Talk:The Tortured Poets Department

"Post-release" commentary

The album came out less than three months ago; it's odd to me the article has a significant line in the lead and a separate subsection in the reception section devoted to essentially a "reappraisal" of critical reaction when there hasn't been enough time for there to be a substantial reappraisal and there's not the kind of more authoritative sources out there to lend credence to that interpretation. I would say at first blush the initial critical reception period hasn't even ended (I also think the article runs into POV issues by essentially burying discussion of the release as polarizing after discussing the general reception.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there's definitely a POV issue there. The reappraisals are very real, but they caveat the earlier reviews far too greatly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple album variants

There have been repeated efforts to remove any reference to the role of multiple album variants in the massive commercial success of this album. This element of the album has received far more sustained coverage than almost any other element of TTPD and has played a crucial role in Swift securing such incredible longevity on the sales charts. The recent release of a study of such variant albums further clarifies the significance they have, so restricting mention of their impact to a single sentence seems unusual. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Other artists also release multiple variants too though, right? This appears to be an industry norm and just an exclusively 'Taylor Swift thing' or even a 'TTPD thing'. House1090 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's an increasingly industry-wide trend, but Swift's embrace of the practice was comparatively early and remains notably significant, particularly for TTPD. The facts that TTPD has been released in dozens of variants and that these variants greatly contributed to album sales are necessary to include in comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage of the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Your edit summary again removing the reliably sourced content on this is a bit confusing. Are you of the opinion that the number of variants that an album was released in, a major element of its commercial success, and a comparison to contemporary releases from the same artist are all irrelevant? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Yes, they stray away from the main topic of this article that is the album itself. If anything, those bits of information constitute WP:NOTNEWS ("routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage"), WP:INDISCRIMINATE ("merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"), and do not meet the criterion 3b of WP:GA? ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I mean... K-pop releases since 2020, Swift's other albums, explanation of how 1,500 song downloads = 1 album unit? Seriously? Ippantekina (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this argument is extremely unconvincing. We presently devote three massive paragraphs in an independent subsection to a reappraisal of reviews (a subsection that is largely about Swift's public perception). This reappraisal only occurred within a handful of months from the album's release. This critical reappraisal then gets its own mention in the lead. And yet a marketing strategy that responsible for much of the album's commercial success—and has been how much of the album's bonus material has been release—gets two sentences (including one that you previously deleted without explanation and another you attempted to substantially abbreviate). I would contend that the persistent unwillingness to include mention of the album variants reflects a significant NPOV issue. A single, short paragraph that is well sourced to contextualize TTPD with Swift's recent releases and the industry more broadly is absolutely relevant. Please also remember the previous review by uninvolved editors overwhelming demonstrated the relevancy of this aspect of the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Let's more thoroughly analyze your arguments:

• WP:NOTNEWS: This is not routine coverage. The NYT piece is by Ben Sisario, a well-respected culture reporter, that is cited elsewhere in the article and serves as an in-depth analysis of Swift's expanding practice releasing of album variants. The Variety piece is similarly not routine coverage by any stretch of the imagination, instead covering the practice of variant albums with substantial emphasis on Swift. It utilizes data from a recent Luminate report, making it substantially more academic and independent than many of the other references utilized (as opposed to, say, this from a Spotify-owned subsidiary cited to contradict multiple reviews from premier RSs).
• WP:INDISCRIMINATE: This is a fascinating argument. If you want to make the case that a practice discussed in innumerable RS articles over a multi-month period ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and occasionally the subject of criticism is merely indiscriminate, maybe you should elaborate on how subjective appraisals are less indiscriminate.
• 3b of WP:GA?: You seem awful concerned with the inclusion of contextualizing details–how a practice has recently exploded, how Swift has gradually adopted it, and what its implications are–that would almost certainly be necessary for an article to pass FA. It's also interesting that you mention GA, considering the article was approved in the midst of instability and with a statement in the lead that is not supported in the body (Its songs made Swift the first artist to monopolize the first 14 positions of the Billboard Hot 100, with the lead single "Fortnight" at the top).

