# Talk:Message in a Bottle (Taylor Swift song)

Wanted to check here - have just seen Billboard describe this song as "the current radio single from Red [Taylor’s Version"] - should we change its status from song to single accordingly? --LivelyRatification (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting; but do we have a radio impact date? Ronherry (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we really should consider this song as a single. The same thing happened with the article for "Way 2 Sexy" that had a source from Billboard saying it impacted radio but did not mention a date, and yet it is still considered a single because the article said so. 192.157.111.166 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not all that knowledgeable about single requirements, but it does seem logical to me that if the song has impacted radio as a single, it should be considered a single. --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much about singles and radio either, but I think we should wait till AllAccess gives us a radio impact date. We can't turn its song infobox into a single infobox without adding a radio release date. Billboard will for sure post a separate article about the song's radio if it's an actual single serviced by Republic Records, just like they published an article on Folklore's and Evermore's singles on various radio formats. Ronherry (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@LivelyRatification: An Update! Billboard has called the song a radio single again in a new tweet, but makes no mention of an impact date. Technically, it's a single that hasn't impacted yet. I don't understand this LOL. Ronherry (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is at best a promotional single; at Template:Infobox song#released, album tracks that receive airplay should use the album release date. Apparently Swift's team is not actively promoting this to radio, but rather radio stations themselves playlist the track due to high demand, so it is not an official release. Ippantekina (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I concur. But why would Billboard call it an official single (twice) if it's not serviced by the label? Hmm. My mind so divided about its single status. Ronherry (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess since AllAccess notes album releases on their "Future releases" tabs, it means all of the songs are eligible to receive airplay, even without a distinct release. And also it is a common practice amongst country artists to release a promotional radio singles from what I have seen, and I know that now Taylor is not only a country artists, and neither "Message in a Bottle" is a country song, but I guess the rule applies here, so we should rather call it a promotional single with a release date, the same as the album's. infsai (talkie? UwU) 23:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
LivelyRatification, Ronherry, Ippantekina: We can always use the date provided by AllAccess' "Cool New Music" tab, which is November 12, 2021, which technically would make "Message in a Bottle" the first single of Red (Taylor's Version). And yes, I would count it as a single release, even though it does not have "Single" marker on it (like "The Joker and The Queen"), hence Billboard called it a "current radio single". What do you think? And yes, I know this tab is not exactly the best source, since e.g. it lists "All Too Well (Taylor's Version)" and "Cardigan" release dates to be one day off, that's why I'm bringing it up here. infsai (talkie? UwU) 23:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no clear impact date for "Message in a Bottle", and the fact that Billboard reffered to "Message in a Bottle" as a "current radio single" in late November doesn't give us any detail when the song was officially released. I mean, my deduction is that since album releases are shown on All Access, it means that all of the album songs are knowable to airplay, so maybe that's why there is no clear release date for this song, even though "I Bet You Think About Me" has one. So we could keep "November 2021" as a release date, or as it was suggested in previous edits, stick to the remix release date. infsai (talkie? UwU) 01:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Infsai: I understand you, but according to WP:SINGLESCRIT, radio impact date is the measure for single status, not a remix date. So I don't know how we should go by. I'm divided. But I'll be okay with "November 12, 2021" as suggested by you in the preceding talk discussion. ℛonherry☘ 06:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ronherry: With the link I provided? Is it okay to use "Cool New Music" tab of AllAccess? infsai (talkie? UwU) 21:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I would personally be okay with it. But we need to consult other editors. ℛonherry☘ 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ronherry: @Infsai: I'm good with using AllAccess for the single date per WP:SINGLESCRIT. Were any other songs released on All Access under "Cool New Music" with the release of the album (other than "I Bet You")? TheCartoonEditor(he/him/they) (talk) (contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@TheCartoonEditor: "All Too Well (Taylor's Version)" is stated to be released on November 11. :v But it does not have the "single" marker, so it is still considered as a promo single (like in "Hallucinate"). infsai (talkie? UwU) 21:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we need a larger discussion about the "Cool New Music" page of AllAccess. Are we sticking to impact days and only using the "Cool New Music" dates when there isn't one? Are these format releases being listed twice in release history sections? Many songs don't have the "single" marker but are still singles. I don't like this difference of impact dates = single and "Cool New Music" download availability date = promo single. It's confusing for editors and readers alike. I think we should just stick to single, and list either impact day or download availability day, with priority for the impact day. Heartfox (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. ℛonherry☘ 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
A proper single release date on this track needs to be settled. “November 2021” feels insufficient. If anything, I propose using the January 21, 2022 Italian airplay release date.  Angelwazza (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 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.  Peer reviewers: KD949949.
— Assignment last updated by Jacobfogelman (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Message in a Bottle (Taylor Swift song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Gained (talk · contribs) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this one. I note that the nominator, Gained, isn't a major contributor directly (a recently changed requirement) but has been asked to take over as nominator by a major contributor. This is (at least at the moment!) my favourite Taylor Swift song so I'm looking forward to reviewing. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Reference numbers as of Special:Permalink/1213111059.


