Talk:Folklore (Taylor Swift album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

remove exile as a single. it is not an official single as much as everyone would want it to be , it is not single. atleast not yet 171.78.213.103 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done "Exile" being pushed to AAA radio is a clear indicator of it being a single on adult alternative radio. There are sources to back this up, please look at the release history on Exile (Taylor Swift song). Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

For Release history: The physical CD for folklore will be released August 7th according to both Amazon.com and Target.com. Shouldn’t that be mentioned? Add-on: Or at least mentioned that it will be released to wider retail on August 7th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:806:8300:25C0:D55B:6BF2:44AC:4B4 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, her official site has confirmed this, I’ll add it and we’ll see what happens. Doggy54321 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Article needs protection

Due to high interest in the article, I suggest an admin protect the article with semi-protection, allowing only registered/confirmed users to edit. As this is my first time requesting such a favor, I'm not sure how to properly request a protection template, but still hope that this will reach out... HĐ (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

HĐ, you can request at WP:RFPP. QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

“Surprise release”

Is this really a “surprise release”, if the album is announced the day before its release? Rfl0216 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

When Beyoncé dropped lemonade she tweeted the release and it was available right then and there. Taylor is making us wait about 16hours before she releases it. Maybe get more clarity before changing anything relating to a surprise. I say it’s not for the reason above. Doggy54321 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually after some handy-dandy googling I think it’s a surprise album, and in Taylor’s tweet releasing the album the first thing she says is “surprise!” So I think it is. Doggy54321 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There are DOZENS of sources online from major news outlets and music publications that call it a SURPRISE ALBUM. Here are four of those (which are already cited in prose): https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/9422969/taylor-swift-folklore-great-idea-analysis

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/jul/23/taylor-swift-folklore-surprise-album-bon-iver-the-national

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-swift-new-album-folklore-surprise-instagram-music-video-cardigan-recorded-in-isolation/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/entertainment/taylor-swift-new-album-folklore-trnd/index.html BawinV (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the album came out of nowhere without pre-release promotion or singles ("cardigan" being premiered alongwith the album) and after Swift's announcement that it really was a surprise album, forces us to assume that the album is really a surprise one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:2C01:9ADC:0:0:E4CA:8405 (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Move to Folklore (album)?

Maybe the page should be moved to Folklore (album)? It's a redirect as I write this section. - Premeditated (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a redirect due to the existence of Folklore (16 Horsepower album), Folklore (Big Big Train album), Folklore (Jorge Cafrune album), Folklore (Forrest Fang album), and probably most notably Folklore (Nelly Furtado album).--NØ 16:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, if it’s free why not use it? Doggy54321 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagree – per MaranoFan. Folklore is also a Nelly Furtado album, and many other artists'. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception

The user @BawinV is adding several irrelevant reviews to the article. I think the reviews relevance should be discussed in the talk page. Ravenanation (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Care to elaborate which ones you think are irrelevant, and why? Calidum 17:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Most was removed or edit. I think is ok the way it is. Thank you reply. Ravenanation (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Adun7592, this is a final warning not to restore the 11th review. This is discouraged as the precedent is to only list the 10 most relevant reviews. The Sydney Morning Herald is not a more reputed music reviewer than any of the sources currently listed.--NØ 07:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Betty" as third single?

Kerry Wolfe of iHeartRadio has mentioned that Betty will be sent to country radio, but this is yet to have been mentioned on All Access. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait for a better source.--NØ 05:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

right, but there isn't any news article on it. I think we should wait until then. BawinV (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need to wait for a reliable source (AllAccess, Rolling Stone, Billboard etc) before adding it. Twitter is not reliable, and this could very well be completely false, so let’s wait for now. Doggy54321 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that AllAccess has confirmed this, "Betty" is being treated like a single. Doggy54321 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Folklore: the second Swift's album to chart all of its songs on the Hot 100?

I think Folklore should be the third album, following Speak Now and Lover, to chart all its songs on the Hot 100. "consecutive" should be removed from the description in commercial performance section and speak now should be added Ofosomto (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe if you had taken some time to read the source, you'd know that only Lover and Folklore charted all their tracks SIMULATIONEOUSLY. Speak Now charted all of its tracks, but not simultaneously. Only 4 female albums in history have charted all of their tracks in the same week: Lemonade, Thank U Next, Lover and Folklore. Speak Now and Invasion of Privacy did it NON-simultaneously. BawinV (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Header

I reorganized the header of the article, but the User:BawinV undid it. The changes I made were to give similarity to articles from other albums, such as Adele's 25 or Beyonce's Lemonade. The current organization is completely messed up. Information from the album and singles are all mixed, and it need to reorganized. Ravenanation (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I FIXED what you did. You used unrecognized " and ' symbols everywhere, didn't add quotations at places. There was no flow. There is no rule to make all the leads look the same. BawinV (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
User:BawinV it’s not about making it look the same, but improving it. So you fixed it? It doesn't look like you fixed it, just undone something you didn't like. Ravenanation (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to address you. Personal doubts should be clarified on my Talk page. If you have any idea of guidelines regarding article talk pages, you'd know that they are not mean for this. You didn't improve it. You messed it with unrecognized characters and poor flow. I didn't "undo" anything. I fixed it. BawinV (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

William Bowery and other writers (Credits)

This conversation has been moved to WP:Albums[[1]] Please do not edit this, rather go to the current discussion above.

  • Issue's to resolve: William Bowery's omitted credits, number 9 debut on Billboard Hot 100 Songwriters Chart, songs credited on Hot 100 debuted at 6 (Exile) and 42 (Betty), and Country Music debut (Betty) at 6 for the week of 8 August 2020, and co-written with Swift.
  • William Bowery and songwriter's credits are omitted from the Credits Section.
  • William Bowery's BMI registered songwriter ID is # 1049706450.

(https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/search/title/Exile/writer/Swift)

  • Pitchfork cannot be sole reference source for "credits".

SEE: Writer's credits and Hot 100 Songwriters Chart Debut for William Bowery at 9, Swift, at 2, and Dessner at 1 in Billboard for the week of 8 August 2020 and the upcoming week continued. Also, the additional Hot 100 Charts with country music (Betty) debut at 6 on Country music charts, and all should also be listed and properly credited SEE https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9429829/aaron-dessner-taylor-swift-rule-hot-100-producers-songwriters-charts-after-folklore-debut

  • Writers credits are omitted from the credits section, although appear under the "track list" section. Credits, including writers credits should be listed under credits and all appropriate credit should be afforded to each credited named artist, whether its a stage name (pseudonym) or real name. SEE Dessner's quote because the idea alone, for creation, is a valid copyright-able writer's and creationist claim to credit.

