Jump to content

Talk:Lover (album)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jezebelle (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 1 October 2019 (→Merger proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 14 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Lover (Taylor Swift album) → Lover (album) – Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:ALBUMDAB, there are no other articles for albums titled Lover although the dab page Lover does list several albums titled Lovers. Contested technical request. PC78 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lk95, MaranoFan, and Anthony Appleyard: Pinging those who commented at WP:RM/TR. PC78 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Artwork

Does artwork need its own section when it is so short? Maybe it could be merged into background or composition, maybe deluxe versions should be merged as well. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s a good idea. Doggy54321 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Album length

I've heard that when a full track list isn't available, Google Play predicts the total album length based on the length of the tracks that have already been released, and it seems that this is the case since immediately after "The Archer" was announced, the album length on Google Play changed from 54:04 to 54:35. I think the length should be removed from the article until the full track list and song lengths are confirmed. Thoughts? OctoMocto (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But some upcoming albums on Google Play don’t have lengths at all, (Ex. Charli XCX's Charli [1])

I agree with OctoMocto; i've heard the same thing.Melodies1917 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think album length should be added when we have the full tracklist with times. Emily (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous title

The previous title is currently her 2017 album Reputation. However, on Taylor Swift discography you will see that the compilation album Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist (which does not have an article) was released after Reputation. Therefore; the I think that the previous title should be changed to Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist, despite the compilation album not having its own article on Wikipedia. Also, for anyone who is confused, Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist is not a concert, it is a compilation album released by Swift gathering the "Surprise Songs" that were played at her Reputation Stadium Tour. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Billiekhalidfan. Doggy54321 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if you want to add it, add it as a separate section, such as “Taylor Swift Tour Discography” or something. The main discography should consist of, well, her main albums. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.129.161.163: There is no "main" chronology. The chronology of an artist always includes all releases, not just "main albums". Also, Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist is not a tour, it is a compilation album. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this kind of thing is almost never added to pages. It just looks ugly. Also, I never said I thought you and Doggy54321 are the same person. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.129.161.163: What do you mean "this kind of thing is almost never added to pages"? That doesn't make sense. Why would it not be added it is the previous release in the chronology. Also in your edit summary here [2] you told Doggy54321 that someone already explained to them that you need consensus to change the chronology. However, on Reputation (Taylor Swift album), it was me the person explained that you need consensus to, not Doggy54321. But that isn't the point anyway. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So can I do it, or do I need more people to agree? No one really seems to be commenting here anymore. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't do it. I don't see a clear consensus to make Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist the previous title. When I look at an article about a widely released album/EP or studio album/EP, I expect the previous/next title to be the title of the previous/next widely released album/EP or studio album/EP. I don't consider a streaming only release to be a widely released album/EP, and it's definitely not a studio album. I'm not even sure I'd call it an album, since it's a streaming only playlist. Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist, while part of the discography, is in it's own category. I agree with a statement above to treat it like Homecoming: The Live Album was treated. Richard Hendricks (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, it appears adding a studio album chronology addressed this issue. Richard Hendricks (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ME!

Short question but why doesn't this page use ME! instead of Me! (stylized in all caps)? I know Wikipedia ignores song title capitalization, but is there a reason for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:45D8:D100:DDFF:5822:9448:7E5F (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a reason. Please read MOS:CAPS and you will understand. Doggy54321 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title track

