Talk:Reputation (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleReputation (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starReputation (album) is part of the Taylor Swift original studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
July 11, 2023Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Gorgeous as an official single[edit]

"Gorgeous" should be re-added as a single rather than a promotional single. It was officially sent to UK radios and charted for over three months in that area. If "The Last Time" from Red and "the 1" from folklore (other exclusively European singles) are counted as real singles, then it would be inconsistent to say that "Gorgeous" isn't one. 2601:180:8200:63D0:68BC:FDF:9A0F:6B81 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "Gorgeous" and the two other singles is that "The 1" had an official announcement from Universal Music [1], and "The Last Time" was listed in Official Charts' "This week's new releases" column [2]. The BBC Radio is not the indicator of a widespread single release, and there is no confirmation from Official Charts that it is a single of the same week as the BBC Radio 1 playlist. HĐ (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 December 2021[edit]

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Danski454 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation (Taylor Swift album) → Reputation (album) – This album is much more known than than the album by Dusty Springfield 2603:9000:CA02:CACC:6D95:2C65:CE6F:6A9B (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PDAB: "A request for comments concluded on 3 September 2019 that PDABs can have primary topics, but that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator". The Wikipedia guideline section known as WP:INCDAB or WP:INCOMPDAB was modified to reflect this." In this case, Taylor's album is easily the primary topic here [3] Calidum 01:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with Calidum's points. Ronherry (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 12 October 2022[edit]

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: not moved. Per consensus. Whilst (album) is an incomplete dab, pageview and clickstream data analysis by TartarTorte provides the argument for the Taylor Swift album as the WP:PTOPIC. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation (album) → Reputation (Taylor Swift album) – restore back in line with WP:TITLE: poorly attended move initiated by single-day editor IP 10 months ago and closed by non-admin does not inspire confidence. Reputation (Dusty Springfield album) also exists and is a substantial article. No benefit to readers in de-TaylorSwifting article. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per TartarTorte. This album is very clearly the album people are searching for. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Dusty Springfield album hardly made a dent anywhere. Swift's "Reputation", on the contrary, shattered sales records and is still charting to this day. Everm4e (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:TartarTorte. Tree Critter (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TartarTorte and previous RM above. With 97% of all pageviews this year, this album is the overwhelming primary topic. And the hatnote serves the minority as well as or better than a dab page would. Station1 (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Orphaned references in Reputation (album)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Reputation (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RIAA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody fucked up the entire page[edit]

The whole description is all messed up. Page needs to be fixed. 47.212.123.199 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

User:Ippantekina has a habit of edit warring on small issues. So, in preparation for that:

The hatnote should direct to the only two albums that people would be looking for if not Taylor Swift's. A link to the disambiguation page would be more appropriate if there were more than only two, but there aren't. Tree Critter (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote you added is hyper-specific and to think about it, would readers go to this article and expect to read about those two particular albums? I’d go for the less clunky option that is to keep it simple: this article is about Taylor Swift’s album, for other albums go to the disambig. Ronherry do you have any thoughts on this? (tagging because he/she seems an active editor on Swift articles lately). Ippantekina (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current hatnote looks clumsy. I think a direct link to the disambiguation page alone is enough. ℛonherry☘ 17:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't see the need to name Springfield and the band in the hatnote. Ippantekina (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete title[edit]

Should be revisited and moved per WP:DISAMBIGUATION at some point. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The other album recieved less than 1/90th of this album's page views this month despite both existing for years. ClipzyJiyz (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Cherrell410(t · c) 04:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Reputation (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reviewing this article. I’d get back to you within 2 days’ time! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cherrell410, I have addressed your comments accordingly, except the "Live performances" heading because the section also discusses press/media interviews. Ippantekina (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.:
    Many disputes about what the title should be, one of the main editors seems to have an edit warring issue, 15 reverts since may 12
  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:
    Leaving my suggestions for improvement below:
  • Background: comma after worldwide
  • Background: into a fixation onto which - is there a better way to write this?
  • Background: (i made that bitch famous was particulary contriversal) - that's an opinion. it might be a popular opinion, but its an opinion.
  • Background: once-reputation --> once–reputation
  • Recording and conception: Three musicians co-wrote and co-produced select tracks with Martin and Shellback, including... --> Additionally, Ali Payami, Oscar gorres and Oscar holter co-wrote ready for it, so it goes, and dancing with our hands tied, respectively.
  • Musical styles: wikilink distorted to distortion (music)
  • Themes and lyrics: it references alcohol and sex more than any of swifts previous records; for instance... - don't give the example, as you are only giving the example for the alcohol part of this phrase
  • Performances --> Live performances
  • Performances: The show recorded at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas --> The show at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas was recorded and released as a...

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.

Reputation (Taylor's version)[edit]

People are saying that they think that there will be no Taylors version of reputation and i'm afraid that they are correct, there will be no Taylors version of rep. Im so sorry to tell you fans. thanks for being supportive of the music but unfortunately there will be no Taylors version.

Have a great Christmas and an amazing New Years Day 😉 !!!!!! 70.142.212.230 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reputation_(album)&oldid=1194945129"