"To Rolling Stone, Dessner reiterated, "He’s a songwriter, and actually because of social distancing, I’ve never met him. He actually wrote the original idea for 'Exile,' and then Taylor took it and ran with it. I don’t actually know to be totally" honest." https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/aaron-dessner-taylor-swift-interview-folklore-1033870/ and https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9424610/who-is-william-bowery-taylor-swift-folklore#:~:text=Speculation%20is%20rampant%20among%20sleuthing,if%20Bowery%20is%20an%20alias.#

  • Also, we cannot use fan speculation that Bowery is Joe Alwyn or others. Although, it is perfectly acceptable to state that it is a pseudonym used as the Artist's name and Bowery appears to be a registered songwriter with BMI and royalty rights are identified (ascap link above)
  • Track No. Title Writer(s) below,


1. "The 1" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

2. "Cardigan" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

3. "The Last Great American Dynasty" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

4. "Exile" (featuring Bon Iver) Taylor Swift, William Bowery, Justin Vernon

5. "My Tears Ricochet" Taylor Swift

6. "Mirrorball" Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff

7. "Seven" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

8. "August" Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff

9. "This Is Me Trying" Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff

10. "Illicit Affairs" Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff

11. "Invisible String" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

12. "Mad Woman" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

13. "Epiphany" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

14. "Betty" Taylor Swift, Aaron Bowery

15. "Peace" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

16. "Hoax" Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner

17. "The Lakes" Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff

Prose072 (talk)

Yes, I agree with the fact that William Bowery needs to be treated like William Bowery, not Joe Alwyn or Lorde or any other speculation, but what exactly are you asking? Do you want to change the "Personnel" section, or the "Track Listing" section. And what do you want to add about Bowery? Please confirm and I’ll happily change it for you! Doggy54321 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Hello, Doggy. If it were me, I'd change the track listing section by removing the Writer's and producers and finding a good format to include those credits under "Credits" so its not duplicated. And, in the track listing, list the "performers" like Swift and (feat Bon Iver). For example, if you go to https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/search/title/Exile/writer/Swift , the have work identified by writer, performer, title, publisher, and more in the search section. As for William Bowery, I would incorporate, at least, incorporate the language and portions of the Billboard credits for chart listing on the links provided and other chart information and credit information that's pertinent to the album, including, Dessner's comment about being Bowery's idea and Swift running with it. Also, Halsey and others is not their birth name (performer name) and Bowery's registered as a songwriter with BMI. The Billboard Songwriters debut and credits for all artist is all pertinent information (One of the best articles to date on credit information). This album is going to have a lot of Billboard chart information. So, a section on the Billboard debut, multiple charts, and record breakers for each Billboard milestone? Prose072 (talk)

Apparently, someone copied this page format from previous albums because the Lover (album) is practically an identical page. The "Track List" section cites "credit" under the tracklist header, and all credits should be under the Credits section, including writing credits. This allows for citation of information or references that cannot be made in a Tracklist section. Also and again, there should be a clear section for Billboard milestones and achievements to date that include the information posted above with additional milestones credited to the writers and each individual song. And separately from the Country Music milestones being achieved.

While I do have the capability of doing this without a consensus, it would be better if we come to a consensus of what information should be included. Also, again, Pitchfork cannot be the only referenced source material under the current tracklist or credits. And because the booklet was added as a reference after I mentioned these issues earlier, the link to the booklet cannot be found. And, again, Billboard has written an excellent, factual, article that includes many missing details (posted above) about the writers, writers' accomplishments and debuts, and other artist ranking achievements and information.

An entire section of a discussion on Writers, Billboard ranking achievements, and clear Credited should be added and properly sourced. Prose072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Our job is to attribute every writer in the liner notes as they are credited. Our job is not to speculate who the person may be a pseudonym for, with no evidence. Leave that foolishness to the Swifties. Trillfendi (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If you look at most album articles that use the track listing template, the writing and producing credits typically found there. Writing credits are specifically built into the code. Its an easy visual way to show who wrote and produced each track. IMO, they should not be removed from the Track listing section. William Bowery is credited right along Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner, so I don't see what the issue is regarding his credits. He's already credited. Rfl0216 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: That was the exact point, to leave the speculation to the Swifties and keeps the credited facts as they are demonstrated. Prose072 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rfl0216: While I agree in-part with your statement, most other albums have not achieved numerous milestones for each writer that are from multiple categories and chart listing credits. For example, Dessner is shown all their credit under the "Credits" section except for the recent Billboard chart week 8 August 2020 (link provided above) and Bowery was largely credited in the same article with a debit associated with the album and was not properly credited for the milestones achieved, nor was Swift.

Without the "Writers" being properly listed under the "Credits" section and also including a Billboard Charts section to include all the historical data and milestone achievements for the writers, producers, and directors, then Wiki is no longer an encyclopedia that contains all the facts and relevant data and we have reduced and limited each album to resemble identical content in similarity that does not reflect or demonstrate the album or credited artist achievements.

If you want to keep teh track listing the same, I can agree with that. However, the remaining issues are still valid points that should be properly documented (Billboard, Album, Song, Writers, Producers, and more achievements and milestones, including records broken). For example, a new songwriter debuted on Folklore at #9 on Billboard Songwriters Hot 100 chart by this album, Swift was the first artist to debut at #1 on "both" in the same week in the Hot 100 and 200, and much much more. Even today, Rolling Stone published an article on more milestones that the album and artist have achieved.

These things cannot set aside, as of, they mean nothing to the album's historical information because "The Folklore Album" and its artist are not every day released an album since many milestones, historical markers, and achievements are being made and should be recorded.

Therefore, the Credits and additional information on the writers, producers, and other artists should be well documented and writers included under Credits section, and other relevant data included under a Billboard milestone and achievement section. As for speculation of who Bowery is, it has no place here (Folklore album) and should be, at the bare minimum, mentioned on the artist (Bowery) page when its created to discuss the hype of his debut, nothing more. Prose072 (talk)

@Rfl0216: : The following wiki standard is what resembles my concern on "writers" being properly credited (Separate from the addition Billboard information and Credit that should be included and incorporated with *this* album's achievements), https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line

Credit lines required by license Edit Creative Commons Edit CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses Edit According to Creative Commons CC BY and CC BY-SA licenses, reusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line. Section 4b (Section 4c in CC BY-SA 3.0) of full license provides the details. Included below are the most relevant fragments:

If You Distribute [] the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made [not to], keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; In other words, unless author or licensor asks not to be credited, reusers distributing files found at Wikimedia Commons must provide credit line with license and author. Also author might request for credit line to include: other "Attribution Parties" (like Wikimedia Commons), URI (like web pages), or title. Reusers can choose format of the credit line "reasonable to the medium or means" as long as all required components are present. Example Credit lines in minimal format: Prose072 (talk) 


Prose072 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Any achievements and milestones in terms of Billboard charting should be documented in the Commercial performance section, there is no need to have a separate Billboard Charts section If you want to expand the article in terms of Bowery's debut on the Hot 100, then do it in the Commercial performance section, or on each song's individual page (since each of the tracks have a page). The credits section is already quite well documented and the writers/producers are already credited in the track listing. I don't know why you want to put the writers in the credits section, the track listing makes it quite easy to see who is credited with writing each song and I don't think more needs to be said than what is already there. If you really want to argue the issue about writing credits in the track listing section vs a credits section, I'd bring something up at WP:ALBUMS to get a consensus; there are literally thousands of album articles which have the writers in the track listing section, not the credits section. Rfl0216 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rfl0216: Having thousands of albums that do not reflect proper credit to writers is not a good point to make because it appears to done over and over again incorrectly.

