Talk:Love Story (Taylor Swift song)/Archive 1

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

Stats?

The stats accuracy isn't great in the opening section. The page states 8 million worldwide, then links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles, which states 6.5 million worldwide.

Oh I think I worked it out - it is only listed on that page as a digital single, not in the normal single category. This is still pretty confusing?

Chris Alexander UK (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Remix article / section

Can we have a Remixes section, Jason Nevins has done a professional remix with significant radio airplay called Love Story (Jason Nevins Radio Edit)...there is at least 4 remixes of her song. 86.1.97.190 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Count of Monte Cristo

Can anyone provide a citation for the declaration that there is an allusion to The Count Of Monte Cristo in the song? I'm not seeing it, and neither is google.... Zekintha (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed the item from the article. The other two classics are directly mentioned, but this one isn't. It might be true, but for now it'd be unsourced and sounds more like original research if it's not clearly stated in the song. Jamie☆S93 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

Should they be included? 203.206.127.91 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm too lazy to start a new heading, what sort of dance was it in the video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.127.91 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
To answer your first question: lyrics are copyrighted, and shouldn't be fully included in the article for copyright violation. However, in a section of the article like "music and lyrics", a few lines can be quoted "within analytical framework", and only in association with explaining or providing information about the song. More info about that here. Best, Jamie☆S93 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Music video

The article states that "the actress who plays Lydia" (Jena Malone) in the 2005 adaptation of Pride & Prejudice appears in the music video. Can anyone confirm this? I just watched it and I didn't see her, and I don't find any other references to it online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.115.85 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Music sample

I have uploaded a music sample, as requested, at File:Love Story.ogg. I have included it into the 'Composition' section, with a very basic description. It will probably need more in-depth description and linkings with the prose. Adabow(complain) 12:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Background

No citation in the background section. I am deleting.--199.17.154.91 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing citations

There are an abundance of missing citations in this article. All missing citations will be deleted now.--A-wal16 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A-wal16 (talk • contribs)

Including pop mix in infobox

Including the pop mix in the infobox is excessive. If you add the pop mix, then you pretty much have to add every mix sent to radio and that is too much for an infobox. Besides, it's more than obvious that the pop mix is pop music. Pretty self-explanatory. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It shouldn't be in the infobox, and having "pop" is unnecessary, as well. Yves (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I also agree to that as well because "Country pop" is already there. Having "pop" is redundant. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"Pop" is redundant, indeed. No need to include it in the infobox. Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
How is 'pop' redundant? Coutry pop does not mean 'country that is also pop' or vice versa, it means 'fusion of country and pop'; considering the single was A) released to mainstream radio where it gained significant airplay on pop stations (something the so-called 'country' mix couldn't). and B) labeled as such, it should be added, either in the main one or it's own infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Simply because a song is released to a specific genre radio doesn't automatically classify it as that genre. You don't see Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" being called R&B or hip hop, and yet it was sent to those stations and managed to chart on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. Country pop is a subgenre that fits under both country and pop umbrellas. Being sent to mainstream radio doesn't negate the fact that the song originated in country radio, and crossed over to other radio. And what you are saying about a different mix having its own place in the infobox is just absurd and places undue weight on the mix. Countless songs nowadays get dance remixes when they are sent to dance stations or deejays: does that mean we label the songs as dance or electronic? No. "Love Story" received several mixes, including one done by Digital Dog, and indeed, I have heard the song played at nightclubs, but with altogether different instrumentals, to fit the atmosphere of such an environment. In no way does this factor automatically change the genre of the original song, or make a certain mix as due as the original. Regardless, a reliable source is needed for any genres on Wikipedia, for verification purposes, and I don't think you would find many of them agreeable. Yves (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain how a single released to appeal more to mainstream pop radio somehow is not 'significant'; because that is pretty much how it got so high on the Billboard chart. And comparing a dance remix (which likely doesn't chart) to a pop mix that actually did is absurd. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not a single in its own right. And it is significant enough for coverage, which there is in the recording section, but not to have in the infobox. Take for example, Katy Perry's "Ur So Gay", which is only recognizable via its number two position on the dance chart. The original version sounds nothing like the one sent to clubs, way more of a drastic change than the pop mix here. Yet, the article does not list anything dance-related in the genre field for the infobox. Having pop is redundant because "coutnry-pop" is a term that explicitly uses the word "pop", meaning it is considered "pop". You don't see singles with dance-pop in the genre field have pop and dance next to them. It's ridiculous. See 4 Minutes (Madonna song). -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The name of the freaking song is 'Love Story (Pop Mix) Single. And you're use of fusion genres is ridiculous; it does not cover both. It covers the fusion genre of 'country pop', not 'country' or 'pop'.

