Jump to content

Talk:Blackout (Britney Spears album): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nemo24 (talk | contribs)
1,221 edits
Jak3m (talk | contribs)
1,410 edits
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
{{oldafdfull|date= 5 Feb. 2007 |result= '''keep''' |votepage= Britney Spears' fifth studio album }}
{{oldafdfull|date= 5 Feb. 2007 |result= '''keep''' |votepage= Britney Spears' fifth studio album }}


==New Album Cover?==

[http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x214/chriscrocker/BlackoutJapaneseImportCover.jpg Blackout Album Cover] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheKnowledge1814|TheKnowledge1814]] ([[User talk:TheKnowledge1814|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheKnowledge1814|contribs]]) 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Album pushed forward ==
Blackout has been pushed forward to 29th October to curb piracy. The day has just started in the US, I guess it'll be confirmed later today.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article323828.ece

PS: Why is the article read only? a notice saying it is protected would be nice.
The stuff about the album containing bad songs should be reconsidered,as the source is a tabloid. And early reviews are good.
[[User:Laxstar5|Laxstar5]] 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the release date of the USA version set for 30th when the reference directly says it's November 13th, it needs to be changed..--[[User:86.54.61.20|86.54.61.20]] 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently It is, I just read the statement. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fire3000|Fire3000]] ([[User talk:Fire3000|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fire3000|contribs]]) 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Blackout confirmed on britney.com==

http://www.britney.com/ <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.210.3.136|85.210.3.136]] ([[User talk:85.210.3.136|talk]]) 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Poor grammar ==

Britney Spears' fifth studio album should be Britney Spears's fifth studio album

refer to Wiki's own article on apostrophes. Only plurals drop the s after the apostrophe...thus this is a proposal to move this to Britney Spears's fifth studio album [[User:MrMarmite|MrMarmite]] 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

:Excuse me but your proposition is absolutely wrong. If you think the grammar of that phrase is not right, you're wrong too. If a word ends with "'''S'''" and you want to add apostrophe, like '''Spears''', the correct is '''Spears''''. If it's '''Spear''', then the possessive case is '''Spear's'''. Hope you got my point. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 00:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WHO THE HELL CARES??????


:: au contraire. Have a look at [[Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_in_s.2C_z.2C_or_x]] as well as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html and http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-possessive.htm Also refer to the book [[Eats shoots and leaves]]"[[User:MrMarmite|MrMarmite]] 07:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't why the "new" grammar is this. Well, it's ok for me. Change it. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:It depends on the word. The section in the [[apostrophe]] article linked to above says: ''Rules that modify or extend this principle have included the following:''
:*''If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage.''
:"Spears'" is therefore correct, always has been and always will be. &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|会話]])</small> 18:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
::Bad. The page was already edited with "Spears's". Kindly raise this concern more to let other post their comments so we could get a concencus. Thank you.
[[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] <sup>([[User_talk:BritandBeyonce|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/BritandBeyonce|contribs]])</sup> 11:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::It is bad grammar to use s's here. Of interest is [[:Image:Heart-to-Heart.jpg]]. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: So much for consensus..as long as Admins can feel free to override Wiki policies. [[User:MrMarmite|MrMarmite]] 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's not policy, it's grammar. ''Spears's'' is simply incorrect. You don't have to be an admin to move a page. &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|会話]])</small> 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Actually the page has been move-protected due to the speculation about the album's name (instead of the grammar). It's easy for an admin to not realise this. But you're right about the grammar :) -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::: The Wikipedia Manual of Style says to go with "Spears's," and that the s should be left off only in cases where it's historically been the most common possessive, like "Jesus'". So, Spears's it is, on Wikipedia at least. -Elmer Clark 06:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::::[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage|The Wikipedia Manual of Style]], in this case, reflects ''[[The Elements of Style]]'', which many writers consider authoritative. Chapter 1, page 1 of Elements of Style says "Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write, Charles's friend, Burns's poems, the witch's malice. Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names ending in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake or for righteousness' sake". This from the Reference Desk when the same question came up a few weeks ago. The consensus then was to leave it as Spears's. But like Mr. Marmite said, apparently administrators no longer feel they need to adhere to policy...or consensus, apparently. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Spears's is not incorrect, but there seems little point in making further comment. What would I know?...I'm not an Admin...just a professional author..whose name ends in an s :) Have a look at page 4 of this [http://eatsshootsandleaves.com/eslguide.pdf] [[User:MrMarmite|MrMarmite]] 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Well I don't agree but I'll move it back. Sorry for causing so much bother. &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|会話]])</small> 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::: You sir, are a gentleman. [[User:MrMarmite|MrMarmite]] 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not, but thanks. Anyway my work here is done (and undone) so I shall remove the page from my watchlist. &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|会話]])</small> 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:: Have to laugh..on her own web page she uses "Spear's" as the possessive..bless 'em..or maybe she is just now Britney Spear? [[User:MrMarmite|MrMarmite]] 17:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Cover ==

