Talk:Taylor Swift albums discography/Archive 1

Merge into Taylor Swift article
I believe the text in this article could be merged into the Taylor Swift article as it really is unsubstantive on its own as she only has one album and one single released.  James E. Zavaleta T  C   E 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Table re-configuration
I would like to change the table as I had had it before, so that the info isn't as hard to read and everything not so scrunched together. 76.236.153.65 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fearless Certification
Hasn't her album been certified 3 times platinum in the U.S.? It says so on her offical webstie. Can someone please change. --Love.Game (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't been. Check http://www.riaa.com . Recording companies need to apply for certifications and it is not done automatically though "Fearless" has sold more than 3 million copies. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Singles
I think that the digital only singles should be integrated into the main singles section. We can put a footnote in to say they were digital singles. It just gives a more accurate idea of her single performances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.103.64 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh i agree. That's a good idea. --Love.Game (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * well do you want to do it? Cause I can't seem to make it work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebmcateer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Digital Single's Help
Can someone remove "You Belong with Me", since its on the radio now???

67.185.168.243 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Top 40
I am going to re-introduce Mainstream Top 40 chart. Mainstream Top 40 is the standard chart for CHR format (Comtemporary Hit Radio), and it is not a secondary chart or used to comprise other charts (except Hot 100 Airplay, which include all radio charts). Mainstream Top 40 is important because it has heavy influence on Billboard Hot 100. The format has more audience than country or AC or Hot AC format. For a country artist, releases to CHR radio means higher chart position on Hot 100. If no one response, I will re-add the chart in a few days. Langdon (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)i7114080

Album Produced 13 top 40 hits
"Her album FEARLESS produced thirteen top fourty hits, making her the first artist to ever achieve this feat..." Is this exagerated and preposterous "claim" really going to remain unchallenged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.92.186 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This a fairly late response, but the claim was true, just not phrased quite right; Swift does indeed hold the record for the largest number of top 40 hits from a single album. Other artists have of course had thirteen or more songs in the top 40, but Swift was the first to achieve so many from just one album. Liqudluck ✽ talk  05:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked her discography and found 17 songs from that album which charted. Of those 12 were in the top40, others charted lower. At least according to the wiki discography. Funny is though that the album only had 13 songs... 85.217.47.47 (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
Just a bit of a peer review. No need to follow through on these.
 * Shouldn't Discography and Taylor Swift be bolded per WP:BOLDTITLE?
 * I don't know... their not bolded on Madonna albums discography or Ashley Tisdale discography. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The album spun out a total of five hit singles, of which two, "Teardrops on My Guitar" and "Our Song", both released in 2007, became top twenty hits in the United States[4] and were certified double platinum by the RIAA.[5][6]"
 * the sentence has a lot of clauses, and "hit" without an explanation would be POV- but removing it makes it sound like only ToMG and OS did well. Perhaps change the sentence to "The album spun out a total of five singles, all of which reached the top 40 in the US and were certified platinum by the RIAA."
 * Thank you. That was changed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Liqudluck ✽ talk 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Grammy nod seems a bit out of place, and it is no longer her only one- perhaps replacing the sentence with a mention of that longest charting record that the Taylor Swift album broke would be more relevant?
 * Same with the Grammy mentions at the end. The CMAs are equally important to a country singer like Swift, and this article is more about her sales. I would think her awards are better suited for her awards and nominations list, while this article should mention more of her chart record breaking.


 * You're right... I removed them but can you find a source for the Taylor Swift album breaking a record. I can't seem to find it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here from Billboard, or US Weekly if you want to mix it up =] Liqudluck ✽ talk  02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for changes
''Note: I don't care about WikiProject Discographies/style because it is a country music discography and people just crazily follow the samples provided. Also we can ignore all rules if necessary.'' Langdon (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Country charts must be all listed. Although sometimes they don't have archives, those charts do exist.
 * Australia/NZ and UK/Ireland should be list first because these places are naturally more important than other non-English-speaking countries.
 * I have to say, the discography is an absolute mess now. It was in perfect condition the way it was before. Like I7114080 said, country charts should be listed, and in the first position, as this is a country music discography. And I'm also pretty sure none of this was discussed here first before being tackled. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Langdon (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Langdon (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the new version, Pop 100/Pop Songs and AC charts are removed. Should we bring it back?
 * I think Pop Songs should be listed (as always).
 * Should we list multiple re-entry or just only ultimate peak chart position?
 * I think Pop Songs and AC charts should be brought back, yes, For one, she's had #1's on the AC chart and a #2 on Pop Songs. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but before it was an absolute mess and I fixed it. All US Country charts are listed. It does not matter if the speak English or not - after the home country of the singer, they should be in alphabetical order, like in the FAs Madonna albums discography or Madonna singles discography. You keep saying that it was perfect before because it was country and that does not make sense since it is a discography and should be treated like any other artist of any other genre. Pop 100 and Pop Songs are complete different thing. Pop 100 was based both on airplay and sales while Pop Songs is only based on airplay and since she is not a pop artist, as it has been addressed, they do not matter too much. AC charts are also not as important and could be listed in the actual song articles if people really want to find out about that. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Carrie Underwood discography is also an FA. Langdon (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And since we can deviate from the rules a little to fit each artist, I think it is best at its current state... too many charts from one country when several songs charted in different countries does not give a broad overview of the subject at hand. With US country next to the US alone it suffices. It's better locating the different countries if it alphabetized. I like how you pinted out Carrie Underwood's discography which helps but it has more charts from the US beacuse none of her songs charted on other countries, excluding Canada. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It absolutely was not a mess before. It flowed great, and with your un-discussed edits, it became a hot mess. Everything was all jumbled and looked terrible. Carrie Underwood discography is not even close to this. Her's is great as-is, too. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Carrie Underwood's is acceptable because her songs have not charted elsewhere than the U.S. and Canada while Swift has charted in many more countries so having an excess of charts from one country seems like too much. Before the lead was very messy, badly written, needed copy-editing and the body needed citations, which none were formatted by the way. And having the countries organized of whether they speak English or not seems a little odd. In WP:DISCOGRAPHY, though it says you can shift directions if necessary, it has two Nirvana songs and it is organized alphabetically and I'm sure they do not speak English in Austria specifically for that song. So, it's not necessary to change the order in that. And it did not flow great. Every time I tried looking for a chart position I would get confused between all the US Charts and the random orders of countries. -- ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message  21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you on the English speaking context. I don't understand what that has to do with anything. There is no limit on how many US charts can be in a table, just no more than 10 charts altogether. The lead, I agree, can be changed as to the way you fixed it. That and the reference formatting are the only things I agree upon. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with new version
There seems to be a lot of confusion and dislike with the new version of the article. I apologize for not warning anyone or discussing my edits here to begin with but now we'll discuss what anyone wants to be done. Leave a comment on something that you have a problem with; please do explain your reasoning and I'll explain mine so we can meet somewhere in the middle. Thank you. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 21:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall discuss issues that bother me with this new version, as well as a few praises. =D