And of course you don't have that, because the song in your example is of the fusion genre 'dance-pop'; not dance, not pop. Toa Nidhiki05 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
By your logic, since a mix was released called "Love Story (J Stax Club Mix)", then we can place the song under club music. What you are assuming is original research, and still requires a reliable source for verification. Yves (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not a song in its own right. That's just the name on iTunes so that you can know what you're buying. You don't see charts and the press talking about them separately. It's just "Love Story". And it is pop, by being the "fusion genre dance-pop", it is both. Pop and dance are both very broad and there's not a pure state of pop or a pure state of dance or a pure state of country to label. And how is that song not "Pop" or "Dance"? Also, the infobox used to say "Pop (Pop Mix)", well that's more than extremely redundant since obviously a pop mix is under the pop genre. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, you would also need reliable sources that the pop remix of the song charted, or help propel "Love Story" to its peak on Billboard charts. One mustn't make assumptions. Indeed, there are many factors that contribute to a song's success on the Billboard Hot 100 that are not limited to mainstream pop radio, including digital downloads, promotion and appearances on national and international television, talk shows, use in film trailers, etc. Yves (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Letters to Juliet

Love Story was featured as the love theme for the movie shouldn't that be noted? JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 07:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an integral part of the movie or featured on a soundtrack (because the movie didn't have a soundtrack). Also, adding a section for that would be pointless. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm well obviously the Letters to Juliet page didn't feel that way cause it's mentioned on there and if it's pointless to mention it in the song's page isn't pointless to mention it on the movie's page? JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 11:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ipodnano check out the official site for Letters to Juliet the commercial that plays when you go to the page if you listen closely "Love Story" is playing. I do think it should be at least mentioned. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 11:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Love Story (Taylor Swift song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Love Story (Taylor Swift song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Love Story (Taylor Swift song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Taylor's Version - Single or Promo single?

Is Love Story Taylor's Version considered a single or promotional single? The song has not been sent to radio so far. The k nine 2 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@The k nine 2: My internet is horrible right now so I can’t switch between tabs to copy links, but if you look for the part in "Background and release" (of the re-recorded version) where it mentions that "Love Story (Taylor's Version) is the lead single, you will see a Billboard ref and a Variety ref both calling the song a single. I’d say it’s a single. It also meets the criteria at WP:SINGLESCRIT. As well, radio play is not needed for a song to become a single. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 17:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Single status

There has been some dispute as to whether "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" is a single from Fearless (Taylor's Version). "Love Story" has been referred to as a single by Billboard, Variety, Rolling Stone and NME, which are all reliable sources that have a great reputation on music Wikipedia. I see no reason why it shouldn't be referred to as a single by Wikipedia, yet a surprising amount of editors think it's a promo single. @MaranoFan, Nahnah4, Bradford, BawinV, LOVI33, Annaoue, JackReynoldsADogOwner, and Dylxpedia: Pinging active (edited in the last three days) WP:SWIFT members so we can build a consensus as to the status of "Love Story (Taylor's Version)". Update: just to add more depth to my argument, WP:SINGLESCRIT (first section, point 3) states that a song can be listed as a single if it is referred to as such by an authoritative, music-oriented media outlet. We have four of them. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC) (updated 22:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC))