is this cover real? [[Image:Britney'snewalbum.jpg|50px]]{{ifdc|Image:Britney'snewalbum.jpg|log=2007 September 8}}


Probably not. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mesa568|Mesa568]] ([[User talk:Mesa568|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mesa568|contribs]]) 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

No it is not, and don't add it back to the page [[User:CRocka05|CRocka05]] 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That picture was taken on 2004, it was featured in her ''Greatest Hits: My Prerogative'' album. So no it won't be the new album cover. [[User: Oidia|Oidia]] ([[User talk: Oidia|talk]]) 22:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


THis is not a real cover!!!! Please remove it from the site. The official cover will be released next week see britney.com <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.249.217.151|77.249.217.151]] ([[User talk:77.249.217.151|talk]]) 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== We don't need the VMA performance of "Gimme More" in this article. ==

It's already on the 'Gimme More' page and the neutrality is suspect. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.117.246.215|75.117.246.215]] ([[User talk:75.117.246.215|talk]]) 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I agree I don't believe this performance should be included in the description either, it might not even be appropriate on the Gimme More page, it's not very encyclopedic and it has serves no purpose. [[User:69.209.229.155|69.209.229.155]] 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::It's the performance of the song to promote it. [[User:Maddyfan|Maddyfan]] 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

:::It's was really a promotion on her single. We should put it in the page but with a limited words and be more encyclopedic. Not that an updater. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 09:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

==Title change==

I don't know who changed it, but I think it was premature. The sentence about this being the definite title is unsourced, and the only info on the web I could find was from [[People Magazine]], which only went so far as to day that this is the possible title. I think the article title should be changed back until we have a reliable source which confirms this. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 06:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

:I looked at the history of this page and it was [[User:Soapfan06|Soapfan06]] who redirected the whole thing. Me too changed the title in the Discography section but thanks to your immediate message, I've undone it already. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 09:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::Well no, actually, it´s still called Piece Of Me. I have put in a request to have it changed back with administrators and some obscure page of wikipedia, but so far no luck. [I don´t know how to undo a redirect like this without making a complete hash of it, so it will have to stand as is until somebody who has better knowledge can fix it. Thanks for trying though, BritneyBeyonce. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Welcome. It was also [[User:CrookedAsterisk|CrookedAsterisk]] who redirected the page but undoing it was just so easy. No prob on that. Though People.com had an article bout the possible album title, as you said "premature", should we change the title in the album's page? Someone changed it already. If that so, we will also try to change in the Discography section. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 10:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've move protected the page to ensure it stays here until a title is officially announced. The move protection can be lifted once we know that the article should be called- either ask me or make a request at [[WP:RFPP]]... <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

:That's right. Move that until such time that editors could cite a more realiable source either from Spears's camp or from the others which is credible enough. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

== Full-Protection ==

What if we will full-protect this page for a while? The page has almost been edited 100 times or more than that a day with different versions. This will help the page be consistent and not messy. We will just post our comments in the talk page until the administrators see it as considerable enough. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 12:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:I don't really like full protection myself, unles there's edit warring. Semi is usually enough. One editor, though, needs to learn not to make so many changes without consensus. There's a reason why we have a talk page. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

::But what's is happening is that editors don't bother to post their comments here in the talk page. Actually I don't like full-protection too because it restrain us to contribute or edit but sad to say that the page has become an "updater" or whatsoever with no sufficient, realible or credible source. Let's take a no-to-edit for a while. Just a while until we can have a very concrete source. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I have no problem reverting editors, and asking administrators to intervene if necessary to block editors from working on an article. To me, full protection defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Having said that, I share your frustration with people who edit an article willy nilly, without a thought for citations or other Wikipedia conventions. Cheers, [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

