Jump to content

Talk:Evermore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEvermore 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 starEvermore 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
September 17, 2022Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 6, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Taylor Swift offered to postpone the release date of Evermore by one week so as not to coincide with Paul McCartney's McCartney III?
Current status: Good article

Remaining Non-RS sources

[edit]

Swift's twitter is being used to cite Beth Garrabrant as the photographer --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 19:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@In actu: It’s fine, since it’s from the creator of the subject of the article. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And her verified Twitter. WP:PRIMARY applies in this instance. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: it is okay for now --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2020

[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. "this is an open-shut case". (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 19:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evermore (Taylor Swift album) → Evermore (album) – Clear WP:PTOPIC. There are three Evermore (album) articles. Evermore (Planetshakers album) is already a redirect. That leaves this page and Evermore (Evermore album). If you look at the pageviews for the past 30 days for both articles, the Evermore album has about 500 pageviews in the past 30 days. This article has 330,000 pageviews in the past 30 days, and this article wasn’t even created 48 hours ago. If you also look at the Evermore album page history, you can see that without bots, the article has been edited one time in the past two years. Therefore, this article is a really clear PTOPIC. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Doesn't PTOPIC only apply if there will be no disambiguation in the title at all, i.e. if this were to be moved to just Evermore? And so Evermore (album) should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to Evermore (disambiguation), so as not to overwhelm the top of this article with hatnotes pointing to multiple other albums (when one hatnote to a disambig page will suffice). Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: I see no benefit in making the title ambiguous. Such WP:INCDAB incomplete disambiguation is generally undesirable. There are very few exceptions, and I'm only aware of one for albums in cases where several albums of the same name have articles devoted to them on Wikipedia – Thriller (album) (by Michael Jackson). The new Taylor Swift album is not such a huge classic as that one, and has a tinge of WP:RECENTISM. (There is also My Generation (album) (by The Who), but that has only two topics per WP:TWODABS, and both are named after the same title track.) — BarrelProof (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Edit: Firstly, I just want to point out the fact that if you type "Evermore" and search in the wikibar, at least 25 things come up. That's a lot and this specific article definitely needs clarification and should not supersede all other articles. Original: I definitely don't think it should be moved. The first reason is that just because very few people are searching for the other albums titled "Evermore" does not mean that this album should supersede them in searches as they may even become more relevant because of this highly popular album. The second reason is that by removing the disambiguation of this album, especially since it just came out, removes clarity on what album you are searching for and who it is by. Many people may be searching for "Evermore" and not even know it is by Taylor Swift. I heard "evermore, evermore" all day long on the radio today and only heard them say "Taylor" a few times, not even "Taylor Swift'. What if I didn't hear them say "it's an album by the artist Taylor Swift"? I wouldn't even understand what to look for. I think it makes a lot more sense to leave this album in the disambiguation where it it clarified clearly what you are searching for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c0:8700:5c80:499f:e512:738c:4d48 (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Situations like this should be fully disambiguated regardless of popularity, as long as all the albums satisfy WP:NALBUM. If they do not, then and only then should the disambiguation be removed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While there are situations where the most well known of a number of articles is not disambiguated, we currently have not reached that point --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose partial disambiguation is generally a bad idea and I don't think its a good idea since this album was only released yesterday anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Guerillero's and Crouch, Swale's reasoning. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:27, 14 December 2020 (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.

DYK Hook

[edit]

@BawinV, Doggy54321, and BillieLiz: Any thoughts of what DYK hook would be best for this article? If we could get Willow (song) over the minimum length, this would be a good candidate for a double hook. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the thing about sister records! As in, Did you know that Swift's ninth studio album, Evermore, is a sister album to its predecessor, Folklore? I'm not sure if this is a good suggestion LOL. BawinV (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that's a great idea. BillieLiz (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: I like your idea. @Guerillero: maybe we could say something about her collaborations with Bon Iver, Haim, Mumford & Sons and the National on this album, as well as songwriters Jack Antonoff, William Bowery, Aaron Dessner and Justin Vernon. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321 and BawinV: That would also be interesting! Lets build out a songs section and then submit it early next week? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: great! I’ll look thru sources and create a rough section. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Guerillero:, On it! BawinV (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Marjorie" — Separate article

[edit]

"Marjorie" has received extensive media coverage from various music publications and news websites. A simple Google Search proves it. Therefore, I think it should have its own article. What do other editors think? BawinV (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an article for the song at Marjorie (song). Rfl0216 (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't realize. Thanks. BawinV (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

Following the guideline at WP:EXPLICITGENRES, I have removed the following genres: folk, indie pop. In order for a genre to be included in the infobox—in which case the genre is supposed to represent/define the album/song/record as a whole—"sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole".

