Talk:Midnights

Is every track listing for each edition necessary?
I am opening this for a consensus discussion but I don’t believe that the Til Dawn Edition tracks need listed as it seems a bit redundant as “Hits Different” is on the Lavender Edition and “Snow on the Beach (ft. More Lana Del Rey)” and “Karma (ft. Ice Spice)” is on the Late Night Edition so I just don’t think the Til Dawn Edition tracks are necessary to mention as it’s mentioned it was released and is in the release history and it doesn’t make any significant difference. But that’s me. 2600:1015:B127:726B:445E:63B6:DEF5:44B5 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023
Hi, bejeweled is also a single. It has a music video in Taylor's official YouTube channel 124.195.197.243 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Christgau removal
RE this: Are you kidding me? There are two huuuge paragraphs of praise, about 6 to 8 looong sentences each. And one tiny bit from Xgau of all people can't be included to a paragraph that barely goes into anyone's reservations? Incredulous. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was brought up that the wording is vague. I think any reader with a basic understanding of the English language can parse out for themselves the meaning of this, which to me basically means that because the music is more textured than the otherwise usually tune-focused Swift has done, it is consequently less distinct. On the other hand, it could also be interpreted as more textured music led to less focused (or more confused) lyrics. But I think the former reading is more likely. Either way, to argue that this is vague and yet such summaries as "the sound could have been better" or the production was "redundant" (neither getting into any more specifics, ... it's silly. And the other sources, with all due respect, are either not as notable or not as engagingly written, or summarized, in that paragraph. And the writing should be engaging. I'm pretty sure there's a guideline or an essay on better writing (on Wikipedia) that mentions that... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. I figure you are attempting to include Xgau because you are a fan of his work. The Critical Reception section has enough reviews and anymore reviews, be it Xgau or anybody else, are not required. Midnights is a year-old album and Xgau's review is also as old. The other reviews were added here first when the article was being created, with which the article passed WP:GA. The Critical Reception section is fine in its current size, so do not fix what's not broken. Please quit the point-making edits. "There are two huuuge paragraphs of praise, about 6 to 8 looong sentences each" is factually false. The first para is praise, the second para focuses on specific comments about the album and the third the mixed comments. Considering the album has a metascore of 85%, the prose is obliged to be 85% positive and 15% mixed and that's exactly how it is right now. The critical reception section, in its current state, is commensurate with the metascore.  ℛonherry  ☘  21:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Should it be listed as More Lana Del Rey even on wikipedia?
Just seems like an odd way to handle it, especially without details why it’s written that way. Some new people could look at it as actually featuring an artist called More Lana Del Rey 47.223.58.232 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)