Talk:The Tortured Poets Department

Track listing
Is it necessary to split the track listing simply because the artist has showcased it this way? Also, replacing Variety for BuzzFeed News also feels quite undue? Surely the "sides" are simply how they're to be split on vinyl, but is not how they're showcased for all physical / digital formats? A simple not over complete track listing showcase would better suit the article?  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 18:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. A simple track listing would be better for the article. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the inverse - why would we list it in any other way other than how the artist has listed it? - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:STATUSQUO.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance. We don't synthesize our own listing style of what artists and composers put down as their structure (e.g. Symphony_No._5_(Beethoven), Akhnaten_(opera), Hamilton_(musical)). We shouldn't do that here either. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because that is clearly the back cover of the vinyl, and not how the track listing will be rendered digitally (which is how the majority of consumers will listen to the album, as that accounts for something like 90+% of music consumption), nor on CD or cassette. I'm not seeing some deliberate intention on Swift's part that the album is intended solely to be a vinyl experience or that the sides are themed or the like. I believe we should go back to how the songs were listed first, per User:Livelikemusic. In fact, this discussion should be for if we should split it into vinyl sides, not if we should go back to how it was in the first place.  Ss  112   13:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Until the album is actually released, the points above are WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation about the vinyl format. Concluding that the grouping is not important and should be flattened constitutes original research. Both of these practices are frowned upon. Instead, we should reflect what is in the source material/artwork and what reliable sources say about it. The main recording and entertainment industry news outlets are providing not just the raw list but the "sides" groupings as well: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone, Deadline, and more.
 * Even more, Entertainment Weekly raises the fact that "sides" may not just be sides:
 * So what does it all mean? There's a lot to potentially unpack here. The sides could just be the way the vinyls shook out, or maybe each grouping tells a different story, or utilizes a different sound — this is Swift after all.
 * For a community that should be assembling reliable knowledge, I'm astonished to see the arguments for removal of information when there are significant signals about their significance. Reproducing the track list as Swift has released it is the most accurate, responsible, policy-adhering, and logical thing to do. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's music section hasn't been about reliable knowledge for a long time. Most of the editors probably don't respect the artistic format or understand the semantic value in things like title stylizations, for example. This is honestly what you get when a bunch of people who know nothing about what they are talking about, who have no training in linguistics, literature, historiography, or writing encyclopedias are allowed to set arbitrary rules and make changes every which way.
 * But this is why we are here - to check them. Wikipedia's guidelines are deliberately not set in stone for a reason.
 * I agree with you that we should not be removing meaning, and that some of the reasons meaning has been removed go completely against Wikipedia's neutrality (calling things "fan-driven" for example, would be in violation of this). Unfortunately, we have to change the current guidelines to be more sensible.
 * I do have to disagree though that putting tracks in an uncategorized list constitutes original research, because I don't think it does. It certainly removes meaning and historical facts, though. If only Wikipedia editors actually cared about those things. They seem to not know the purpose of what an Encyclopedia should be... Krixano (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support restoring the original 16-track layout with no separation into vinyl sides. It's silly this is even something we're questioning.  Ss  112   13:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Restore the tracklist to standard layout per livelikemusic and Ss112. Dyl  x  16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per livelikemusic WildChild300 Talk to me! 17:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I already agree with both Livelikemusic and Ss112, so Support. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per livelikemusic's and Ss112's arguments. It makes absolutely no sense to split the tracklists in all those different parts. It's not like each side represents a unique lyrical or sonic theme that sets it apart. Lk95 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your statement ventures into the area of original research. See the Entertainment Weekly piece described above. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is speculating, using words like "potentially" and "maybe", and has nothing to do with how the track list should be formatted in the table. It may be referenced in the "Composition" section but doesn't justify a formatting change like this. Dyl  x  14:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Album name