::::Cheers [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]]!!! [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 11:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

== Confusing... ==

Why is it that the release date in Spears's page do not co-incides with that of the Album page and it's infobox. Could someone settle this? We might mislead fans as well as researchers. Thanks. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 08:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== These Are The New Songs ==

*Little Me
*Got Me High
*Your...
*Everybody
*Freakshow
*Get Back
*Baby Boy
*Been A While <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.142.112.163|198.142.112.163]] ([[User talk:198.142.112.163|talk]]) 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


We don't know that for sure; I've added a "potential tracks" section to the article so that this kind of information can be added without being portrayed as definite fact when it isn't. I know some people might complain that adding it is purely speculative, but it's better than having the tracks listed under the "confirmed" section and, for research purposes, is still quite useful information to have.[[User:Moonriver90|Moonriver90]] 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

==Don't do this==

Don't add info like this may affect the release of the album UNTIL it is actually confirmed by Jive or Spears. Jive issued a statement just this Monday they are unaware of changes in her management and are going forward with a November 13th release date.[[User:Soapfan06|Soapfan06]] 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
: yeah, like first of all, what does her management have to do with the release date and why would it be affected? it wouldn't. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thankssir|Thankssir]] ([[User talk:Thankssir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thankssir|contribs]]) 03:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Break The Ice
Gimmie More
Piece Of Me
State Of Grace
Radar
Ooh Baby
Heaven On Earth
Sugarfall
Freakshow
One of a Kind
Boyfriend
Get Back
Cry
:What's this? If it's another "official/final tracklisting for the album" well then where's the sources. There has been no confirmation by Britney or Jive regarding the tracklisting. [[User:AngelOfSadness|<span style="background:#000000 ; color: #30D5C8;"> AngelOfSadness </span>]][[User_talk:AngelOfSadness|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF69B4;"> talk </span>]] 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== Album name official? ==

How can we know when to change it? Play.com a good CD site has it for pre-order under the name "Pieces of Me". I doubt they would lie. So how do we know if it is official enough to change? Here is the link too:
http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/1125220/Pieces-Of-Me/Product.html [[User:MusicLover|MusicLover]] 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

:Until Spears's camp or any org affiliated with the latter or any reliable source to cite. The page has been currently moved and only be move to its rightful title when we can cite such. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] 10:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

== "Piece of Me" prealbum leaked... [[User:Paagal cirtic|Paagal cirtic]] 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC) ==

the Pre-album has released as of the 19th and it has songs that have been mentioned on the page so it might actually be a legit leak. its contains 13 tracks

01. Gimme More
02. Cold As Fire
03. It's Been a While
04. Everybody
05. Got Me High
06. Tell Me What Your Sippin' On [feat. AC]
07. Heaven On Earth
08. the Sin City Rap
09. Rebellion
10. Baby Boy
11. Right Now (Taste the Victory)
12. Luv the Hurt Away
13. Kiss Me all Over
: That's just another fan made album, not an actual pre-album. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thankssir|Thankssir]] ([[User talk:Thankssir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thankssir|contribs]]) 07:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Tell me what your sippin on and the sin city rap were from nearly 3 years ago. I doubt they will appear on the album.--[[User:Jak3m|Jak3m]] 14:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Right Now Taste The Victory was a world cup song from years ago, obviously not a real leaked album...--[[User:Fire3000|Fire3000]] 09:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

== Get Back? ==

I really just can't understand the language used in Netherlands which, if i'm not mistaken, is Dutch. But the list was so clear. Spears's Get Back was listed as new pop releases. Is the song real? Did Spears recorded this? [http://futuremusiccharts.web-log.nl/futuremusiccharts/single_releases_pop/index.html Check this out]. [[user:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] <sup>([[user_talk:BritandBeyonce|talk]])</sup> 10:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:I speak Dutch and read the chart. He doesn't say where he got the information, just that it is a pop song that will probably be released in Holland, either because he read it somewhere (criterion 2) or because he saw it had a release date in the United Kingdom (criterion 3). It is not a confirmed Dutch release, or it would have the date to the right in brackets (criterion 1). I wouldn't use this as a reliable source, since he doesn't give any confirming data, and it is called "future hit parade". The name doesn't sound too reliable, to me. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
::Ok. Thanks for that. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] <sup>([[User_talk:BritandBeyonce|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/BritandBeyonce|contribs]])</sup> 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

