Talk:All Too Well

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Taylor Swift High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Country music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roots music Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PublicWriterABC (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PublicWriterABC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All Too Well. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20140127175951/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/01/27/f-k-you-grammys-trent-reznors-tweet-taylor-swifts-hair-and-more-best-and-worst-moments-of-the-2014-grammy-awards/ to http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/01/27/f-k-you-grammys-trent-reznors-tweet-taylor-swifts-hair-and-more-best-and-worst-moments-of-the-2014-grammy-awards/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in All Too Well

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of All Too Well's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "stereogum":

From Reputation (Taylor Swift album): Breihan, Tom. "Somehow, We Are Absolutely Ready For Taylor Swift's Rapping-About-Being-Horny-Over-Dubstep Single". Stereogum. Archived from the original on September 6, 2017. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
From ...Ready for It?: Breihan, Tom. "Somehow, We Are Absolutely Ready For Taylor Swift's Rapping-About-Being-Horny-Over-Dubstep Single". Stereogum. Retrieved September 5, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a split

The Atlantic, Vox, and others are writing about the 10 min version on its own. I think it is time to split the articles -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not experienced in splitting articles, or else I would've done it myself. Ronherry (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best to incorporate it into this article. Reorganize and prune if necessary but it adds to the history of this song and shouldn't be separated. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in All Too Well

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of All Too Well's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Announcement":

From Taylor Swift masters controversy: Lipshutz, Jason (June 18, 2021). "Taylor Swift Bumps Up Release of 'Red (Taylors Version)' by a Week". Billboard. Archived from the original on September 30, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2021.
From Red (Taylor's Version): Lipshutz, Jason (June 18, 2021). "Taylor Swift Announces 'Red' As Next Re-Recorded Album, November Release Date". Billboard. Archived from the original on June 19, 2021. Retrieved June 18, 2021.
From Red (Taylor Swift album): Lipshutz, Jason (June 18, 2021). "Taylor Swift Announces 'Red' As Next Re-Recorded Album, November Release Date". Billboard. Archived from the original on June 19, 2021. Retrieved June 18, 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be repurposed to serve Taylor's Version, with the original version merely being the 'history' of the track. This would make much more sense, be less confusing, and explain the history of the track and why it was re-recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.64.46 (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

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.

No split. Ippantekina (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose All Too Well be split into All Too Well and All Too Well (Taylor's Version). The 10-minute version is not the same as the original, with different production, lyrics, and chart positions. Much has been written about the Taylor's Version, enough to warrant a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:I agree, it is time to split the article. Unlike most of her other rerecordings, Taylor's version of All Too Well (along with its 10 minute version) is distinct enough to warrant an article of its own. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: after deliberating and reading others' opinions, I've come to the conclusion that the article should not be split. Taylor's Version and the 10 minute version are essentially the same song as the original, just different/extended recordings. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Passes NSONGS because:

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent from Taylor herself.

2. Has charted on multiple national charts (See here)

3. Has been independently released here TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Also agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.110.85 (talk • contribs)

I disagree. The separate tracks are literally the same song, just re-recorded and extended versions. Elements such as the background and writing would have to be rehashed. The acclaim and recognition the re-recorded verion(s) have received is because of their relation to the original and its legacy. And it's hardly overcrowding the information currently in the article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Bettydaisies. The re-recorded versions of "Love Story" and "Wildest Dreams" also meet the criteria to split, but we don't split them as per NSONG: Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. MaranoFan puts it best: An encyclopedia does not need separate entries about the same pop song performed by the same artist. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a straight cover like would preclude a split -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"10 Minute Version" is enough of a seperate song (performances, charting, coverage in year-end lists by major publications) that it is likely an extended single rather than a cover. TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of if it's a cover or not, it's still essentially the same song, just an extended version. At the end of the day, both songs are "All Too Well", and I don't see the need to split one of them off into its own article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ronherry and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars as they participated in #Time for a split above and I think their sentiments should be included in the formal split discussion as well. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I did not notice the first discussion. Anyways, a split is plausible because this is not just a redux; it is a new, "uncut" version with new lyrics and instrumental. The description "2012 song" is for the original, but "All Too Well (Taylor's Version)", unlike the other re-recordings, is a 2021 song. Ippantekina (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remain merged. Well, as we all know, this is not the first time an artist has released a reworked song. Yes, it's a five-minute-longer rendition with a pop-oriented production than the country original, but it's literally not a new song. It's the same; one shortened and the other not. That's pretty it. It's not an entirely different song. I initially felt the 10 minute version should have its own article, but after careful thinking, I think it should remain merged. According to many national charts, technically, the 10 minute song is a remix of its predecessor. They're both combined on those charts just like all remixes and stripped versions are combined with their parent songs as single entries. We don't have separate articles for remixes (unless it's a remix album). However, the 10 minute version has garnered more attention, and hence, is more notable than the 5 minute song. Therefore, I suggest we make the 10 minute version the highlight of the article, and reduce the original as "History". It doesn't feel right when the most notable part of the article is only a section of the less notable one. Ronherry (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the re-recorded version (and its 10 minute version) is very prominent, I don't think it needs a page on its own (per Doggy). Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a dead discussion that ended up being decided that it should stay together not split. Shouldn't it be closed since no one has responded since 19 December 2021 and it is now 26 January 2022? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.214.242 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2022 (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.

Single status

So, "ATWTMVTVFTV" is currently assigned with promotional single status on Wikipedia, while "Message in a Bottle" is a radio single with Billboard source, but no radio release date known (besides All Access' "Cool New Music" entry for the song on November 12, 2021). But in one of more recent Billboard articles, both songs were categorized as "deep cut-turned-hit single". So should we re-categorize "All Too Well" to full single? At least we have concrete release date thanks to digital release. Pinging Ronherry, Ippantekina and Doggy54321, since I assume you might be more knowledgable in this field. infsai (talkie? UwU) 03:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we should re-categorize. "Hit single" is very ambiguous because we know every publication uses that term if a song is a hit irrespective of whether it was sent to radio as a single or not. Moreover, Billboard publishes special articles/mentions for major single releases (in Swift's case at least), as seen in the case of Message in a Bottle or Cruel Summer; that did not happen in the case of All Too Well. Also, All Too Well never did impact any radio format as per All Access. It's 3 points against 1. So I think All Too Well should remain as a promo single on Wikipedia. ℛonherry☘ 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ronherry. "Message In A Bottle" was listed on the 'Cool New Music' page as a single, which indicates that radio stations had promoted it. There is no impact date listed, but that just probably means they promoted it upon release like "I Bet You Think About Me". Nonetheless, it was confirmed as a single by AllAccess. "All Too Well" never got any of that treatment, which indicates its lack of a promotion by any means. Plus, radios are very strict with the length of songs they play, and there is an extremely low chance that a ten-minute song would get any airplay at all — "Virgo's Groove", a six minute song, was cut down to around three minutes for its radio release. At the end of the day, an album track becomes a promo single when it gains an independent release (music video, 'single' designation on a streaming service, digital download on the artist's website, etc), but the step that elevates a promo single to a full single is radio play. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Shouldnt the infobox summarize the two versions, particularly the Labels(s)? I am guessing there is a Taylor label in addition to Big Machine? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an infobox for the 10 minute version in the subsection that covers the 2021 re-recordings. Rfl0216 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we using two infoboxes? Seems there is no support for a split, so why this approach? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different releases with different genres, producers, labels, everything. Why grouping them into one? Ippantekina (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Ippantekina said. ATW and ATW TMV are basically two different songs from the amount of differences they have... λ NegativeMP1 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]