Technically the album is written in all caps, should we also write it that way ? It's written THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT on all official accounts. Diamant580 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Diamant580: I don't think so. See WP:TITLEFORMAT and MOS:ALLCAPS for policies and guidelines related to using title case here. Bsoyka  (t &bull; c &bull; g) 05:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, per MOS:MUSICCAPS, and in case it's suggested, I object to any attempt to place a pointless parenthesized "stylized in all caps" note here as well. (This practice ought to be phased out.)  Ss  112   08:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Is wikipedia not intended to be an accurate representation of history? Removing stylizations makes wikipedia less useful for historical research because meaning is often tied to stylizations (like capitalizing certain letters that spell something out, as in the track "thanK you aIMee"). You are losing historical facts by doing this. Krixano (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So is there a hidden meaning behind the stylization of the album name itself? Because as far as I can tell, stylizations for songs like "thanK you aIMee" are already noted in the article, and this discussion is about the capitalization of the album title. Bsoyka  (t &bull; c &bull; g) 13:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Stylization information is very valuable. The fact that something was published written in all caps or all lowercase is useful information by nature. It allows the person to picture the stylization of the actual titles of and in the album without needing to actually find the album to know that tracks were stylized a certain way. It lets the reader know how the artist intended for it to be written. I do not know why this long-held practice is suddenly controversial and the subject of an edit war on this page with one user threatening to block other users who add this information? aaronneallucas (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically referring to the fact that not even notations are being allowed on this article like "stylized in all caps". Why? aaronneallucas (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Album Genre
Apple Music now lists this album as pop. If you pre add the album, just below the album cover and name it says Pop-2024. We should include this somewhere in the article. Mr Imeime (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As it stands, we should not. Genres should be supported by reliable sources (i.e. articles, reports), not consumer labels, as you suggest. EdrianJustine (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No source is 100% reliable. Genres are subjective to begin with. This is the came BS that wikipedia editors use to justify their bias towards "critics" over everyone else with an opinion. It's more important to know what the artist intended as that conveys something historical that you cannot get by just analyzing the music itself, which could lead to differing conclusions from the artist (or "consumer labels") and even from different music scholars. Krixano (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the album sounds like a mixture of pop + alternative folk/rock. Its kinda mixture of everything. Why not including the genre of alternative in the genre column? We dont necessarily need a reliable source as a support. Clearly the album is not synth pop 2405:3800:902:1AED:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you a music critic? Just follow what EdrianJustine said. 183.171.121.111 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

this album will include tracks such as "loml" that have fans wondering if her lyrical style will change or stay the same.
this album will include tracks such as "loml" that have fans wondering if her lyric writing will change or stay the same. 2001:56A:FC76:9500:3056:16C:3E0:F559 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Title Stylizations
I have reverted a change on title stylizations because I felt it went against Wikipedia's neutrality (the reasoning for the change was that it was "fan-driven"), and because it was a removal of important contextual meaning. I feel that we should discuss the value of title stylizations, as they add important semantic meaning, and are also important for historical reliability.Krixano (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I also want to remind people that the Wikipedia's guidelines are against changes and reverts being made during discussions: WP:STATUSQUO Krixano (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also want to note that noting title stylizations does not go against MOS:MUSICCAPS (@Livelikemusic). Krixano (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For full transparency, I have added a broader discussion on title stylizations here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music. While the guidelines of MOS:MUSICCAPS state that works should be capitalized in a traditional status quo way, it does not exclude one from noting stylizations. Regardless, this guideline needs to be severely questioned. Krixano (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added references to the title stylizations @User:Pbritti. Krixano (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The notes are not within MOS and are not from ideal sources. Please refrain from reinserting them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As noted in Reliable_sources, context matters. The sources I added are reliable because in the context of the music industry, Apple, Spotify, Amazon, and other music publishers get their information from the tracklist provided by both the artist (and their label) and the CDs and Vinyls.
 * "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Krixano (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RS explicitly allows linking to music streaming sites @User:Pbritti, so you are incorrect.