Again, the track listing section is not the "credits" section. Its that simple. And again, you cannot elaborate specifics of the writing credit, or for any to an artist or producer in a "track listing" section.

And again, the producers are listed the track listing section AND the Credits section. The only ones that are omitted are the writers. Producers are included in both and the Writers are omitted under both sections, the track listing section and credits section (Why are writers omitted, they have a right to be properly credited the same as producers in the track listing section, If wasn't for the writer, the songs would not exist). Look for yourself.

As for the Commercial performance section, I agree, the other stuff (Billboard) can be placed there if properly drafted. Prose072 (talk)

Unless you can produce a valid reason that why producers are in both, the track listing and credits section, and why the writers are not equally credited the same under the wiki rules, then the writers should be properly credited the same as the producers because without the writers, the lyrical songs or album does not exist. Prose072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rfl0216: After all, works are required to be properly credited and sourced material. And, many publications have references to a source within it and also properly credited in the works cited page. The credits are referenced here like, Exile (Swift, Bowery) within the track listing, but not properly referenced and the same as producers in the credits section (These are basic principles to writing, cite your sources and credit all). Prose072 (talk)

@Prose072: the producers nor writers are credited under the "Credits" section because they are already credited in the "Track listing" section. There’s no need for both, as the "Credits" section focuses more on the instrumental/vocal production, not the producers/writers. Hope this helps!! Doggy54321 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Rfl0216 disagrees with your statement because the below posted definition of "record producer" clarifies what producers are. Also, the conversation on this issue has been moved and Rfl0216 clearly stated in the discussion page the following, "The issue is that on Folklore, Prose072 wants the writers and producers to be listed in the Credits section, not the Track Listing section. They also have pointed out that the producers are already in both sections, which is true. The producers (Dessner and Antonoff) are already in the Credits section because they contributed to the songs as musicians, as well as being producers. Rfl0216 (talk) 6:28 am, Today (UTC−5)" in the other page. Please read what a "record producer" is in the statement and link provided below to better understand. Prose072 (talk)

@Doggy54321: The producers are properly ;listed under both and the writers are not. Prose072 (talk)

@Doggy54321: @Rfl0216: I am posting what a "record producer" actually is because the term producer is being misconstrued and duplicated in the Credits sections for the specifics, unlike the writers,

"A record producer or music producer was once the overseer or operator of a musical act's sound recording and its refinement—roles now typically an audio engineer's—whereas today's record producers, directing or creating the musical sound and song structure, are mainly music composers who arrange the vocal and instrumental contributions while often coaching the musical act.[1][2] (The executive producer instead enables the project by arranging its financing and business partnerships.)

The producer may gather musical ideas or samples, help improve the song's lyrics or instrumentation, hire session musicians, play instruments, cowrite, or even publicly appear by name in the recording. Sometimes doubling as the engineer, the producer may supervise the entire process of creating a finished recording: preproduction, recording, mixing, and perhaps even mastering. For some projects, the producer also chooses all of the recording artists.[3] Music producers are likened to film directors.[2][3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_producer Prose072 (talk)

Current Updates to Needed to the Commercial Performance Section

Concerning the matter above, "William Bowery and other writers (Credits)", the following updates to the Commercial performance section should take place and are listed for improvement while the writers credits issue will be discussed in WP Alums talk page while a consensus is sought.

Issue's to resolve: William Bowery's omitted credits, number 9 debut on Billboard Hot 100 Songwriters Chart, songs credited on Hot 100 debuted at 6 (Exile) and 42 (Betty), and Country Music debut (Betty) at 6 for the week of 8 August 2020, and co-written with Swift.

  • William Bowery and songwriter's credits are omitted from the Credits Section.
  • William Bowery's BMI registered songwriter ID is # 1049706450.

(https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/search/title/Exile/writer/Swift)

  • Pitchfork cannot be sole reference source for "credits" under track listing or credits.

SEE: Album and songwriter milestones on Hot 100 Songwriters Chart Debut for William Bowery at 9, Swift, at 2, and Dessner at 1 in Billboard for the week of 8 August 2020 and the upcoming week continued. Also, the additional Hot 100 Charts with country music (Betty) debut at 6 on Country music charts, and all should also be listed and properly credited SEE https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9429829/aaron-dessner-taylor-swift-rule-hot-100-producers-songwriters-charts-after-folklore-debut

"To Rolling Stone, Dessner reiterated, "He’s a songwriter, and actually because of social distancing, I’ve never met him. He actually wrote the original idea for 'Exile,' and then Taylor took it and ran with it. I don’t actually know to be totally" honest." https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/aaron-dessner-taylor-swift-interview-folklore-1033870/ and https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9424610/who-is-william-bowery-taylor-swift-folklore#:~:text=Speculation%20is%20rampant%20among%20sleuthing,if%20Bowery%20is%20an%20alias.#

  • Also, we cannot use fan speculation that Bowery is Joe Alwyn or others. Although, it is perfectly acceptable to state that it is a pseudonym used as the Artist's name and Bowery appears to be a registered songwriter with BMI and royalty rights are identified (ascap link above)

The violinist from Tampa should also be included under commercial performance and credits, if missing "Violinist's mystery project becomes part of Lakeland recording studio's folklore" (https://www.fox13news.com/news/violinists-mystery-project-becomes-part-of-lakeland-recording-studios-folklore Any new information on historical milestones achieved such as recent Rolling Stone Article in discussion and addition Billboard charts information on album, songs, artist, producers, and Writers (none excluded). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose072 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lakes

Hello,

I think the lakes should be changed from physical bonus track to bonus track because it is now available on YouTube, Apple Music etc, and those are not physical. Also, a deluxe edition was released this morning, so we should think about adding that! Doggy54321 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. agreed. BawinV (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A separate article for “The Lakes”

