Jump to content

Talk:Red (Taylor's Version)

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

Italicize

[edit]

The album title is Red (Taylor's Version), not just "Red (Taylor's Version)". The whole title should be italicized as per WP:ALBUM. Someone please perform the move? BawinV (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BawinV: I added the same template that is used at Fearless (Taylor's Version) to italicize the whole title, and it looks like it is working. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321: Thank You! I wasn't aware of the template and that it was that easy! XD BawinV (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: You're welcome! I think {{Infobox album}} only italicizes stuff outside of brackets (which makes sense for something like Red (Taylor Swift album)), so using this template forces all the characters in the title to be italicized. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklisting

[edit]

@Doggy54321, BawinV, In my opinion, I feel like we should add the tracklisting to the album. We all know that she is re-recording almost the entire album with unreleased tracks, so, yeah! One thing tho. If we ever do add it, We should only add tracks 1-19 and track 22, as those are the tracks that are most likely going to be re-recorded. The demos for Red and Treacherous are probably unknown to be re-recorded, and about track 22, which is a acoustic version of State Of Grace, is also mostly gonna be re-recorded as well, as Taylor re-recorded the piano version of F&A. What do y’all think?DuaLipaFan23951 (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuaLipaFan23951: I would definitely say to wait for now. For Fearless (Taylor's Version), pre-orders, complete with a track listing, were made available alongside the announcement, so that is why we added the track listing right away. Reliable sources were also reporting the track listing. For Red, neither of these things happened. Since we have no way of confirming the placements of the tracks (for example, who says "All Too Well (Taylor's Version)" will be track five?), we should definitely refrain from having a "Track listing" section. As far as a "Confirmed tracks" section, I would also oppose the addition of that, as we have no confirmation that the tracks will be on the album, so including them would literally contradict the section header. I know it sounds silly, but when it comes to relatively new pages that are gaining a lot of page views, it is best to not ignore WP:NOR and just wait for confirmation. Even with your comment, you said most likely. There are a lot of unknowns, so I think it would be best to leave it for now. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Doggy54321. I suppose we wait. We have lots of time (6 more months to go). BawinV (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PopLizard86427: Now that the vault track titles and preorders have been made available, I have started a track listing section with the titles of tracks 21-30, since those tracks and their placements have been confirmed. The placements for tracks 1-20 (whatever they might be) are not confirmed yet, so I haven't added those. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great! So excited for this re-recording! 😀 Thanks for telling! PopLizard86427 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I've noticed that Red (Taylor's Version) doesn't seem all that notable right now. For one, all the sources not directly related to the subject don't count towards notability, so that excludes refs 1, 4-14 and 16, leaving us with nine references (2, 3, 15 and 17-22). However, primary references (ref 22) and sources related to the announcement ("this topic exists" sources, aka refs 2, 3, 15, 17 and 18) don't count towards significant coverage either, so that leaves us with ref 19, ref 20 and ref 21, all three of which aren't even about the album as a whole. Ref 19 is about "Everything Has Changed", and refs 20 and 21 are about the artwork. So, I don't understand why this page is independent. I think merging into Red (Taylor Swift album) (similar to what we did for Fearless (Taylor's Version)) is a good option until more is known about the album, such as the track listing, vault tracks and pre-orders. I would like to hear others' opinions on this instead of being bold, as I don't think that would be a good use of everyone's time. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BawinV, Nahnah4, Rfl0216, Peterpie123rww, Arivgao, YOÜ AND I baby, and SNUGGUMS, all the editors who have made at least two constructive edits to this page, for their opinions on this. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence when I first saw this page, but now that you delve into the references like that, I agree merging is best for now at least until further details come along. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is my opinion on this merger proposal. BawinV (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion either. Fine with both. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 14:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The track listing, vault tracks and pre-orders are all available now, and enough articles have appeared online to confirm's the album's notability. And I'm going to make the bold move of shifting the article here, since it's also hindering the Featured Article Nomination of Red (2012). BawinV (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still question the notability. We all know Swift is loaded and definitely could’ve bought the masters. We also know Taylor LOVES to play the victim. So why buy the Masters when you can get the easily influenced and sheep like Swifties to believe Scott and Scooter are evil and bullying is okay? Oldesheepdogginne (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all of that is true, that doesn't make it any less notable. Even if she said publicly "I could buy my masters back, but I'm just doing this to extort my fans and to get them to bully people", that doesn't effect the notability of this article. Just because you question her motives, that doesn't mean that this article is any less notable. --LivelyRatification (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're a troll; but if you're actually interested in learning about what "notability" means, check WP:N out. Regards. Ronherry (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The account "Oldesheepdogginne" is a sockpuppet of User:Smallmouthbassboost. Will be reporting to sockpuppet investigation. Raritydash (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing (2CD)

[edit]

The current track listing is the 2-CD version. Shouldn't we include the digital version instead? Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing Spring 2022 N1

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmaweiss078 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kkl0428.

"All Too Well"

[edit]

Guys I think we should consider "All Too Well" as a single.

  • It was released to radio.
  • It was performed live three times.
    • One of those performances is available for digital download, an independent release.
  • The studio recording has an independent release.
  • She recorded an acoustic version, an independent release.
  • It came up in both of the interviews she did to promote the album.
  • It has its own short film.
    • The audio from that is also available as an independent release.

Suffice to say she hasn't promoted a song this heavily in a long time. Tree Critter (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tree Critter Yeah 2A02:908:4E0:7000:725B:4572:D8E2:AE67 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on genres

[edit]

Should country be kept in the infobox? InsiderChiari (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think country should be removed from the infobox because the vast majority of sources call Red (Taylor's Version) a pop album.