  • Folk does not qualify because, as cited from the two sources:
  • "Evermore," out now, is the 10-time Grammy winner's ninth studio album and second this year after "Folklore," her retreat into fanciful fireside folk after three albums of boldfaced stadium pop. (USA Today) This attributes "folk" to Folklore and not explicitly Evermore (though the claim that Folklore is folk may be dubious as well)
  • If anything, she’s just stripping things down to even more of an acoustic core, so that the new album often sounds like the folk record that the title of the previous one promised (Variety) This also vaguely implies that "folk" is something that the title of Folklore implies, not Evermore (or even Folklore) per se.
  • The same issue applies to indie pop:
  • as though Taylor’s basking in the glow of this new cottagecore indie-pop hybrid she’s found(ed) (The Line of Best Fit) "indie-pop hybrid" in this case is also not attributed to Evermore as an album, but to Swift's general artistry during this period.

Given my points raised above, I believe genres added to not only Swift's albums (cue Folklore etc) but also other artists' albums should be taken with extra care, following the guideline that I cited. HĐ (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Agreed. By the way, This Spin review (here) explicitly calls Evermore an "Undeniable Folk-Pop Masterpiece". Thus, I added it. BawinV (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: I agree, though I do think you've misinterpreted the Variety quotation you bring: it's saying that Evermore has (often) achieved the folk sound that would have been expected of Folklore. It's critical to remember that such sources aren't always explicit in their statements because of journalistic language, and so I'd find it safer to use music-centric sources. Kingsif (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that journalistic language is oftentimes not straightforward... And yes, folk-pop should be appropriate if Spin (a reputable music source) says so, HĐ (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: This all sounds good to me --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. Now that I read it once again, the Variety author's statement was rather suggestive than direct. Thanks. BawinV (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2020

[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. Consensus remains against this move at this time. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evermore (Taylor Swift album) → Evermore (album) – Per the move request I made on December 12, this album is a clear WP:PTOPIC. There are no other Evermore albums that have an article, per Evermore#Music. Evermore (Planetshakers album) was already a redirect on December 12, and I just turned Evermore (Evermore album) into a redirect [1] (it failed WP:NALBUM). Therefore, this album is now PTOPIC. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also keep in mind that this exact same situation happened over at Cardigan (song) (Talk:Cardigan (song)#Requested move 28 July 2020), and the result was to move and have a hatnote at the top of the page pointing to DAB. Willow (song) is another great example, although there was no requested move. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Stuff has changed since my last request was made. On 12 December, everyone rejected it since there were two pages with equal DAB. Now, there’s only one page, the other was redirected. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I should have checked the situation more closely before replying. I came back to withdraw my knee-jerk remark, but you had already responded. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is a rather WP:RECENT album, released less than a month ago. It has not been around long enough for us to know if it will have overwhelming enduring interest, and WP:incomplete disambiguation is generally a bad idea. Having the name of the artist in the title is often helpful to readers. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: I never said there was, your comment makes no sense. Per the general notability guidelines, that article is not, in the slightest, notable. It has one source apart from affiliate/charting sources. After noticing this, I redirected the article, which later turned into me making a RM since there was only one album with the title that had an article. I’m also not 100% clear why you reverted my edit blanking the article without an edit summary, so could you please clarify that for me? Thanks. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, you can't just delete all the other possible articles for disambiguation in the face of overwhelming opposition and try again. Second, this album is barely a week old, which with any other artist, probably even the Beatles, would be obvious to anyone as far too early for PTOPIC to apply - in an encyclopedia of all human and pre-human history, only RECENTism would let that hold water. Third, you can't seriously compare this to Swift's songs with primary disambiguation where there aren't any other songs of said title with even a redirect on Wikipedia (though I am a little surprised Joan Armatrading's "Willow" doesn't have at least a redirect, but that album article is basically a stub), unless the comparison being made is that all Swift songs/albums should be primary disambig by default; Taylor Swift exceptionalism doesn't, and won't, exist on Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: like the comment I made above, that’s not what happened. To quote myself: Per the general notability guidelines, that article is not, in the slightest, notable. It has one source apart from affiliate/charting sources. After noticing this, I redirected the article, which later turned into me making a RM since there was only one album with the title that had an article. I was also just using those songs for examples, "Cardigan" in particular. Cardigan (Don Toliver song) is an existing redirect, and was seriously considered this past July when the RM for that page was opened. I know that "Taylor Swift exceptionalism" isn’t a thing on Wikipedia, but once again, that was not the case. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321: Your intentions may not have been malicious, but the actions/results are how I describe. You also haven't responded to any of the comments, including mine, pointing out that this album (and article) arrived this month and it's simply out of process to be claiming PTOPIC at this time. I believe that was also a recommendation at the last (recent) RM, which you evidently haven't considered on or you would have thought a bit harder about making another one so soon. Thus, it also seems like you just desperately want this album to be considered the PTOPIC. Chances are, it will prove to be so, but things can be massively popular for a brief time (e.g. Pokémon Go is considered a vital article but its sheer lack of lasting impact despite being one of the most important things a few years ago really makes me want to remove it from VA), so we should wait. Kingsif (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Thank you for clarifying. I guess I missed that. I see now why you would make those comments. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 15:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: ping didn’t go through. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 15:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LSGH: the reasoning wasn't repeated, per my comment above: On 12 December, everyone rejected it since there were two pages with equal DAB. Now, there’s only one page, the other was redirected. That was, in fact, true at the time. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dignitee: okay, but how many of them have redirects? There are only three currently listed at the relevant DAB page. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of other articles with the same topic name is not a primary reason for a page to have a disambiguation indicators in brackets. An imaginary Wikipedia user looking for any of 200 albums, typing "Evermore", and seeing "Evermore (album)" in the search field doesn't expect opening Taylor Swift's album because even with a million page views this short and overused word can't turn into a common term. In the best version of events I suggest "Evermore (album)" as a disambiguation page with many Evermore albums listed, (not two hundreds), but (lazy) I wouldn't bother to create it. Maybe some kind soul will do it.--Dignitee (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2020 (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.