I would say that it is a single. Considering that so many reliable sources call it a single and it was promoted with a remix, I think it should be listed as a single. Just a side note – I would say it is highly unlikely that the first song Taylor releases from Fearless (Taylor's Version) is a promotional single. LOVI33 21:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I would say it should be considered a single. dxtalk 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
As well, just so that it’s easier for everyone to navigate through the sources, I thought I’d include direct quotes from the article so everyone wouldn’t have to look at all four sources:
  • Billboard: On Thursday (Feb. 11), Swift announced that she has re-recorded her blockbuster 2008 album Fearless, as Fearless (Taylor's Version), and that the updated lead single, “Love Story (Taylor's Version),” will be unveiled on Thursday night (Feb. 11).
  • Variety: The first single from the album will be out Thursday night at midnight. It’s “Love Story,” just as the first version of that song was the lead single from the first version of the album in ’08.
  • Rolling Stone: Taylor Swift has released the full version of her re-recording of “Love Story,” the first single from her updated recording of her 2008 album Fearless. The new version of the song was first teased in a commercial for Match.
  • NME: With the release ‘Love Story (Taylor’s Version)’ today, and ‘Fearless (Taylor’s Version)’ due out in April, here’s everything we learned from Swift’s latest single. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that it had the exact same release as multiple of her promotional singles (digital with lyric video, no radio or physical release), it would be inconsistent to call this a 'real' single while saying a song like "The Archer" was promotional. Several sources often omit the word "promotional" anyway, so I don't think that should affect it much. I do see why it might seem odd for Taylor to release a promotional single to start promotion for an album, but it's likely because she will be releasing several re-recorded albums in a short period of time. I don't see any re-recordings having a full single release. 2601:180:8200:63D0:9192:3038:D7DE:BA4B (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Other stuff exists. No one called "Only the Young" a single. No one called "The Archer" a single. If they did, they would be listed as proper singles (provided the sources are reliable and there is no previous consensus to list the songs as otherwise). But, we have four perfectly reliable sources that do call this song a single, and we shouldn't use personal opinions/analyses to come to a consensus. Instead, we should instead stick to the sources. If you can find any sources calling "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" a promotional single, that would be great, because currently, your argument is opinion-based and won't matter much when editors come and read this entire section before adding their two cents. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I checked the four sources you mentioned for "The Archer," and the term "promotional single" was not used on any of them. If we look at Taylor's singles discography, every single song listed (excluding a charity single) was given an official radio release which had always been what made a song a single according to labels and chart companies (Wikipedia's stance on what makes a song a single is ultimately irrelevant given that it is widely known as untrustworthy). Love Story charted on the Adult Top 40 in the USA, but charting ≠ official radio release. 2601:180:8200:63D0:9192:3038:D7DE:BA4B (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
If the term "single" by itself was used by any of your sources, that should be taken to Talk:The Archer (song). But, as long as no sources refer to it as an explicit single, we can assume otherwise. "The Archer" was called a promo single because, despite the fact that it was released to radio in Australia (The Music Network), that radio network is assumed to be generally unreliable with what they call singles. Update: Swift also denied the song to be a single, and confirmed its promo single status (end of update). As well, the facts that all the other singles had radio releases/that radio releases are the sole thing that makes songs singles are not valid arguments, as they are synthesis of material. They are observations that you made, and that is completely valid, but we can't implement syntheses into articles, as that violates one of Wikipedia's core policies (WP:NOR). Furthermore, why aren't you disputing the single status of the charity single (I'm assuming it’s "Ronan") if it had no radio release? I’m just curious to see why you aren’t pushing for that to be listed as a promo single as well. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC) (updated 22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC))
