. I would start a heading for each specific objection to the Lead and get a consensus on that discrete issue, fix it, and move on to the next one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe the current lead section looks comparable to how it did seven years ago during the article's FA promotion? KyleJoan^talk 07:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a pointless question. Use the Talk page now to fix specific problems you see, not to reconstruct the past. If you think that a particular sentence or phrase was better in the FA-promoted version, feel free to suggest that phrasing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• No per Ssilvers. Having such a tag while claiming that this article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer is contradictory and very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Let's focus on addressing said issues than preoccupying with a tag. And the lead has improved since Nosferattus's bold edit. I have made further changes here that address issues raised in the afforementioned section. If there's any disagreement over them, we can obviously discuss it further. FrB.TG (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment — what POV tag? It's already been removed twice by HJ Mitchell who said don't do tgat to featured articles (sic). And unfortunately, he is right, featured articles tend to have a walled garden around them, and editors are certainly not going to allow any sort of maint tag on a FA, regardless of whether the tag is legit or not. You might as well close this RfC. Furthermore, I disagree that a maint tag placed on a FA is very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. That's hyperbole. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• No. Using the logic that the lead is "written from a fan's perspective" or whatever, just about any band's article could be tagged for POV. Check out the lead for the Beatles, another Featured Article, for example. I'm not saying there can't be improvements, but tagging at this point seems unnecessary and WP:POINTY. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• No. It's a dispute over a single sentence, and one that (regardless of how one feels about it) does not seem to be fundamental to our coverage of the topic one way or another. Tagging the entire article over it is wildly disproportionate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• No, articles should only be tagged with {{POV lead}} when there is consensus to do so. Time should be spent in the discussion coming to consensus and not adding needless tags. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• No, as per the above cited reasons. ℛonherry☘ 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC for the lead sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing early as moot and/or misleading. No one is suggesting the lede sentence should contain such information as described, and as far as I can tell it never actually has. Better to close this early than to waste everyone's time. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Should Swift's lead sentence mention that she is a billionaire, the highest-grossing female touring artist, and has sold 200 million records? Is there an argument for having it in the very first sentence and not in the other paragraphs of the lead? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No as proposer. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, No, Yes. Yes as to 200 million albums. No to the rest. Instead, I would put in (from below, per WP:LEAD): ...NPR has dubbed her "a master of the vernacular in her lyrics". This is really what distinguishes her musical talent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of relying on a singular source? I feel like making note of her autobiographical songwriting covers that part; "master of the vernacular in her lyrics" may be WP:PUFF PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I don't have a problem if these facts are placed elsewhere in the lead so long as we have something more than just "she is an influential figure" in the lead paragraph to establish her relevance in the music industry. My reasoning was that highlighting her professional milestones is relevant to understanding her significance and influence, akin to mentioning awards or critical acclaim for other artists. She's a singer-songwriter and all these accomplishments are directly related to her music career. FrB.TG (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure whether these should first in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST, the current "is an American singer-songwriter" seems to fit the intent of that MOS. These items may however naturally fit into other parts of the lead. CMD (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, I believe OP meant the lead paragraph (like how it is right now) and not the first sentence. FrB.TG (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If so that is a different question to what is asked above. If there are questions about the wider lead, it would probably be more helpful to have alternative versions to see what might replace the current text. CMD (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

PHShanghai, could you change your wording from "lead sentence" to "first/lead paragraph" to avoid any confusion? Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Not in the first sentence, fine in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I support moving "She is one of the world's best-selling music artists, with estimated global sales of 200 million records. Swift is also the first musician to become a billionaire through music and the highest-grossing female touring act" to the fourth paragraph in the lead, where more of her career success is mentioned. The lines about her impact and what she's know for can remain in the first paragraph. ℛonherry☘ 18:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Considering MOS:FIRST which says "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." this should not be in the first sentence. Dobblesteintalk 22:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely list all of these in the lede (maybe even the first paragraph), though the very first sentence seems a bit bloated for this sort of info. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No. This information appears in the lead section, which is fine, but I don't think we need to micromanage the article to say that it has to go in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• No: Unnecessary in the first sentence and not what she is known for. Information like this belongs further down in the lead. Even Elon Musk does not mention that he is a billionaire until the third sentence. C F A 💬 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I find OP's phrasing very misleading. They say "the lead sentence" when it always has been only "Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter." OP's problem was the lead paragraph (second sentence to be precise) mentioning her billionaire status. FrB.TG (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted change on correct information

In the last week, one of my changes was on her instruments list. It was incorrectly stated that she can play a banjo, which is incorrect information. What she plays is a six-string banjo guitar, which in short, is not a banjo. This correction was reverted sometime ago due to being "superfluous", however, it really is not superfluous because it's incorrect otherwise.

Some more reasons to consider changing it indefinitely. In other words, why it is not a banjo:

A banjo has 5 strings, 4 main strings and one cut in half. It's tuning us gDGBD. It uses 3 fingerpicks and has Scruggs Style or clawhammer. Taylor Swift's instrument has 6 strings, none cut in half. It's tuning is EADGBe. She uses a guitar pick and strums it like a guitar. In short, this is a six-string banjo and I believe it should be permanently corrected.

Also, this change may need to be reviewed on other Taylor Swift Wikipedia pages. Auser468 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Forthcoming FAR

I intend to nominate this article for FAR soon for neutrality and stability issues. No consensus was reached in any of the discussions about the lead's neutrality–users almost unanimously agreed that the page should not include a {{POV lead}} maintenance template but did not conclude that the page does not suffer from the issue the tag raises. An egregious WP:BLP violation remained in the body for over a year.[1][2]. The article has more than doubled in size.[3][4] Its two primary authors only began editing it after the FA promotion.[5] Two distinct edit wars just this year. The (understandable) difficulty in maintaining FA quality due to Swift's stardom (and sources' continual, voluminous coverage) alone is enough to warrant a review. KyleJoan^talk 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Examples of other BLP vios

• "Reviews of Swift's later albums were more appreciative of her vocals" is improperly synthesized from three individual reviews and five critics from one publication
• "Critics have highlighted Swift's versatility as an entertainer" is improperly synthesized because neither of the two sources cited (one being an individual review) wholly supports this
• "Critics regard Swift as a rare yet successful combination" is improperly sourced with one transcript documenting a host and a critic suggesting this
• "According to publications, Swift changed the music landscape ... and her ability to popularize" is improperly synthesized, as each part of this claim is supported by one source
• "Journalists [note] how her actions ... reshaped ticketing models" is improperly sourced with only one source suggesting this

KyleJoan^talk 04:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

In the 2023 - 2024 section, it says that The Tortured Poets Department stayed atop the Billboard 200 for 13 weeks; we should change that to 14 nonconsecutive weeks as it has been updated by Billboard. Bellsisatollin (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done CloakedFerret (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)