Annaoue and BawinV, there is no guideline that suggests a confirmation directly from Swift is required before adding a single. The title track is reliably sourced as the third single from The Fader. Also it should be common sense that she wouldn't announce a buzz single at the Teen Choice Awards, this is clearly a single intended for proper commercial release. Any further undiscussed removal of reliably sourced content will warrant strict action, thanks.--NØ 10:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This song is clearly a single. And even if it were to be a promotional single (and I’m 99% sure it's not) then we could easily change it. And I saw Annaoue added a hidden note not to add "Lover" to the singles section without a source. There literally was two reliable sources to support the song being a single before BawinV removed them. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn’t she announce a buzz single at the event? How is it common sense, just because YOU think she wouldn’t do that. Please stop making things up. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.129.161.163: Please do not yell. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lmfao I wasn’t yelling, I was placing emphasis on the word, please stop getting so easily offended by literally everything. Also, way to completely ignore what I actually said and just focus on how I typed out one word. Really focusing on the important stuff, I see. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.129.161.163: Using all capital letters is usually interpreted as yelling, you can use bold letters instead to put emphasis on words; like so, bold, not CAPS. Anyway, I don't know why it would be common sense that she would not announce a buzz singles at the Teen Choice Awards, I am not the one who wrote that, discuss that with MaranoFan.

My point was that you just completely focused on the wrong thing. Also, how would it make sense to yell one word in a sentence? Lol that would be hysterical if someone did that tho. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

67.129.161.163, the only one "making things up" is you and the other two swifties. You’ve been pointed to a reliable source confirming the song's single release. Wikipedia only follows what sources say, instead of fan theories about how every song is a buzz single despite receiving standalone promotion at a mainstream award show. So hush.—NØ 11:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how can it be a single without being confirmed by Taylor Swift or her label and without sending to the radio stations? GetawayDress (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GetawayDress Don't change the song to a promotional single on all the pages without discussion. It obviously will be sent to radio it doesn't have to be announced immediately to be a single. Also swift has literally never made a music video for a promo single. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd say that once the music video comes out, Swift's website will probably be changed accordingly. Plus, her official singles tend to be released on a Friday, while promo singles are at random as far as I can tell. Calebh12 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to burst this bubble, but it really isn't up to us to decide this stuff. When there are at least 8 sources supporting its single release, and, a grand total of 0 sources calling it a "promotional single". This song not being a single is a completely baseless and delusional theory among Swifties, because they’re hoping for "Cruel Summer" to be released as the third single. Wikipedia reports what secondary reliable sources state, it's not a place to promote fan delusions.—NØ 16:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added as Tune of the Weekend on BBC Radio 1.--NØ 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leak: Producers & Deluxe Edition

Someone who works at Target leaked photos of the back cover of Lover and the deluxe edition. I added the producers and deluxe bonus tracks according to the photos but someone removed it saying that violates WP:LEAK. I disagree because WP:LEAK is saying that it isn't notable to say when the album leaked, I am not saying when it leaked, I'm just using it as a source because it clearly shows the back cover of the CD and you can see the producers and the track listing. I don't know why this can't be added and there is literally no way that the information is wrong because it is a photograph of the wrapped CD. Should this be included? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's safer to wait until the producers are officially revealed just in case of the off chance that the photos were faked. OctoMocto (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

113.193.123.230 (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The archer is also one of the singles. just sayin

It's a promotional single, not an official single. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genre dispute

It wouldn't be a Taylor Swift album without arguments about genres. I think this album falls under pop, electropop, and synth-pop, and they are sourced from NME, The Daily Telegraph, and Pitchfork respectively. Other genres like country and R&B are found on one or maximum two songs, which I argue does not mean the entire album. As such, I don't think they should be included. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rolling Stone called the album as a whole pop rock. Looking at the sources, R&B and pop punk only describe a song each. However, aside from the two country songs, The New York Times said "Death by a Thousand Cuts" sounds like "a steroidal take on the alt-country of the 1990s." So that makes at least 3 country songs. And I'd like to point out the fact that Red had "rock" as a genre. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there's isn't a source that calls the album country then we can't call it country either, regardless of how many country or country-influenced songs there are. My proposal: put a sentence in the Music and Lyrics section, probably the first paragraph, that goes something like "The album has been classified as pop by ..., electropop by ..., synth-pop by ..., and pop rock by ...", sourced accordingly, then the infobox can have the same information without the ref tags. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any genre should only be added to the infobox if a reliable secondary source uses it to describe the album as a whole. So, a source could refer to even 10 songs from it as country, but it still shouldn’t be put in the infobox unless directly used as a descriptor for the whole album. WP:SYNTH—NØ 16:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arivgao, you should have waited for consensus and/or discussed before removing these genres. And the comparison to Reputation doesn't make sense, since when is "New Year's Day" country? Three songs on this album are country. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Hello everyone.