 * "... inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times." Krixano (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're not doing that properly and may be allowed is not a blanket license to use said sources. Further, they remained improperly formatted. Please do not add them again. Allow a more experienced editor to handle that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not add them back, but since someone else did, I believe I have revised them to format them more correctly. As to how they should be inlined, I do not kno wif this means something specific, so someone else can fix that. Krixano (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * None of the tracklist is cited. Are you going to remove those as well? Just asking? This feels like an edit war, and I believe you've misinterpreted the guidelines on edit wars. Krixano (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @User:Pbritti, the names of well-known works do not need to be cited, as described in the article You don't need to cite that the sky is blue: "Not citing common knowledge and not providing bibliographic entries for very famous works is also consistent with major academic style guides, such as The MLA Style Manual and the APA style guide."
 * It is also consistent with standard practice for Wikipedia Music articles, which typically do not add references to track list titles, but will provide them for the credits.
 * Additionally, it is also standard that streaming sites may be used as references for albums, as demonstrated in various other Music Wikipedia pages. Here's an example, Fearless_(Taylor's_Version), where the personnel credits are adapted from Tidal. Citation pedantry is not useful or productive. Krixano (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krixano has a point. Becoming so granular with citation requirements is more harmful than helpful. We should include the stylization information. There is no good reason why someone would not want to have access to that information? aaronneallucas (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a formal notice that I will be bowing out of this discussion, because I take internet cults very seriously, and after spending several hours reading a lot of user interaction here on Wikipedia, I have decided in my best judgement that this is an unsafe environment that I would consider to be an internet cult. I apologize to anyone expecting me to continue the discussion, but I cannot do that. You can view my User page, if it remains up, for additional reasons to this decision. Krixano (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tagging into this discussion, as they previously have vast experience in this area.   livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a violation of MUSICCAPS. Noting the stylisations is not writing the track titles in such stylisations when the track listing shows all titles in standard naming conventions while the stylisations are regulated to the "Notes" subsection. Ippantekina (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Music and lyrics
Tom Breihan encapsulated the sound of the album in his review, that I think it would enrich this section; "Musically, Swift has fallen into a holding pattern of soft-thrumming synthpop and even softer quasi-folk. The sounds and patterns — the gentle keyboard twinkles, the tick-tock drum machines, the shivery chords, the murmuring multi-tracked backup vocals — are all played out. (...) Swift continues to sing almost everything in her sleepy, whispery, conversational lower register, going for some version of Lana Del Rey’s languor. The sound is pretty. It’s rich and pillowy and reassuring and low-energy (...)." It would work for her artistry section too. Giorgio Zeniquel (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Anthology in lead
Shouldn't we also discuss briefly the production and sound of The Anthology in the lead? I did so in this old revision but as of the current revision it's been removed. Ippantekina (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Toronto Star
what's with the double standard? You removed Toronto Star because it is "Not a prominent music publication" yet leave in four similar British newspapers that are not music publications either. In fact, you removed the Toronto Star review entirely from the article and did not even bother incorporating it in the prose. That's really egregious and goes against WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Toronto Star is one of the major newspapers in Canada and providing publications from varied locations aligns with WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV. I'm not saying it must be included in the reviews table, but I do not appreciate completely removing the source from the article as if it is useless and then leaving in four similar newspapers that are British that go against your own criteria. Heartfox (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the ratings box. I'm not against including it in the article. There is no need to type out such a passive aggressive text to express your concern regarding that. You're free to add Toronto Star to the critical reception prose if you want to. I thought it's a regional paper, and it's primarily not a music/art reviewing publication. The ratings box is for the standard music reviewing publications. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  13:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I have to reiterate that I'm currently working on the reception section. My plan was not to complete ignore Toronto Star. I would be more than happy to include it too. I apologise if it looked like I "removed" it. I meant to readd it later in the prose. I am an editor who cares very much about worldview and my worldview doesn't stop with Anglosphere but aims to include Asian and Latin American publications too if possible. I'm on your side. Just making that clear here. Have a nice day.  ℛonherry  ☘  13:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024
Please add the Toronto Star review of this album: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/taylor-swift-drops-surprise-double-album-with-the-tortured-poets-department-a-31-track-odyssey/article_2912d06c-fe34-11ee-b922-df359d747dd3.html?utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_source=Twitter Aislingmurphy64 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2024 (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. --Ferien (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Music Genre for The Tortured Poets Department
The Music Genre for The Tortured Poets Department Alternative, folk pop, indie rock, soft rock, synth pop. It needs to be expanded in the Genre description. SectorKWiki19 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌, no sources provided >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024 (2)
Could you link the page for Clara Bow (song into the article (especially in the tracklist section)? 63.65.131.178 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Clara Bow 63.65.131.178 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Irltoad (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Song articles
Do any of these songs actually have individual notability at this point? Why so many?128.151.71.8 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Anthology
TTPD: The Anthology refers to the whole 31 tracks as a whole and not only the last 15 tracks that were released two hours after the first 16. You can see from Swift herself and some articles discussing the album: Please fix this in the article. The lead says "It is a double album, with the second part, subtitled The Anthology" but it is not the second part that is subtitled this but both parts together. Thanks. 2A02:AA1:1046:FE40:5731:816A:E331:92F5 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Swift's own Instagram: "here's the second installment of TTPD: The Anthology. 15 extra songs."
