Talk:Lover (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 14 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Lover (Taylor Swift album) → Lover (album) – Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:ALBUMDAB, there are no other articles for albums titled Lover although the dab page Lover does list several albums titled Lovers. Contested technical request. PC78 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lk95, MaranoFan, and Anthony Appleyard: Pinging those who commented at WP:RM/TR. PC78 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - There’s no other album called "Lover", they’re all plural.—NØ 08:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - No other album with the same notability. -- Lk95 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Unnecessary disambiguation as the nom states.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support for all reasons above.Melodies1917 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support for all reasons above. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Same as above. Raritydash (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are already numerous albums and songs with the similar title "Lover". May be confusing to some readers. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom, etc. Calidum 01:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support — per nomination, arguments above. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 01:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons everyone else here has listed, there are few album pages existing with the same (or similar) name where the album artists are as notable or more notable than Taylor Swift's album is. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support for all reasons listed above. ScottStephenJones (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Came across this discussion. Absolutely it should be Lover (album). Arjann (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• SUPPORT For all the reasons already stated above. House1090 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support And maybe add a link to the disambiguation if there’s sufficient concern about clarity? Dan Wang (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Closed per WP:SNOW  Done ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Artwork

Does artwork need its own section when it is so short? Maybe it could be merged into background or composition, maybe deluxe versions should be merged as well. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that’s a good idea. Doggy54321 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Album length

I've heard that when a full track list isn't available, Google Play predicts the total album length based on the length of the tracks that have already been released, and it seems that this is the case since immediately after "The Archer" was announced, the album length on Google Play changed from 54:04 to 54:35. I think the length should be removed from the article until the full track list and song lengths are confirmed. Thoughts? OctoMocto (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

But some upcoming albums on Google Play don’t have lengths at all, (Ex. Charli XCX's Charli [1])

I agree with OctoMocto; i've heard the same thing.Melodies1917 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think album length should be added when we have the full tracklist with times. Emily (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Previous title

The previous title is currently her 2017 album Reputation. However, on Taylor Swift discography you will see that the compilation album Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist (which does not have an article) was released after Reputation. Therefore; the I think that the previous title should be changed to Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist, despite the compilation album not having its own article on Wikipedia. Also, for anyone who is confused, Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist is not a concert, it is a compilation album released by Swift gathering the "Surprise Songs" that were played at her Reputation Stadium Tour. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Billiekhalidfan. Doggy54321 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, if you want to add it, add it as a separate section, such as “Taylor Swift Tour Discography” or something. The main discography should consist of, well, her main albums. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@67.129.161.163: There is no "main" chronology. The chronology of an artist always includes all releases, not just "main albums". Also, Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist is not a tour, it is a compilation album. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, this kind of thing is almost never added to pages. It just looks ugly. Also, I never said I thought you and Doggy54321 are the same person. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@67.129.161.163: What do you mean "this kind of thing is almost never added to pages"? That doesn't make sense. Why would it not be added it is the previous release in the chronology. Also in your edit summary here [2] you told Doggy54321 that someone already explained to them that you need consensus to change the chronology. However, on Reputation (Taylor Swift album), it was me the person explained that you need consensus to, not Doggy54321. But that isn't the point anyway. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• The chronology of an artist always includes all releases, not just "main albums" is not true. The common thing to do is to make two separate chronologies, like what has been done on Homecoming: The Live Album. That’s what I’ll suggest be done here.—NØ 02:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So can I do it, or do I need more people to agree? No one really seems to be commenting here anymore. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Don't do it. I don't see a clear consensus to make Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist the previous title. When I look at an article about a widely released album/EP or studio album/EP, I expect the previous/next title to be the title of the previous/next widely released album/EP or studio album/EP. I don't consider a streaming only release to be a widely released album/EP, and it's definitely not a studio album. I'm not even sure I'd call it an album, since it's a streaming only playlist. Reputation Stadium Tour Surprise Song Playlist, while part of the discography, is in it's own category. I agree with a statement above to treat it like Homecoming: The Live Album was treated. Richard Hendricks (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

So, it appears adding a studio album chronology addressed this issue. Richard Hendricks (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

ME!