Remove wrong photo

[edit]

Under the section "Writing and recording" photo very obviously does not picture Aaron and Bryce Dessner. Also, I believe Bryce is only credited on three songs on the album (of which only one credits him as orchestrator), while the caption seems to imply he was as involved in the making of the record as Aaron. Please remove or change the photo and caption. Freshellgram (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it’s Aaron and Benjamin Lanz. I’ll change the photo. I think this photo is used at Folklore (Taylor Swift album) as well, I’ll change it there too. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Position in India

[edit]

The Evermore deluxe version reached no.1 on iTunes India album chart. I entered this information on the page with reference as well. Still the info was removed by saying that evermore charted on iTunes chart of every country. For Indian music Industry, the iTunes India charts are referred for albums . No official charts are maintained. Please refer IMI( INDIAN MUSIC INDUSTRY) Page on Wikipedia. Hence , the information should be published. IndieOKB (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I live in India and I'm an Indian citizen. iTunes charts aren't included in Commercial performance according to Wikipedia guidelines. Even if it did, Evermore reached number one in nearly every country's iTunes. Therefore, it is not a notable data at all. Regards. BawinV (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation playlist

[edit]

Should the "Dropped your hand while dancing" be added to track listing ? I dont think so. Maybe a mention in release and promotion would be appropriate. We added it in Folklore's case because it had the term "folklore" in its title. However, this new playlist has not only Evermore tracks, but also a Folklore track. Moreover it doesn't even have "Evermore" in its title. Therefore, it should not be associated with the album's track listing in any way. BawinV (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry released a similar playlist after Smile, but it was decided not to include it in the tracklist since it has tracks from preceding albums. BawinV (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BawinV: agreed. Sources don’t seem to be calling it an Evermore thing anyways, and Swift didn’t mention Evermore in her Twitter post releasing the compilation. But, if we get sources saying it’s related to the album, I guess we should add it. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, if Swift were to release a compilation with only Evermore songs and mentions Evermore, would we make a compilation section? TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 02:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCartoonEditor: Not necessarily. With Folklore, all the compilation playlists had "Folklore:" before the title, Swift herself confirmed they were Folklore-esque, and sources such as Billboard were calling them "Folklore compilations". If Swift were to release a compilation playlist that had "Evermore:" before the title, confirmed that the playlist was tied to Evermore, and sources confirmed it was tied to Evermore (as well as the obvious only including songs from the album), then we would list it. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact vs. Legacy