 * Pitchfork: "the complete 31-song set, subtitled The Anthology"
 * Rolling Stone: "...the second half of Tortured Poets: The Anthology is more acoustic..." when referring to the last 15 tracks. They even say "Taylor hasn't given Part Two its own individual title — yet." There is no name for the last 15 tracks by themselves and they were only released as part of the anthology.

Editions
The standard edition is 16 tracks and was only released for digital download and streaming. Can you please fix this in the release history section? There is no CD, LP, or cassette that has only 16 tracks; all of these contain one additional song for a total of 17 tracks, with four different versions (Albatross, Bolter, Manuscript, Black Dog). It is incorrect for the first row to say the standard edition was released on any physical medium. You can check the references yourself from the table or use this one from Billboard that discusses all the different editions if you are confused. Thanks! 2A02:AA1:1046:FE40:5731:816A:E331:92F5 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding a table for track personnel?
The current listing of track personnel is difficult to parse because of the sheer size, and it's difficult to gauge which artists worked together on which songs. Specifically, members of the string ensemble on the latter half of the album are all listed separately, and their cohesion as a group isn't necessarily apparent. I feel that putting this entire list in a table would be helpful, but I'm not sure if there's precedent for that on Wikipedia or if it fits within style guidelines. I'm not suggesting that we remove the list, just add a table with the same information. I do admit that this table would have roughly 30 columns and 60 rows, so it might cause page navigation issues. I was thinking of doing this myself, but I don't want to do all of that work just to have it removed. Would love some feedback on this idea! SidekickDART (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * While not great, it does seem that this method is standard across wikipedia (1989 (Taylor's Version), Circus (Britney Spears album)). If you have a better idea, I'd recommend testing it in your UserSpace and posting about it in Village pump (idea lab) for feedback. Tantomile (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Paul Bridgewater’s “Line of Best Fit” review (typo).