Short question but why doesn't this page use ME! instead of Me! (stylized in all caps)? I know Wikipedia ignores song title capitalization, but is there a reason for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:45D8:D100:DDFF:5822:9448:7E5F (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason. Please read MOS:CAPS and you will understand. Doggy54321 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Title track

Annaoue and BawinV, there is no guideline that suggests a confirmation directly from Swift is required before adding a single. The title track is reliably sourced as the third single from The Fader. Also it should be common sense that she wouldn't announce a buzz single at the Teen Choice Awards, this is clearly a single intended for proper commercial release. Any further undiscussed removal of reliably sourced content will warrant strict action, thanks.--NØ 10:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This song is clearly a single. And even if it were to be a promotional single (and I’m 99% sure it's not) then we could easily change it. And I saw Annaoue added a hidden note not to add "Lover" to the singles section without a source. There literally was two reliable sources to support the song being a single before BawinV removed them. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn’t she announce a buzz single at the event? How is it common sense, just because YOU think she wouldn’t do that. Please stop making things up. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@67.129.161.163: Please do not yell. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Lmfao I wasn’t yelling, I was placing emphasis on the word, please stop getting so easily offended by literally everything. Also, way to completely ignore what I actually said and just focus on how I typed out one word. Really focusing on the important stuff, I see. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@67.129.161.163: Using all capital letters is usually interpreted as yelling, you can use bold letters instead to put emphasis on words; like so, bold, not CAPS. Anyway, I don't know why it would be common sense that she would not announce a buzz singles at the Teen Choice Awards, I am not the one who wrote that, discuss that with MaranoFan.

My point was that you just completely focused on the wrong thing. Also, how would it make sense to yell one word in a sentence? Lol that would be hysterical if someone did that tho. 67.129.161.163 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

67.129.161.163, the only one "making things up" is you and the other two swifties. You’ve been pointed to a reliable source confirming the song's single release. Wikipedia only follows what sources say, instead of fan theories about how every song is a buzz single despite receiving standalone promotion at a mainstream award show. So hush.—NØ 11:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tell me how can it be a single without being confirmed by Taylor Swift or her label and without sending to the radio stations? GetawayDress (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

User:GetawayDress Don't change the song to a promotional single on all the pages without discussion. It obviously will be sent to radio it doesn't have to be announced immediately to be a single. Also swift has literally never made a music video for a promo single. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I'd say that once the music video comes out, Swift's website will probably be changed accordingly. Plus, her official singles tend to be released on a Friday, while promo singles are at random as far as I can tell. Calebh12 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to burst this bubble, but it really isn't up to us to decide this stuff. When there are at least 8 sources supporting its single release, and, a grand total of 0 sources calling it a "promotional single". This song not being a single is a completely baseless and delusional theory among Swifties, because they’re hoping for "Cruel Summer" to be released as the third single. Wikipedia reports what secondary reliable sources state, it's not a place to promote fan delusions.—NØ 16:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Added as Tune of the Weekend on BBC Radio 1.--NØ 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Leak: Producers & Deluxe Edition

Someone who works at Target leaked photos of the back cover of Lover and the deluxe edition. I added the producers and deluxe bonus tracks according to the photos but someone removed it saying that violates WP:LEAK. I disagree because WP:LEAK is saying that it isn't notable to say when the album leaked, I am not saying when it leaked, I'm just using it as a source because it clearly shows the back cover of the CD and you can see the producers and the track listing. I don't know why this can't be added and there is literally no way that the information is wrong because it is a photograph of the wrapped CD. Should this be included? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's safer to wait until the producers are officially revealed just in case of the off chance that the photos were faked. OctoMocto (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

113.193.123.230 (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The archer is also one of the singles. just sayin

It's a promotional single, not an official single. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• 12:34 onwards—NØ 10:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Genre dispute

It wouldn't be a Taylor Swift album without arguments about genres. I think this album falls under pop, electropop, and synth-pop, and they are sourced from NME, The Daily Telegraph, and Pitchfork respectively. Other genres like country and R&B are found on one or maximum two songs, which I argue does not mean the entire album. As such, I don't think they should be included. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well Rolling Stone called the album as a whole pop rock. Looking at the sources, R&B and pop punk only describe a song each. However, aside from the two country songs, The New York Times said "Death by a Thousand Cuts" sounds like "a steroidal take on the alt-country of the 1990s." So that makes at least 3 country songs. And I'd like to point out the fact that Red had "rock" as a genre. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If there's isn't a source that calls the album country then we can't call it country either, regardless of how many country or country-influenced songs there are. My proposal: put a sentence in the Music and Lyrics section, probably the first paragraph, that goes something like "The album has been classified as pop by ..., electropop by ..., synth-pop by ..., and pop rock by ...", sourced accordingly, then the infobox can have the same information without the ref tags. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any genre should only be added to the infobox if a reliable secondary source uses it to describe the album as a whole. So, a source could refer to even 10 songs from it as country, but it still shouldn’t be put in the infobox unless directly used as a descriptor for the whole album. WP:SYNTH—NØ 16:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Arivgao, you should have waited for consensus and/or discussed before removing these genres. And the comparison to Reputation doesn't make sense, since when is "New Year's Day" country? Three songs on this album are country. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Charts

