Talk:1989 (Taylor's Version)

Add to footnotes
see subject 165.85.156.131 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

How to add a photo that is not mine?
I wanted to add the alternative covers for 1989 (Taylor's Version) that were only available for an exclusive ammount of time but then it said I could only add photos to which I owned the copyright. Obviously, I don't own the copyright to those photos, so what should I do? BlackandWhitePandas (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * is it necessary to add those? because there's more than one alternative cover 89.36.201.7 (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @BlackandWhitePandas, There is a way to add non-free images to Wikipedia.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 00:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Vault track titles
Hello 13M.SATA.COP076! I notice we seem to have a disagreement on the vault track titles. In order to prevent edit warring, we should reach consensus and discuss on the talk page here. From what I can tell, there has been no mention of these titles that you are putting into the article with a reliable, published, attributable source; per the no original research policy, we need to have these in order for any information (cited or not) to be included on an article here. Taylor Swift, Taylor Nation, or any news source does not has any article or mention of these track titles as being definite. Until that information is released, the article should remain as-is with the placeholder titles. Jmaxx37 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please discuss your proposed changes to the track listing section here before making further edits to the article. As per 's comments, there is still no source provided for these apparent vault tracks and their writers / producers. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023
Fernando280608 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Asked (?) and answered. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023
4 vault track titles have been revealed to be "Is It Over Now?", "Now That We Don't Talk", "Say Don't Go", and "Suburban Legends" (source: https://www.capitalfm.com/news/music/songs-tracks-the-vault-1989-taylor-swift/). Billboardfanatic2000 (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Since the actual track numbers aren't known, they aren't in the track listing. They will be added once they are known. They are listed under the promotion and release section.  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 13:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks! Billboardfanatic2000 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They've been confirmed now, so they are in the track listing now anyway.  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 20:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Tangerine Vinyl bonus track
Noticed that there's rumours floating around that the bonus track on the target edition is "Sweeter Than Fiction (Taylor's Version.") Had a look around but the only evidence I can find backing this up are a couple Tiktoks and YT videos claiming that an Australian record store, JB Hi-fi accidentally leaked the full tracklist on their page for the tangerine edition. I checked the Way Back Machine and nobody had uploaded any captures showing the leaked tracklist, and the website currently says it's TBC. (Here's the link if you wanna check for yourself)

There's an extremely high chance that the original TikTok is fake, and the creator just used the inspect element for clout. If anyone does have a capture, PLEASE put it up on the Internet Archive and add it as a citation. Meanwhile, track 25 should be changed back to "TBC" as soon as possible. 2A02:8084:182:E00:A4B9:A3CF:95CC:7E96 (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023
Track 22: Sweeter Than Fiction (Taylor's Version) 2600:1700:5A50:28D0:7876:7AF4:984:1DA5 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.target.com/p/taylor-swift-1989-taylor-39-s-version-tangerine-edition-target-exclusive-vinyl/-/A-89890412 2600:1700:5A50:28D0:7876:7AF4:984:1DA5 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Bluebluee12 Pamzeis (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Pitchfork review vault tracks
I think we should settle here. Pitchfork review says, The “vault” tracks packaged with the Taylor’s Version series range from astonishing (“Nothing New”) to feeble (“Castles Crumbling”), and while the five songs added to 1989 (Taylor’s Version) lack the wallop and precision of the album proper, they also sometimes reveal humanizing depth. I believe it is as important to mention that this reviewer deemed the five tracks not as solid as the original album--which doesn't exclude the fact that they add substance to it though. Removing this bit is potentially cherrypicking imo. Ippantekina (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And I don't think "underwhelming" is the word. If anything, either directly quote a word or paraphrase synonymously. Moreover, the Pitchfork review's rating is a 7.7/10, but the prose included in the article has a 50/50 balance of positive and negative comments from the review, which is not the correct representation of the review itself. The included comments from the review should reflect the rating, or otherwise it looks cherry-picked.  ℛonherry  ☘  06:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding to my point, the currently included prose from the Pitchfork review has one negative comment ("an artistically lesser entry") and two positive comments ("wildly durable" and the vault tracks adding more "depth and context"). This structure is commensurate with the 7.7/10 rating.  ℛonherry  ☘  06:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I'd include it in quotes without paraphrasing; imo it is an important part of this review for the vault tracks as "giving more depth and context" alone gives the idea that the Pitchfork review is 100% positive about them, which is quite not the case here. Ippantekina (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How? The "artistically lesser entry" is right there. How is it giving an idea of "100% positive"? Furthermore, in the source, the summary of the review at the top says "Taylor keeps her re-records very close to the originals, but five previously unreleased songs add depth and context to what was then her galactic, career-shifting pop debut." If the criticism about the vault tracks you've cherry-picked to include in the reception section is not even significant enough to be in the source's own summary/abstract then it is not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedic article that's attempting to distill the review in a single sentence without changing the source integrity (ratio of positive to negative opinions).  ℛonherry  ☘  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Hideaway is not in New York
The Hideaway is a studio built by Imogen Heap in her old family home in Havering.

https://thehideaway.studio/ 194.66.86.200 (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Citation style
Not sure if I will do the GA review yet but can someone explain the citation style followed? The publications are inconsistently linked in some references and unlinked in most others. Also, HDD and Headline Planet are the only sources for IION's single release?--NØ 09:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Is It Over Now?" is being promoted as a radio single according to Billboard. Bluesatellite (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks much better and should be cited in the article. The inconsistent publisher-linking in the citations is on the recently promoted Clean (song) article as well, in case anyone watching this page wants to fix it in accordance with GA criteria 2a.--NØ 19:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping ^ NØ 08:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, acknowledged and will address accordingly. Ippantekina (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not meet the GA criteria without it so please prioritize fixing accordingly.--NØ 15:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)