Talk:Fearless (Taylor's Version)

AfC Reviewer Note

This version of this album has had enough publicity prior to release that it satisfies general notability. This album is a better place to redirect entries about versions of songs than redirecting them to the old album. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reviewer

Italicize the full title.

As per Swift, Billboard, Spotify and every other media source, "Fearless (Taylor's Version)" is the title of the album; therefore, it is only right to italicize the full title of the article. In the current version, only the "Fearless" potion of the article's title is italicized, which implies that "(Taylor's Version)" is not a part of the album title, whereas it is. I do not know how to perform a move, but I request an admin/editor to move the article to the actual title: Fearless (Taylor's Version). BawinV (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I see an editor performed the italicization. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV: Title has been italicised, but there are now inverted commas under the chronology section. I wonder if there's any way to fix that too. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 14:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed with Special:Diff/1016511123. A bit of a hacky solution, but this seems like how it's usually done (per Aleluya (En La Tierra)). Chlod (say hi!) 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Country as a genre

“Country pop” includes both the genres country and pop, so writing country after country pop is unnecessary and redundant. Shrewd0307 (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article, but I can tell you that's not true. Or why would "country pop" and "country" be treated as distinct genres? In this case, since country pop is a kind of pop, neither is a sub-genre of the other either (like it would be of pop). Maybe listing pop and country separately is the answer, if both are applicable. Kingsif (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that someone has already removed country from the genre section, but to reply to @Kingsif:, adding "country" ahead of "country pop" is unnecessary and redundant, as "country pop" suggests that there is a mix of the genres country and pop, meaning that both genres are present on the album. Shrewd0307 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I just explained why that isn't true. "Country pop" is a distinct subgenre of pop with country elements, and doesn't suggest that the album has a mix of country and pop. That's not how naming genres works. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article about country pop, country pop was created so country music can hit the mainstream, meaning that it isn't a subgenre of pop, but a subgenre of country. I will not make any changes to the genre within the next 24 hours so we can discuss. Shrewd0307 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream meaning pop, country pop trying to hit the mainstream being pop music with country stylings... of course, I came to explain that, we haven't got started on infobox inclusion! Yes, that needs to reflect sources, simply put, whether semantics are agreed upon between users or not, the genres listed, especially in the infobox, should be derived from consensus among appropriate (music-related, reliable) sources. I don't think more needs to be said on that. Kingsif (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a discussion really. Country pop is subgenre of country, and the album's production is a direct emulation of the 2008 original. That article's infobox also uses country pop, Kingsif. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't use country pop, I'm saying that (though it's besides the point, country pop isn't necessarily/always a country subgenre) and, importantly, if the sources in the article say both, the infobox says both, and that policy doesn't care about what you think. It doesn't have to match the 2008 album, however much it emulates it, Peterpie123rww. Kingsif (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I support removing "country" from infobox. It's implied there's both country and pop when it's "country pop". Seeing "country" after "country pop" is just quite lame and redundant. BawinV (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, BawinV. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I additionally agree. As of now, the votes are 3-1. Shrewd0307 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2021

I support adding country as a genre, for the simple fact that there are sources (like the review by The New York Times, that clearly states the following: "...Fearless” is still a country record, a snapshot of the moment before it was even worth arguing whether or not Swift had “gone pop.”") that claim Fearless is a country album. Support for country pop is most prominent, hence why it's the first genre noted, but there is also support for country. Also, saying that "it's redundant" to list both 'country pop' and 'country' is a weird observation. The point is that some of the songs on the album are defined - by critics - as 'country pop', where as others are as 'country'. If you look at other country(-pop) albums, it is very common that both 'country' and 'country pop' are listed as genres. Therefore I'd say: Country pop and country should be listed. There are multiple reliable sources that back this up and that's what should be leading here. TRF138 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated. It should either be "Country / country pop" or simply "Country pop". "Country pop / country" is simply wrong. BawinV (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The article currently begins:

Fearless (Taylor's Version) is a re-recording of American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift's second studio album, Fearless (2008).

I think we should avoid immediately introducing the album as a re-recording, for two reasons:

• The lead sentence should define the subject in the most basic terms. What is Fearless (Taylor's Version)? Well, first and foremost, it's a studio album by Taylor Swift. The fact that it's a remake of another album is secondary - so let's put that information second.
• Re-recording isn't a widely understood concept, and it's not in common parlance. This sentence isn't likely to be that useful or comprehensible to a reader unfamiliar with the subject - it's trying to cram too much stuff into one place. Better to explain in the second sentence what the re-recording actually is.

