Jump to content

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 149.78.247.144 (talk) at 18:01, 3 February 2016 (→Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deluxe Edition Artwork

Someone could put the image of the deluxe version in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.15.170 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Album possibly a transition from country to pop?

I know Taylor's genre is mainly country-pop but her first single, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together, is actually under the genre of pop and bubblegum pop which is quite different from her last singles that she released which had country influences in it. Should we state something like Red is Taylor's transition from country to pop in the near future? Bleubeatle (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a source saying such a thing, of course. Statυs (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the album comes out. A lead single is usually the poppiest song of the album. Noreplyhaha (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have to use sources for the genre. we always use Allmusic for that but someone reverted my edit and said we agreed on Allmusic while i can't find any discussion about that. so now we can talk about it. in This Page you can find a GENRE and STYLE in the left side of the page. and as Allmusic is one the most reliable sources for music, it think we have to include them in the article. Allmusic is not just about review and directing us to artists albums, it also includes album's credits and we sometimes use it as source in a personnel section. it includes everything about an album. so i think we should go on with that. Reza (Let'sTalk) 02:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two new songs

dpastern

2 new songs for Red:

Begin again (Taylor tweeted it) Holy Ground (mentioned by Taylor in a Rolling Stone interview after the iHeart festival

Dave Dpastern (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. You can add it yourself, although I strongly encourage you to find a reliable source. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion: Countdown to Red

http://taylorswift.com/news/98581 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.11.202 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begin Again

Information from the iTunes download: Length: 3:58 Composer: Taylor Swift — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.11.202 (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not next single nine sources contradict three sources that say it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_discography#endnote_note_n1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.18.72 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record all of these "contradictory sources" are simply articles from before it was announced as the next single. Afireinside27 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Song "Red"

It is NOT a single! Taylor Swift has stated clearing on Good Morning America, that Red serves as the 2nd promotional single, from the album. NOT A SINGLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.220.96 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, could somebody with a little more experience please get this page protected? I should probably learn how to go about doing that myself but am entirely too tired to do so tonight. Afireinside27 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Release date.

I checked in my local music shop and "RED" is coming out in Ireland on Monday 22nd October 2012 normal and deluxe.

Should we add it to the article or leave it be because Ireland And The United Kingdom often release records and other things together and we have included the United Kingdom release date already. --Bella##Fan##262 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misquote

Under reception, it says "...said:"Red puts Swift the artist front and center with big, beefy hooks that transcend her country roots for a genre-spanning record that reaches heights unseen since Shania Twain's Up! please it was released with two discs' worth of pop and country takes of its 19 songs.""
It should probably say "...heights unseen since Shania Twain's "Up!" - a 2002 release so tireless in efforts to people-please it was released..." (as that was the actual quote)
Since I can't edit it, it'd be great if someone else did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.22 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in 'Reception' section.

There's some uncaught vandalism at the end of the first paragraph in the Red_(Taylor_Swift_album)#Reception section which says:

"please it was released with two discs' worth of pop and country takes of its 19 songs."

This isn't part of the original quote ending that section. Furthermore, the source for the true quote (Ref 15: http://www.billboard.com/new-releases/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review-1007986122.story#/new-releases/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review-1007986122.story) is a broken link. --Alainbryden (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Looks like it's already been caught. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have to say about this?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mccizrV9dM1rq5q3eo1_500.jpg - The link to the pic

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/260720168903249920 - Link to the tweet

LOL, 4 Million in one day? That's BS right? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 14:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just how many they shipped out for sale. Zac (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL it was meant to be 4 million collective sales of the songs. Not sales of the album. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 16:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Precedent is that we don't use "Albums produced by X" unless X produced multiple tracks on the album. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already added the categories back, I didn't know you started a discussion about this. Anyway, where is this precedent even listed? QuasyBoy (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not listed; it's a silent consensus that came about merely by other editors' actions when a bunch of "Albums produced by X" categories were deleted. Also, does it make sense to call it an "Album produced by X" when X produced a whopping one track? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does one enforce "silent consensus"? If you want to take the title so literal, nobody should be added to the category unless they produced the entire album. Zac (talk · contribs) 02:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Silent consensus"? So by your theory, only producers who did the entire album should be added? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 03:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, only producers who did a significant portion. Again, does it make sense to call it "Albums produced by X" if X only did one track? If they did several tracks, I can understand calling it "produced by X". But just one? Come on. (Did you miss the part where I said "multiple"? I never said it had to be all or none.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

As a minor revert thing has gone on, I'm opening this up to enable discussion about genre. The main issue seems to be if the Allmusic source is the best for genres, or if broader consensus among reviewers is. I'd be fine with cutting down to one source per genre, but limiting to two options which are scarcely mentioned elsewhere doesn't seem ideal to me. Allmusic is the only one to label it as 'pop/rock', which is actually a very broad category on that website which includes everyone from pure pop acts like Katy Perry to hard rock/metal bands like Children of Bodom, a death metal band. Toa Nidhiki05 02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broader consensus among reviewers combined with critic sources would be best; better if the critics state why it is what genre they classify it as. Allmusic is horrible for genres. Noreplyhaha (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian release date