Hello everyone.

I think it would be accurate to add these charts, where "Lover" is number one :

- Portuguese Albums Charts : https://portuguesecharts.com/archive.asp?todo=show&woche=35&jahr=2019&sparte=a

- Switzerland Albums Charts (Romandie) : https://www.20min.ch/ro/musique/news/story/Top-10-des-ventes-d-albums-et-de-singles-28992788

Best wishes,

Kevin, 4 september 2019

 Semi-done I've added the Portuguese chart. Thank you. There is already an existing entry for Switzerland (nationwide), and I'm not sure if the chart for the French-speaking region only is notable enough, so I've refrained from adding it yet. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Other Wikipedia pages add the Swiss Romandie Chart on their charts list. I think it is important to add it because other charts like Belgium Wallonia are added, and they are not nationwide neither. Plus, this chart has its own website (source : https://lescharts.ch) and they are also mentioned in the Wikipedia page of the Swiss Hitparade (source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Hitparade). So they are reliable and contribute to the diversity of the musical culture. Best wishes.

Kevin, 4 september 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charts watcher (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources dispute each other

"The album sold more copies than all the other 199 albums on the Billboard 200 chart combined that week. This is Swift's second album to do so, after Reputation" says the NY times

Whereas Forbes sings another tune - "Lover moved more equivalent units than the albums that land at Nos. 2 through 32 combined. That’s not quite the entire top 40..."

The disparity is confusing. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 08:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You've linked the same NYT article twice. I believe this is what you meant to link. Anyway, the NYT article is talking about sales only in that paragraph. The Forbes article is talking about equivalent sales, which is sales, downloads, and streaming combined. That's why there's a difference. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to merge all four articles through consensus (4 vs 1).

---

I propose to merge the following articles: I Forgot That You Existed, Cruel Summer (Taylor Swift song), London Boy (Taylor Swift song), and I Think He Knows into this article. The four articles are about four songs on this album which, per WP:NSONGS, do not satisfy the criteria of noteworthy tracks that deserve standalone articles. While the four songs did make some chart impact, it's important to note that chart positions alone are not adequate for notability. Looking forward to comments, HĐ (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No they deserve articles. Song’s from Norman Fucking Rockewell! only entered like 2 charts that are not even official singles charts but still have pages.

Don't rely on "other stuff". HĐ (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Merge all - The only information the articles are currently providing are song durations, songwriters, credits and personnel, and charting information; all of which are covered at either Lover (album) or Taylor Swift discography. No scope for expansion either outside of album reviews.--NØ 10:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not a huge opinion either way, but these articles mostly look the same. They all only have Credits and personnel, Charts, Release history and External links sections. (Except "I Think He Knows" which does have a small Composition section, but still does not display much content). "Miss Americana & the Heartbreak Prince" wasn't mentioned though. There are some articles about this song specifically that could lead to expansion: Spin, Variety, Teen Vogue, Heavy.com, Bustle and Yahoo.Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect all. This isn't the Taylor Swift Wiki and none of these songs pass the threshold for independent notability. PC78 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• And now someone created a Paper Rings article. This has got to stop. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Merge all. As it stands they don't have enough content to justify an article. Shuipzv3 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Merge all The advent of streaming has unfortunately led to the belief among Wikipedians that now every song from a famous artist is notable. Trillfendi (talk)
• Merge none - per NSONGs, all of them have had international chart impact. Also per the example set by Lemonade. Jezebelle 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course that happens when charts take streaming into account... But that doesn’t mean each song is notable outside of them album. Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jezebelle: NSONGS does not indicate that chart impact = notability. Plus, I hate to say this but could people get rid of the "other stuff" rationale? HĐ (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@HĐ: I am not using an 'other stuff' argument, I'm using an example that is on Wikipedia that is relevant to the discussion in the sense of high-charting deep cuts with little coverage having every right to an article. NSONGS states, and I quote, "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". Also there was a fair bit of coverage on "Cruel Summer" and "I Forgot That You Existed", the former in the sense that the media believed it to be about Tom Hiddleston, and the latter in proximity to Kanye West and Calvin Harris. Jezebelle 02:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jezebelle: "using an example" is actually what "other stuff" means. Read carefully: "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." That the songs charted does not make them notable enough for reliable independent sources. The sources so far are pure gossip-y lightweight articles speculating the subject the songs target, which is pure unencyclopedic (Kanye? Hiddleston? Does Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, need to have such petty information?) HĐ (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Only Merge ITHK - looking over the the notability criteria, everyone of these articles except "I think he knows" seems to pass? Cruel Summer is the subject of a Buzzfeed article, and was featured prominently on a episode of the Rolling Stone podcast, I Forgot That You Existed has articles from Vulture, Forbes, Cosmopolitan, and also has a detailed Wiki-page already. And why is London Boy even being considered, having articles from CNN, The Telegraph, Daily mail, and pretty much every UK based entertainment outlet. Nonetheless I have no clue how there is an article about I think he knows. TSFTW, 17:10, 5 October 2019 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSFTW (talk • contribs)