I changed the sentence, but Bluesatellite reverted it with the reason "It's not counted as her separate studio album". I don't understand what this means - not counted by who? says who? - or what it has to do with anything - it's a studio album by Taylor Swift, that is a fact, regardless of how anyone "counts it". Popcornfud (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a standard studio release. Many charts in different countries combine the 2008 and 2021 versions as one. I suggest we use the phrase "is the first re-recorded studio album" in the lead sentence. Splitting the "re-recorded" from the lead sentence destroys the whole purpose of the album. The type of album, whether it's a "compilation album", "greatest hits album", "live album" is always stated in the lead sentence. That applies to this case as well. Fearless (Taylor's Version) is a re-recorded studio album, and therefore it must be termed as such in the lead sentence. Swift is also set to release 5 more re-recorded albums. Therefore, beginning every single lead sentence with "is a studio album by [...] it is a re-recording of Swift's nth album" is just wordy and complicating. BawinV (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Popcornfurd, "Re-recording isn't a widely understood concept, and it's not in common parlance. This sentence isn't likely to be that useful or comprehensible to a reader unfamiliar with the subject - it's trying to cram too much stuff into one place", I'm pretty sure readers can click the hyperlink on "re-recorded" and learn what it is. I do not understand how "is the first re-recorded album" is an incomprehensible phrase? BawinV (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As I argue above, unlike terms such as "greatest hits album", "compilation album" and "live album" - which have their own album infobox parameters - the term "rerecorded album" is not widely used or understood as a type of album, and so we shouldn't lead with it. As far as I can tell, this is still still a studio album, even though it's a remake. This is an example of where breaking these concepts out into different sentences is a good idea, because there's a lot to explain here. Popcornfud (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is in our rights to decide whether it is primarily a "studio album" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). All major publications address it as a "re-recorded" album. See here, here, here and here, and many more such. BawinV (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We can explain all that - and stick to the sources sufficiently - in the second sentence; it's clarity and ease of comprehension I'm arguing for here, essentially a copyediting issue. I also note that we're describing it as a "studio album" in the shortdesc and "studio album (re-recorded) in the infobox, which seem to suggest we secretly consider it first and foremost a studio album after all. Popcornfud (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If the sources can address the album as a "re-recorded album" without any confusion (or the "complexities" that you claim), so can we. Every piece of music is a studio recording, that doesn't mean we're gonna label everything, first and foremost, a studio album. According to your logic, all soundtracks/EPs should be redesignated as studio albums on Wikipedia. No. We designate them with what the sources, especially music publications, call them. If they call it a greatest hits album, it becomes a greatest hits album. If they called it a soundtrack album, we write soundtrack album. If they call it a re-recorded album, we write it as a re-recorded album. All I'm saying is we stick to the plentiful sources, and not make WP:OR claims. I would also argue to change the shortdesc as well; and about the infobox, there isn't a template for rerecorded albums. Wikipedia's digital shortcomings aren't gonna affect the fact that the sources call Fearless (Taylor's Version) a re-recorded album, with the adjective "studio" nowhere to be seen. BawinV (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to this point - Every piece of music is a studio recording - which you also raise in this edit summary - that's not the case; live albums are the obvious exception, among others. (For the record, I'm not convinced of the utility of the term "studio album" period; in most cases "album" is sufficient.) Popcornfud (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as is (correction: as it was before this), per Bawin. "What is Fearless (Taylor's Version)? Well, first and foremost," is a re-recording of American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift's second studio album, Fearless. As simple as that. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  I admire the simplicity, but it doesn't cover all the requirements; it doesn't tell us who the album is by. Popcornfud (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me or the concept is quite easy to grasp? It just means it was recorded again. The present lead sentece "Fearless (Taylor's Version) is the first re-recorded album by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift" is great, just let it be. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current lead sentence is "Fearless (Taylor's Version) is the first re-recorded album by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, released on April 9, 2021, through Republic Records". It tells us the title, the type of album, the artist, the release date and the label. The current second sentence is "It is a re-recording of Swift's second studio album, Fearless (2008), and the first of six re-recorded albums Swift plans to release, following the dispute regarding ownership of the masters to her first six studio albums". In the second sentence, we detail exactly what this is a re-recording of. and why she is re-recording her albums. I see no problem with either of the sentences currently in the article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep due to reasons stated above Shrewd0307 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Kee This is a re-recording album, not a studio album per se. Third-party sources give that treatment as well. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"You All Over Me"