Concede this point; Wikipedia is about collaboration, and I'm an experienced enough editor to recognize an article's blindspots. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I care about including information that is directly relevant to this album, TTPD, and its context. You are rationalizing including remotely relevant info--how would you explain the relevance between K-pop albums and Swift's other albums to this album's commercial success--I'm still not seeing this being properly explained of how this would constitute a better understanding of the subject matter that is the album, when the Variety source you cited basically examined an industry-wide practice? "I'm an experienced enough editor to recognize an article's blindspots" I can say the same about myself. The refs you included are already cited in prose btw. Ippantekina (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all the refs I provided are included, and those that are have been relegated to short, contextless comments while single pieces of commentary from non-notable critics receive multi-sentence coverage. If you're confused about why the mention of broader industry trends is relevant, note that these articles primarily about Swift's release of album variants each provide such additional context. A brief mention of the broader trend of variant albums serves the same purpose of the entire background section, but in narrower and more succinct fashion. It provides a better understanding of the precedent for Swift's decision to release over 30 versions of the same album, preventing a reader from believing she is the sole artist to embrace the practice. Your persistent removal and minimization of sourced content—even after the relevance and neutrality of the content was established at RSN—is not justified by policy or consensus. I'm inclined to forward this article to NPOV/N, considering the concerns raised by multiple editors. However, I would prefer we settle things here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: A courtesy ping. I'm sure you have this on your watchlist but a few bots have been doing good work around here and probably obscured that I had replied. Please let me know if you'd prefer a third opinion. I'll be traveling middle of this week, so apologies if I'm unavailable. ~ 05:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the muzzling of the topic is unusual, but we must remember the militant muzzling of negative opinions towards Swift by Swifties who in turn edit these pages. Cyrlpartner (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: realizing I probably didn't actually even ping you with that. Apologies if it did work and this is just an annoying double-ping, but I'm fairly certain I bungled my initial ping here. If you provide no response, it's all good, but I'll probably swing this by NPOV/N. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I opened an NPOV/N discussion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Here from NPOV/N. The comment up above: Swift's embrace of the practice was comparatively early and remains notably significant, particularly for TTPD, really seems like the crux of the issue here. Can this be verified explicitly with a reliable source so we're not just speculating? Pbritti, you've provided several sources that mention it, but that just shows that it's true, not that it's significant. Look at the sources to see if they consider it important and they explain why it's special for this album relative to other ones. If that doesn't exist, then trim it down to one or two sentences so the basic fact is there without giving it undue importance. The other thing is that this is moving toward Wikipedia:Coatrack articles#The Flea. The bit about how the practice of variants comes from Kpop is almost certainly irrelevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Yes, the comment I listed can be sourced (see the aforementioned sources, particularly the Variety piece). However, I think you're straying a bit: the point isn't to source Swift's embrace of the practice was comparatively early and remains notably significant, particularly for TTPD, it's to incorporate the overwhelming emphasis reliable sources have placed on the album variants but is inexplicably mentioned only in passing on the article. Thanks for popping by, by the way. Glad you're hanging around hope for the best with Military dictatorship (the article, not the concept)! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@Ronherry: Would you like to elaborate on what POV you're referring to here with Stop being disruptive; it is quite clear you're forcing an overemphasis on a fact to push a POV. Separately, and I think this is wholly unrelated, do you want to include the modifier "career-" before "record"? That modifier seems unnecessary, as my understanding is that this album holds the world record, rather than just being Swift's personal high-water mark. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several flaws in your understanding of this and your edits. Firstly, the record you're talking about is for the Billboard 200. It is a US chart. Not a global chart. Hence, it is a US record. Not the "world record". I do get it that music articles are not your specialty, but please familiarize yourself with how WikiProject Music articles are written, the sources, the norm for the lead's structure, the due and undue facts etc. Finally, a personal record for an artist would be called a "career-best", not a "career-record"; the latter is not even a real term. You'd know if you're a reader of music journalism. ℛonherry☘ 22:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ronherry: Deeply uncivil response. Anyhow, it's odd, then, that you reinserted the term. Additionally, my familiarity with this sort of article is greater than you give me credit for. Given that the chart-topping record is repeatedly referenced as largely the result of multiple variants—something you vainly attempted to delete for POV reasons—I'm increasingly convinced that you might be a tad too interested in presenting what you consider a positive article on this album. You have repeatedly demonstrated ownership behavior to that end and accusing me of disruption without basis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The last line of your above response here is exactly contradicting the point you're trying to make in your response. Anyway, I'm going to stick to the topic. "Given that the chart-topping record is repeatedly referenced as largely the result of multiple variants" is your personal observation, unsupported by reliable sources and supported only by speculation, which is rather more prominent on the social media fandom spheres. Billboard, the authority that draws and releases the Billboard charts, says "Even if Poets had not sold a single digital album in the latest tracking week, it still would have been No. 1 on the Billboard 200." Having read all your arguments so far, to me it looks like you do not care much about what the actual sources that breakdown/report the figures have to say but rather how you can push a POV onto an encyclopaedic article using flash-news sources that merely report internet reactions to the album's chart trajectory. ℛonherry☘ 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you consider this flash-news sources that merely report internet reactions. Ironically, the quoted statement from Billboard helps confirm the role of multiple variants, as the release of multiple limited-edition physical media versions has been a major contribution to the chart success. This is a trend discussed in multiple RSs. Your incivility both towards me and other editors as well as ownership in this subject area is unacceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What about this from NPR? Or this from Billboard? Both explicitly cite the release of variants—digital and physical—as significantly contributing to the charting positions. Maybe it's just because I don't understand Wikipedia guidelines articles on Taylor Swift, but I'm fairly certain that we follow what reliable sources say rather than excluding them because someone on Twitter also mentioned them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the chart position isn't solely due to the variants. See the latest Billboard chart for example [9] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jessintime: You're misreading the report. For this single week, digital variants played a marginal role. However, physical variants were significant; see the preceding week's Billboard report that notes the significant role of variants. The NPR story I linked above does likewise. Cherry-picking/misinterpreting one source (especially an arguably involved one) does not overturn a multiplicity of independent sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not misreading anything. I just don't think the multiple variants comment is necessary for the lede, for reasons that have already been given. Billie Eilish and Kanye West both released multiple variants of their albums, why don't you try and jam that into their ledes? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because this album's performance on the charts is consistently reported as largely due to an unusual number of variants, with twice as many as Eilish's most recent release. If you believe that the article deserves the critical reappraisal (which occurred within four months of the album's release) in the lead, than the mention of album variants (which has received more sustained and similarly broad coverage) also merits inclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"this album's performance on the charts is consistently reported as largely due to an unusual number of variants" is not true. That is your original research. ℛonherry☘ 21:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What's an imperative songwriting project

