Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The Project assessment table appears abnormally stretched in the project table for reasons I cannot find out from the code. Can someone help me find it?}} —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

raise ur hands if you know about the 1989 secret messages. Evidently @Joseph Prasad: doesn’t think they exist.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 03:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people know about it, does not mean it does not need to be sourced. Again, that would make it fan interpretation. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvinsong, adding fancruft is against this encyclopedia's policies. Please stop edit warring Joseph Prasad on this. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t edit warring? When I restored all the material @Joseph Prasad: removed, I put in like 4000 characters worth of references, which he just reverted. The only time I reverted without making any changes was to undo his revert bc it was on the basis that I didn’t cite anything which I in fact did if he bothered to read the diff…

Also secret messages are not fancruft—as has been addressed so many times, they are directly sourced from the album itself, and third party media outlets confirmed them. Not interpretations.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio's comment was more of a general notice than anything else, Kelvin. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelvinsong, Joseph Prasad, IndianBio, and SNUGGUMS: Oh my god, such idiots. "Fan interpretation". Yeah, right idiots. We have a reliable source here, and so stop quarreling. I'm adding that in with this source and bye. BTW it really is a secret message, holy hell. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!:) Am new here, SO, pls excuse if this is not where to post, BUT, `tis quite too 'taxing' to navigate this site, ESPECIALLY when not paid to do so...Anywho, Taylor's "Style" reachd #1 on Billboard's charts & I properly edited & SVed as so yestaday! SO, da user who doesn't have da guts to sign deir name(ONLY a user#...) to da unjust, 'undo', dey did to all my work yestaday: I STRONGLY suggest u to 'KNOCK IT OFF!' as 'The Truth' HAS a 'hand' YOU CAN'T EVER OUTREACH OR OVERCOME!... I SINCERELY hope this concludes my business here... Peace Anyways, "--Da Famous Teddy R. (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Da_Famous_Teddy_R."[reply]

Question is File:TaylorSwiftWordmark2015.png actually PD-Textlogo? It’s not actually easily reproducible from the source font—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelvinsong: Em, derived from TaylorSwift.com, as seen from the file description page?

There is this song called "Angels Smile" created by Swifties, the fandom of Taylor Swift. I was just casually saying about creating an article of it on Twitter and the person who created the idea replied, asking if I had tried creating a Wikipedia article of the song. The song, as part of a project labelled "Swifties Charity Project" kicked off on October last year as part as a celebration to Taylor's birthday, stating Taylor as an inspiration to create this song, which took over 100 Swifties to make. The idea came from Twitter user (also a singer-songwriter known as Janey Quinn), whose profile is here, asked if I can create such an article. The many cons are that the song is not notable enough, it fails WP:NM and a piece of source came from BuzzFeed, but the whole thing was written by the user. Furthermore, the artist which is vaguely "Swifties", does not have an article on its own. It did not peak in charts, but peaked at iTunes charts (from the user's DM to me) that the song peaked at #6 in Vietnam. #40 in the Philippines, #65 in Thailand and #54 in United Kingdom. That's all. I thought that this idea is an interesting one, as all money collected will be donated to the Blood Cancer Research Foundation, but due to the lack of notability, I think the chances of having a lifespan for such an article would be close to zero. I think the idea is interesting as a whole, and the "reliable sources" thus can only be the Twitter users @JaneSwiftie and @SwiftiesCharity, as well as the Tumblr. I know that there is a high possibility that it will be rejected, but I'm trying to create such an article, not just for the sake of doing it, but for the sake of the fandom. I personally think this deserves an article, as such an unprecedented move should be noticed by the world. This isn't an advertisement, per WP:5. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've answered your own question: the song is not notable no matter which Wikipedia notability standard you check. Sources are strictly primary and have an inherent COI. An encyclopedia doesn't base its contents on emotional or personal feelings, but on basic standards for inclusion. As you describe it, the article will not survive here. If there's a Taylor Swift wikia somewhere, you might want to see about including it there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Oh yeah, thanks! The Taylor Swift wikia! Prob gonna ask the guy who created this thing. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone had considered making a section for Taylor's feminist stance, since it is something she does promote and has developed as she has gotten older. Perhaps under her political views? She mentions it in quite a few interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnkelly333 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mean (song), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: Nahnah4, calling people idiots will not help anything, nor will you friend starting an edit war, can't we all get along? The page clearly says: *Assume Good Faith, and avoid Personal Attacks.