• Media coverage does not instantaneously equal to notability for a standalone article. Buzzfeed disqualifies as a reliable source. Like I responded to the above comment, articles regarding "I Forgot That You Existed" are filled with gossip-y lightweight content that does nothing but speculates the subject of the song. The same with "London Boy", about which articles discuss trivial matters i.e. locations mentioned in the song or Swift's misuse of British English vocabulary (all of which can be merged into the album's article with two-three sentences). As long as the songs are properly discussed in a non-trivial manner, i.e. song structure/background/why it is a standout on the album, they are undoubtedly notable. But so far, the "media coverage" on these songs are nothing but lightweight efforts to increase viewership in today's age of endless online gossip. HĐ (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protecting the page

Can an admin lock the page to prevent editing, due to recent vandalism in inlfuc? BawinV (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Influx* BawinV (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sales and avoid edit war

In order to avoid any edit war, I support Cornerstonepicker's edition about remove the stament of 5 million copies. This figure came from her record label. Personally, i desagree with BawinV and his thoughts. That's means in a "consensus terms" 1 vs 2. If he still desagree, he can open a consensus. Cheers, --Chrishonduras (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it should stay with attribution. It could look something like this – "According to Swift's label Republic Records, Lover has earned five millions album-equivalent units worldwide." Companies routinely release information like this; e.g. Netflix might release streaming figures for particular shows. This is neither unusual nor suspect. Shuipzv3 (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

yeah I agree with Shuipzv3. I think we can make it like "According to Republic records,....".Because, Taylor literally received a huge plaque celebrating 5M album units moved globally. It's too big of an information to be ignored just like that. This applies to 3M albums units sold in Lover's first week worldwide. BawinV (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I desagree because We should wait to have another source indicating her worldwide sales, and not just put her "next available sales". And User has put again the figure. Ping @Cornerstonepicker: and see what he thinks since he originally reverted that amount. --Chrishonduras (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cornerstonepicker's edition. This is a primary source and must be avoided according to Wikipedia rules for albums.--88marcus (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere it is stated these must be be avoided. From the page: "As long as the information being contributed is not overly promotional, unduly self-serving or biased, the artist or record label's website may be acceptable sources." Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if isn't mentioned, could be common sense like a criteria we follow in lists like the best-selling artists or good music articles. And how about certifications vs sales? She just reached a decent certifcafion of 2 million in the United States and barely certified in the rest of the world. Follow that criteria like the best-seller lists again. This again, coulb be "promotional sales" for a 2019 album. --Chrishonduras (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

MTE, record labels are primary source. Republic saying it did "3 million units in its first week" or "sold 5 million" is not reliable. IFPI is always used for WW sales, and that 3 million figure is questionable.. like what was the formula to convert streams to albums units since every market use different formulas. I wouldn't use label as source for any article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The IFPI figure does not include streaming. From this Billboard article, "The IFPI Global Album Chart combines global sales of physical and digital albums to rank the best-selling albums of the year. The chart includes physical and digital album unit sales only." Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