The song has received distinctive spotlight attention from mainstream media. Several publications, including Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, Elle, have published special critic-pieces on the song. It has also reached No.1 on ITunes in more than 40 countries worldwide (including US iTunes) and is projected to enter the official charts. There is a lot of content on its Background, from Aaron Dessner's Vulture interview. I think The Lakes should have its own Wikipedia article. BawinV (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a possibility of creating other Folklore song articles based off of the sources we will use for "The Lakes"? Doggy54321 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. If you're talking about articles for other tracks, I don't know about that yet. It's possible but the tracks require separate recognition apart from the album. For now, Let's keep this discussion about The Lakes. BawinV (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I was talking about exactly that. But yes, I agree 100% that "The Lakes" deserves an article. Doggy54321 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit made on Folklore (Taylor Swift album), commercial performance section

Hi BawinV (talk · contribs). Thank you for enhancing the content I added. However, I do not agree with the replaced quote. It merely supports the huge sales it garnered in its first week:

'Surprise records seem to bring in a wider amount of people than traditional rollouts,' a source at Apple Music tells Billboard. 'They event-ize releases and people tend to want to be part of those events.' But perhaps as the shock of the new and unexpected wore off, it would recede

Further down the Billboard article, it says: "So how has Folklore managed to hold onto that number one spot longer than any other album since we had a different president?" Billboard narrates the events within those six weeks that probably contributed to the album staying at the top. Although such facts are already found in the Wikipedia page.

I am much inclined to retain "Part of the set's endurance can also be attributed to savvy promotion from Swift and her team." Because the quote was placed on the third paragraph of the section.

What do you think?

--Efe (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Efe:, the whole article is basically a discussion. It presents numerous reasons ascribing the album's #1 run, so I don't find it fair and just to just put one of those reasons in the article, because that feels like cherrypicking. Here are the reasons the article presents:
  • "Surprise records seem to bring in a wider amount of people than traditional rollouts."
  • Surprise releases "event-ize releases and people tend to want to be part of those events".
  • "Timing certainly helps, as does a lack of major competition from subsequent new releases."
  • "It's not just good timing that's kept Folklore at No. 1. In its last three weeks atop the chart, the album is also solidly outperforming how ''Lover was doing at this point in their respective release schedules".
  • "Taylor's ability to write songs for the moment, and to connect with her fanbase."
  • "Savvy promotion from Swift and her team."
  • "Taylor always has a strong creative vision and connects deeply with her fans."
  • Taylor "continues to lean into utilizing all of our available tools to bring her fans into her creative world".
  • "It would also be myopic to deny one of the simplest explanations when accounting for Folklore's continued excellent performance: People really, really like the album. It's Swift's most acclaimed set to date".
  • Folklore "in particular has been very durable. Quality wins out in the end, and this is really good record that sounds great as a whole — and listeners are still engaging with it that way."

There are 10 reasons cited by Billboard explaining the success. Picking the sixth reason alone doesn't feel neutral. In order to establish NPOV, either all the reasons should be mentioned or none of it should be there at all. For these reasons, I personally feel like this particular article/information is undue really. BawinV (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

We could probably enhance rather use the current quote to support her six week at the top. It's wrong to say that because of the surprise release that she got six weeks. OR, you could transfer that quote to the early para. Though that Billboard article would go to waste. There's so much info there. --Efe (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright. How do you suggest we do that? I suggest the following: "Billboard attributed the album's prolonged number-one run to the surprise announcement, timing, savvy promotion, pandemic-friendly songs and Swift's ability to creatively connect with listeners." BawinV (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this. I think this is better. --Efe (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Great! I'll make the changes. Thank you for initiating this discussion. BawinV (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Because we love Taylor. Have a great day. --Efe (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
My issue is on linking that six weesks feat to her releasing it by surprise. Which is not the case here. It presents a whole new story/misinformation. --Efe (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, the article does say that a surprise release attracts a wider audience and "event-izes" the experience for its listeners. However, please do consider the suggestion in my previous reply above. I'd be fine with dropping out the "surprise announcement" from my above-presented example. BawinV (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't say that it was the reason for it to achieve six weeks, or stands as a summary of the many quotes provided above. Would it be fine if we pick some of the reasons provided by Billboard? These are properly cited anyway. --Efe (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

edit warring

Oh, for heaven's sake. Work it out here. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, if a "work it out" was possible, there wouldn't be an issue here. User:Trillfendi broke the 3RR rule. And the fact that they reverted it again to their WP:OR edit just before you locked the article.... I have no words. BawinV (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
BawinV, no one has opened a section on this talk in over a month. No one's even edited here in three weeks. I don't really care who's right and who's wrong. I have zero interest in this subject. I just want editors to start talking instead of reverting. —valereee (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sales

the artist's record label can't be used as a source for sales

Folklore sold two million copies in its first week globally, 1.3 million of which were sold on its first day.

taken from:

Republic Records reported that Folklore sold approximately 1.3 million units worldwide on its opening day and over two million units in its first week.

cc: @BawinV:

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's disputable. But I see like almost all Taylor's articles, editors used bad sources such as Forbes.com (contribuitors) —it's only one example— which is generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. In this article, we can see at least one, and is the reference number 1. I guess, should not be a problem remove that source and give a time to replace that reference with a better one. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where the rule "the artist's record label can't be used as a source for sales" comes from, but anyways, the source is from Variety (magazine), which is a reliable publication, and there are several other publications stating the same, such as NME, Los Angeles Times. Therefore, you can't simply dismiss something as "can't be used" when that something has been published by so many reliable sites. BawinV (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Record labels (WP:Primary source) have marketing and PR departments that send press releases, and those sources you mentioned all cite the record label: "according to Republic Records..." I believe this topic was already discussed on another of her albums' talk page. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The source provided is a not press release. They're all secondary sources (and reliable sources) that confirm the information. BawinV (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
how is "according to Republic Records..." confirming an information? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Why would they quote unreliable false information? Are you telling me multiple reliable publications are quoting wrong information? please. BawinV (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not hard to understand. Republic Records is a record label. Those sources can cite the press releases they put out. Record labels are WP:PRIMARY SOURCES for the record sales of their own artists.
I'd give you an example: Elon Musk said he has sold 1 billion Tesla. Reliable sources say "According to Musk, 1 billion Tesla were sold". You see now? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
And? the theory you're putting forth is your own WP:OR, and not a Wikipedia guideline. For something to be added to wiki, it needs a primary source or multiple secondary sources, and the information you're disputing has all that. There isn't even an issue here. BawinV (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
It is and I explained why, even with an example to make it easier for you... Record labels sell the albums and they are the ones reporting the numbers? I see we won't agree on this topic. Can other users comment? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
“Record labels sell the albums and they are the ones reporting the numbers?” No, that's a theory you propose. You'd make a point if it was just the record label, with no secondary source by music publications; but that's not a case here. There are numerous secondary sources from reputed publications. BawinV (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Caridgan's record