[edit]
Courtesy pings:
Legacy
@2.50.225.195:
@Andyn724:
Impact
@BawinV:
@Doggy54321:

Hi gang, I see there is a small part of an edit war going on over whether the title regarding the album's influence on the world should be called "Impact" or "Legacy". I don't know what it should be called, so I'd like each side to present their opinions so that we can reach a consensus. TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyn724: i'd like for it to be called "legacy", or the title could be called both "impact" and "legacy" because just based on the critics, reliable sources, and public admirations, we see how much 'evermore' influenced the world so much during pandemic and changed the musical landscape during the pandemic, just like folklore. both 'folklore' and 'evermore' have contributed to Taylor Swift's impact and cemented her power as a cultural figure in the music industry. that's why Swift was named the most influential female artist of 2020. and i also wanna separate "lawsuit over an album" section out of the "impact" section because it just doesn't fit there. i don't know what y'all think. User talk:Andyn724

None of the content under the section screams "legacy". The album isn't even half-a-year old!!!! lol. "Impact" is the right title. Andy above is talking about Swift's legacy, which is well discussed on Taylor Swift. This article is about the album. Unlike Folklore, Evermore has no "legacy" yet. "Impact" is the most sensible title. I hope editors would edit without being driven by fan emotions. Also, the lawsuit is part of the album's impact. The lawsuit is a direct consequence of the album's title. Therefore, it is right to keep the suit in Impact. That's it. BawinV (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Legacy" is over-the-top in my opinion. Evermore didn't receive half the commentary from publications and industry that Folklore got. There's nothing that the publications have written that talks about the album's legacy. Whereas in Folklore's case, many publications talked about how the album would occupy a crucial position in the future. Like any standard album article, "Impact" is the most appropriate title. BawinV (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: I have to agree with BawinV. The album isn’t even two months old yet. Whereas with Folklore, the album has already been out for six going on seven months; that’s enough time to have a legacy. But, considering the album wasn’t even released two months ago, I’d say "Impact" is good enough for now. As well, Folklore was seen as a major breakthrough for Swift as she was transitioning from pop into alternative-country-indie et al. But, Evermore didn't get that same praise, because it was also an alternative-country-indie et al album. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: @Doggy54321: @Andyn724: Thanks everyone for your cooperation! I believe that we have come to the belief that "Evermore" will have less of a "Legacy" than her previous album, so the correct term for "Evermore"'s influence is "Impact". TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: @TheCartoonEditor: @Doggy54321: guys, so i think that if the album turns half a year old or it turns one year-old, then we can call the album a "legacy" to the music industry. ok? Andyn724
As well, Folklore was seen as a major breakthrough for Swift as she was transitioning from pop into alternative-country-indie et al. But, Evermore didn't get that same praise, because it was also an alternative-country-indie et al album.TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 19:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: @TheCartoonEditor: @Doggy54321: also why do we have to separate the meanings of "impact" and "legacy". what do y'all think legacy means and why is it different from impact? why do we have to wait for a specific time to call an album a "legacy"? legacy just means an impact or significance of an album? Andyn724
@Andyn724:, An album has a legacy when an artist's legacy is defined by that album. Swift's transition from pop into the "Everlore" style was defined by "Folklore", and expanded (but not defined) by "Evermore". TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 19:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know right? 😩 BawinV (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP from United Arab Emirates whose changed the section title from impact to legacy was wrong. "Impact" is the most accurate term to apply here. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If not there, then where? (chapter discussion)

[edit]