I think it would be accurate to add these charts, where "Lover" is number one :

- Portuguese Albums Charts : https://portuguesecharts.com/archive.asp?todo=show&woche=35&jahr=2019&sparte=a

- Switzerland Albums Charts (Romandie) : https://www.20min.ch/ro/musique/news/story/Top-10-des-ventes-d-albums-et-de-singles-28992788


Best wishes,


Kevin, 4 september 2019

checkmark Semi-done I've added the Portuguese chart. Thank you. There is already an existing entry for Switzerland (nationwide), and I'm not sure if the chart for the French-speaking region only is notable enough, so I've refrained from adding it yet. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Other Wikipedia pages add the Swiss Romandie Chart on their charts list. I think it is important to add it because other charts like Belgium Wallonia are added, and they are not nationwide neither. Plus, this chart has its own website (source : https://lescharts.ch) and they are also mentioned in the Wikipedia page of the Swiss Hitparade (source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Hitparade). So they are reliable and contribute to the diversity of the musical culture. Best wishes.

Kevin, 4 september 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charts watcher (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources dispute each other

"The album sold more copies than all the other 199 albums on the Billboard 200 chart combined that week. This is Swift's second album to do so, after Reputation" says the NY times
Whereas Forbes sings another tune - "Lover moved more equivalent units than the albums that land at Nos. 2 through 32 combined. That’s not quite the entire top 40..."

The disparity is confusing. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 08:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked the same NYT article twice. I believe this is what you meant to link. Anyway, the NYT article is talking about sales only in that paragraph. The Forbes article is talking about equivalent sales, which is sales, downloads, and streaming combined. That's why there's a difference. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge the following articles: I Forgot That You Existed, Cruel Summer (Taylor Swift song), London Boy (Taylor Swift song), and I Think He Knows into this article. The four articles are about four songs on this album which, per WP:NSONGS, do not satisfy the criteria of noteworthy tracks that deserve standalone articles. While the four songs did make some chart impact, it's important to note that chart positions alone are not adequate for notability. Looking forward to comments, HĐ (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No they deserve articles. Song’s from Norman Fucking Rockewell! only entered like 2 charts that are not even official singles charts but still have pages.

Don't rely on "other stuff". HĐ (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that happens when charts take streaming into account... But that doesn’t mean each song is notable outside of them album. Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jezebelle: NSONGS does not indicate that chart impact = notability. Plus, I hate to say this but could people get rid of the "other stuff" rationale? HĐ (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: I am not using an 'other stuff' argument, I'm using an example that is on Wikipedia that is relevant to the discussion in the sense of high-charting deep cuts with little coverage having every right to an article. NSONGS states, and I quote, "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". Also there was a fair bit of coverage on "Cruel Summer" and "I Forgot That You Existed", the former in the sense that the media believed it to be about Tom Hiddleston, and the latter in proximity to [ https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNS3vqxS4ml9P4CR4SAjG4VC-tLeiA%3A1569895153627&ei=8bKSXaXvJaeRggeA5qLQBw&q=i+forgot+that+you+existed+taylor+swift+kanye&oq=i+forgot+that+you+existed+taylor+swift+kanye&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160l2.508783.517933..518053...1.0..0.139.1033.8j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0j0i20i263.stVUe2vnOJM&ved=0ahUKEwjlq92X-_nkAhWniOAKHQCzCHoQ4dUDCAs&uact=5 Kanye West] and Calvin Harris. Jezebelle 02:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lover_(album)&oldid=918955608"