== Edit album name? ==

I mean www.play.com has confirmed pieces of me, HMV confirmed pieces of me, people magazine confirmed pieces of me and a radi station confirmed pieces of me! Isn't it about time that we say the album is called pieces of me? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ikkomuitnederland|Ikkomuitnederland]] ([[User talk:Ikkomuitnederland|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ikkomuitnederland|contribs]]) 09:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You can request it [[WP:RFPP|here]] or to this user <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> who moved the page. Thanks. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] <sup>([[User_talk:BritandBeyonce|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/BritandBeyonce|contribs]])</sup> 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

== Editing Album Names ==

Since this page is so "hot" due to many contributors who always edits this page almost everyday, please do comment if you want to change something especially the album's name. If you have a concrete source to cite, request to admins to move the page. Please refer to comment that precedes this one. [[User:BritandBeyonce|BritandBeyonce]] <sup>([[User_talk:BritandBeyonce|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/BritandBeyonce|contribs]])</sup> 11:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


'''Youtube has many "leaked" songs for this album, including "A Little Bit of Oh". Does Britney own the copyright to this song and will it be on the new album? Possibly it should be included as one of the tracks'''. 68.164.242.93 14:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Danielle <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.164.242.93|68.164.242.93]] ([[User talk:68.164.242.93|talk]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: "A little bit of oh" is a brooke hogan song, not Britney. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thankssir|Thankssir]] ([[User talk:Thankssir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thankssir|contribs]]) 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Requested move==
==Requested move==

Revision as of 15:02, 2 November 2007

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlbums Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Requested move

Jive released a banner today talking about the sucess of Gimme More and it also says her new LP is called Blackout, and is coming out November 13th. This has to be official. http://www.britneyspy.com/2007/10/03/britneys-fifth-studio-album-blackout/ MusicLover 16:11, 03 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An advertising banner is not a reliable source. Is there anything on the official Jive website? - eo 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why wouldnt it be? Why would Jive put a fake name on a promotional banner? MusicLover 16:18, 03 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What source do you have that Jive made that banner? What is the huge rush? Just wait until Jive announces it or it shows up in a press release or on her official website. - eo 20:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to replace this "fifth studio album thing" it's just awful at this point that we don't have a title up. Skinwalker03 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. The title may be cumbersome at first, but until there is a reliable source, it should not be changed. - eo 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout, Britney's NEW Album Name!

File:Http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5745/blackoutnn6.gif

It's been announced, and Zomba has it advertised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akabuga (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source please. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yep, it's the name. it's been put on websites such as allaccess.com, but obviously the admins won't change it. i can't believe they put it on full protection right now, a month before when alot of new info should be added.

MusicLover 15:54, 04 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the title appeared on her label's website or her website? As of yesterday there were still edits from people claiming the title is Pieces of Me - so there really needs to be a confirmation. - eo 19:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.com/Blackout-Britney-Spears/dp/B000WQ9UA8/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/102-1907114-1522569

Amazon is selling it under the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire3000 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album title CONFIRMED!

Allaccess.com (which is affiliated with Mediabase), a VERY RELIABLE source has added a banner to their site (which came straight from Zomba & Jive Records) which clearly states the LP is titled "Blackout." http://www.allaccess.com/assets/ads/banner/B/BritneySpears/Gimme_More.gif --Starsareblind07 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's what i said up above, why would a big website put up a FAKE banner? that had to be made from the record company...although apperenly its still not "offical enough" MusicLover 16:17, 04 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you can't insert a link to an animated gif as the source for the title. Unfortunately with this particular article, there have been countless edits that are unsubstantiated, claiming the title to be several different things. The vandalism on this article in the past several days has been extremely heavy. Is there a press release or anything? A news article from a music publication? A release schedule page from the label? - eo 20:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In situations like this, I find that Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow (and possibly some of the points raised at Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline) is a useful read. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's official, the album was placed on Amazon today. The title is Blackout. User:bradlee151 4 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon confirmed the name Blackout

http://www.amazon.com/Blackout-Britney-Spears/dp/B000WQ9UA8/ref=sr_1_1/104-9463749-8423932?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1191535826&sr=8-1 they wouldnt lie...i cant believe the name cant be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicLover (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think Amazon constitutes as official enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.12.118 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Amazon be any more reliable than HMV or even play.com, both of whom had it shown as "Pieces of Me"? I know you are very excited...but wait until the troubled popster's own web site or that of her record company make the official announcement. MrMarmite 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOR CHRISTS SAKE