@Ronherry: Hello. I would like to talk about the "evermore" chapters and where they should go. I believe that they should go into the evermore tracklist section because they were released after evermore's release (and after the final folklore chapter) and before the release of the Fearless (T'SV) chapters. I know that you do not believe they should be in the evermore tracklist section. Now, here is my question. If not there, then where? Where should the chapters go if not in that section, in your opinion? TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to go anywhere, because Wikipedia is not a repository. Technically, first of all, they are NOT "evermore" chapters. They are not titled so, hence eliminate that from your argument. Secondly, the chapters are already covered in the "Release" section. They're already there. It doesn't have to be discussed a second time; that's redundancy. Thirdly, there is a precedent. Taylor Swift albums discography covers all her multi-track releases. As you can see there, many compilations and EPs, such as her Rhapsody Originals and iTunes collections exist, whose tracklists are nowhere mentioned in any album article associated to one or more of its tracks. Fourthly, none of the tracks included in the chapters are new tracks like "Betty (live)" or "The 1 (long pond sessions)". They're already existing songs, which are in the tracklist sections of both Folklore and Evermore. Ronherry (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the chapters should be included in the tracklist section. They are very clearly related to evermore, being almost entirely evermore tracks. Every other one of her albums that have these compilations list them in their tracklist sections, and the recordings' compilations don't include any new tracks like "All Too Well (live)" either. Also they wouldn't be discussed a second time, they'd only be discussed the one time in the release section. They would be shown in the tracklist section. That's the point of the tracklist section not to discuss anything, just to literally show the tracklisting. Tree Critter (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Folklore, Red TV and Fearless TV titles are there in the compilations. That's not the case with Evermore. Playlists with tracks from more than one album are separate "compilations" rather than being associated with a single album. ℛonherry☘ 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronherry and Tree Critter: It just seems strange to me that the post-Evermore/pre-2021 Fearless compilations are the only ones without written tracklists. If all other compilations get sub-sections on their album articles completely about them, then why shouldn't the post-E/pre-2021F ones get them. You could always put them in both articles. TheCartoonEditor(he/him/they) (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I think you're trying to add a consistency that does not exist. You think the compilations should be added to Evermore because its predecessor and its two successor have them. Like, it's okay for Evermore to not have it since the compilations doesn't solely comprise that album's tracks alone, unlike the other 3 sets of compilations; a move against this violates WP:OR. On a side note, I want to highlight that the compilations are duely mentioned in the "promotion" section of the Evermore article, which I think is more than enough. ℛonherry☘ 06:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genre of the album

[edit]