First of all, the lead...spot on :) Couldn't have written it better myself.
 * Thank you. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Studio albums

 * Billboard 200 and Billboard Top Country Albums. I do realize that a number comes first when being alphabetized, however, as Swift is a country artist, the Top Country Albums chart should go first. This also applies to Extended Plays section. In addition, why were the Canadian Country Albums chart and Australian Country Albums chart removed?
 * First, I put it second beacuse the all-genre album chart was more important but it's not much a problem moving it. Let's just see what other people say. Well, I removed to make space for other countries beacuse since only 10 total charts are allowed, I decided to keep her home country's country album chart. Also, finding an archive was extremely difficult. I could not find one. Is that O.K.? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I do not think that there is an archive for the Canadian Top Country Albums. But I could be wrong. There is, however, one for the Australian. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked in Billboard and theres none for Canada and where is the one for Australia. If anyone is interested on that they can see the album page in order to make way for more countries. Is that O.K.? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Australian archive is here. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. I think I did not explain myself well. By archive I did not mean that what I mean was how in discography pages it says the chart and the position of each album like on here. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohhh I see what you mean. Well in that case, I have no idea. I guess it doesn't really need to be in the table anyway. Good on that now? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah we're good on this. I ques the only things left are the placings of US country, guest single, and certifications. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrightyy then. Well, this is just between you and I on these matters. But we'll make it work ;) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great :)At least right now they are but hopefully more editors will comment on this soon. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CAN country and AUS country MUST stay. Country order: US, CAN, AUS, others (CAN is more important for sure). Others are fine. Langdon (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry that they cannot because there is no single source that can give a chart position for all the songs that charted there and no more than 10 charts can be listed. In order to make way for more they can't be included. Plus, they have to be in alphabetical order per WP:DISCOGRAPHY. Even Carrie Underwood's discography has it like that. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care what WP:Discography says. Also in WP:Discography, it says that English speaking country can be listed first. Even with no references, those charts do exists. And thus it can be included. Don't forget we can ignore all rules. Langdon (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because they exist does not mean we should include them. We can ignore all rules but not in the way you seem to be doing it. Plus, that will hurt when I make it a candidate for FL. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Diamond Rio discography is an FL, and it too, includs Canadian Country positions, as does Carrie Underwood. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but as I have repeated a thousand times only 10 can be included and we should have as most different countries as we can. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In WP:discography, it says 10 charts are suggested. Also Taylor is not international enough to list so many countries out.
 * Umm... that seems like an ignorant comment because Swift's second album, "Love Story", and "You Belong with Me" have charted on over 10 charts. And the suggestion is to be taken seriously and not avoiding because I think this could be an FL soon if all the editing calms down. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But while those two singles have charted on global scales, every single one of her releases has charted on the Canadian country charts, and therefore I believe it is much more important to have. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With the live albums and compilation albums sections, they don't necessarily bother me.

Extended Plays

 * Again, country chart first, as well as removal of Canadian Country Albums. ??? And the removal of the Top Holiday Albums??
 * O.K. Same with the first. And I removed Holdiay Albums because she most likely will not release another holiday EP in a long while so that could be answered by the actual EP page. Do you agree? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Singles

 * This one is a very big issue for me. First and foremost, the Hot Country Songs chart needs to be first. And the Canadian Country Singles needs to be re-added. The alphabetized the international charts is perfect. I have nothing negative to say about that. However, the single certifications makes it look so very bad. It was wonderful the way it was in its own table, toward the bottom of the page. As for "Two Is Better Than One" being a guest single, it needs to be in a section entitled "Guest singles", as it was prior to this. Also, for the new single, "Fearless", its chart peak of #9 on the Hot 100 and #69 on the Canadian Hot 100 were from it being a digital single prior to the albums release. Therefore, it should be in the Digital Songs section. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. Same thing about seeing if other editors are O.K. with that. The certifications, I think should be right next to the single because everything looks kind of lost without it. Plus, WP:DISCOGRAPHY has it like that and I think we should follow the guideline with this since it's not one of those exception is which we can deviate from the guideline. The guest single I specified it was a guest single. I put it there because it was like that on Madonna singles discography, which is an FL, and putting it in it's own chart would be cutting the chronology a bit. But it can be changed if it's that annoying to you. For "Fearless" the note says it so I do not think that is an issue. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is actually very annoying to me, for both the guest single and the certifications. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. than the guest single can probably be changed but I think the certifications should stay. Does that seem like a good compromise? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I'm not sure yet. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. I'll let you sleep on it. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mkkk. And to see what other editors have to say about it, too. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your completely right. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CAN country must stay. Country order: US, CAN, others (again, CAN is more important, don't like the certs in new version, separated guest singles (they are not released by Swift!!!!!!) Langdon (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, there is no source. And O.K. it seems you are agreeing with EnDaLe... this should be discussed a least for a couple of days. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely re-add the Canadian country charts, because country releases are done in a different way than other types of songs on other charts -- they are specifically released as CD singles to radio for airplay only success, therefore the success on mainstream charts is crossover and not strictly important -- so, country positions in the US and Canada are first and foremost the key goal of singles. Also, I prefer the guest singles being seperate from her singles, because well they are guest singles and not really hers; seperating them keeps it neater, so Fearless isn't chopped up by having a seperate single thrown in between it. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Other charted songs

