Talk:Taylor Swift

Should the article split from Life and career to Early life and Career as well as adding Personal life section? Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Was there a previous discussion about this question per WP:RFCBEFORE? Oppose for now since this seems like an unnecessary escalation for stable featured article. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Nemov that this RFC fall under WP:RFCBEFORE, it has been talked about many times. A quick search in the archives pulls up multiple discussions on this topic. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  @KittyHawkFlyer and @Nemov, please go read WP:RFCBEFORE, which neither requires previous discussions (Nemov's comment) nor prohibit RFCs if there have been multiple discussions on this topic previously (KittyHawk's comment). The main point of RFCBEFORE is that you should consider non-RFC alternatives (like asking for help at a noticeboard) before jumping straight to an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing I asked if there was a previous discussion. I didn't say anything about it being required, but thanks for telling me how to read. Nemov (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that it's meaningful to have "a previous discussion per RFCBEFORE". RFCBEFORE is primarily a long list of ways to avoid having an RFC. Unless your meaning was closer to "Is it really necessary for this discussion to be advertised as an RFC, instead of happening here without any RFC notifications?", then RFCBEFORE is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  RFC:BEFORE says "If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC." This was a simple question that could be answered in the talk page without an RFC. Per the many times it has been brought up before, consensus has been formed through discussion without an RFC being needed.

  If this question was formatted differently with reasons why a change should be made and perhaps pinging editors that have brought up the need for a change before, I could see this being a useful RFC. But as it is a simple question with no background, no reasoning being given for a change, and no conflict to be resolved, I feel that this does fall under RFC:BEFORE. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that it has been brought up many times before is evidence that an RFC will be useful. Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and if it doesn't, then an RFC is a good way to demonstrate that.

  Also, when editors supply "background" and "reasoning", there's usually someone claiming that the RFC question violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL. RFCNEUTRAL doesn't prohibit explanations, but some editors think that it does (or at least claim to hold this belief, if they think the RFC is forming the "wrong" consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Her personal life and career are too intertwined. In a way, her life is pretty much defined by her career, and vice versa. I don't think this would improve the article. I also think that a dedicated personal life section for one of the most famous celebrities is just asking for trouble. λ NegativeMP1 04:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• On one hand, the article looks more polished without the article being split off into sections like that. On the other hand, I believe readers prefer having a separate Personal life section. Some1 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Weak oppose – Personally, as a reader, I like an easy-to-access Personal Life section, but agree with other editors that her personal life is so intertwined with her music, that it would be duplicative to separate it out into a new section. Other details are also well covered elsewhere in the article (e.g. the infobox or in their own sections). Nil🥝 22:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been discussed many times and the consensus has been to keep it off due to how intertwined her career and personal life are. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as reasoned above. M. Billoo 14:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Negative. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support I do agree with Some1 and I do believe many readers prefer a seperate personal life section. I do think a personal life section would be a good section for some things such as her cats, and love of cats which I have found plenty of coverage on (I will provide that a bit later), and her relationships, such as maybe when she started dating and broke up ETC, as well as maybe other things. This I think is more reader friendly. I believe it will be easier for readers to navigate to specific aspects of her life, career and anything about her ETC. Also disagree with Negative that a dedicated personal life section for one of the most famous celebrities is just asking for trouble. This page is extended protected confirmed (Meaning only accounts that are 30 days old with 500 edits can edit) indefinitely, and most vandals, and disruptive editors are usually blocked before making it to 500 edits. So I honestly firmly believe the article has the necessary protection for a personal life section. And most edits that have ended up reverted appear to be mostly good faith, besides a few vandals who Sandboxed their way to 500, and other ones that are blocked indefinitely. I think the article should be safe from trouble to be frank.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:TOOLONG, we should trim or split this article. XTools, a WikiMedia tool that gives statistics on pages here on Wikipedia, shows that the Taylor Swift article on Wikipedia is, as of the time of this writing, more than 9400 words. Wikipedia's policy is specifically the policy that I quoted at the beginning, state "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." There should be more coverage of her "Life and Career". There is enough material on that section of her life to merit a separate article. This removal would bring her article into compliance with WP:TOOLONG and also provide space for her life and career to be covered in a more comprehensive way separately. Look at the way we deal with "Public Image of Taylor Swift". I think that makes a good template to break this off and provide a more in depth article about Life and Career that allows for additional coverage of her tours and albums. Bill Heller (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I recently removed the sales figures on Swifts albums Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red and 1989 due to a newly updated certifications issued in September 2025. All albums are following the exact same source coming from a Billboard article issued in January 2024. For as long as I've been editing I've always seen other editors remove the sales figure if a newly certification has been issued as the sales ref would be considered outdated. I had opened a discussion regarding this exact issue two years ago here and all parties involved seemingly agreed that the sales ref can be removed if a newly issued cert has been issued. Yesterday user @Ippantekina: reverted the removal with an edit summary stating "pure sales are not as volatile as streaming-adjusted certification, and this pure sales figure (as of 2024) is unlikely to move up significantly any time soon" as we briefly spoke yesterday I am once again opening up another discussion here to get more insight from other users. I believe the removal of the sales figures is valid only if a newly updated cert has been issued. I disagree with the user trying to insinuate that just because a new cert has been issued a year after that the sales figures aren't going to jump up that much but Swift has very strong sales in both pure sales + streaming. The RIAA factors in both streaming and pure sales - not one or the other. Please feel free to share comments down below on this matter. Pillowdelight (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course RIAA is sales+streaming. |salesamount= is for pure sales, that's the purpose of the parameter. With a note added and an as-of date I see no issues, even helpful to help readers distinguish streaming-adjusted thresholds vs. pure sales. Ippantekina (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes I understand that. But in most cases we don't keep it, you update both to what's current. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the achievements it says that she has 14 number 1 albums on the billboard 200, but it is now 15. Stated in this source: https://www.billboard.com/lists/taylor-swift-life-of-a-showgirl-number-one-billboard-200/ Bingbong12341 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done 🍅 fx (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello all! There's been discussion for years now about Taylor's excessive use of album and single variants for Midnights, TTPD, and TLOAS. There's been lots of discussions, articles, and other sources detailing how unique and excessive these variants are, yet the main article only really mentions variants once. Why is this? I propose that somewhere in the article, the topic of album and single variants is addressed, because it is a big gap. Casinator (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

We would need sources to cite that are real journalism and not just thinkpiece essays. Do you have any in mind? Twistybrastrap (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No, you just don’t want to have anything negative about Taylor. This page has always read more like a PR release than an actual encyclopedia article. Hiwaver (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm just following the guidelines of Wikipedia. Lots of public figures' pages have a "Controversies" section, or controversies sprinkled throughout (and there actually are some in this very article). But you have to link to reliable sources. If Casinator wants to add that info, they need to provide sources just like they would if the page wasn't edit-protected. Twistybrastrap (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would hard disagree unless we mention it on other artists pages as Taylor is not at all the only artists that does this Pikachubob3 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, this page dedicated to her public image has a bit on her private jet usage. I think album variants may be a bit too niche for her main page but there could be a couple sentence about her environmental impact. Twistybrastrap (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Change her picture!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-90813-5 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

To... Ultraodan (T, C) 08:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Parents=Andrea Swift,Scott Swift~2026-16443-42 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC) ~2026-16443-42 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Parents are only included in the infobox in they're individually notable or particularly relevant. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the first photo of Taylor to a more recent one. ~2026-16647-29 (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Three years is not that long ago. Newer photos that are freely available are of worse quality, and even then not that much newer (2024). The current one is fine. λ NegativeMP1 05:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)