The names Blackout! friggin hell, even if its wrong who gives a crap, does your life depend on it? thought not, let people edit it please, thats what its there for. Amazon to me sounds reliable enough. Even if it isnt the official name add it to the section about album title.--Jak3m 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our reliable sources policy. GlassCobra (Review) 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does your life depend on having the name 'Blackout' in the article *now!*, as opposed to in a couple of days or so, when the label confirm it? --Kurt Shaped Box 14:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was just ranting about wikipedia folk.--Jak3m 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title confirmed

...on her official website. Protection decreased to semi-protection. Thanks for your patience all. Have fun. - eo 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Billboard.com PatrickJ83 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will the album be delayed?

http://www.nme.com/news/britney-spears/29257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That news article is from June. So it's possibly old news compared to The Britney at Jive website which has posted a message saying the new album will be released on the 13th of November. AngelOfSadness talk 14:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE TRACK LISTING- IS IT CORRECT ?

01 Gimme More ///02 Nothing More ///03 Get Back ft. Justin Timberlake and Fergie/// 04 Toxic Part 2/// 05 Reliable ft. Mary J Blige/// 06 So Myself ft. Ciara /// 07 Never ft. Nelly Furtado/// 08 Kentwood I Love You/// 09 Heaven on Earth /// My Life has changed (Intro)/// 10 Britney/// 11 Till I Find Me ft. Nicole Scherzinger/// 12 Truth/// 13 True Words /// Is this tracklisting confirmed? I found it 5 minutes ago on a CD shop's website (Sweden). By Welovekes19.38 h Oct 6, ATC +2 (SWEDEN)

No official tracklisting has been confirmed by Britney or Jive. Also, to my knowledge, the Justin Timberlake duet never happened because Britney kept cancelling the recording session and there have been no reports of Fergie,Mary J Blige, Ciara or Nicole Scherzinger guest apperring on the album. Any tracklisting you find will be speculation at this point, even huge UK retail websites posted on their websites that the album title was Piece Of Me, which has now been proved to be false. Chances are this is a made up tracklisting AngelOfSadness talk 17:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right but I just searched for "Blackout britney spears" in a swedish searching network comparable to MSN and this tracklisting was confirmed 8 times (SWE, NORWAY, ICELAND DENMARK, GERMANY AND MANY OTHERS) welovekes 21.41 h oct 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.252.24 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But were any of the sources said by Jive, Britney or her people. If not then how can it be true. Also most album tracklistings are first confirmed by the official website of the artist(e.g Radiohead's new album), while Britney's website is still clearly under construction. Links to your sources can help here but remember that blogs(except ones controlled by the artist), fansites, open wikis, and social networking sites are not reliable sources. AngelOfSadness talk 13:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wew.this is impossible, eventhough the tracklisting is so damn cool, especially with the feats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.19.50 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors portion

This section is ridiculous. There is no reason for it to be so wordy, or even for each producer/writer to have their own section. It could work just as well having a list of songs contributed for the album and the producer's name next to it. Somethingvacant 20:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the 'album title debating' section

Now that the album title is confirmed, that section is irrelevant. PatrickJ83 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Disagree. It should be included in the page but not in an advertising way like the last edits. It must be because it's the album's production history. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rumors of the album's title are totally irrelevant now that the title is confirmed. It could be mentioned in a small way within the article, but it doesn't need its own section. PatrickJ83 22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a mere rumor, then, it has no place in Wikipedia. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it REALLY necessary?

To have the ...accused the album of being unfinished and unfit to sell... as of right now? It seems unimportant and a waste of space. Nobody cares about what some annonymous source said in January 2007 that turned out to be false anyway. Soapfan06 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think once the album is out, the whole thing can be re-done and a "history" section can be created and mention those accusations. PatrickJ83 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[img]http://i24.tinypic.com/152yf4i.jpg[/img] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.159.135.176 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. All history of the page should be recreated if the album is already out - History section. All of those are important because it's the album's history and the effort of other users will be futile in this will be deleted where if fact it has source to verify the allegations. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIDEO RELEASE "GIMME MORE" ON TRL

When will the video be relased?