The review was paraphrased as such: “The Line of Best Fit's writer Paul Bridgewater, who dubbed it Swift's most cohesive body of work to-date, found the music sophisticated and the lyricism symbolic.” The word “lyricism” is wrong here; the correct word is simply “lyrics.” Lyricism means “an artist's expression of emotion in an imaginative and beautiful way” and never means “lyrics,” as it is intended to in this sentence. 96.18.95.203 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024
1. Add "(stylized in all caps)" between "The Tortured Poets Department" and note [a]. 2. Under Track listing, Make the "L" on track 12 "Loml" into a lowercase letter. 3. Make the "w" on track 14 "I Can Do It with a Broken Heart" into an uppercase letter. 4. Change the case style on track 24 from "Thank You Aimee" to "thanK you aIMee" Betterlovejohnny (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ 1. Stylized in all caps is present. 2. "loml" and "Thank You Aimee" stylizations are noted (scroll down a little bit). 3. No source provided as for why to make the w capitalized. Note: the page (I Can Do It with a Broken Heart) uses a lowercase w as well, so why change it here? The Sharpest Lives 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with all, except the "I Can Do It With A Broken Heart" W capitalization rejection. On Apple Music, the "with" in the song title is capitalized. (THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT: THE ANTHOLOGY version linked, it's capitalized in the standard edition as well) 50.35.90.29 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we add "stylized in all caps" to lead section
I propose that we add "(stylized in all caps)" immediately after the first mention of the title in the lead section, as is standard, and has been standard, for us to do with albums which have titles stylized in all caps and all lowercase. Despite repeated citations of MOS:MUSICCAPS, this is never mentioned once as being against policy, implicitly or explicitly. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually MOS:ALLCAPS is a different guideline all together and says Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. So unless its an abbreviation, capitalising the title is purely stylistic and therefore against the manual of style. It is explicitly against policy/guidance. WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument. If everyone else ran off a cliff edge, it doesn't mean its correct for you to do the same. Additionally MOS:MUSICCAPS does say Exceptions are not made to mimic logo/cover stylization, even if such mimicry is common in the music press., in reference to capitalising all words except propositions. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposal in not to write in all caps. Again, as I said, it is to note the stylization in the lead section, not actually apply the stylization the wording itself. Once again, there is NOTHING anyone has cited which states, implicitly or otherwise, that you cannot notate the stylization. Nothing which you have cited says that either. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * adding (all caps) is considered trivic and violates MOS:MUSICCAPS. Faerize (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Faerize and Lil-unique1. It's trivial and adds little value.  Ss  112   18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aplucas0703 No. It is trivial, disrupts the sentence, and also violates MOS:TMSTYLE and MOS:MUSICCAPS. MOS:TM is specifically directed at this also. (Special:Permalink/1088443179) 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 03:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @AskeeaeWiki From the policy you cite: "In the article about a trademark, give the version that follows the usual rules of spelling and punctuation, boldfaced in the lead sentence. Follow this with a note, such as "(stylized as ...)" ... with the stylization if one exists and is significantly different ... and may include simple styling, like capitalization changes...". Am I missing something as to why this goes against my suggestion? It is literally exactly what I am suggesting we do? I am very confused. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aplucas0703 It allows for stylization in the context of a trademark. Is The Tortured Poets Department, an album, trademarked? Also, read the conversation I linked. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 03:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @AskeeaeWiki It most certainly is trademarked [| see here]. aaronneallucas (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All capitals has "stylistic function". Its a hard no @Aplucas0703, noting it is the same as writing it in all capitals. What's the purpose of notation? What value or meaning does it have? >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Eras Tour
Some description should be added under "Release and Promotion" regarding Taylor performs her songs of this album in the Eras Tour. Kst daniel (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not in the release and promotion section.. while the Eras Tour has promoted the album, it's not significant enough. I do think it should be added to a "live performances" section or something similar. 50.35.90.29 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

release record
2 of the dates say “july”, when it should be june. also needs to be updated 2603:7080:7201:A8F5:3CE4:722A:E0BB:7E98 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I changed the bit about the announcements but the table seems correct because it appears those won't actually ship until July. Jessintime (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Second Paragraph under “Promotion and Release”
“iHeartRadio and Sirius XM announced special programs with exclusive content from Swift to celebrate the album's release; the latter temporarily rebranded as "iHeartTaylor".

”latter” here should be replaced with “former”. 2600:1700:47D0:BEA0:C460:47F:5C3B:8036 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editions, charts, and POV
Your revert regarding social media speculation regarding a feud was sound on BLP and UNDUE grounds. However, you also reverted me, saying Blatant POV and contentious BLPVIO material; keep the stupid fan wars to twitter, this is an encyclopedia. The content that was removed, however, had nothing to do with social media posts. Instead, it read "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain for the number-one position on the charts, a method Swift has previously utilized." I primarily leaned on two sources and the accompanying passages for this statement: Both sources address the obviously encyclopedically irrelevant social media scuffle (I can conceive of no circumstance where we should include mention of yet another Twitter war). However, both articles also verify independently that TTPD has remained at number 1 on the charts partially due to the introduction of limited-edition versions. Aja Romano for Vox seems qualified to make this observation, having spent more than a decade as a culture writer. Shaad D'Souza is perhaps less qualified, but his writing is journalistic and still had to go through The Guardians editorial process.