Why is it now categorised as a promo single? It has the same release rollout as the two other singles ("Love Story (TV)" and "Mr. Perfectly Fine"). Ippantekina (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't. The other two were sent to radio by Republic Records. YAOM wasn't. Ronherry (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a radio release date for "Love Story (TS)". Ippantekina (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't either, but then I went through the Single criteria and it said if many reliable sources call XYZ a single, despite lack of radio release, then it still can be designated as a single. YAOM has neither radio release nor many publications calling it a single. Ronherry (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Now we have degraded "You All Over Me" and "Mr. Perfectly Fine" to promotional singles, but not "Love Story (Taylor's Version)". That is weird. They were on the same rollout, and none received official airplay playlisting. Why do we keep "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" as a single and not the other two? Ippantekina (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay? Let's turn all of them into promotional singles, as none of them were serviced to radio. I don't know who made those songs singles in the first place when the Music project consensus is to make a song a single only if it has a radio impact date. Ronherry (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Love Story (TV), Mr. Perfectly Fine, YAOM and Wildest Dreams; none of these impacted radio or were called as singles by Billboard/OCC but somehow only Wildest Dreams is a promotional single? I'm going to follow the established norm and turn them all into promo singles. Ronherry (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Now, after careful revision, Billboard calls Love Story (TV) (see the song's article talk page) a single. Therefore, as per rule #2 on Single Criteria, it IS a single. The rest are not. Ronherry (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ronherry: I don't buy that. Official Charts Company also called "You All Over Me" a single. What's with the media calling them singles, but we categorise them as promo singles? Ippantekina (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

For your information, I don't think the rules care whether you buy it or don't. Also, if OCC calls You All Over Me a single, then it should be a single on Wikipedia. Plus, media calling them singles doesn't matter; according to the norms, only the words of chart companies like Billboard and OCC matter, not all of the others, even if it's Rolling Stone. So, if OCC calls YAOM a single, then it shall be one. Where's the OCC article though? Ronherry (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Check the article history. I present you "Taylor Swift announces new single You All Over Me (From The Vault)". I am assuming you refer to criterion #2 of WP:SINGLESCRIT. For your information, SINGLESCRIT is an essay and not "rules". Ippantekina (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so make YAOM a single on Wikipedia then? Lol. All this discussion could've been avoided if you had just provided the OCC article in the first place. Why the wait? Anyway. Commenting on the second half of your reply, yes it's an essay; an essay the editors of music articles have agreed upon to follow, to lessen the confusion caused by singles classification. If you have a problem with those rules (is the word I would like to use because it's formed over a consensus) stated, then open a discussion in its talk page or do something about it on the Music Project. I was just doing what was dictated to me in those rules. And now that we have a perfect source, YAOM is indeed a single. Regards. Ronherry (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I assume you'll do the needful by making the required edits to the articles of YAOM, its preceding and succeeding singles, Fearless (TV) and Taylor Swift singles discography? Thanks. Ronherry (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Response #1: I changed YOAM from promo to single but some editor reverted that, for unknown reasons.

Response #2: Consensus can change, and an essay shall not be treated as a carved-on-the-stone guide. Anything on Wikipedia too.

Response #3: I started a discussion beforehand to avoid edit conflicts, assuming that my edits were (somewhat) bold.

Response #4: I am still bugging about "Mr. Perfectly Fine". All three tracks were on the same rollout, so if one is categorised differently, it would be confusing. Ippantekina (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, User:Solidest is adamant that an album being in Category:Music infoboxes with unknown value for type is not suitable. I disagree, I think that its fine. I consider "Studio album (Re-recorded)" to be needless. I think it should be "Re-recorded album". Tree Critter (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that infobox parameters should be used in the way they were intended. If you are trying to customise them in a way that bypasses the intended functionality, then you just need to reach a consensus and fix the fields so that they meet both your and others' needs. I don't think it is OK that a technical category that points out errors in templates will forever remain filled in because you like it better that way. This issue is already being discussed at the moment here: Template talk:Infobox album#Proposal for "Reissue" parameter, so join in and help work out a solution that will suit everyone. Solidest (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then with that logic you surely have an issue with the charity singles populating the category currently. I see you haven't edited those pages. What is the difference? Tree Critter (talk)

I'm still thinking how to resolve it as there is no longtype parameter in {{Infobox song}}. Perhaps the decision that will be made for the albums will also affect the songs.Solidest (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic. Template:Infobox album offers an other option. When you use that option it delegates the page to Category:Music infoboxes with unknown value for type. So you can still use the infobox as intended while still resulting in the page being a part of this category. Until there is a consensus at Template talk:Infobox album#Proposal for "Reissue" parameter, these re-recordings, much like the charity singles, will have to be "unknown". Tree Critter (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. The question here is not about the text in the row, but what is the general album type with the color it is. Removing a type will indeed color the infobox with "other" color. But it is used for other audio formats, mostly non-music audio recordings, see here what link it returned when you set "type = other": The Story of Star Wars. For everything that is normal/standard album format we have "studio" value. And this album is no doubt of a standard album format (like literally every category on the page is of plain albums, not talking about definition of re-recorded album itself). Longtype is designed to add notes to the album type, which in this case is "re-recorded". The actual problem here is that this extra option can only be displayed right after the album type. Which is what I suggest you discuss in the template talk if it matters to you. But the album type itself is not questionable and should be restored. Consensus here is needed for the placement of the album extra type. And rolling back the fact that this is an album can be considered as WP:DE. So, please, stop. Solidest (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: One or two infoboxes for song articles?