In the lead, what on earth does the sentence, "She conceived The Tortured Poets Department as an imperative songwriting project amidst the heightened fame and media scrutiny ensuing from the tour." mean? My best guess is that she felt she had to write it, but this is more fanzine promotional language than ordinary English. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed... WP:FANCRUFT or WP:PUFFERY >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 19 November 2024

Shouldn’t the Target exclusive acoustic bonus tracks be added seeing as they are part of the physical CD? Swift announced the bonus tracks 2 days ago on her Social Media (Sources: X, Facebook) and Target’s website also updated the track listing. Just figured they should be added, maybe? I mean they are now part of the track listing now so maybe a third section in the track listing headlined as The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology Target track listing and then the four bonus tracks? I don’t know just thought I’d suggest it and show the sources. 68.38.52.16 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The "notes" section under the track listing includes the four bonus tracks, and it appears the track listing itself is intended for new songs, not live versions. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 20 November 2024

In the track listing section one of the notes need to be changed as it says

“Physical edition of The Anthology includes live versions of "Fortnight", "Down Bad", "But Daddy I Love Him" and "Guilty as Sin?" as bonus tracks.”

This is incorrect as Swift released the back cover on social media (sources: X and Facebook) and it says the bonus tracks are acoustic versions, not live versions, this is also reinforced on Target’s website so the notes should read:

“Physical edition of The Anthology includes acoustic versions of "Fortnight", "Down Bad", "But Daddy I Love Him" and "Guilty as Sin?" as bonus tracks.” 2601:806:8204:55F0:90D4:8861:D250:78B4 (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done. While I think those social media posts suggest that we might need to make a change, we should wait on reliable sources that verify this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)