The record IS broken. The source doesn't say that she did break the record for largest streaming day for a song either, and if I can't edit this back, than I will go to an admin report this, cause this not right, and I can clearly see that you guys are a team. x Mirrored7 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: first off, thanks so much for reverting my edit to your talk page, even though I spent 45 minutes trying to point out things that could help you become a better editor. Oh well. Anyways, now that I’m done being sarcastic, how are you gonna report us lol? The source needs to say that Grande broke the record, as I pointed out in that talk page comment. Since the source doesn’t say that, it’s WP:SYNTH. Now: we aren't a team, we are just friends who ask for favours from time to time. I’m assuming you're talking about BawinV and I. We are friends who share similar interests, and have worked closely together for months now. We have also been supporting each other for a month now. It’s a friendship. Even if it wasn’t, you couldn’t report us to an admin for agreeing with each other. You’re the one in the wrong here, you included synthesis of material into an article. We did nothing but revert that synthesis, therefore abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So I don’t get how you will report us to an admin, since there can’t be any repercussions against us. We can’t be blocked if we didn’t do anything wrong. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank for this long paragraph. I didn't know that I was that much worth of your time. Your both clearly a team, I can pretty much see through you guys. Like I said, the source doesn't say that 'Cardigan' broke any record either. So it will be cool if you can revert my edit back - or an admin can look it up. Thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Dynamite is the biggest 2020 song debut on Spotify. Cardigan is biggest 2020 song debut on Spotify by a female artist, and second overall. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/k-pop/music/news/bts-dynamite-beats-taylor-swifts-cardigan-to-record-biggest-spotify-debut-of-2020/articleshow/77713392.cms BawinV (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I knew you'd come with debut now. The debut was not discussed before. You spoke clearly about the period of 24 hours in general. All to just add more irrelevant achievements in the commercial performance section. Mirrored7 (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: please be neutral when discussing topics. No achievement is irrelevant. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mirrored7: You really need to calm down. Unlike you, I abide by the rules, discuss respectfully, and add only sourced, verified content. All your edit summaries and edits show your clear fan bias toward Ariana Grande, and your hatred towards Taylor Swift. Please keep your fan activities outside of Wikipedia, and talk with relevance to this discussion's topic. Before editing, try to learn how to edit on Wikipedia.
Back to the topic, it's not Wikipedia's fault or my fault if you cannot comprehend what's in the prose. The sentence was clearly talking about opening day streams, with regards to the preceding sentence, which is about Folklore's opening day record. It's called Context. Nevertheless, since you don't understand clauses, I've edited the line to further clarify it as "biggest opening day streams". If you really wanted to maintain good faith, you would've added clarity to the sentence by rephrasing it as opening day, but you would rather remove the whole data, and we know why. BawinV (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative covers

Can the existing Target alternative cover be replaced by the new The Long Pond Sessions cover? I feel that the Long Pond cover has a greater importance and recognition than the Target cover now. The k nine 2 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@The k nine 2: I think we should move all the Long Pond stuff (track listing, cover, Infobox etc) to Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions and have it separate from the album. The target cover is of importance as it gives an example of an alternate cover and also the cover used in target. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Doggy54321: Yeah that's probably a better idea to have them separate from this article The k nine 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Kk I'll move them I guess. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Wiki officiall 2020 (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.albumism.com/lists/best-albums-of-2020-index

 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Studios

Recently, studios were removed from Personnel (see here). In Folklore's case, the studio parameter of the infobox didn't name the studios but instead had "Various (see below)" link which diverts to Studios down in the Personnel section. Therefore, I added the studios back to the infobox. My question is, the album liner notes include two categories of studios, "Main recording locations" and "Additional recording locations". I added back only the main ones to the infobox. I wonder if additional recording locations should be included in the infobox too considering the album was recorded there as well? I'd like to here opinions BawinV (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

May I know why studios were removed from the "Personnel" section? (I'd suggest renaming it to "Credits and personnel" so that studios can be logically included). For the infobox, I'd include only main recording studios, HĐ (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@HĐ: They cited WP:PERSONNEL as a reason. "Only report musical and technical personnel who had some direct involvement in the creation of the recording or artwork itself. This can include performers, photographers and graphic artists, painters and illustrators, liner note authors, engineers, producers, audio mixing and mastering specialists, and more." BawinV (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Very well, I didn't know.. In that case, I'd say retaining recording studios only for the infobox. Mixing, mastering etc. studios can be mentioned within the prose. HĐ (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

@BawinV: @Mirrored7: @Doggy54321: I have seen a series of disputes over editing this article. I am not taking stance on any side, and I wish there should be a constructive discussion before proceeding. To note--a discussion should have taken place before this disruptive string of edits happens (yet again). I see Mirrored7 citing puffery as a reason to remove certain information. If so, I would like to see Mirrored7 explaining the issue in-depth here. Since Mirrored7's edit is considered WP:BOLD, it should be of no surprise that your edits are reverted (WP:BRD). However, please note that your edits would be acceptable if you could discuss with persuasive reasons. Should another series of edit disputes happen, this issue should be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ: That specific user (Mirrored7) never gives any constructive edit summary with a reasonable point. Their summaries are like "Omg, this is so much puffery so unbelievable" or like "Well, that's no true" as if things aren't explicitly stated in the source attached. I'm not sure whether they understand what puffery actually is. They've displayed blatant bias in all their edits, and I cannot assume good faith in them. You can go through their contributions and find out that they have NEVER added any information to WP:TAYLOR articles. All they do is just remove existing information, just because they simply dislike Swift (has been evident from many of their edit summaries; to quote one: "we don't have to include that record, Swift is gonna be surpassed anyway") or don't agree with what the source states. I don't think they are aware of any guidelines that Wikipedia stipulates. I quit my attempts at trying to have a civilized conversation with them. They either don't reply (simply ghost) or just remove the discussion I initiate on their talk page. @Doggy54321: has, once again, tried to communicate with Mirrored; no reply from their side. BawinV (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
At this point I’m close to giving up too. I said in my head yesterday while making a comment on their talk page (how many times I get ignored by Mirrored7 would be a fun drinking game, not gonna lie) that I was gonna give them two more chances. I’m pretty sure they already blew both, by reverting my revert to their bold edit on Ariana Grande discography (which I already warned them about, multiple times now), and they haven’t responded to my comments on their talk page, even after they were active. Time for ANI, again. @BawinV: Considering you made a report not even two months ago (December 10, 2020), I’m baffled that Mirrored is still acting in this way. @HĐ: Thank you for trying to initiate dispute resolution. However, Mirrored7 hasn’t responded to a talk conversation since December 11, 2020, and that was for their ANI report. If you look through the history at User talk:Mirrored7, you can see that Mirrored has not responded to any threads since October 2020, yet in that time, Bawin, you and I have left a combined total of nine attempts to reach out to them on their own talk page, and we have gotten no responses. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mirrored7: has made yet another edit on the same topic (here), ignoring this talk discussion, and my query on their user talk, and @Doggy54321:'s new triple attempts at communicating with them. If isn't clear who's the problem by now... I don't know when. BawinV (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@BawinV: I have pinged them, referenced the talk conversation in edit summary, I made two messages on their talk page, and I kid you not, five minutes ago, they reverted my edit without explanation. It’s definitely time for an ANI. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV: my changes are not disruptive at all. As I edited it, I explained why I removed the content in the 'Legacy' and 'Commercial Performance' section. I don't like raining on your parade, but you and @Doggy54321: seem to be Swifties, and that's okay. I like Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande too, but sometimes you have to be objective. All of the Taylor Swift articles appear to have long paragraphs, and they are mostly yours. I don't understand why you have to include every record and chart week on her album articles, when they are already in the sources. And what a listing on the Genius page has to do with the legacy it will have? Like I said, I'm not there to rain on your parade, but only here to say I don't do this to make you mad or start an edit war. I just want to best for any article. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

