Talk:Speak Now (Taylor's Version)

Length

Guys, please stop changing it from "104:33" to "1:44:33" because Wikipedia prefers it if the hours and minutes are combined together. Thank you! Jleo22 (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Jleo22 (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Composistion

Why does it state all track are composed by Swift and Rowe when they are solo composed by Swift and tracks are co produced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famaja (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

is this still an issue? I'm seeing Swift & Rowe as producers, but not as composers Tantomile (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it’s been fixed now it seems Famaja (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"I Can See You" single

Taylor's team confirmed that "I Can See You" is a single. (https://twitter.com/taylornation13/status/1677461678391164931) Should we consider? @Ronherry Rangel Carregosa (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose. But let us wait till we get more assertive sources. ℛonherry☘ 04:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have only found two sources reffering to "I Can See You" as single (Vulture and Coup de Main), while Variety says "['I Can See You'] would be a strong choice for a radio single if Swift didn't already have two simultaneous singles being promoted to stations". No radio dates and digital releases for now. infsai (talkie? UwU) 00:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Since her team confirmed it’s a single + the fact that the Taylor Swift Wiki says it’s a single, I really think it should be considered a single on here. Taylor’s team is the most assertive source you can get. Ummm idc (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"Taylor's team" didn't say it was a single. Billboard didn't either. Radio website didn't either. There's literally no source supporting this. ℛonherry☘ 15:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Genre

@Ronherry: @InsiderChiari: let's settle things here. Per WP:EXPLICITGENRE "sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole". Clash [1] said, "Speak Now contains fan favourites, mixing rock, country and pop genres seamlessly" and this language is direct, unvague, and concrete enough to include country, rock, and pop in the infobox. Now "country pop" is more ambiguous, as per Sputnikmusic "Speak Now, which draws the majority of its influence from the country-pop sphere" (note the words "influence" and "sphere"). I'm fine with country pop in the infobox somewhat, so my suggestion is to include "Country pop, rock, pop" in the infobox. Could you guys please comment, especially InsiderChiari who kept removing rock from the infobox? Ippantekina (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Pop already comes with the scope of country-pop, therefore I'd prefer "Country pop • rock". I do believe several reviews state rock is a big genre of the album and it should be in the box. ℛonherry☘ 09:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

So now you're also a musician. (Personal attack removed) FYI, this album is classified as pop/rock by critics. Mean is the only country song on the album. Danielin1987 (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, to me it seems that "mixing" genres is synonymous to "combining elements", which is used as an example of non-definitive language in WP:EXPLICITGENRE. Mixing rock, country, and pop does not make that the final product; in the same way that mixing flour, eggs, and sugar does not mean a cake is flour. I am fine with pop rock being in the infobox given the new sources that have been provided, so I don't believe there is a need for country, rock, and pop to be in the infobox when those genres are included in country pop and pop rock. Additionally, Sputnikmusic also states that "to go from such a broad artistic palette back to 'country-pop' (to Speak Now's credit, its songwriting is actually very diverse) creates a whole batch of challenges in itself," so I believe that is explicitly labeling Speak Now (Taylor's Version) as a country pop album. --InsiderChiari (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. So I guess we all agree on Country pop and Pop-rock? ℛonherry☘ 07:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Speak Now (Taylor's Version)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Speak Now (Taylor's Version)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Billboard debut":

• From Fearless (Taylor Swift album): Caulfield, Keith (November 29, 2008). "Over the Counter: Swift Swoops in with Dizzying Digital Number". Billboard. Vol. 120, no. 48. p. 45. Archived from the original on August 27, 2021. Retrieved August 21, 2021.
• From Patrick Stump: Caulfield, Keith (January 28, 2015). "Fall Out Boy Scores Third No. 1 Album on Billboard 200". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved January 29, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Speak Now (Taylor's Version" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Speak Now (Taylor's Version has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6 § Speak Now (Taylor's Version until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Speak Now (Taylor's Version)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dxneo (talk · contribs) 00:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article in the next few days. Honestly, I've never seen laser-focused participants like the WP:SWIFT participants. You guys are really amazing, at this point I am convinced I have to join the project.

Is it well written?

A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout and words to watch:

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• I like how every source's website/publisher is linked. I also noticed that this source requires subscription and the editor(s) indicated it.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

• Violation unlikely as Earwig finds no obvious problems. Earwig found 28% of copyright vio on a People source which is mostly the article's title and reception quotes.

Is it broad in its coverage?

A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

• I noticed that you might have missed to add the release date information (in terms of prose) listed here. Two versions of the album were released in Japan on August 16.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Is it neutral?

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Is it stable?

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: Waiting on the nominator to address the release information

dxneo (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dxneo for the review. I've added the Japanese release to prose :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Great, I will pass this now. dxneo (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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