Cover

is this real? http://i24.tinypic.com/152yf4i.jpg // JohnBiancato talk 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The site is not reliable enough to considerable the image as the original cover. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date: October 29th???

It should be quite official since it's taken from Sony BMG.... Source: http://www.sonybmgmusic.co.uk/news/6961/

Also according to SonyBmg in Australia, it is being released October 27th here: http://www.sonybmg.com.au/news/details.do?newsId=20030829005054 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.75.241 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackout - Tracklist

I got the album yesterday.

The Tracklist:

1 It's Been A While

2 You Got me High

3 Right Now

4 Stupid Things

5 Gimme More

6 You're Fillin' Me Up

7 Love

8 Sugarfall

9 Heaven on Earth

10 Everybody

11 Baby Boy (Desert Me)

12 A Song About you

89.48.140.109 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Rinoa_Kitsune[reply]

What's your source? If it wasn't confirmed by Britney, her people, her website or her record label then how can the tracklist here be correct. Many people claim to have the correct tracklisting but have no source(reliable or otherwise) to back it up so that's why I'm asking for a reliable source. AngelOfSadness talk 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I got a source for her setlist:

01. Intro

02. Break The Ice

03. Gimme More

04. Piece Of Me

05. Radar

06. Cry

07. Waterfall

08. Mystical

09. Heaven On Earth

10. Blackout

11. Lullaby (For Me)

12. Thank God

13. The End (Forever)

14. Bonus Desconocido

http://www.diariopanorama.com/diario/noticias/2007/10/06/a-10017.html

Pacheco1722 22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)pachecoPacheco1722 22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It seems here that 1.) both tracklists contradict each other and 2.) That source is not even in english 3.) it's not a reliable source like britney's official website and 4.) I said before get a reliable source not just any source. AngelOfSadness talk 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UGH..it's here...tracklisting obtained from Sony Music so Pacheco1722's list is correct.....http://www.allurbangossip.com/urban-gossip/britney-spears-official-blackout-tracklisting-new-music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.121.196 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a gossip thing. Not reliable. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I'll make a YouTube-Vid. I really got this album and the songs... 89.48.140.109 06:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Rinoa_Kitsune[reply]

There's no need too as many people have the songs as they were leaked onto file sharing sites last week. Youtube already has loads of fan-made video's with the songs. Some spectulating the tracklsiting but nothing official has been confirmed. AngelOfSadness talk 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the real tracklist! Confirmed by cdwow.com!

Here it is:

Gimme More

Heaven On Earth

Radar

Piece Of Me

Break The Ice

Ooh Baby

Boyfriend

Cold As Fire

One Of A Kind

The Perfect Lover

Out Of This World

    • Provisional Tracklisting **

Link: http://www13.cd-wow.com/detail_results.php?product_code=2413013

cdwow is reliable it doesn't get updated by just people but people who work there!

I don't think so. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so either. Rememeber the amount of online retail sites which were selling pre-orders of the album as "Piece of Me" now we can see that they were all wrong so chances are it's the same here-information based on spectulation which is actually false. Wait until Jive or Zomba Music Group comfirm the tracklisting before posting anymore tracklistings. AngelOfSadness talk 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The album real cover has been released

I have a copy of the HQ cover for this album, is not fake, it has been released at http://www.sonybmgcentral.com

Should i post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcaporal (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Jive has already released the cover to Fox News in an article on their web site. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301200,00.html Just reduce the size of the cover and make it sorta low res so you can't print duplicates. 59.180.78.93 11:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official cover is on Billboard. [1] Charmed36 16:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been confirmed on people.com too. [2]Superpop 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it; it seems legit. If you can confirm that Jive released it themselves, then post it with that citation. Phoenix1304 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree it's the real deal now, as it's now on http://www.britney.com/ --86.54.61.20 10:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the Content

All of the other into can go under album information, it doesn't need a section of it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parental Advisory

It's nothing more than a rumor, I suppose, but I've heard that this album will get a parental advisory sticker. If someone happens to find anything to substantiate this, could you post it, please? Phoenix1304 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything about this but I do know that Britney drops the F word on "Hot as Ice" and "Get Naked". --Starsareblind07 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She says "f*ckery" on "Hot as Ice" User:Ang3lus 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about Jive being worried about sales should be taken OUT