In Australia it was released as both standard and deluxe editions on October 23, 2012, not October 26. Could someone change the release section to this? Thanks. (I don't know how to) Sources: http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/music/pop-rock/red-deluxe-edition/671703 and http://www.sanity.com.au/products/2215798/Red_Deluxe_Edition Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Red (Taylor Swift album)

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 Red (Taylor Swift album)'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 "acharts":

  • From Crazier (Taylor Swift song): "Taylor Swift – Crazier – Music Charts". aCharts.us. Retrieved November 6, 2006.
  • From Take Me Home (One Direction album): "One Direction – Take Me Home". Acharts.us. Retrieved 16 November 2012.
  • From You'll Always Find Your Way Back Home: "Hannah Montana – You'll Always Find Your Way back Home – Music Charts". aCharts.us. Retrieved November 27, 2006.
  • From Speak Now: "Taylor Swift — Speak Now — Music Charts". . αCharts.us. acharts.us. Retrieved November 7, 2010.

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. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why is there a separate page for every song on the album?? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 04:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask this as well. Normally, only notable songs released as singles get their own articles. These pages should probably be deleted or merged. IndigoAK200 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-singles by big name musicians à la "Pearl" by Katy Perry sometimes get their own articles, and considering all of the songs on Red charted, if not exceptionally well in some cases, it's not a stretch to consider them noteworthy enough to warrant it. My issue with it is that no thought or effort was put into many of the articles, and they are blatant copy/paste jobs. Songsteel (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taylor Swift - Red (Deluxe).jpg

Why is the deluxe edition cover not included in the article? This passes all the test that I see, and we must include it so that Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge".HotHat (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3a fail. One cover art is fine when the other is not significantly different and does not aid in any understanding of the article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you think of the Eye on It article that has the deluxe cover, and no one has found it violated the policy that you surmise that it does?HotHat (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted from there as well. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was reinstated by another user.HotHat (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most arbitrary decision on the planet. Restoring this one as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it has been restored, which point in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria did you feel was being violated? (see WP:BRD) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would advice you, like in my edit summary, to educate yourself on WP:NFCC and then call my edit as an "arbitrary decision". Any extra cover art for any article requires ample third party reliability, notability and reasons as to why the second cover can be added. Plus, they need to be significantly different from each other. Please see examples like MDNA, The Fame Monster etc. The violations are ample, including WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3a. There is nothing in this extra cover that a simple text illustration won't suffice, and it is not even different from the main cover, sans a red hue on top of it. So WP:NFCC#8 fail and WP:NFCC#3a fail since one cover is enough to warrant and describe the album and the cover art commercially released. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. And you're breacking WP:BRD and there is currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and the discussion currently is going against your stated position. Perhaps you should learn to edit properly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is going currently against my stated position? Yeah, right. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion ain't getting anywhere, so I've nominated File:Taylor Swift - Red (Deluxe).jpg for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flat lists in infobox

The infobox's documentation clearly states that genres and producers should be separated by commas. A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox album#flat list. No changes should be made to the lists away from comma separated values until it has been approved at the template documentation. No discussion should occur here either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Songfacts.com

Too much content has been added from Songfacts.com, a non-reliable website based on user's inputs ala Examiner.com or About.com. Either they need to be replaced or removed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Taylor Swift proposal

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Taylor Swift. All comments are welcome and appreciated! MaranoFan (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Genres (Pop, rock)

The votes are in: pop it is. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There has been some edit-warring over the genres in the infobox of this article, even though there are several sources cited in the article's "Critical reception" section, verifying the current revision, listing "Pop, rock". Should this revision be kept or changed? Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes
Discussion

My findings, emphasis added. Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Pop album, yet nominated for Best Country album?

That doesn't make sense. Adding the country genre would make sense considering it's nomination, plus sources stating 1989 was her official pop transition. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also was sold and promoted as a country album, so it seems fitting that country be included. Cajalden (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cajalden, true. Also take into the account the article, at the end of the lead states "highest-grossing tour by a country artist". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cajalden:, it does make sense. Swift was marketed early in her career as a country artist, in the country music market, and the NARAS chose to still consider her as such. Please read WP:SUBJECTIVE and reconsider what you're saying, because record labels who promoted their products and award show organizations (made up of people who also have a conflict of interest because they also have a stake in promoting their industry's product) aren't experts on the topic of genres. Music journalists and scholars are, and as you can see in the preceding section, they are who Wikipedia considers to be reliable, third-party sources. Those who sell and promote an album and recording industry organizations such as the NARAS are inferior sources because they are not independent of the topic of this article ("A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.") Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RfC is what it is; I don't really see how one can quibble with the result. That a pop album is nominated as best country album can mean a lot of things--that there's not a lot of good country albums, or that genres don't mean that much. Sorry, Joseph Prasad, I have little to add here. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, it also charted on the "Top Country Albums" chart, which means that is what Billboard considers it. Isn't that pretty much enough to call it country? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

Since apparently Red is a pop album, there is a contradiction in the final paragraph of the lead. "Red became the best-selling country album of 2012, making it her third consecutive top-seller and the second best-seller overall across all genres despite being out only for two months."

Either country needs to be added to genres, or that needs to be changed. A pop album being the highest selling country album doesn't make any sense. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

everything has changed was released at june 5th 149.78.247.144 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_(Taylor_Swift_album)&oldid=703130207"