 * "Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17."
 * "There was a moment, late in the week, when it looked as if Brat would debut at No 1. Then, on Thursday, Swift stepped in: at 6.57pm, Taylor Nation, Swift’s public-facing PR arm, which interacts with fans and provides news and updates, announced the release of six deluxe reissues of her latest album, The Tortured Poets Department (TTPD), each with different additional live versions and voice memos, available only in the UK until 11:59pm that evening – the end of the tracking week for the album charts. (The new releases bring the total number of TTPD variants to 34.)"

Separately, this Forbes article, again using the purported feud as a vehicle to describe the developments, objectively observed that "[r]eleasing multiple versions of a single or album to top the charts is not a new strategy, nor is it limited to Swift or Eilish." I do not see any possible BLP or POV issues here, as this is an observation about a marketing strategy which is described in multiple reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem with your addition was that, even if it was worthy of inclusion, it was stated in Wikipedia's voice rather than a source's voice. It lacked attribution. Secondly, only your first source (Vox) supports your claim with a direct, explicit statement. The second source (The Guardian) merely states Swift released stuff around the same time as Brat. It's not explicitly alleging anything. The third one (Forbes) literally says releasing editions is "nothing new"; it does support your claim either (also, Brat having over 10 vinyl editions is conveniently ignored, which is further grounds for how this is lacking WP:NPOV). And please stop calling it a feud; Swift hasn't commented on this, neither has Eilish. This whole thing is a case of WP:BLPGOSSIP. An actual feud is something like Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud with direct statements, and not just fan hysteria and speculation. To conclude, the bit you added ("The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain for the number-one position on the charts, a method Swift has previously utilized.") is an unattributed prose based on only one source. Such contentious claims about a living person requires multiple solid sources, as per WP:BLP.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Twice now, I think you've misinterpreted what I am writing: I don't see any evidence for a feud (and neither do the reliable sources I cited above). Your statement that the content is subjective and POV is peculiar. This is an objective statement supported by two sources (Vox and Forbes) explicitly and another source more tactfully (The Guardian). Reliable sources are describing a marketing technique. This isn't strictly BLP stuff: it's about how a business strategy and fans are ensuring an album maintains a top position on the charts. The content I added has nothing to do with the invented feud and only describes the market strategy and its success in objective terms.
 * I'd gladly ask the folks at RSN to take a look, if you'd like. However, the decisions of WP:FORBES, WP:RSPVOX, and WP:GUARDIAN at WP:RSP all indicate that these are reliable sources and, on their own, would be sufficient to reference an objective statement that the multiple versions of TTPD and active fan engagement have maintained the album's top position on the charts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a proposed middle-ground passage, supported by the aforementioned three sources: "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain the album's number-one position on the charts, a method Swift and other artists have previously utilized to boost album sales and chart positions." It addresses your concern that there was an implication that only Swift is doing this (I can see how the lay observer might then interpret it as somehow unfair) by referencing the Forbes piece explicitly noting that this is a known strategy being used for TTPD, Eilish's album, and other previous works. It also–like my original edit–does not reference the invented feud, which would have been a BLPGOSSIP violation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're repeatedly ignoring WP: ATTRIBUTION. "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain the album's number-one position on the charts, a method Swift and other artists have previously utilized to boost album sales and chart positions." is written in Wikipedia's voice. That's a subjective claim/perspective of a journalist, not an objective statement bound to facts. I'm more than ready to escalate this to RSN. But, a POV-free, BLP-abiding version of the prose you added would be "According to some journalists, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts—a method her peers also have used to bolster album sales and chart performance."  ℛonherry  ☘  09:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because it is not a subjective statement. If multiple reliable sources say that a particular market strategy results in a particular outcome, we can say that objectively. WP:WIKIVOICE indicates that we should Avoid stating facts as opinions (bolding original) and there are no contradicting viewpoints in reliable sources that suggest there is an alternative explanation for the myriad versions. If experts commenting on the practice all say one thing in an objective way, then Wikipedia repeats it as fact. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since discussion was just us going back and forth, shot the matter over to RSN at Reliable sources/Noticeboard (pardon the long section name, but I wanted to summarize the positions involved). If you don't mind summarizing your position there, I think it would spare any newcomers to the discussion the hassle of reading this page. Again, I would like to reiterate that I agree with your removal of the BLPGOSSIP material (the fake feud) that occurred before I became involved with this material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The same WP:WIKIVOICE states There's certainly no "myriad" sources supporting the claim. It's an opinion of some journalists. There's no critical concensus here. You cannot publish prose on Wikipedia that's based on opinions of individuals and present it as a fact. There's no guideline that states opinions of multiple journalists can be considered as a fact, like you claim.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Three reliable sources making an objective observation—this is not a matter of opinion, but fact—with no contradiction from other reliable sources does constitute a consensus among the sources. Even if it is contended that there were BLP implications, three reliable sources over a multi-week period is almost always sufficient to source a statement like this. This has appeared in multiple sources, is encyclopedically relevant to the article, and is presented neutrally.~ Pbritti (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Over 100 hours later, this RSN discussion is 6 to 2 (75%) in favor of stating this in WIKIVOICE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As per WP:CONCENSUS, "Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity, nor is it the result of a vote." I don't believe this topic has received enough exposure. This is an issue of the prose's neutrality as well, and I suggest bringing this to the attention of WP:NPOVN as well.  ℛonherry  ☘  15:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would encourage reading further down that policy, specifically under WP:FORUMSHOP: "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want [emphasis original]". RSN is among the most-viewed noticeboards on the project and multiple editors addressed the NPOV concerns in their responses (finding, on the whole, that the statements are objective and neutrally presented). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "One of the most-viewed" but you're rushing to wrap up the discussion and pulling up the percentage "in favor" when a formal poll did not even take place. You, the editor who opened the RSN discussion, have self-declared a consensus (when guidelines suggest a third person uninvolved in the original disagreement as best-suited to declare a consensus) and have already restored the contended edit on what is now a good article before even formally closing the RSN discussion.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:CR: "Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious." A discussion that was 8-2 (and is now 9-2) on what is indeed one of the most-viewed noticeboards has an obvious consensus. I recommend moving on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am just over here from RSN to point out that a strong consensus exists for the inclusion of the text as Pbritti proposes. I would strongly suggest avoiding forumshopping here, this is starting to look like the kind of situation that ends up at Adminstrators Noticeboard Incidents. It's a tiny question, but it is one that has been decided. Time to move on.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Aimee should probably be capitalized as “thanK you aIMee”
“thanK you aIMee” 2600:1700:7E30:1E90:719C:A9D6:B89:3298 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is addressed in the notes subsection of the Track listing section. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"Post-release" commentary
The album came out less than three months ago; it's odd to me the article has a significant line in the lead and a separate subsection in the reception section devoted to essentially a "reappraisal" of critical reaction when there hasn't been enough time for there to be a substantial reappraisal and there's not the kind of more authoritative sources out there to lend credence to that interpretation. I would say at first blush the initial critical reception period hasn't even ended (I also think the article runs into POV issues by essentially burying discussion of the release as polarizing after discussing the general reception.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's definitely a POV issue there. The reappraisals are very real, but they caveat the earlier reviews far too greatly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple album variants
There have been repeated efforts to remove any reference to the role of multiple album variants in the massive commercial success of this album. This element of the album has received far more sustained coverage than almost any other element of TTPD and has played a crucial role in Swift securing such incredible longevity on the sales charts. The recent release of a study of such variant albums further clarifies the significance they have, so restricting mention of their impact to a single sentence seems unusual. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Other artists also release multiple variants too though, right? This appears to be an industry norm and just an exclusively 'Taylor Swift thing' or even a 'TTPD thing'. House1090 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an increasingly industry-wide trend, but Swift's embrace of the practice was comparatively early and remains notably significant, particularly for TTPD. The facts that TTPD has been released in dozens of variants and that these variants greatly contributed to album sales are necessary to include in comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage of the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary again removing the reliably sourced content on this is a bit confusing. Are you of the opinion that the number of variants that an album was released in, a major element of its commercial success, and a comparison to contemporary releases from the same artist are all irrelevant? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they stray away from the main topic of this article that is the album itself. If anything, those bits of information constitute WP:NOTNEWS ("routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage"), WP:INDISCRIMINATE ("merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"), and do not meet the criterion 3b of WP:GA? ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I mean... K-pop releases since 2020, Swift's other albums, explanation of how 1,500 song downloads = 1 album unit? Seriously? Ippantekina (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this argument is extremely unconvincing. We presently devote three massive paragraphs in an independent subsection to a reappraisal of reviews (a subsection that is largely about Swift's public perception). This reappraisal only occurred within a handful of months from the album's release. This critical reappraisal then gets its own mention in the lead. And yet a marketing strategy that responsible for much of the album's commercial success—and has been how much of the album's bonus material has been release—gets two sentences (including one that you previously deleted without explanation and another you attempted to substantially abbreviate). I would contend that the persistent unwillingness to include mention of the album variants reflects a significant NPOV issue. A single, short paragraph that is well sourced to contextualize TTPD with Swift's recent releases and the industry more broadly is absolutely relevant. Please also remember the previous review by uninvolved editors overwhelming demonstrated the relevancy of this aspect of the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's more thoroughly analyze your arguments:
 * WP:NOTNEWS: This is not routine coverage. The NYT piece is by Ben Sisario, a well-respected culture reporter, that is cited elsewhere in the article and serves as an in-depth analysis of Swift's expanding practice releasing of album variants. The Variety piece is similarly not routine coverage by any stretch of the imagination, instead covering the practice of variant albums with substantial emphasis on Swift. It utilizes data from a recent Luminate report, making it substantially more academic and independent than many of the other references utilized (as opposed to, say, this from a Spotify-owned subsidiary cited to contradict multiple reviews from premier RSs).
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE: This is a fascinating argument. If you want to make the case that a practice discussed in innumerable RS articles over a multi-month period and occasionally the subject of criticism is merely indiscriminate, maybe you should elaborate on how subjective appraisals are less indiscriminate.
 * 3b of WP:GA?: You seem awful concerned with the inclusion of contextualizing details–how a practice has recently exploded, how Swift has gradually adopted it, and what its implications are–that would almost certainly be necessary for an article to pass FA. It's also interesting that you mention GA, considering the article was approved in the midst of instability and with a statement in the lead that is not supported in the body (Its songs made Swift the first artist to monopolize the first 14 positions of the Billboard Hot 100, with the lead single "Fortnight" at the top).
 * Concede this point; Wikipedia is about collaboration, and I'm an experienced enough editor to recognize an article's blindspots. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I care about including information that is directly relevant to this album, TTPD, and its context. You are rationalizing including remotely relevant info--how would you explain the relevance between K-pop albums and Swift's other albums to this album's commercial success--I'm still not seeing this being properly explained of how this would constitute a better understanding of the subject matter that is the album, when the Variety source you cited basically examined an industry-wide practice? "I'm an experienced enough editor to recognize an article's blindspots" I can say the same about myself. The refs you included are already cited in prose btw. Ippantekina (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not all the refs I provided are included, and those that are have been relegated to short, contextless comments while single pieces of commentary from non-notable critics receive multi-sentence coverage. If you're confused about why the mention of broader industry trends is relevant, note that these articles primarily about Swift's release of album variants each provide such additional context. A brief mention of the broader trend of variant albums serves the same purpose of the entire background section, but in narrower and more succinct fashion. It provides a better understanding of the precedent for Swift's decision to release over 30 versions of the same album, preventing a reader from believing she is the sole artist to embrace the practice. Your persistent removal and minimization of sourced content—even after the relevance and neutrality of the content was established at RSN—is not justified by policy or consensus. I'm inclined to forward this article to NPOV/N, considering the concerns raised by multiple editors. However, I would prefer we settle things here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)