First of all, the source is PAGE SIX, a total gossip column. Since when is a gossip column a good source? Plus, Gimme More was a hit the complete album is done, and Jive denied the story. MusicLover 19:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%--Jak3m 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History - album production

What happened to the album's history? Yet most of the page were insubstantial and rumors, it still have facts to be considered. The album must have a history, especially its production. The album gone so long time to be completed and deserved to have a concrete history to be posted in the page. Thanks. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. // JohnBiancato talk 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song Names

When the songs were leaked, they had two different names - people are adding this information to the article. So far, I have reverted this, every time it happens. Do people agree that this information does not belong here? It is unreferenced, not notable and unencyclopedic. — *Hippi ippi 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Jak3m 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Leftover" Tracks

There is no need for this to be in the article, they simply didn't make the final cut like god knows how many others.--Jak3m 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it's ridiculus — *Hippi ippi 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be there. Plenty of other album articles have a leftover section. Ian-sama 04:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's only a handful and it makes the article sound like it was written by a preteen.
B-sides aren't the same things as leftovers. Leftovers are left over because they suck. Hence, not notable. Phoenix1304 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-jiggered the album history section.

I re-wrote the thing to present it in a clearer way. Everyone approve? PatrickJ83 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is britney spears making a new music video? or new tour?

is britney spears making a new music video or new tour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysHere123 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

Don't you think the petitions [3][4] to change the album cover are relevant?

Us Magazine and Rolling Stone Magazine commented about the album cover and as we can see fans didn't like the cover. ;/ // JohnBiancato talk 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something about them in the article is fine but adding the links to them isn't as it can be seen as going against WP:SOAPBOX. Having the links to the news articles would be enough to back up the info on the petitions. AngelOfSadness talk 13:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Cover

It has been confirmed that the cover is being changed due to the fact that britney spears is also unhappy with the cover. She is due to make a phot shoot in three days. I lost hte source but im looking for it. Trimy67 03:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until you find your source, the old cover should stay — *Hippi ippi 04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If you can find the source back and if it's confirmed by Spears' camp, the old cover will be replaced. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears is the executive producer of the album

Look here: http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7743/backcover500x500sv1.jpg Down, you can see "executive producer britney spears" but not very well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ang3lus (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a more suitable source like a newspaper article or her official website confiming this? I ask because anyone, and I mean anyone, can make an album cover look authentic using photoshop. The lone link to a image hosting site is very questionable as it could be a fan made backcover. All I'm saying is don't go basing your information on sources which are very questionable. AngelOfSadness talk 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but when the CD comes out in Germany, Switzerland, etc. the 26th October (I live in Switzerland), if I see the information on the CD, will you put it?

Of course. I have seen the image on a fansite aswell but fansites aren't the best source of information in the world. If it's confirmed by the Britney camp before the release dates, then of course it can be put in. AngelOfSadness talk 18:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears - Why Should I Be Sad (Credits)

12. Why Should I Be Sad (P. Williams) EMI Blackwood Music Inc., on behalf of itself and Waters Of Nazareth Inc. (BMI) Produced by The Neptunes Recorded by Brian Garten at Record Plant, Los Angeles, CA & South Beach Studios, Miami Beach, FL Assisted by Ryan Kennedy & Hart Gunther Mixed by Supa Engineer Duro for Chairman of the Boards, Inc. and Chad Hugo at KMA: The Writer’s Studio, NYC Assisted by Jordan “DJ Swivel” Young Additional Recording by Jordan “DJ Swivel” Young Background Vocals by Pharrell WIlliams.