 * remove promotional single section; no source.
 * There is a source. The source are those that are kept under general on references. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * separated digital songs and airplay songs (that was my idea)
 * I don't think so because that will make the page excessively long. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * notable re-entry included.
 * That seems to have no point since it's the same song charting. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Langdon (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We want to reflect the actually chart history of Swift. Langdon (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems way to specific for a discography and is notable for a song or album article. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall
I have been dying trying to remove excessive align-center stuff, and you are adding it back!
 * This is the old version with new references added.
 * That doesn't really matter. It doesn't affect how it looks on the actual page. You can remove it if it confuses you. But don't remove it on the chart positions since that will affect how it will look. I think we should leave the references as they currently are. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with new version, part 2
It is so messy above. please put some spaces. Voting is a much quicker way.

Chart inclusion
Langdon (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CAN country charts and AUS country must be included. These charts exists without archives.
 * Don't need to list so many European countries. UK and Ireland are essencial for now.
 * Pop Songs should be included, because seldom country artists released songs to CHR radio, and CHR radio generate more audience than any other genre charts.
 * If necessary, put more than 10 charts in one section.

Chart order
Langdon (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Canadian charts are more important than any other country charts (except US), because there are Canadian country charts and it has heavy US influences.
 * Country charts list before all-genre charts

Singles table
Langdon (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * guest singles separated - I think that's done in EVERY discography.
 * separated single certification - done in Carrie Underwood discography

Other charted songs
Langdon (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * re-entries included.
 * separated digital songs and airplay songs (my idea) because Swift has so many digital songs

Overall

 * redundant citation - you put RIAA sources for every album and single, when two - one for albums, one for singles - is enough.
 * You are completely right. Can you make it one please? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Langdon (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * excessive align-center. harder to read the code, too much KBs.