So far we have more opinions supporting that we should remove the figure of 5 million copies that basically came from her record company (as a primary source) and yes, are disputable sales. 2019 album vs certifications/sales available. --Chrishonduras (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Both (3M in a week and 5M) claims come from her record label. The article cited label as source. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I noted. The thing is we have now others references supporting that information and the album reached certifications close to the 3M figure. With the 5M claim, yes, is another primary sourced information but is a disputable figure. Personally, I think in case if we have other sources now claiming that amount but her certifications doesn't show a progression should be reviewed. Cornerstonepicker, As far as I know you desagree with the 5M claim addition and 88marcus as well and I include myself. So based in Wikipedia's guidelines of consensus and the appropiate using of a talk page, seems like both users who supported the addition of 5M have made editions recently and nobody else commented. I think we may close this discussion, removing the claim of 5M worlwide. --Chrishonduras (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see now that we were talking about separate 3M figures. I confused "3 million units in the first week" (according to Republic) with "3.2 million sales worldwide" (according to the IFPI). I don't feel strongly about the inclusion one way or another. Still, don't be too hasty to close this discussion. Maybe there will be others who might agree or disagree. Give it a few days to a week. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Has been passed almost 13 days since I started this discussion and more than 1 week as Shuipzv3 request to close it to see more participations. We have more opinions supporting that we should remove the 5 million figure, because it's a primary sourced information and questionable sales. --Chrishonduras (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Change page protection to "extended confirmed"

Lover (album) has been under constant vandalism. I request an admin to change protect the page. thank you. BawinV (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ireland not in weekly charts?

Can someone add Ireland to weekly charts, it peaked at 1 Davideamon (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davideamon: Do you have a reliable source for this? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable source in article: Headline Planet

Just a polite fyi that Headline Planet is not a reliable source (has never been considered as such despite some incorrectly believing otherwise) and should not be used. This article cites information referenced from 4 diff HP articles so I am going to remove those refs+tag for citation needed (as I did on Folklore). I am sure the editors of this page will have no trouble finding actual reliable sources to supplement. Please see this discussion here for reference.--Carlobunnie (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

Track listing, Dixie Chicks -> The Chicks

Hello,

I am suggesting an edit to the track listing to edit the track "Soon You'll Get Better (feat. the Dixie Chicks)" -> "... (feat. The Chicks)". This is how the track listing is listed on Spotify and iTunes/Apple Music, and is the group's updated name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.194.155 (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank You, but the credits are based on album booklet notes and the Lover album was released before the name change, so no. BawinV (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:NEE, we say "the Dixie Chicks" as that was their name at the time of release. Case in point: Katy Hudson (album) was released by Katy Perry, but the name listed in the article is "Katy Hudson", as that was Perry's name at the time of recording. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Promo singles

Should "Death by a Thousand Cuts", "Daylight", and "Cornelia Street" be listed as promotional singles, given that the live versions were released onto iTunes? HĐ (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ: I don’t think so. She just chose to perform them in Paris, and the live versions were released. As well, this was the last Lover-related promo before Folklore came out, so what would she be promoting? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

No, I don't think so. they were just live versions. BawinV (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They certainly should as they were released as singles on iTunes & Spotify rather than as part of an EP or album. They had the same form of release as many songs considered full singles in the digital era, so there's no good reason not to. 2601:180:8200:63D0:29FF:FA5C:A571:604C (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Lover Announcement

In the Category Promotion and release and further in the singles section it says ""Lover", the title track, was announced as the third single on August 16, 2019, by Swift at the 2019 Teen Choice Awards.[143] On August 15, 2019, Swift announced on her social media that the music video for the song would premiere during a live Q&A session on YouTube the day before the album release, on August 22, 2019" Should the dates be switched because how can the music video be announced before the song is announced? or is this actually the case.

 Done. I went through the source and the actual date of the awards event was August 11, not the 16th; somebody's typo I guess. Thank you for highlighting. BawinV (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

From the Background section: "At midnight, she released the lead single Of TS7, "Me!" featuring Brendon Urie of Panic! at the Disco, along with its music video." should be changed to "At midnight, she released the lead single of "TS7," "Me!" featuring Brendon Urie of Panic! at the Disco, along with its music video." 2600:1700:DA60:E010:F07B:4EA2:42C0:27DC (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. BawinV (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)