Never mind, I see now that there are many sources calling "The Archer" a single, but Swift herself said "The Archer" was not a single, so we should go by what she says. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I did bring up "Ronan" a few months back, but since it is a "charity single" and wasn't made to promote an album like some other songs, I'm unsure of it should be considered promotional or not. As for "Love Story" (as well as "You All Over Me"), it would just seem contradictory to say that songs with only a digital release are full singles while songs prior to the streaming era with both physical and digital releases are promotional. 2601:180:8200:63D0:9192:3038:D7DE:BA4B (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
(1) A re-release is probably not going to be sent to radio anyways. (2) A re-release is probably not going to get a high-budget music video anyways, so that's why it's lyric video only (3) How many promotional singles get remixes? (4) The first release for an upcoming album is extremely unlikely to be promo only. (5) Variety and Rolling Stone call it the "first single from the album". "You All Over Me" is a different story, but in my view "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" is a single. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes this is her first song to be released from this album, but since it's a re-recording, regular single promotion shouldn't be expected. After all, she released two albums last year and probably doesn't want to risk overexposure by releasing full singles every couple months for the rest of 2021. As for the remix, "You're Not Sorry" from the original Fearless was also a digital-only promo single with an official remix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8200:63D0:9192:3038:D7DE:BA4B (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"You All Over Me" has also been confirmed as a single by multiple reliable sources, but that’s not important right now. There are many digital-only singles, but they’re singles nonetheless. It doesn’t matter how a single is promoted, if sources call it a single, it should be listed as a single. Three out of the four sources refer to it as the lead/first single from Fearless (Taylor's Version), and the other source just refers to it as a single in general. As well, she released three singles from both her albums within a month and a half of each other, both times ("Cardigan" on July 27, "Exile" on August 3 and "Betty" on August 17, and "Willow" on December 11, "No Body, No Crime" on January 11 and "Coney Island" on January 18), so I can’t seem to wrap my head around how she doesn’t want to risk overexposure when she has released eight (including "The 1" and "Gasoline") singles in six months. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: "Love Story (Taylor's Version)" is indeed a single, as per your argument. BawinV (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it weird that Wikipedia editors like to decide, on their own terms, whether a song is a promotional single or not when major music publications who have insiders within the industry providing them with information has clearly stated that the song is clearly a single. "Only the Young" was listed as a promotional single because Taylor herself said it was not going to be a single. If publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone has called "Love Story" a single, then I don't see why anyone else would think otherwise. There is no point in being dogmatic and we have no place trying to decide the status of the song and ignoring the sources which have been provided in our faces so conveniently. Let's leave it at that. Cheers. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: I agree 100%. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, Love Story Taylor's Version should be a promo single as it was never sent to radio and received very little promotion. Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song) similarly has a promo single graphic, charted well internationally, even its own lyric video, but is classified as a promo single as it was never sent to radio. Previous Taylor singles (such as Getaway Car and No Body, No Crime are classified as singles as they were released to radio. The k nine 2 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@The k nine 2: Can you explain why you’re using your personal analysis to come to the conclusion of a promo single, instead of recognizing that there are four sources that call the song a single? The fact that the song didn’t receive a traditional single rollout is irrelevant if there are sources that call the song a single. "Sour Candy" wasn't called a single by any reliable sources, so why would we call it a single? A song can be classified as a single if it had a release independent from the album, and if there are sources calling it a single. Songs like "Sour Candy" and "Only the Young" both had an independent release (lyric videos for both of them, one-track release on streaming services, the former was sent to Australian radio), but there weren’t sources that called them singles. "Love Story" had an independent release (lyric video, one-track digital download release/one-track release on streaming services), and there were multiple sources that called it a single. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