All-agreed section
nothing so far. Langdon (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One at a time
Ipodnano05 contacted me about the discussion. The section above makes my head spin a bit (also, a reminder to the room at large to watch WP:CIVIL and WP:BRD), so I figured I'd bring up the most common concerns listed above one at a time, and then mark the related comments above as <big style="color:#690; font-size:1.4em;">✓ Done once consensus is established. Liqudluck ✽ talk 01:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Canadian Country charts- there's a couple of comments stating that they "must" be included. Certainly, the main chart should be kept, but may I ask why the country charts are necessary? Liqudluck ✽ talk  01:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those couple of comments are by the same use, Langdon. Me and EnDaLeCoMpLeX and I agreed not to have it. I just wanted to clarify that. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll explain my reasoning for not including it. First, this chart does not have a discography source where all the albums or songs that charted in it are displayed. Adding a chart without any reference is definitely bad and violates WP:SOURCES, which basically one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia. And even if a source like that is found, adding it will mean exceeding in 10 charts being listed and WP:DISCOGRAPHY suggests that at least 10 charts should be listed and the suggestion is definitely going to be brought up at FLC. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 03:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll leave Langdon a message asking him/her to comment, then. Agreed that no article should violate WP:V. Liqudluck ✽ talk  06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I say add the Canadian country chart, in place of a lesser-needed global country chart. Mainly because country songs are specifically release to country radio. Pop songs thrive on digital downloads AND airplay in regular mainstream charts, while country songs only rise based on airplay. So, success on any chart other than a country chart is crossover, and the Canadian country chart is more important than "Love Story" charting in an extra country she's never charted in before (or something like that). CloversMallRat (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really hate the comment on "not to exceed 10 charts" according to WP:Discography. It is just a suggestion, and if necessary, why not more charts? Also there is a Canadian country chart compile by Nielsen BDS which can be found here or in Billboard Canadian Update. It is official for sure. However there is just no archive, but we update chart position every week since January 2008. There may be no outer sources of this chart, but Wikipedia is definite a good archive for Canadian country chart. Plus in FLs like Carrie Underwood discography and Diamond Rio discography, Canadian country charts are acceptable. Langdon (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to say, there is NO consensus at all in this world. Somebody will have to give up something, and Canadian country chart is not the one I will give up. Langdon (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A country music discography guideline is needed. Langdon (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Amen! I just want to let you know, that I whole-heartedly agree with everything Landon just said; the Canadian country chart belongs here as much as anything, if not more (IMHO, I think so). CloversMallRat (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One country's country genre chart should suffice. Two, I think would be, putting too much emphasis on the country when it is not her home country and she charted in many others. Someone said something about Pop Songs being a, both sale and airplay chart and that is incorrect. Pop Songs used to be called Mainstream Top 40 and is only based on airplay. Therefore, that should not be added. And I would like to point out that Pop 100 and Pop Songs are completely different things. Pop 100 is now canceled so including it will be very pointless since no more of her songs can chart there; most of her songs did not even chart there. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is talking about Pop Songs inclusion right now. However the chart should definitely be included. Langdon (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She did chart in many countries, but almost every official single she released charted in Canada, partly because of regional influences. That makes Canada more special than other countries. Langdon (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but including so many genre charts is really point less and seems kind of WP:FANCRUFT-ish. Plus, Pop Songs was mentioned by CloversMailRat. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I made mention to "pop songs" as in songs that are pop music, ie: Lady Gaga and Britney Spears, rather than the aforementioned Pop Songs chart. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Clover and Langdon made interesting points about the Canadian country chart having a different method, and that Swift's success there is due to regional influences. Are there sources for this? Liqudluck ✽ talk  03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My Two cents
The discography is definitely an improvement from the last time that I checked it. It is at present a FL standard list. Few things that I'm concerned are the overlinking of the same wikilinks like RIAA. Also italicization of the online sources like RIAA.com and allmusic should be removed. The RIAA certification links particularly baffle me since they are all the same links and present in different ref tags. IMO they should all be compiled in a single reference. Also, for the albums try to add sourced sales nos. Billboard and Nielsen Soundscan provided the sales nos, you won't have any problem finding it. These are the things I noticed at first glance. You guys should thank Ipodnano for the wonderful job on the article that he did and improved it from the fancruft it was. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you and that's what I want everyone to realize that an FL fit discography can't have charts without archives or ignore the suggestions that Wikipedia guidelines lay out for us. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Source for promo singles
Where is it? I don't like this section at all; it can go to "other charted songs" section. Langdon (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The general references back this up. Songs that were released digitally, apart from the album, or as a promo CD should not be with songs that were only part of an album but charted because of digital downloads or unsolicited airplay. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything at all. Plus, promo singles are not really important. Langdon (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm what do you mean you don't see it? And they are important. You said that airplay and digital songs should be separate and that seems less important than this. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 02:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian peaks
Admittedly, I haven't read everything posted here (yet), but I had to add another opinion on removing Taylor Swift's Canadian country peaks. Removing Swift's Canadian peaks would make her the only country artist not to have their Billboard Canadian Country Singles chart history documented on Wikipedia. I think Canadian peaks are particularly important to Swift's discography because in Canada, her releases are marketed by a Canadian country record label, Open Road Recordings. Please see this, this and this. Eric444 (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! Swift's releases are very important in Canada but since she is really one very successful country star because of her pop crossovers, she found success in a lot of other countries that should be included here and listing the country genre for Canada will make it way too many charts. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "Love Story" reaching #7 in Norway is more important than the fact that she's topped the Billboard Canadian Country Singles chart four times. We should include the official charts that she's found the most success on over one-off appearances, and let's not forget that she is still primarily a country music artist. The fact that "Tim McGraw" didn't chart on the Canadian Hot 100 doesn't mean that it wasn't a hit on Canadian country radio. Eric444 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for the CAN country peaks though? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of and that's the main reason why I think it should not be included. If you can find a discography source of them I'll remove a chart and put CAN Country in back of Canada as long as no more genre charts are added. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 04:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like this discography has become YOUR page, ipodnano05. It seems like your new version will be the final version no matter what happens. Langdon (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not own the page. I just made many changes that I should have discussed and now we are discussing. No one owns any article. Sorry if I acted like the page was mine because it's not. I was just saying that I agree if anyone has a source and change it myself. It's kind of a deal with CAN Country and other genre charts. So what do you say? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral third party comments
First of all, why don't we all sit down, have a cuppa and discuss try to keep civil tongues in our heads (or, er, civil fingers on our keyboards). I don't think anybody is disputing that the majority of Ipodnano05's edits have greatly improved the quality of the article. The edits should, undoubtedly, have been discussed prior to being made, but reverting just because they weren't discussed is not helpful. I think it might be prudent to remind everybody of the three revert rule. As for specific issues, if the number of charts listed is an issue, I doubt listing 11 rather than 10 really makes that much difference- such guidelines exist to discourage listing every chart on which a song rated, though, in any article, not just a potential future FLC, all information added should have a reference to a reliable source. HJMitchell   You rang?   04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. We should calm down and discuss this in a more civilized manner. Thank you for commenting. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Release year vs charted year
For "American Girl", the single was released in 2009 but charted in 2010. What should we put in the year column? Actually the question is about "discography" and "chart history". Sometimes these two don't go together very well. Langdon (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We should go with release. Since this is Taylor Swift discography. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 04:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However the song charted in 2010, not 2009. People will think that the song reached #115 in 2009, and that is not true. If you think we should go with release, then we shouldn't list ANY chart history at all, because it will just confuse people. Langdon (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it would confused people. After all, it did chart in 2010, therefore it should be listed as a 2010 single. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe to make that less confusing we could have a note that says it charted in 2010 and was released in 2009 but leave the year as 2009. Does that sound good? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 02:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Everybody listen up!
Before making any more edits of any nature to this article, everybody please refresh their memory of WP:EW and WP:3RR. If you disagree with an edit, as you're quite entitled to do, then discuss it here. That's what this page is for. Do not simply revert it and then wonder why you were reverted because nobody gets anywhere that way. Wikipedia works on consensus- which means making the best argument based in policy, guidelines and reliable sources- it is not a contest of who can revert the quickest or the most, who can shout the loudest or how many people "vote" for something. Everybody should express their grievances with any particular edit here and establish consensus before reverting. I'm quite happy to facilitate discussion here and anybody who has who wants to get something off their chest is quite welcome to email me rather than ranting on here. Anybody who reverts 3 times in 24 hours will be warned and anybody who makes 4 reverts may find themselves at WP:ANEW, but I hope it doesn;t come to that and everyone can sit down and discuss it calmly. Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen. Let's see an end to the reversions and a new start for the discussion. HJMitchell   You rang?   03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Singles
I suggest we can split the single table into two parts.