Unless songs are massively successful (like "Love Story (Taylor's Version)") I believe one infobox should suffice for lesser-known songs like "Hey Stephen" or "Forever & Always", because the 2008 original and the 2021 re-recoding are essentially the same song. Tree Critter disagrees and prefers two separate infoboxes because parentheses are confusing. Looking forward to more comments on this, Ippantekina (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether they're confusing is besides the point, they're unnecessary. If they have

• different titles
• different lengths
• different producers
• different parent albums
• different release dates
• different recording dates
• different labels
• different videos

then why would they share an infobox? That's like 90% of the infobox. Tree Critter (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fearless (Taylor's Version)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaughan J. (talk · contribs) 10:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Seems fitting to call dibs for this review now, since I might be going to her concert with friends and family in Melbourne in February if we get tickets in the Ticketek marketplace starting September!

Anyways, I'm gonna start this in a week or so. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 10:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review :) please do ping me when you complete it. Too bad I haven't secured tix for the Eras Tour in Japan but hopefully I could get some resell tix... Ippantekina (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good.
• "2021, through Republic Records." → "2021, via Republic Records."  Done
• "wrote 11 tracks alone and" → "wrote 11 tracks by herself and"  Done
• "produced all but the unreleased tracks to replicate" → "produced all the tracks from the original album to replicate"

• Not done because the re-recorded tracks include "Today Was a Fairytale" which was not an album track

• Crossed out. N

• "an indie-and-electronic-orientated soundscape" → "an indie and electronic-orientated soundscape"

• Not done I think this is the general hyphen rule

• Crossed out. N

• "Fearless's lead single" → "Fearless' lead single" with the wikilink  Partly done – see below

• Not done with the 's (MOS:'S), done with the pipe

• Pipe drum programming to Programming (music)  Partly done – was changed to "drum programming"
• "in the English-speaking countries" → "in all English-speaking countries,"

• Not done technically not all of the English-speaking countries (which include some Caribbean island-states and Singapore..)

• Crossed out. N

Background

• Image looks pretty good!
• "Nashville-based Big Machine Records" → "Nashville-based independent record label Big Machine Records"  Done
• Pipe pop radio to Contemporary hit radio

• Not done per WP:NOTBROKEN

• Crossed out. N

• "Under Big Machine Records," → "Under Big Machine"  Done
• "ways with Big Machine after" → "ways with the label, after"  Done

Production

• "which included 13" → "which includes 13"  Done
• "tracks already released in 2008" → "tracks that were released in 2008,"  Done
• Images look good!
• "20 re-recorded tracks, which are all subtitled" → "20 tracks, that are all subtitled"

Music and lyrics

• Looks good!

"From the Vault" tracks

• Audio sample and everything else looks good!

Marketing and release

• Logo image looks good!
• Pipe sepia-toned to Photographic print toning

Commercial performance

• "Billboard Artist 100" → "Billboard Artist 100"  Partly done – was changed to "Billboard's Artist 100"
• "two in Austria and Germany," → "two in Austria and Germany,"  Done

Critical reception

• Pipe weighted mean to Weighted arithmetic mean  Done

Accolades and impact

• Good

Track listing

• Looks good!

Personnel

Musicians

• Pipe drums to drum kit  Done

Technical

• Isn't Taylor credited as a producer on Tidal?

• It's true, but I reckon it is not necessary here as that information can be found in the Track listing section.

• Have now realised that it is mentioned on musicians subheading, so crossed out. N

• Change "masters engineering" to "mastering" and pipe the wikilink to be Mastering engineer  Done

Charts

Weekly charts

• Looks good!

Year-end charts

• Looks good!

Certifications

• Looks good!

Release history

• "" → ""  Done

See also

• Looks good!

Notes

• Only one minor change is needed, so not much. The notelist looks good. No changes needed.

• Note a, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k and l – Finish sentences with full stops.

• Not done as they are not full sentences

• Crossed out. N

References

• Copyvio score – It looks pretty good at 28.6%!
• The reference list looks good.

Print sources

• Looks good!

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of these issues are fixed; got it done within 3 days, instead of a week! Good luck Ippantekina! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review, Vaughan J.. Except where I responded, I believe all points have been addressed now :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I just crossed out all the things that you responded to, but there are still some things that have not been changed. I pointed that out by using the  Not done template. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ippantekina Forgot to ping. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Should all be done by now except the sepia-toned pipe per WP:NOTBROKEN. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pass now; just crossed out the sepia tone pipe. Good job! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:42, 18 July 2023 (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.