Have a great day! :D

--Luis Santos24 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Luis Santos24: Hey, sorry for the (incredibly) late reply. I was a very immature person last year so I was naturally very pressed about the slightest of things. Therefore, I called people "idiots". I regret it now lmao. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 10:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Taylor Swift#Singer-songwriter. Thanks. Calidum 01:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Taylor Swift discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor has this song, "Better Than Revenge", which is controversial due to the lyrics which shows traces of slut-shaming in the chorus and has become the centre of debate for quite some time. I was wondering if we should create an article about since it is notable due to the controversies that came along with her releasing the song. Any thoughts? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 10:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Taylor Swift/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Taylor Swift, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hey everyone, still new to this wikiproject so excuse if this isnt the place to ask...but i wanted to see what you think of the Background section of Speak Now. whyy is it all about Fearless?? i posted on the talk page that the section Recording and title is a more appropriate Background section, no?

also i see on the to-do list is to clean up Wonderstruck. it doesnt have a stub template. does it even meet the general notability guidelines? Melodies1917 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There has been an unofficial TikTok remix of "Love Story" gaining traction on the app. I was just wondering if we should give it attention in the "Love Story" page. It is already mentioned, but I don’t think it should even be there to begin with, as it is unofficial and Swift hasn’t endorsed it or anything yet. Thoughts??? Doggy54321 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't due a mention in the lead. Though if it has charted somewhere, it's fine to add that to the chart section.--NØ 13:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! I’ll make the appropriate edits! Doggy54321 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The 1989 World Tour had a concert film to go along with it. Taylor Swift videography says it was an Apple Music exclusive. It has been taken down from Apple Music, and you cannot play it anymore. Should this be deleted or at least have a little blurb like "This was later taken down from Apple Music on (DMY)"? Thoughts?? Doggy54321 (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a part of this project, but I'm unsure where am I supposed to keep watch of all the articles under its domain. I clicked on the WikiProject Watchlist link, but it seems broken; it's redirecting to a different website. Can someone help me? Thank you. BawinV (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BawinV: sorry, just saw this now. The same thing happened for me 😩😩. It gave me a 404 error notice and then tried to redirect to another link but nothing loaded after a good 5 minutes. Oh well. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot even asking this and I'm flabbergasted that no one cared to reply me (until you came along) :"/ BawinV (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BawinV: Lmao rip. I think the link has been broken for a long time now. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: There are way too many Taylor Swift articles for us to add to our watchlists 😭 BawinV (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BawinV: here, maybe this will help. All albums, singles, songs, videography, tours, performances need to be watched, as well as the main page (obviously), all WikiProject pages and sub-pages, the awards/nominations page and Book:Taylor Swift. The latter is really helpful to navigate around articles, but it needs a major update. Hope this helps! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!!! BawinV (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed that Speak Now#Background is entirely written based on Fearless (Taylor Swift album), with no mention of Speak Now anywhere. Could anyone re-write that section? I’m knee deep in schoolwork and can’t really make any major edits to Wikipedia right now, and that section staying there for two more days is a major inconvenience to readers. If someone could reconstruct that paragraph, that would be great. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1989 World Tour article, currently a good article nominee, and Lover Fest meet WP Accessibility goals. Propose to update the rest (5) of her tour articles for consistency (see WP:CONCERTS#Tables for specifics). If no one objects, I'll go ahead and make these changes. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead! Thanks so much! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The date entries in Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour#Shows were already formatted with style="text-align:center;". It's a matter of preference, so I left them in. However, it makes the table different from the rest of her tour articles, in which the dates are left-justified. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour § Standalone article for film. D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 01:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion I started about the "Single" status of Exile, Betty, The 1, No Body No Crime and Coney Island here. Please take part. Thank You. BawinV (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has a consensus been reached anywhere re the separation of notable-enough "Taylor's Version" albums/songs from their original album/song article? Fearless (Taylor's Version) has been split; Love Story (Taylor's Version) was split by someone earlier today but reverted... if not, a discussion should probably be initiated so everyone can know how to go forward, since there's six more albums of this coming! - Peterpie123rww (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users I see editing on TS articles often... Doggy54321; BawinV; HĐ; JackReynoldsADogOwner - Peterpie123rww (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Albums: split all of them right away. Let's be honest: Taylor Swift is one of the biggest pop stars on the planet, and it feels like every time she breathes, there's an article about it. Obviously, there will be plenty of coverage for all the albums right away. As well, it's quite challenging to edit the album pages, as they're so big and it takes quite a bit to load.
• Singles: split them right away as well. Anything mainstream will also receive loads of coverage from the media straightaway.
• Anything else (promo singles, songs, the Vault songs): case by case basis. For some songs, Wikipedia already has articles on them, such as White Horse (song). In that case, I think the re-recorded version warrants a mention in the article (which can be seen if you look at #White Horse (Taylor's Version) or use the redirect White Horse (Taylor's Version)), but, unless the song receives significant coverage from reliable sources (unlikely for most, but it will probably happen for a couple tracks per album), I don't see why a split would be useful. For other songs like Hey Stephen, the 2008 version of the song doesn't even have an article to begin with, so, unless the song receives significant coverage, I don't think creating an article would be useful, especially when the original doesn't even have an article.
• For now: Fearless (Taylor's Version), "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" and "You All Over Me" have all received enough coverage to warrant standalone articles. "Wildest Dreams" has only received coverage for the teaser in the trailer for Spirit Untamed, and I don't think that is enough to warrant a standalone article yet. However, I do think that a section in the article is warranted. All the other songs ("We Were Happy", "The Way I Loved You" and "The Best Day", for example) don't have any coverage yet. Sorry for the extra long explanation, I think it will be more helpful if I word-vomit now and don't have to repeat myself in the future, Hope this helps! D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 17:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely, I have just moved LS TV to its own article. It easily meets notability standards. Cheers - Peterpie123rww (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!! D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 21:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sticking to the current releases, as far as Fearless (TV) and Love Story (TV) are concerned, they both have garnered widespread notability more than enough to warrant separate articles. Therefore, I vote that they remain separate articles. Regarding future releases, I think we shall discuss it when the time comes; I'm pretty sure they all going to have to be separate articles, since everything Swift does generates a bunch of reviews/articles/commentaries. BawinV (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1989 (Taylor's Version). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 20#1989 (Taylor's Version) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have started an RfC about the reliability of Business Insider for sourcing in music related articles. This would have some impact (albeit most likely minor) on all music related articles. Feel free to comment at the RfC. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have the The 1989 World Tour Book and could look up something for me? If so, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_119#The 1989 World Tour Book. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. (Posting here as it may impact an article in the project purview that I am aware of: Shake It Off. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject,