 * North American releases


 * International releases

It shows the correct single chronology in both NA and the world. It points out what songs were released and what songs were not in different areas. The old table requires notes added, and creates confusion. It may be too repetitive. It may also look squeezed on some screens. Note: no one has ever done this before, but please don't use this as an opposing reason. Langdon (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, actually. However, I do think that the International releases table should be below the North America one. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a very strange idea to me. Most singles for many different artists have not been released to all countries and having the chronology as such is bad. I know you are obviously going to become angry but please do not do that. I really want for this list to be an FL but with the new changes and that, it will not. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 02:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't be angry. I am just suggesting that it is a possible way. Langdon (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Promo songs
I haven't found any pages that states "You're Not Sorry" or some other songs are promo singles. Can anyone provide a link? First, they are not promotional singles. They are only songs when they are not officially shipped to the radio. Nowadays any songs can be released on iTunes. Second, if they are really promo songs, then they are only promo songs in the US (except "Crazier", I think). For example, songs from Fearless was released on the same day as the album. "You're Not Sorry" even didn't enter the Canadian Hot 100 until April 2009. I think to avoid confusion, "Fearless" and "You Belong with Me" should be included with chart position before its official release. However that create a problem: the certifications. I strongly suggest merging this section to other charted songs, as always. Langdon (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your confusion, but these are promo singles since they were released on iTunes - how you said any songs can be released on iTunes as a single, making it a promotional single and not a full single. I added "Crazier" because per http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=34355, which gives a promo single cover. Does that answer some of your questions on what promo singles are? As far as "Fearless" and "You Belong with Me", plenty of songs have charted before being a single and that does not mean it should be with other charted songs. There is no confusion over this since there is a note and if people want to know if "You Belong With Me" charted before being a single they should look at the actual song article. It seems to specific for a discography page. I know you have best intentions for the page at heart and want to include as much as you can but somethings could just be for an specific article. I hope that clarifies everything for you :) -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 03:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is still no SOURSE stating any of the songs list above are promo songs. Just like you have doubts about Canadian country charts, I suspect they are just songs, not singles or promo singles. I know it is kind of obvious when you see the chart history. According to you, any song released on iTunes with a cover will automatically become a promo. How do you know that "Breathe" is a promo? Why is "American Girl" a promo? I really suggest that we list "Fearless" and "You Belong with Me" again because it reflects chart history and notes create confusion. It feels like something missing in the table. Langdon (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have said it over 10 times that the source is the ones that are in the general sections of the references. Have you seen or are you just avoiding it? I'll give you one for each just so you know that it's not a lie.

Does that clear things up or do you still not believe me. By the way, I don't have doubts about Canada's Country chart. I know it exists and its the fact that there is no discography source for it that holds me back on including it, for individual song it's O.K. though. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the sources. You better add them into the discography so that people are easier to see. However, "on iTunes" doesn't make any song become a single. All tracks from Fearless are available on iTunes, but not all of them are singles. the chartstats page only shows that "Crazier" has charted on UK charts. Also RIAA certification there isn't a type called "songs"; therefore they put all songs into "single" section. What if "Jump Then Fall" gets certified Gold?? From the Rolling Stone page, only 4 songs are promo singles. Also chart positions should be listed in "Other charted songs" section. (See above) Langdon (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm Only Me When I'm with You" - per RIAA certification as a single
 * "Change" - per allmusic (http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dnfpxztkldte)
 * "You're Not Sorry" - is on iTunes, which I think you have seen
 * "Breathe" - per Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/taylorswift/discography)
 * "Crazier" - per http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=34355
 * "American Girl" - also per Rolling Stone
 * "Today Was a Fairy Tale" - is on iTunes, which I think you have also seen.
 * Those promo singles doesn't related to the chart positions at all. They were on charts because of digital downloads. Langdon (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. I had no idea for RIAA. So I'm Only M can be put in other charted songs. On iTunes as a single though - did you see that iTunes had a countdown to the release of Fearless, releasing promo singles; "You're Not Sorry" was one of them. And those sources are in the article, in the general references, which references things like albums and singles ever being released. Are you clarified now?? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Today was a Fairytale
It just reached #2. Should it not be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.105.10 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It already is. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it in the singles section? Its been released as the lead single from the Valentine's Day soundtrack (EW, KDND, Toronto Sun). Liquidluck ✽ talk  20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Boldly moved it up. Feel free to discuss Liquidluck ✽ talk  20:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The song was sent to CHR radio. "Fearless" is still her main single on country radio. Langdon (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The song/single is not her main single (yet). It should be put in "soundtrack singles" section. Langdon (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Charts/genre
Why are genre charts in teh front while the main chart like BB Hot 100 inthe second column? Genre charts are given secondary priority over the main chart. Please rectify this, associated editors. Also, Today was a Fairytale is suitable as a soundtrack single only. Other things look good. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think country charts is less important than Hot 100? I think a country act's goal is to gain maximum popularity on country radio, because sometimes you can't compete with pop artist on Hot 100. Swift is a country artist (with a few crossover), thus country charts are important and placed before Hot 100 charts. Langdon (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal beliefs are not to make the entire page. What you said doesn't make any sense since the main chart is the Hot 100 (all genres and that in itself is bigger than the country genre chart). It's like saying Swift winning Grammy Award for Best Country Album is better than her winning the ultimate prize, the Grammy Award for Album of the Year. It makes no sense. Whether it's more probable for her to top the country or all genre chart is not important, thus country charts are not more important and should not be placed before Hot 100 charts. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As of right now all the albums have country before main and all the singles have main before country. Let's keep it that way until we can reach an agreement. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 18:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Music videos ft. Swift?
Should Best Days of Your Life (video) and Online (song) (video) be included in the music videos section, even though Swift doesn't sing in the songs? I believe Best Days of Your Life should be included, since Swift co-wrote it, does sing in it (although more as harmony), and is prominently featured in the video. Don't know about Online, though, since she basically just dances. Liquidluck ✽ talk 06:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Other singles
This section is complete WP:FANCRUFT. Remixes should not be included. Songs that were at first promo single and then became actual singles shouldn't be included either. Why are the songs in italics and why is there a release date? Where is the album they came from? This used to be much better as promotional singles too. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They were released as a single only - one-track album. Thus they are not in ANY album at all when they were released. Thus they are treated the same as ALBUMS. Also all promo and other singles should be included so that the list is clear to read. Remixes were included simply to reflect Swift's releases on iTunes - it is a discography, so we should make it as complete as possible. Langdon (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I get you but remixes are way too specific. Leave that up the track listing section on the songs' article And "one-track album"?? Yea, that doesn't exist. It's called single and are in no way treated the same as albums. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Decade separation
Should the singles be divided by decades? With a new album, shes is sure to release enough singles. And two from previous works are there too. I advice it for "Singles" and "Other charted songs" so that tables aren't overcrowded. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No way, there are only 13 singles, by no stretch of the imagination is that close to being 'overcrowded'. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Well right now. I just think it's something for later. Also, please relax. It's just a suggestion. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nowyouseeme. This isn't George Strait discography. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 02:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I was thinking but, looking on it, it's a good idea for later and definitely not right now. Once she has 20 singles at least. Anything that is needed later will be done later, so whatever. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 20:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured singles section = yes, please.
I have seen this changed so many times, and I think this needs to be discussed: Taylor Swift's featured singles (i.e. "Two Is Better Than One" and "Half of My Heart") belong in a separate section, apart from singles where she is the main artists. If you look at many, many other artist discographies, one can see that this is always the case, for example the featured articles of the discographies of Rihanna, Gwen Stefani, Sophie Ellis-Bextor, and P!nk. Furthermore, in the case of argument that Ms. Swift's two singles might not be enough to qualify as its own section, one can look at featured articles of the discographies of the Spice Girls and the Black Eyed Peas. I hope this matter can be settled. Thanks. Yvesnimmo (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, thanx