While it may be true that you were not trying to disrupt, you broke the BOLD-revert-discuss cycle, you started an edit war, and more. While Bawin and I are indeed Swifties, while we edit articles related to Swift, we set our biases aside and we try to edit as neutral as possible. Thank you for leaving this comment, this is the first step to coming to a general consensus. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mirrored7: Every editor is a fan of something. Please don't state something that's obvious. The point is, you must be capable of setting personal interests aside, to edit in a WP:NPOV. I have always been neutral and will always will be; maybe you're projecting your flaws on me. (1) "long" is subjective. You might wanna mail all mainstream media, especially Billboard, to stop detailing chart information about Swift. (2) "I don't understand why you have to include every record and chart week on her album articles, when they are already in the sources", how would when you don't even understand the point of Wikipedia? The source tags exist because of the information added. Not vice versa. It is not anyone's fault that Folklore spent 8 weeks at #1, more than any album in the last 3 years. Wikipedia is not an Internet archive for you to collect sources. The source exist only to verify the information included. It's not my fault that I try to improve Swift articles in all aspects, and make sure it is well-presented. I've also created song articles, contributed to articles of several other artists, and received barnstars from peer editors for my work on WP:TAYLOR (Not saying this to boast, but to show that I've always did my best to improve articles to good quality). Not my fault that articles in your area of interest are poorly written, not expanded or half-baked. You should work on improving them than disrupting Swift's album articles (aka good articles, thanks to the WikiProject's editors). (3) Legacy is any interesting fact about the album's life after its release. Be it retrospective appreciation, popularity of any form in any metric, influencing other artists etc. Folklore topping the year-end list of Genius (a very popular lyrics platform) is a notable information. You're not "raining" on anyone's parade. No one is gonna let you do that here. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. One can study your contributions and figure that all you do is add WP:FANCRUFT to your favourite singer's articles (not even sourced most of the times, heavily fixated to your personal opinions aka WP:OR) while removing verified information from other articles. "I just want best for any article" is very contradicting, because you have never added anything constructive to Swift's articles, who you claim to like (not that it matters when you're editing on Wiki, because it shouldn't), but have written weird edit summaries passing hateful connotations on the very same artist. You have been blocked for edit warring, and you're still continuing that. Please remember that. Regards. BawinV (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Though I agree that Mirrored7 has been disruptive with their behaviours, after examining his edits and rationale, I think the editor has good faith, and certainly has some truth to his words. This article is rather too lengthy and is filled with, at places, indiscriminate information that could be trimmed significantly for better readability. Some examples that I come up with:

  • The "aesthetic and fashion" section begins with a range of characteristic attributes, rustic,[51] unadorned, nature-focused,[67] woodsy,[68] cottagecore[98][104], which could be rewritten so as to incorporate one or two most defining features of the album's art. That is not to mention that these characteristics are not that distant from each other, "rustic" and "cottagecore" can be seen as one, to some extent. The mention of Swift's merchandise (cardigans for sale) is rather trivial. The following comments from various publications regarding the album's reminiscence of old films can also be cut down excessively (I always prefer to write in summary style, cue WP:ROC). I would focus on one or two aspects that made this album's aesthetic notable, in this case, the cottagecore aspect that received widespread commentary. The rest can be thrown out.
  • The "commercial performance" section is too long, making it very hard to navigate. WP:CHARTTRAJ may prove helpful.
  • The "legacy" section appears as a straight-up indiscriminate collection of loosely related information. In the first and second paragraphs, the sentences reiterate how critics/publications viewed this album as a "lockdown masterpiece", which, seriously, can be written in two-three sentences. To mention again, in summary style, it is crucial to summarize all related opinions into a cohesive paragraph without straying into listing each-and-every opinion that does not add substance to the readers' understanding. I could already understand that critics lauded this album as a lockdown masterpiece from the first few sentences. This section also sounds like fancruft as to emphasize this album's importance. I am very dubious whether the last paragraph matters (except for the part discussing Hayley Williams and Phoebe Bridgers taking inspiration from this album).

Have not examined the article thoroughly, but judging from its current status, I believe it is of no harm that many bits of info be cut down, to assist flow and readability. HĐ (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ: Yes, I do agree that some paragraphs need to trimmed to make them crisp and easy to navigate. BawinV (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@HĐ: Apart from cottagecore, the cardigan was also discussed by many publications. No, it's not just merchandise. The piece is featured in the the music video for "Cardigan", and in the photoshoot, which led to an increase in sales of Aran sweaters. BawinV (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Those are just my two cents, as I myself am not very familiar with the details of the article. As long as a subject is discussed by a significant amount of publications, and is of relevance/importance to this album, then I'm happy with its inclusion. Just make sure the article flows smoothly and is concise. 02:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Singles of Folklore and Evermore

Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles states: "Do not add specialty- or limited-release singles, such as those supplied to radio stations" as Singles. Now that I come across this, I don't know why we have included tracks serviced to radio (such as "Exile" and "No Body, No Crime") as Singles in Folklore and Evermore? Can editors confer their opinions here? BawinV (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that both "Exile" and "No Body, No Crime" were both referred to as regular singles, and not as promotional ones. In my own opinion, these songs should be kept. The wording of that section is also weird, as to me those supplied to radio stations means that all singles played on the radio are promotional. Thanks. TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 00:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@TheCartoonEditor: Can you tell me where those two were referred to as singles? I don't find the wording weird, because it's from a Billboard source, and Billboard didn't call them singles anywhere in the article. BawinV (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Billboard does call them "six singles" here. BawinV (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel like the guideline is rather outdated. In the past, certain promo singles are released to specific radio stations, in addition to 7-inch single or 12-inch single formats. Nowadays since music is widely distributed online, radio is often an indicator of single release (only if it is reported by All Access/Billboard etc., of course). HĐ (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

TLGAD single

The Last Great American Dynasty was released as a single in Belgium (and possibly other countries?) on December 11, 2020. This link,(https://www.ultratop.be/fr/song/1f21a2/Taylor-Swift-The-Last-Great-American-Dynasty), shows the release date and this link, (http://web.archive.org/web/20210111181306/https://www.ultratop.be/fr/nouveautes/tracks), shows that it was announced as a new single release. It seems that it may have been the "Long Pond Studio Sessions" version, but I still think it should be listed on this page given that the Bad Blood remix is listed on the 1989 page. Thanks. 2601:180:8200:63D0:58F5:6639:7F4D:3847 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Charting on a chart doesn't make a song a single, because album tracks can chart too. And the same goes for radio, getting played on radio ≠ single. We need a source/press report saying the song has been released to radio by a label. BawinV (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Please actually look at the sources; the first one said it was a *single release* from Republic Records on December 11, and regular album tracks are only listed as part of the album release. The second source shows new single releases in the country, also not just album tracks. 2601:180:8200:63D0:ADBA:582A:8C49:45E4 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I saw the sources (I don't find them verifiable ) and I don't think I agree. Nowhere in the source provided it says that TLGAD was released by a certain label to a certain radio format. We just can't assume it's a single just because radio picked it up. If it was a single, I'm pretty sure Universal Music would have released a statement like they did in the case of "The 1". "Gorgeous" played on UK radio and charted on the UK Singles chart but has been listed as a "promotional single" only, under a consensus that there wasn't any verifiable source. If anything, TLGAD should be listed as a promotional single. Nevertheless, I'd like to hear what others editors have to say on this. BawinV (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promo single per BawinV. All the songs on Folklore charted, therefore charting ≠ single. As well, "Coney Island" and "Willow" were on that list, too, so whatever consensus is made here needs to affect those pages too (e.g. If we decide that TLGAD is a promo single, then we could say "'Coney Island' was released as a promotional single on Dec 11, and was sent to radio on Jan 18 as an official single"). Furthermore, the page lists several songs from several different artists, so I have a really hard time believing the radio station pushed all of these songs to become singles on the same day. "Gorgeous" is a great example. It was played on the radio, but wasn’t promoted/pushed as a single. Same thing here. Given that the Bad Blood remix is listed on the 1989 page - thanks for reminding me, I need to start a discussion on that. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Hung Medien sources like Ultratop.be or similar sites are reliable for chart data, but I am not very sure about its usage as a verification for single release. At most, it could have been released as a promo single. HĐ (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Article creation for "Seven" and "August" (RfC)

From my personal view, I think the songs "Seven" and "August" from Folklore are notable for standalone articles. These songs have charted rather highly on the U.S. charts top 40 (I know that chart positions alone do not make them notable per WP:NSONGS, but top 40 entries are something quite remarkable). I am quite dubious about whether they satisfy being the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. For "Seven", there is a very good and detailed article published on PopMatters. For "August", there are two articles on the love triangle published on Vulture and Entertainment Weekly. Apart from that, coverage of the songs are mostly limited to album reviews. They are, however, often singled out as the album's best tracks (LATimes and NPR to name a few). As notability is subjective, I am uncertain whether standalone articles for these songs should be created. HĐ (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they both look notable enough, in my opinion. BawinV (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

I want to note that I want to (and possibly will) clean up this article, which means that a lot of information which is rather fancruft-y or overtly detailed will be removed. I want to note in advance in case anybody mistakes my edits for bad faith. And of course, anyone is welcomed to join in the process. HĐ (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I have started with the lead, where I made the following edits:
  • More information regarding the album's conception incl. title, artwork, inspirations.
  • Less weight on the singles' success (they have their own articles)
  • Straightforward wordings (avoid terms such as "various", "many", "multiple" as they are bad writing)
  • Summed up the album's revolutionary impact with one sentence, which is enough for the lead. HĐ (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On another note, I intend to switch places for "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance", as the commercial performance is often accompanied by the "Release and promotion" section, thus the lead rearrangement. HĐ (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the proposed changes are appropriate and don't seem to remove any critical items from the article or show any bias toward any particular issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

I request that the rating from Medium be removed from the Critical reception page, as ratings from this site are not included in the Critical reception pages of any other albums, and the site’s rating is not included in the calculation of the Metascore or the AnyDecentMusic? score for the album. I also request that the rating from the Guardian be restored, as this is a highly prevalent news source and is always featured in the reception chart for albums. Storybooktiles19 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, neither Medium nor God Is in the TV are more relevant sources than The Guardian. Storybooktiles19 (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank You. It is done. BawinV (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done by BawinV in this edit. EN-Jungwon 07:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Article needs splitting

The current article size is 250 KB, well beyond the 100 kB prose limit which WP:TOOBIG states it indicates that it "almost certainly should be divided." Given sections that are long to the point of unreadable, like "Songs", "Writing and recording", "Accolades", "Commercial performance", plus the coverage we haven't even added yet, like on its recording and actual production plus the many other reviews it has, I am declaring this article be heavily split into other articles. Every track should definitely have its own article given that "Writing and recording" prominently deals with the making of specific songs, plus many of the non-single ones got on year-end lists and charted at least in Australia and Portugal, plus there's the opinion of specific songs in reviews, of course. I think the article's list of accolades and awards should be its own article given how many there are. I think the critical reception, commercial performance, and legacy section should have its own article named "Reception of Folklore", cause there's so f---ing much it deserves its own article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

