Talk:Taylor Swift

I am aware that this may sound petty but Taylor received a doctorate from the NYU Creative Arts Department so should be named Dr Taylor Allison Swift. I'm too obsessed for my own good lmao. 2A00:23C8:498A:CC01:4242:720E:8593:9A97 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's only an honorary doctorate, and in any case, we don't usually add that to biographies. For instance, it's just Albert Einstein, not Dr Albert Einstein. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::YH BUT I THINK SHE SHOULD BE CALLED DR Wikalevi (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::We don't even do that for people with actual doctorates wiglett (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::VOTE:Who thinks taylor swift should be called doctor? |

::::two | one

::::@Binksternet

::::@Wikalevi | @Wiglett Wikalevi (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::≈ wiggglet yh they do. what about ' dr xand ' or ' dr chris' ? Wikalevi (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia is based on consensus, not voting (see WP:VOTE). On wikipedia, articles do not address a subject as Dr even if they have an actual doctorate. Many people in the world do say "Dr Chris" but the lead at Albert Einstein doesn't say "Dr Albert Einstein" as just one example. Ultraodan (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{yo|Wikalevi}} Here is the policy about article titles, explaining why an article about a person with a PhD (or a honoris causa doctorate) is titled "[Firstname] [Lastname]" and not "Dr [Name]". The article titles Dr. Xand and Dr. Chris are only redirects to Van Tulleken brothers. I guess the person best known as a "Dr [name]" is Dr. Livingstone, and as you can see, that title redirects to David Livingstone (and not to "Reverend Livingstone" which is another title he bore). So this discussion is a non-starter – the article won't be moved since that would be against Wikipedia policy. --bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Taylor swift is a very nice person at least seems to be just cut some slack for her she is human too . 107.190.104.175 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::huh? they never said anything bad abt her Nknp (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly shocked she doesn’t sue people who fail to call her Dr. Swift. Break252 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::lol 107.190.104.175 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It’s a slam dunk lawsuit win given the media does nothing but praise her and thus juries would be heavily prejudiced towards her. The only question would be “How many zeros at the end of that check?” Break252 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::she worked hard for what she has just because you don't have 1000,0000 in your bank account doesn't mean you have to be rude 107.190.104.175 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::that's just what i have to say to people who are rude to her 107.190.104.175 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::for what reason would she sue? Nknp (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:OMGGG YESS I KNOW THATS WHAT I WAS SAYING Alyssa123451 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:No ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 14:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that since she is a doctor they should include "doctor" in her occupations. Alyssa123451 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:See here, this is the convention for naming people that posses titles. Taylor Swift is named without the Dr. in most independent secondary sources, so it would not be included. 3landscape (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::You guys are dopes!!!!!!! Taylor Swift is not a doctor!!!!! 208.72.101.42 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::She received an honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degree from New York University and served as its commencement speaker on May 18, 2022. Lectonar (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A discussion regarding whether an article for Lover Fest should be created is at Talk:Lover_(album)#Lover_Fest. Please feel free to provide your input! Ippantekina (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I’d like to open a discussion regarding the current top-importance ratings for several articles within our project. After reviewing both community perspectives and some additional analysis, I believe that while many articles clearly merit their current ratings, a few might benefit from a nuanced reassessment. Here’s a summary of my thoughts on each article:

• Talk:1989 (album): This article is central to understanding the transformative impact of 1989 on Taylor Swift’s career and pop music. Its top-importance rating seems fully justified.
• Talk:Fearless (Taylor Swift album): Fearless is undeniably significant as Taylor’s breakthrough album. Its historical impact is clear, though its influence might be revisited in light of how later works have further shaped her career. While I lean toward retaining a high rating, I think it could be useful to discuss whether it might be more finely nuanced than simply top-importance.
• Talk:Folklore (Taylor Swift album): Folklore represents an important artistic pivot, reflecting critical and creative evolution. However, its niche stylistic departure might make its status less clear-cut compared to other core works. It would be worthwhile to explore whether its unique characteristics call for a slightly different treatment.
• Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album): The depth and innovation of Red are well-reflected in its top-importance rating. Its role in bridging different phases of Taylor’s evolution supports maintaining the current rating.
• Talk:Speak Now: Since every track on Speak Now was self-written, the album stands out in terms of artistic authenticity. This factor bolsters its top-importance classification, in my view.
• Talk:Taylor Swift: Given that this is the central article covering Taylor Swift’s career, influence, and persona, its top-importance rating is indisputable.
• Talk:Taylor Swift albums discography: This discography serves as a comprehensive resource on the evolution of Taylor’s music and clearly deserves its top-importance rating.
• Talk:Taylor Swift singles discography: While this resource is valuable for tracking hit singles and commercial impact, it might not capture the full depth of Taylor’s artistic narrative as effectively as the album discography does. I find its top-importance rating somewhat questionable and suggest that we discuss if a lower priority might be more appropriate.

I believe a community discussion on these points could help us refine our importance ratings to best reflect both historical significance and current perspectives on Taylor Swift’s body of work. Your thoughts and any additional insights would be greatly appreciated!

Looking forward to your feedback. Jorge906 (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

In the wealth and philanthropy section it should be added that in October 2024, Swift made a 5 million dollar donation to help with hurricane Milton and Helene reliefs.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/oct/10/taylor-swift-donates-5m-hurricane-relief-efforts-helene-milton

"Alternative" itself isn't really a genre, but rather a descriptor placed in front of other genres of music to clarify a specific style. The link provided actually leads to a disambiguation page, not a genre page. Additionally, the artist template guides to aim for two to four general genres. Alternative is not general or really a genre at all and removing it will keep the list to only four. InsiderChiari (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

no personal life section? Solemn1 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:She is a superstar. Her life is well documented and no need for a dedicated section imo Cinaroot (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)