AllMusic "Red [Taylor's Version] finds Taylor Swift revisiting her self-styled pop breakthrough Red."

The Guardian "Swift re-records the 2012 album on which she first embraced synth-pop," "2012's Red is one half some of the greatest pop songs of all time – I Knew You Were Trouble is the rare pop-EDM crossover that still stands up, the chorus drops hitting like bratty stomps of frustration at her own naivety; We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together is a euphoric cheerleader chant so ingratiating you wonder how nobody came up with it before – and one half schmaltzy stuffing, including collaborations with Ed Sheeran and Snow Patrol’s Gary Lightbody."

The Independent "Taylor Swift review, Red (Taylor's Version) – A better, brighter version of a terrific pop album," "'Red' was the album on which the former country singer threw herself into the shimmering arms of pop."

The Line of Best Fit "Taylor Swift's reworking of Red finds even more magic in her pop blueprint," "In anyone else's hands, 30 tracks might feel bloated and indulgent, but Swift tempers length with careful curation, sequencing and a respect for what made the original Red such a superb pop record."

The New Zealand Herald "Beyond the singles is early evidence of Swift's crossover into pop music stardom."

Pitchfork "After a three-album progression away from country, she revealed the extent of her pop ambition, calling in producers Max Martin and Shellback—Swedish heavy-hitters who had sent Britney Spears and P!nk up the charts—to cue the synths and drop the bass."

Rolling Stone "...the new Red is even bigger, glossier, deeper, casually crueler. It's the ultimate version of her most gloriously ambitious mega-pop manifesto."

Yes, MTV called Red (Taylor's Version) "a country album at its core," but when you have seven sources calling the album pop, it is clear that the primary genre of the album is pop. --InsiderChiari (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to start an RfC but no one discusses? Also, writing "music critics described it as a classic pop-country record" is just completely incorrect and fabricated, music critics described it as the pop album that it is and MTV (not a music critic?) called it country.--InsiderChiari (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InsiderChiari: Firstly, before addressing the topic, I need to let you know that you do not have to lash out on editors just because you did not get responses so far. Be respectful. Have patience. There is no hurry. Nobody is obligated to respond to you immediately. We are equals here. Secondly, this is not the way to organize an Rfc. Agreeing with Vaulter's downsizing move, this is now a standard discussion. Read WP:RFC for more. Now coming to the point, majority of publications calling XYZ an ABC album does not nullify the fact that the minority calls it a PQR album. The majority opinion does not delete the existence of minority views. As per WP:N, the diverse spectrum of opinions must be displayed in the article as accurately as possible. Therefore, we assign an order of preference to the opinions. Be it a genre or critical review, the majority factoid appears first, followed by the minority factoid. In this case, Pop appears vastly, hence "Pop" places first on the list of genres and the lead, followed by "Country". This has already been discussed several times with the 2012 album for a decade and the consensus has already been reached to keep country second. I suggest you study those Rfcs. You re-opening this is futile, because honestly editors are tired of this same topic. We are tired of genre warriors, and your editing history also looks borderline genre-warrior-ish. Please take care of that. Also, MTV is a reliable journalistic source for music. Journalism is a valid source for critical reception and genres. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 09:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for coming off aggressively, but I am confused as to why a genre supported by one source should be placed next to a genre supported by seven. Isn't it standard for albums to exclude genres that are significantly less sourced? Also, I am not sure which part of WP:N pertains to this discussion because it seems that page is just about whether or not a topic deserves its own article. Per WP:DUE, shouldn't we go with the majority? Looking at the rfcs, I am still confused as to how it was decided country should be added. It seems to be because country elements were noted on some of the songs, and Spin put it on their best country albums of 2012 list (which was very much likely only because it was marketed as a country album), even though that same website has called the album pop in other instances? Surely this is not equivalent to the numerous sources explicitly labeling it as a pop album. Also I don't see how discussing this is pointless just because editors are "tired" of this topic last discussed 3 years ago and because a consensus was reached already. The consensus can change clearly because the first consensus agreed on pop being the only genre. Additionally, this is a separate album so I don't see how the consensus for the 2012 album applies here. I just don't see why country should be listed here when so many critics described it as her moving into pop music, especially considering even Speak Now was considered to be mostly pop by some. InsiderChiari (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even answer or reply to talk pages. Not sure about the other points you "make". Infactinteresting (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certain edits

[edit]

A particular editor is changing edits. Hoping we could discuss them. For example you don't acquire nominations, you receive them.Infactinteresting (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Taylor Swift
Taylor Swift
  • Source: "Speaking of Taylor Swift, we must thank her for originating the season. Last November, the singer-songwriter put a name to “Sad Girl Autumn” when she released a re-recorded version of her album Red" (The Independent)
Improved to Good Article status by Ippantekina (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Ippantekina (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article was promoted to GA and nominated here within the relevant window. Article is long enough and has no copyvio concerns. Hook is sourced appropriately but I would recommend removing the inline attribution to The Independent. One reason is that the article is by a writer with The Independent (rather than an editorial by The Independent). Additionally, the claim that Red (Taylor's Version) spurred "Sad Girl Autumn" is not exclusive to Meredith Clark's article in The Independent. I would recommend altering it to read "that the Taylor Swift album Red (Taylor's Version) was credited with creating the 'Sad Girl Autumn' popular culture phenomenon?" Otherwise, outstanding work. Looking forward to approving upon reply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_(Taylor%27s_Version)&oldid=1239172892"