250kb is the entire article. I don't have the WP:PROSESIZE tool (I'm on mobile, so a lot of things don't work for me anyways), but it breaks down the article and tells you the size of a bunch of things, including readable prose. We only need to split the article if the readable prose size is >100kb, so I don't agree on a split just yet, until someone can collect that data and prove that the readable prose is over 100kb. Regardless, I do think more song articles should be created. All the songs charted on multiple charts, and I'm pretty sure there is significant coverage on every last one of them by now, nine months after release. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Removing text in an attempt to reduce size to below 100KB could lead to omitting key information, so please be cautious with any removals/splits. People shouldn't blindly adhere to a size limit when that can sometimes make pages incomplete. Before separating any content into subarticles, one could try to summarize/consolidate some details first. Just be sure the major aspects are preserved. I don't see how commercial performance would fit into a "Reception" article when that's a separate matter from whether critics liked the album. As for accolades, creating another page for what Folklore received would feel redundant we already have List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If the article is ever being split, I suggest we create an article titled "Accolades received by Folklore", which could include all the year-end lists and awards and nominations, reducing the article's size greatly. This move was performed for A Star is Born as well. BawinV (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Instead of splitting off content, perhaps a good copyedit would help. Rfl0216 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

Add Joe Alwyn as a producer under all relevant sections. He was added as a producer under tracks 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 14. I have already edited the existing song pages to reflect this, but as this article is semi-protected I cannot yet edit it myself. You can view the source for Joe Alwyn's credit at https://listen.tidal.com/album/149678928/credits, which is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20210424035501/https://listen.tidal.com/album/149678928/credits. MidnightMorgan (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Added the sources and updated the credits. BawinV (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

year-end list too long

Can the year-end list be in a collapsible format? I'm using a desktop browser and there is no collapsing option. It is too long and scrolling down past it takes too much time, making the article difficult to read. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the suggestion. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 21:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@TheCartoonEditor: arrow Reverted per MOS:DONTHIDE. There are multiple ways for readers to navigate around the year-end lists if they don't want to see them, such as collapsing the entire Critical reception section, going to a specific section, just scrolling past the information (which takes all of two seconds to do so), etc. We don't hide information just because it's a pain to scroll through. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi D🐶ggy54321. I have requested this edit, that you reverted. First thing, I don't see any option for collapsing the entire section on my browser. Second, "going to a specific section" only works when you already know what of the article you want to read; a user may want to read the whole article from the beginning, which means that when they get to the year-end list they have no way of skipping it (other than scrolling) unless they go back to the page index at the top (or they have access to the "hide" option that you mentioned - which I don't see). Third, scrolling may take two seconds for you, but is this the case for every user or device? What about people with motor disabilities? Or people using devices where scrolling is not that easy? MOS:LONGSEQ suggests to "keep lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope" and, if this is not applicable, to split the list into a new article. WP:SPLITLIST suggests a similar thing: "if there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page". However, I haven't found any policy regarding the use of collapsible lists. If there is one please point me to it. Otherwise I think that your revert is not justified --78.148.25.46 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
After reading MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, I don't see any policy against the use of collapsible tables. MOS:PRECOLLAPSE says that "auto-collapsed" (or "pre-collapsed") content is to avoid for accessibility reasons, but tables that can be collapsed at the user's option are allowed ("though elements such as tables can be made collapsible at the reader's option"). Even WP:NOTHIDDEN, that you mentioned in your revert summary, does specify that it applies only to 'auto-collapsing' content. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Doggy54321: Ah, alright. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 21:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about splitting the article, but until then, I think we can make an exception in Folklore's case as per WP:BRAR. Making the list collapsible will aid navigation and reading. I'm reverting Doggy's edit. BawinV (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, looks like the requester performed the edit. Cool. BawinV (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts) Maybe the collapsible sections are only for mobile, which is what I edit on. You can go to a specific section at any time. There are multiple ways to do this. You could click on a link that takes you to a specific section (usually formatted like [[Folklore (Taylor Swift album)#Track listing]], which gives you Folklore (Taylor Swift album)#Track listing), you could click on the table of contents at the beginning of the article, you could edit the URL to point to a specific section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)#Track_listing ), there are lots of ways around this. Onto your scrolling point, there are many tables, such as the awards and nominations table, various track listings, the release history, and the year-end publications, on this page. I'm going to make an educated guess and say that the percentage of people who want to read every single table every single time they read this pretty low. But, that does not mean the information is not valid information that is important to the article and should be included. When we place a collapse tag on content, it hides the information for users who may want to see it. Adding on, toggling collapsible content is not something us mobile readers (who account for majority of Wikipedia readers) have the option to do. Something is either not collapsed or collapsed for us, we have no choice. LONGSEQ and SPLITLIST's suggestions don't apply here since it simply does not make sense to split this one table into a new article. Update: I cannot see the year-end list table anymore, and I assume the other 60% of Wikipedia readers cannot see it either. Maybe it's just me, but I have never been able to see collapsible content, whether that be navboxes, the {{hidden}} things on tour pages, and now this. But, this could just be a me problem. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestions about how to go to a specific section are not relevant to the example I brought up in my previous comment. A user reading halfway through the article would have to go back to the top to access the table of contents (and at this point, they would instead just scroll down past the year-end table). Also links to specific sections, as mentioned by you, are also not a solution (users don't have access to them in the middle of articles). Finally, editing the URL is almost hilarious, since it is probably the most impractical suggestion... imagine having to do that on mobile, lol. You also mention that the article has many other tables and lists, which is true. However, their length is still reasonable in my opinion - nowhere near the size of the year-end lists. About the validity of the table' content (which I didn't question), if the content is notable and sourced then it should definitely be on Wikipedia; at the same time, accessibility is important too. Creating a separate page for the year-end lists could be a solution. Many works, such as albums or films, have pages dedicated to their awards and accolades - a similar page for this album's awards and year-end lists seems appropriate to me. Please, explain why it does not make sense to you. Considering that you are experiencing issues with the table now that it's (optionally) collapsable, then I guess it makes even more sense to create a separate page. In this way, there are no accessibility issues for anyone. One last thing, do you have a source for the claim about the majority of Wikipedia readers using mobile devices? 78.148.25.46 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I edit URLs on mobile every day, you get used to it. As explained above, a discussion about the article being split is ongoing. I do not think the article needs to be split, but there is some information that does not need to be included. I do think due and undue weight needs to be heavily considered before splitting. As previously said, mobile viewers don't get to toggle, so it is either visible or not visible to us, no toggling. By the way, I have figured out that it is just me (for the "Year-end lists" at least), so I have no idea where that came from. But, once I troubleshoot this, it will show up, and I will have no way to toggle if it is shown or hidden, so hiding the content doesn't completely solve the problem. MOS:DONTHIDE states: When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the greater than 60% of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site,[s] which has a limited set of features. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

New article for "Invisible String"

Can someone create an article for "Invisible String"? I think it is notable enough [2] [3] and was selected as one of the best songs of 2020 by NPR [4].

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

In the Background section, change "the fastest turnaround for a Swift studio album," to "the fastest turnaround for a Swift studio album at the time," (as Evermore was released 5 months later). 2620:6E:6000:3100:38F9:9C35:4E51:614D (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)/Archive_1&oldid=1136732769"