### Strengths
Even though many sources are more broadly about Red (Taylor's Version) or the vault tracks, notability is clear from chart performances and depth of critical commentary.
Other than one source mentioned below, I'm confident in the reliability of all sources used in context. I've done spotchecks as I go along and mentioned the minor issues below.
I've done a search for further sources and am happy that the article is broad in its coverage based on the reliable information that exists.
I've not found any copyright issues: quotes of critics/lyrics are reasonably short and attributed.
Use of the remix album cover seems like a reasonable decision (similar imagery and presumably part of the same photoshoot as the Red (Taylor's Version) cover), as does use of the chorus. Fair use rationales are thorough.


### Action points
It's pedantic, but I'm not quite happy that Pitchfork or the article justify that this song uses "production synthesizers and a pulsing bass" (it's more broadly about Martin/Shellback's influence, as we say: "The two producers introduced their electronic-pop production consisting of..."). Similarly, the audio caption could mention the genres that are verified instead of "the synthesizers and programmed beats". The lead could say instead it was the first writing collaboration between Swift/Martin/Shellback and/or that other songs they co-wrote were included in Red.
CNET post-2020 is to be avoided if possible (see RSP)—in this case the claim seems trivial to verify with another source from the article.
The ARIA reference (#57) has an error (missing URL).
"charted in Australia, Canada, and the United States" – I think "among others" should be added (there's NZ and UK too, but a bit too many to list).
"Josh Kurp of Uproxx" – publication names should be in italics.
"who acquired Big Machine including ..." – I think a comma is needed before "including". (And it took me a while to work out that the en dash in "Big Machine–owned" is correct, per MOS:SUFFIXDASH.)
The paragraph beginning "In April 2021" gets quite repetitive: I think both instances of "the re-recording of her [year] studio album" can be substituted by "that of her [year] studio album" to reduce re-"re-record"s. On the second instance, "From the Vault" doesn't need to be explained (and "also" is redundant): rewrite as As with its predecessor, Red (Taylor's Version) includes "From the Vault" tracks.
Rather than the separate genres, "electronic-pop" should link "electropop". I'd write it as "electronic-pop (electropop)" and then unlink the following instance of "electropop".
But now needs to be preceded with a quote mark.
Great article! Formally this is  on hold until the above are addressed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Bilorv! I believe I have addressed all your points. Gained (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Two issues I can see: (1) I think there's still an issue with verifiability of this song using synths/bass. Which of the given sources verifies the song also follows the three Red tracks released before stylistically with its use of synthesizers and a pulsing bass? This is also an issue in the audio caption. (2) A Dropbox link doesn't verify that this material was officially published by ARIA. Can you cite instead a page on the ARIA website that links to this PDF? — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bilorv I didn't find anymore sources about the song's production so I removed first issue including the Pitchfork source entirely; the sentence actually constituted WP:SYNTH which I didn't notice when addressing the comments. I also removed much of the sentence regarding Max Martin and Shellback's influence on songs they produced for Red which now seems out of place on the article. For the second issue, click this link then locate the "latest accreditations" link, and you'll find the "Jan 2024 Single Accreds" link there. Gained (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Gained: thanks for the speedy responses. I've updated the audio caption and lead in line with the latest change and substituted the ARIA link for the one you give here: it doesn't matter if the reader has to follow a link or two but it matters that they can verify the publisher is ARIA. Personally I think this is still appropriate composition information even if it's about other Red songs: "The two producers introduced their electronic-pop production consisting of pulsing synthesizers, programmed bass drums, and electronically processed vocals". However, this isn't something that needs to hold up the review. I am happy that this is a  pass for GA as the article already meets the GA criteria. Thanks for your work taking over the original nominator! — Bilorv (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)