 * A separate featured singles section is not needed, with the way it is currently it clearly states that the song is by another artist and that the song features Swift. It doesn't matter what those other featured list articles do, Taylor Swift discography is a featured list itself, and was promoted to that status without a featured singles section, if it was a problem it would have been addressed then. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nowyouseeme. Also, it disturbs the singles chronology and sequence. Since those two songs are both singles, what's the point for making a new section? I see none. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 01:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather see them seperated. The featured singles aren't on one of her albums so they shouldn't be in her singles section. Gilliganfanatic 11:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. But what does that have do with? It's specified that the singles are not from her album. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing it looks way to sloppy for me how which albums the songs are from are listed. Fearless, Love Drunk, Fearless, Battle Studies, Speak Now, it's too much going on. Gilliganfanatic 18:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, there is a clear distinction between singles where she is the main artist and singles where she is the featured artist in the navbox (and for all other artists). Further, there would then consistently be no alternation between linked and unlinked albums on the Album column. Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it looks "sloppy" by any means, that's just called being picky, and I don't think it justifies any change. The way it currently is is much simpler and takes up less space. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  01:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured singles should be separate. That's how all other pages are done. It makes no sense for this one to be any different. It does look sloppy the way it is currently set up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphil126 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Please
The songs come from another artist's album. The songs do not belong under singles released by her because they are released by other artists featuring her on the track; I heard Half of My Heart on the radio today in fact, and it's credited to John Mayer, not Taylor Swift (though she is mentioned as giving "a little help" in today's show). I'm going to change this back to the way it should be, because it's correct. They are considered "Guest Singles" (changed already). Further, as others have noted, the songs are not on her own albums, therefore they are not specifically her singles. Either we don't list them at all or we list them separately "as featured artist", which is currently how the page looks. CycloneGU (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced
I am quite disappointed in this article. I have removed many additions in the article because they are all unreferenced. They are listed below: I do not know how in the world this article got promoted to FL. Missing references for at least ten items in an article is not representative of Wikipedia's best work. Do not assume the "general reference" below the country is sufficient. Yves (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Taylor Swift peak in the UK;
 * Fearless peak in Germany;
 * "Jump Then Fall" peak in Australia;
 * "Crazier" peak in Australia;
 * "Crazier" peak in the UK;
 * all peaks for "Half of My Heart" and "Two Is Better Than One"; and
 * "Breathless" peak in Canada adjusted according to allmusic reference.
 * You readded the Jump Then Fall AUS peak. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  02:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, so I did; must've been because of the edit conflict. Yves (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I did some of that stuff on there, it's low that you're crediting it to yourself. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  02:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not realize we were both editing at the same time; I started before your first edit. Yves (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it's all cool buddy. :) <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  02:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I just wanted to bring it up here because I don't really want to bring the whole thing to an FL demotion process or whatever, so whatever refs we can find we'll add. Yves (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, I definitely don't think this should be demoted, I think it is really good, the main problem was just those unsourced positions; but really, the article is substantial without them, so if we can't find sources for them it's OK. For one, I really don't know where to find sources to verify AUS positions lower than 50, but the UK peak for Crazier is right here. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added the Taylor Swift UK peak too. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  03:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