I deal a lot with drafts that are expiring (CSD G13) and I came across this one on Taylor Swift's influence. It wasn't approved by an AFC reviewer so it's unlikely to make it into main space. But it looks like a lot of work went into it and I thought there might be some content you could incorporate elsewhere (with proper attribution, of course). Any way, it's due to be deleted on Nov. 24 so I thought I'd give you all a head's up in case you wanted to check it out before it is deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Evermore (Taylor Swift album) regarding the addition of the compilations of evermore songs in the track listing section of the album's article. Tree Critter (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has been started to determine the reliability of the Medium publication Cuepoint. This publication is used in some Swift related articles. Your participation is welcomed. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the above GAR. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are all Taylor Swift songs considered notable? More specifically, any song on one of her albums like Midnights or Red or Evermore. Ex. Question...? or gold rush.

*note: not including deluxe, special, or other language versions. OfTheUsername (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a wikipedia article about Gaylors and Gaylor theories, but given that everything Gaylors believe is speculation, basically the only thing I would be able to cite with a reliable source would be that they exist. Does anyone have any advice on how to navigate this, or is a mention in the Taylor Swift article going to be the best I can do? Derekeaaron1 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronherry, Ben0006, Doggy54321, Gained, and Ippantekina: and others. Alerting regular TS editors to this AfD nomination. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could The Eras Tour be a possible topic?

The Eras Tour can be the lead article, with Impact of the Eras Tour, 2022 Ticketmaster controversy, and Taylor Sheesh under it. OfTheUsername (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page has not replied-to comment in the past two years, so I'm going to be bold and add it. It's easily removable and doesn't disrupt anything. Obviously feel free to remove it, but I'd prefer if you could tell me why here before you do. OfTheUsername (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a reasonable topic that will grow as the tour goes into 2024 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It could be its own topic. ℛonherry☘ 06:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Motion Picture Association of America has rated the ERAS TOUR film PG-13 and and titled the film "TAYLOR SWIFT | THE ERAS TOUR" all capitalized, and punctuated with a pike. (https://screen-connections.com/2023/10/10/cara-mpa-film-ratings-bulletin-10-11-23-the-hunger-games-the-ballad-of-songbirds-and-snakes-urkel-saves-santa-taylor-swift/) The page for the film lists this as a stylized spelling, however, this is the actual title for the film and the commonly-used version with a colon is a stylized version of the film title, perhaps due to convenience. Other films with stylized titles have their proper title as the page title with the stylized versions noted elsewhere. Can this film page be retitled to reflect the proper title of the film? 2600:4040:9C30:6E00:F5D3:24F:4680:D5FD (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion currently going on at Talk:The Eras Tour regarding a statement about the tour. The discussion can found at Talk:The Eras Tour#Paris La Défense is NOT a stadium. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Evermore (Taylor Swift album)#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]