I'm pretty confused about the genre of this album. It's currently listed as an alternative rock, indie folk, folk-pop, and chamber rock album. The main genre that I have an issue with is alternative rock. I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. Pretty much all of my edits so far have been very small and consist of just fixing a typo or changing a genre, since I'm not too comfortable with making big changes yet. I noticed there's a page for "genre warriors," which is kinda funny, and as of right now I might even fall into this category. The difference is that I actually want to help since I feel that genre and categorization is an important part of music. I don't fully understand this "no original research" thing. I get that people shouldn't be able to just edit whatever they want for no real reason, but I also feel that if someone provides a good argument for making an edit, then a source shouldn't need to be provided. In the end these sources are coming from a person or a few people, the only difference is that these people are publishing what they write. I want to talk a bit about my original research on this album. The genre listed first on this album is alternative rock. Alternative rock is used to describe rock music that differs from mainstream rock music. Some examples of alternative rock artists are Foo Fighters and Nirvana. The genre isn't used to describe everything that differs from mainstream rock. Evermore doesn't have any characteristics of rock music. If I'm missing something, please tell me, I've listened to Evermore probably over a hundred times now and I just don't see how it could be considered alternative. A section of the Wikipedia article for alternative rock describes the characteristics of the genre: "As such, there is no set musical style for alternative rock as a whole, although The New York Times in 1989 asserted that the genre is 'guitar music first of all, with guitars that blast out power chords, pick out chiming riffs, buzz with fuzztone and squeal in feedback.'" I know that this was over 30 years ago, but genres don't just change. Pop music has evolved since the 80s but all pop music serves the same purpose: to be catchy and danceable. It should be the same with alternative rock. If 2020s alternative rock could be a completely different genre than 90s alternative, then why have so many subgenres been created throughout the years? If Evermore is a rock album, then why should it be listed as the same genre as Alanis or Green Day, and not one of the many subgenres, if this album clearly isn't comparable to the music of any of the previously mentioned artists? I also want to talk a bit about the specific songs of this album. According to the article for Evermore, and the songs it consists of, only three songs on this album are actually listed as alternative rock. These three songs are 'tis the damn season, coney island, and cowboy like me. 'Tis the damn season is the only one that actually features heavy use of an electric guitar that sounds like the type of guitar used in actual rock music, but there's no "blasting." None of these songs feature any characteristics of rock, and once again, alternative rock does not mean "alternative to rock." Alternative rock is (supposedly) the main genre associated with this album from most sources, but my reason for bringing up specific songs is because the genre of an album is, or at least should be, defined by the songs. This album only has three alt rock songs, but what about other genres? The album has three country songs (again, going off of the Wikipedia articles for this album and the songs): no body no crime, cowboy like me, and right where you left me. I would even make the argument that the heavy use of the banjo in ivy makes it sound close to country at the very least. That's the same amount of country songs as "alternative rock," yet the album doesn't have the country genre. The album is also listed as chamber rock, but if I were to count up the amount of chamber rock songs on this album... there are none. Willow is chamber folk, gold rush is chamber pop. Wait, what even is chamber rock? Isn't chamber pop already a subgenre of rock? But it comes from a good source, so it has to be accurate, moving on. The last two genres listed for this album are indie folk and folk-pop. This album has six songs listed as folk in some way, or maybe even seven if Dorothea counts as it's an Americana song. Willow is chamber folk, coney island is indie folk (along with alternative), ivy is folk, cowboy like me is folk rock, closure is industrial folk, and right where you left me is folk-pop. There's also marjorie, which I'm almost positive was listed as indie folk at some point, but I'll ignore that for now since it was removed and probably wasn't sourced. Long story short is also listed as folk-pop on it's page but... no. I'm actually literally listening to that right now, and no, there is absolutely nothing folk about it. But if I were to ignore my opinion on the genre, since that's what I'm doing for this part, then that makes it either 7 or 8 folk songs, 3 alternative songs, 3 country songs, and no "chamber rock" songs. But really only folk is a proper genre for this album, three songs don't define the genre of an album. Norah Jones' Feels like Home has a country song but that doesn't make it a country album (I realize now that this is a bad example since the album doesn't have any genres listed), or even Swift's Lover, which has a few songs listed as country or a form of country, is not a country album. Evermore has a few alternative songs, but that doesn't make it an alternative album (I'm ignoring the fact that it really doesn't have any alternative songs here). Going back to whether the album actually has any alternative rock elements at all, I feel like people see Aaron Dessner's name and are quick to call it alternative rock just because of that. I haven't listened to that much of the National's music, but what I've heard is definitely much closer to alternative than Swift's folklore or evermore. Similar situations have happened in the past. Swift's New Year's Day used to be listed as country. At one point, I even added the country genre back since I didn't think it felt right being empty. But now that I've thought more about genre, the only country things about it are that it's Taylor Swift and that it was released to the country radio. And it was only released to the country radio because it's Taylor Swift. The current situation is the same, people will call her alternative because Aaron Dessner produced most songs of the album. If I were asked what genre this album is, I would say indie folk/folk-pop/Americana. I say Americana because alternative has become a popular genre of music with a distinct style and really can no longer be called an umbrella term for all rock music that differs from mainstream rock, whereas Americana is not a popular genre and to my knowledge has less of a distinct style. Willow, champagne problems, dorothea, ivy, cowboy like me, and right where you left me could be called Americana, though I'm not too familiar with this genre so I might be completely wrong (please let me know). I also want to say that if Evermore is a rock album, then I feel that it would fall into roots rock before anything else. It's just missing the "rock" part. I apologize for writing a lot, I just care a lot about genre and categorization for some reason and I don't like that this album is is listed as the same genre as Avril Lavigne's Love Sux, which is another 2020s alternative album, but completely different than what Taylor has given us. I also want to say that a lot of this also applies to Swift's folklore. If I wasn't clear on something, please let me know, I'm sick right now so this probably isn't written out well. ScreamingHairyArmadillo (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This entire essay you wrote is purely original research. We do not tolerate original research on Wikipedia. Critics and journalists of reliable publications are the only sources for assigning genres. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 15:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response. I did include my own opinions on the genre, and I understand the no original research policy, however I did have multiple points that were not just my original research. Someone left a "warning" on my talk page a few weeks ago to say that "Sources describing the various songs in the album are not added up to create an album genre." This doesn't make sense to me since the album genre is defined by the songs. For example, let's say a bunch of sources called an album "dance-pop," but every song on the album was listed as alternative metal and no source had called any of the songs dance-pop. This is a ridiculous example, but the point I'm trying to make is that the songs should be taken into account when listing an album genre. In this example the "dance-pop" genre could be kept as it would have been called dance-pop multiple times, but alternative metal would be listed as the primary genre since the sources agree that every song on the record is alternative metal. For Evermore, three songs are listed as alternative rock, eight have been called a form of folk (folk pop, chamber folk, Americana etc), three have been called a form of country, and none are "chamber rock." I made an edit to remove the chamber rock genre and my reasoning wasn't there since my second edit didn't go through for some reason (this lead to the comment on my talk page), and I won't do this again, but the order of the genres should be changed to indie folk, folk-pop, alternative rock, country, and chamber rock. Sure, no one has called the album country (well that isn't exactly true, one source said it has her first country songs in years, and I found two others that stated she was going back to her country roots, but my edit was reverted since they were "unreliable sources" which I feel is BS) but if there are literally just as many country songs as alternative, then it should be fair. It isn't original research, it's looking at the facts presented on the article and on the individual pages of the songs and putting two and two together. Original research would be listening to alternative rock music, thinking about what defines the genre, and removing the genre from the album because I don't think it fits. I don't think alternative rock or country are genres of this album, but that's just my opinion and original research. I'm looking at what the sources have said when I'm writing this. 14 of the 17 songs aren't alternative rock or a subgenre of it. I apologize if my original post sort of seemed like I was just going on and on with completely unsupported statements. I hope what I've written here will make it easier to understand where I'm coming from and that I'm still looking at what the sources have said and not just going on a rant about my opinion. I feel that categorization is an important part of music, and if movies don't have genres listed, maybe songs shouldn't either now. Removing genres from song and album pages would stop disruptive editing from "genre warriors" and let people just categorize songs themselves and not rely on what the internet says. ScreamingHairyArmadillo (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hard policy of WP:Verifiability is what makes us look in the sources for statements about album genres, not song genres, when determining the overall album genre. Published writers are allowed to add up songs and declare them to be the overall album genre, but we Wikipedia editors are not, or we would be violating the original research policy.
You say you the album is a country album, but many sources don't agree. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See this is now the third time that you've commented on something I've done and seemingly didn't actually read what I wrote. The first is when you reverted my edit to the genre on Sparks Fly by Swift stating that it was an "unsupported genre" when the article for both the song and the album Speak Now stated that it was an arena rock song, and yes it was supported. I added it back and it's still on the article today. The second time was with the comment on my talk page to stop my "disruptive editing" saying I was changing genres "without discussion" which just isn't true. Now here you said "You say you the album is a country album, but many sources don't agree." I didn't say this at all. In fact, I literally said "I don't think alternative rock or country are genres of this album, but that's just my opinion and original research." And also, "Sure, no one has called the album country (well that isn't exactly true, one source said it has her first country songs in years, and I found two others that stated she was going back to her country roots, but my edit was reverted since they were "unreliable sources" which I feel is BS)." It also doesn't seem like any sources have said it's NOT a country album, so I wouldn't say that "many sources don't agree," just that people are calling it folk or alternative before country. The point that I was trying to make is that the album has just as many country songs as alternative rock songs. Original research would be listening to each song, deciding on the genre, and adding them up to decide on the album genre. Here I am counting up the SOURCED genres of the specific songs and that isn't original research because it's literally just logic that the album genre is defined by the songs. Since you've been on Wikipedia for a while, I have a question, why don't movies have genres listed? Did they ever have them in the past? I feel that if genre warriors are a big enough problem to have a whole page about it, then maybe music just shouldn't have genres listed. Movies don't so I'd say it's best to just let people categorize in their own way. ScreamingHairyArmadillo (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly genre warriors in film articles.[2][3] Just so you know. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2024

[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 to Evermore. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evermore (Taylor Swift album) → Evermore (album) – As of 5 March 2024, "Evermore (Taylor Swift album)" has had 145,965 views in the past 30 days, versus 198 views for "Evermore (Evermore album) and "Evermore: The Art of Duality" combined (listed at "Evermore#Albums") – equating to a 737:1 pageview ratio. See also: Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names#(album). Theknine2 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Taylor Swift has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Albums has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Clear WP:PDABPRIMARY. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a move to Evermore per @162 etc.. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PDABPRIMARY. Would also support a move to just Evermore as a clear primary topic. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evermore (Taylor Swift album) → Evermore, compared it to other articles with the name, Evermore, and all of them have a more than 50:1 pageview ratio, making it clear that Evermore is the primary topic. Brachy08 (Talk) 03:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evermore (Taylor Swift album) → Evermore per WP:PDABPRIMARY (as Evermore is the primary topic). House1090 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evermore&oldid=1213344859"