For missing chartings in the UK, ChartStats.com takes care of everything. It was at first listed, but then replaced by the current reference because one user kept debating it and questioning its reliability on the article's first FL candidature. However, ChartStats is allowed by WP:CHARTS and I'd be happy to re-add it. Do you guys agree? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I am currently working on the chartings of "Two Is Better than One" and "Half of My Heart". The solution is simple. Just look at Kesha discography. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the solution is simple; it was just not done. Yves (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ with featured singles. Also, for Australian positions below 50, we would need to source each individual song, but I know where to find it. Check Breakout (Miley Cyrus song) or He Could Be the One. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 18:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I was completely unaware that someone replaced Denmark with Germany and didn't even add a source or chart positions. I will revert it right now. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 18:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Germany problem was fixed, as were all the UK chartings. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't the "Breathless" problem. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the verb in that sentence is "understand" or "comprehend" (though I may be wrong)? The original peak was largely inflated in comparison to the allmusic source. I am uncertain if it is the actual peak, that the source has not updated, or if it is an incorrect change. Yves (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Sorry for that. How do I know which is correct? I have no idea. That's more of Billboards problem than ours. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message' 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Every one of the issues reported here were fixed, with the exception of "Breathless" because I'm not exactly sure how to go about it or which peak is correct. I think we should just state what Billboard has. That should suffice. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Breathless" peaked in Canada at number forty-nine. Billboard does not have a reference. Lemme look. Yves (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see here that this is true the week of the thirteenth of February of this year. Yves (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So it peaked at number 40 and not 90 something like on the article? -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Number forty-nine. Yves (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Rhapsody Originals
Why was Rhapsody Originals removed? The user who removed it claimed it was not an official release. What is that supposed to mean? Rhapsody Originals, composed of acoustic versions of songs from her debut album, was released elusively to Rhapsody. That merits it as an official release. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reliable non-primary coverage? Yves (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rhapsody? But coverage shouldn't be taken into account. If an album is a complete commercial failure, not charting or garnered enough hype for any critic to review, it is still an album. It will always be an album, just not a popular one. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 16:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But we need non-primary mention to even establish its existence. Yves (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Third party sources are needed for many things, but existence isn't one of them. Mostly, third party sources are used because primary sources are biased, but that's not the case. I think that this is the case where a primary source is acceptable. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 19:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Still disputable. Any secondary sources? Yves (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have another source for this release, it can be added. If not, it will stay just the way it is. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT  (Talk)  11:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Just because it isn't successful or famous doesn't mean it shouldn't be added. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 19:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said that? If you don't have another source for it's release, there's nothing to support it to add it here. Simple as that. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  19:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't successful or famous, there aren't any other sources that aren't primary. That's why I said that. It's existence isn't supported by any other sources. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this qualify as a reliable secondary source? http://www.sortmusic.com/_t/taylor-swift-albums,up843930000333,len.html It lists a UPC number and everything. Bro2baseball (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry :( -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 23:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Notes?
I think the note should be removed. They look messy in the table, and also don't really add anything to the article. I mean, come on. "Teardrops on My Guitar" charted in the UK Singles Chart as the second single from Fearless in April 2009, "Should've Said No" charted in the New Zealand Singles Chart as the third single from Fearless in September 2009, "Half of My Heart" peaked on the Billboard Hot 100 and the Canadian Hot 100 upon the release of Mayer's Battle Studies (2009), and "You Belong with Me" and "Fearless" were first released as promotional singles from Fearless. The latter peaked on the Billboard Hot 100 and the Canadian Hot 100 when released as a promotional single in November 2008. Why does that matter? The other charted ones that don't have a page are useful, but those are just not. ℥nding · start 23:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I also think they don't add much and can be stated in the actual song article. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful Eyes Directors
The Beautiful Eyes CD-Single that was released exclusive Wal-Mart inside its booklet it credits Trey Franjoy & Todd Cassetty for the video as the following: BEAUTIFUL EYES Video Filmed by Trey Fanjoy/Edited by Todd Cassetty Hi-Fi Fusion. So I posted them based on that. JamesAlan1986 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JamesAlan1986, 3 July 2011

 * http://www.amazon.com/X-posed-Taylor-Swift/dp/B004NTVMH4/ref=sr_1_8?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1309731630&sr=1-8

I found this on amazon.com but it has not been posted on here it's an interview CD called X-posed, that was released on May 3, 2011. It's got 1 disc and the label that released it is CHROME DREAMS. Can someone add this cause I don't know where it'd go.

JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.-Breawycker (talk to me!)  01:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason I did it was cause I don't know where that'd go. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 06:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're Not Sorry (CSI Remix)
It was released as a promotional single back on March 5, 2009 to promote Swift's guest appearance on CSI and since it is a promo single I added it to the promotional single section. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 08:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Best Days of Your Life
As it is pretty much common knowledge that Swift was featured in both the song and it's music video to not include it in her discography as "A Featured Artist" is dumb. So please do not remove it. Thanks! And before anyone goes bananas the IP address that added the Guest Appearance section isn't mine so please don't go getting me for sock puppetry. I've fallen victim to that before cause people thought the same way I did and I don't want to be accused again. Thanks. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 07:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey James, sorry but she only provided background vocals and was never credited with a featuring. For example, Katy Perry provided background vocals for "Breakout" by Miley Cyrus, and the song doesn't appear on Katy's discography page. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 04:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Speak Now World Tour - Live CD/DVD
Referene: It was just announced on her official website. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:red;">JamesAlan1986</b> *<sup style="font-family:Arial; color:darkred;">talk 15:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus please?
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * ''The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay because of the differences of opinions I think it is time for a consensus by the Wikicommunity to decide on what is an official single and what is promotional single when it is regarding Swift. I have always considered an official single ones that are sent to radio stations and a promotional single those that are only released to digital download and to promote something. (Eg. "Crazier" and "Safe & Sound" have music videos but I think were only released as a digital download to promote the respective movies, The Hannah Montana Movie and The Hunger Games.) So can we get a consensus here and decide once and for all on this? My vote is that only songs that are sent to radio should be considered official singles. ^_^ Swifty *<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk 23:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree - a promotional single is sales-only. Usually it is in promotion of something, such as an upcoming album or a movie. An official single has to have been released to radio. That would mean that, to give a recent example, "Safe & Sound" is a promotional single and "Eyes Open" is a real single. Toa   Nidhiki05  23:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's whatever the record label decides to call it/promote it as. In other cases, that is without them announcing it as one or the other, it's a matter of editorial judgement (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_7) Personally, I dont see this being resolved without a credible source for a definition (like a book, encyclopedic on music, etc.) and establishing a guideline somewhere at the WP Music projects. For the purposes of this discussion, a song's release to radio makes sense; music videos and charting, even digital downloads, can happen for non-singles. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Crazier" and "Safe & Sound" are singles. However, they list "Today Was a Fairytale" as a promo single on its song page. I don't agree with that. That song had a great amount of radio airplay and was a single. Let's see if we can fix that page. Easy4me (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Promo singles are free, while singles are not. Simple. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree there... "Speak Now" wasn't a single, for instance. "Countdown singles" on iTunes aren't singles.  Toa   Nidhiki05  23:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Status Since when has a promo single been free? I've always thought you pay for the product regardless? LOL!
 * @Easy4me There needs to be a source for that. Words are not good enough to state that "Today Was a Fairytale" was released to radio, I've never heard it on the radio and have found no source to confirm it. I'd also like to point out that both "Today Was a Fairytale" and "Crazier" were GA'd as promo singles which should say something...
 * @Both this is a discussion as to decide which is which. Please state which one you think are which. Thank you.
 * @Toa, I tend to agree with you there Toa. ^_^ Swifty *<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Promo singles, per their definition, are available for free. The only exception are said Countdown singles. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know Zach, Dan seems to have a point, anything can happen with non-singles, look at "I'm Only Me When I'm With You" it's a non-single and has a music video. So just cause a digital download (that you have to pay for) was made available for "Today Was a Fairytale", "Crazier" and "Safe & Sound" doesn't 100% make them official singles but I don't know that's the whole point of this consensus. ^_^ Swifty *<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk 00:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Promotional singles, as stated througout history, are intended to be free. All promo singles released on CD state that on the cover. They say: "This product is intended for promotional use only and should only be distributed for free." They are intended to promote a body of work that may not be complete, and are not released on music stores unless they later become a single. Singles are products intended to showcase a body of work and to promote both such body of work and the artist. They are released on music stores and never become available for free. Both promo singles and singles are very similar. The main difference is that you have to pay for singles, and not for promo singles. I consider that every song released independently from its main album to music stores with a price, is a single, wether it was sent to radio or not. — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21™ 00:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that hahc is that every song then should be considered a single cause you can download all the songs (and pay for them) individually, you do not have to buy the album full out. Eg. Say you just want "I'm Only Me When I'm With You" instead of buying the entire album on iTunes you can just buy the song by itself. So standards have changed recently. ^_^ Swifty *<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk 02:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no. The fact that you can buy a single song from an entire album on iTunes doesn't make them all singles. A single is a song offered separately by the label, apart from the main album. Usually, singles are constantly release before the album is available so that it can promote the upcoming release. Singles are promotional entities that are meant to promote a body of work but are released at a cost. — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21™ 02:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...never thought of that but I am gonna stop commenting for now and let others get an input in so we can get this all resolved and see if we can get this problem fixed. ^_^ Swifty *<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the difference is in shades of gray. The methods and terms in the music industry change with the times. The same thing can be termed by different names and promoted in different ways if it is deemed to help overall sales. This also depends on who is doing the promoting and why, Madonna was a master at this as in her early career she made more profit by selling albums so she steered her companies to do that. If what will promote sales, or get something played will promotes ales then I think they will go with that label/title. Smaller companies are more likely to try this and able to switch titles in my experience. Similar is Itunes where the model is whatever the contract is as that time. if they make more money one one single they may market only that single, etc. I think we should position "official" remixes, singles, etc. as those on the same label and those promoted by the label/artist. Insomesia (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In English that means? LOL! ^_^ Swifty *<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For a song to qualify as a promotional single it must be released in promotion of something particular or be announced specifically as a promotional single. A song that is released independently of the album either by radio or digital download is a single unless stated otherwise by the record label. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  22:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently this discussion is going no where and no consensus can be reached so I'm fixing this back to where it was originally and putting it as this "If released to radio it's a single if it is not and is only available for digital download it's a promotional single" cause I think it is unright of us to cause all this confusion with the singles and post misinformation cause we can't decide and want to base something on outdated stuff cause Promo CD singles use to be free and you really can't even get them anymore unless your a radio DJ and a lot of the Promo CD singles I have seen are for singles that have been released to radio so that should say something right there. ^_^ Swifty *<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Since the advent of broad-bandwidth Internet access and professional tools such as iPool or Haulix, the online promotional distribution of music has been established. Record companies make their music available as audio files and use the Internet as a distribution channel. In contrast to the conventional way of distributing promotional recordings, this kind of promotional distribution is faster and cheaper."
 * Online promotional distribution - from Promotional recording

Summary
Consensus appears to be that a promotional single is provided for free or in a manner (such as with a label indicating "promotional, not for sale") that indicates it is free. A promotional single may be, but is generally not, provided to radio stations for over the air plays. When in doubt, the characterization of a single at its release and its status as a free or paid product appear to be the most sound means for determining which category it should be listed under.  MBisanz  talk 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Begin Again
Taylor Swift created a music video for Begin Again. It was released on October 24, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.121.100 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)