Pinging Doggy54321, LOVI33, Dylxpedia, BawinV, The k nine 2: Hi guys, so have we decided on a consensus? Seems like it's leaning towards labelling it as a single instead. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 15:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • To quote Nahnah4: There is no point in being dogmatic and we have no place trying to decide the status of the song and ignoring the sources which have been provided in our faces so conveniently. I’m definitely not backing down anytime soon, as shown above with my lengthy paragraphs, and, even after comments made by other editors, I still see no valid reason why this song should be listed as anything but a single. I’m surprised that I needed to make a whole talk section about this in the first place. The song was referred to as a single by multiple reliable music-based sources, so I think we should label it as a single. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
100% agree. dylxtalk 15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nahnah4: Yes, it's a single, very clearly. BawinV (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Love Story (Taylor's Version) into Love Story (Taylor Swift song)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merged. – support: 11; oppose: 5. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NSONGS different recordings of same song do not get separate articles. Richhoncho (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. If we get into technicalities, NSONGS only mentions covers. Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. If we take a look at cover version, we can see that it specifies that a cover is a new performance or recording by someone other than the original artist or composer of a song. That is not the case here. Here, we are dealing with a re-recording, which is a recording produced following a new performance of a work of music. Past the technicalities, the song is still notable enough to have its own page per NSONGS, as it is and will continue to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published, independent-of-the-subject sources, it has charted in many countries, and there is enough coverage in the sources provided to warrant an article. D🐰ggy54321 (the Easter bunny has been summoned...) 23:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support It's the same song, performed by the same artist. Only difference is that it's a new recording under a different label. The above comment about it being a re-recording and not a cover doesn't actually make a strong argument for why this recording should have an entirely separate article as if it is not the same song, as there are plenty of cover versions of songs that have received more coverage than the original and charted internationally, yet are bound by WP:NSONGS to kept as a part of the larger article for the song. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - An encyclopedia does not need separate entries about the same pop song performed by the same artist. The content currently present at "Taylor's Version" can be easily summarized as "The re-recording retains the original production and features Swift singing in a fuller tone with higher precision; the banjo strums, cymbals, fiddle, and violins are more prominently featured". Then a paragraph talking about what critics said, followed by the one line about its chart entry. Also, the original version stands at 28kB of Readable prose, way below what's necessary for a length-based WP:SIZESPLIT. Lastly, how is (Taylor's Version) supposed to work as disambiguation when both versions are sung by Taylor?--NØ 07:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:NSONGS doesn't give us answers for notability on a re-recorded song released as a single under a different label, with different producers, and, most importantly, with plenty (a ton) of media coverage. "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"; this is way bigger than a stub and having it in the main song article is tricky and unecessary. Much easier to keep it in a second, separate article. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. For those arguing 'it's a re-recording by the same artist and therefore not covered by WP:NSONGS', if two recordings of the same song by different artists don't get 2 articles, then how can two recordings by the same artist be worth 2 articles? Stop arguing semantics. Anyway, in this case it is even more important to keep the story together rather than WP namespace envy. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with the other support votes. As Richhoncho indicated, this is just an a fortiori argument; if two separate artists who record the same song have to be placed in one article (even if the second song is much more notable, e.g. I Will Always Love You, At Last) then certainly one artist recording the same song twice with the second song not being as notable should be placed in one article. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – per reasons stated above. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 08:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – Bgkc4444 gave a good example citing I Will Always Love You. GagaNutellatalk 04:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – even though it's a re-recording of the same song, this re-recording gatherned enough distinct sources to make it notable enough to have distinct article. "Levitating" and "Levitating (The Blessed Madonna Remix)" are techincally the same song, but those articles got splited because of emount information about the remix, and here is similar case, Taylor's Version has a lot of media coverage distinct of original version. And also like remix version of "Levitating", Taylor's Version promotes other body of work than original. infsai (dyskusja) 12:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Due to already stated arguments. LikeAVVirgin(talk) 13:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Merge. DuaLipaFan23951 (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – it's the same song by the same artist with minimal changes to its sound and per NØ's arguments. Similar to songs like "I Will Always Love You" and "The Twist". 188.148.229.11 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — There isn't much content about the 2021 version of the song to warrant a separate article. BawinV (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — For above reasons.Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per rationale above. It's common for a song to be remixed/covered/recorded many times and it's still the same song. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The song appeared on numerous charts worldwide including, but not limited to, ARIA, Official UK Singles Chart, and Billboard Hot 100. It additionally charted within the top 10 of Billboard's Global 200 chart. Shrewd0307 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as per arguments mentioned above. The 2008 original and 2021 re-recording are the same song and do not have significant differences between them to warrant a separate article. The k nine 2 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
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:Love_Story_(Taylor_Swift_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1159299117"