So it's produced by The Neptunes, not just Pharrell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.203.145 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharrell wrote the track (the melody and lyrics) and the Neptunes produced the track (fixed the arrangement and sound effects etc. in the song). Produced and written are two completely different things so it's important not to confuse the two. AngelOfSadness talk 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I'm judging by the info above. When you see a song title with a persons name in brackets beside it, it means that the person wrote the song not produced it. For example on the song "Freakshow"(which is in the article), it seems pretty ridiculous if it took six people to produce a song, usually there is only one, two maximum. AngelOfSadness talk 19:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am i saying that writing and producing is the same thing? And why is someone changing what's in the brackets? Pharrell wrote it. The Neptunes produced it. The name behind the song titles are most of the time producers, not writers. After a lot of track names you see the name of Marcella Araica. That's an engineer from the Timbaland camp, not a songwriter. So, maybe it seems ridiculous to you that 6 person produce a song, but that really the way it goes.82.157.203.145 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the producers are in the infobox at the right side of the page. For example Keri Hilson has her name in the brackets and she's not a producer, she's a songwriter. Pharrell is a songwriter, but the Neptunes are listed in the infobox. AngelOfSadness talk 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also on wikipedia the songwriters, not producers, go in brackets according to the the manual of style-music. AngelOfSadness talk 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you tell me why Marcella Araica is in the brackets. 82.157.203.145 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this and this says that she is one of the writers of Gimme More. Maybe she's not just an engineer. AngelOfSadness talk 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know from a close source to the Timbaland camp, she's only doing engineering, sometimes just even asisting to it, and editing. But maybe they want to give her some credits. 82.157.203.145 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is also mentioned as a writer in the Gimme More article. I looked her up on google and it seems that she does mostly what you just said but the results also showed that she is a writer of Gimme More. Maybe she's trying some other things as she has mixed, assisted engineering and engineering on numerous records. AngelOfSadness talk 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharrell is credited as "The Neptunes" for production all the time, regardless of whether his Neptunes partner Chad Hugo is involved. This is nothing strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.71.60 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

Why is the Spears' no promotion tour missing from the article? Why is Spears' personal controvesy missing surrounding the album's release? Charmed36 02:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some users removed it. I dont know why but probably because its more on rumors. However, we can pick some to be included in the page since its factual and may serve as the page essential component. --BritandBeyonce 04:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the album not britney's personal life. Of course it's fine to say "Spears' recent behaviour highlighted in the media has caused some of the album's production to be delayed". For example the Britney/Justin duet never happened because Spears' kept cancelling the recording sessions(This was a rumour, not sure if it was true so don't include it if there's no reliable source). But saying stuff like "She lost custody of her kids and is in a bitter divorce battle with her former husband" isn't ok as those things belong in the britney article not the album article. Try not to go into detail with her personal life on this article as the album wasn't written about her personal life. However I think that the promotion tour info is missing because of Spears' recent behaviour has caused it to be delayed(My opinion don't include in article). If you read over the other britney album articles, you will find that nothing about her personal life is in them. There was loads of controversy in britney's personal life around the time of the Britney and In The Zone albums and yet none of them document that as it is irrelevent to the album itself. Stuff like britney losing her kids hasn't affected the albums production or release so it shouldn't be included in the article as the article is about the album not her personal life. AngelOfSadness talk 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will touch anymore on that tour info. The album's production. We must, at least, include a bit of factual info about contributors whose song made to appear in the album. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a lot of information in the edit history about the contributors of the album, but a lot of it was deleted, I'm not sure why, when the tracklisting was confirmed. A lot of the info was relevent to the article but the only thing was that some it lacked some references. AngelOfSadness talk 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her personal life is affecting the album's lack of a promotion tour. Charmed36 18:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has reference. I think, when the page was not yet rijiggered, it has 30 references or more than that. Most of which was linked to the contributors of the album. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the album history section back into the article. Lets not forget that wikipedia is and encyclopedia. I have moved the "no promotion" part of the album history under the new promotion section of the article. I assume this is what you guys were talking about. Planecrazy22 08:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears producer

Britney Spears is the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER of this album, http://www.ukbritney.tv/discography/pieceofme/blackout_uk_back.jpg you can't get any more official than the actual CD COVER. Please leave Britney Spears on the producers section. --Jak3m 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I actually have the album since yesterday (I live in Switzerland) and in the back, it's written "Executive Producer: Britney Spears", if you want, I can scan it in HQ (if I'm able to...)... --Ang3lus 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that links to illegal leaked copies of the album should be included in the article. Doesn't it violate wikipedia's rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillen (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the link violates wikipedia rules on many levels. It's a link to a copyrighted works violation for one which is a very serious breach of policy. I don't even need to mention the other problems with the link as the one I just mentioned is a blantant breach of policy and should have been immediately removed when spotted and the person who added it warned. AngelOfSadness talk 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links were fake, it was just the demos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demos are also copyrighted so the link was still a violation. Be it a demo, remix, single/album version, b-side, unreleased or live all versions of a song by an artist are under copyright. Slightly off-topic but even unheard/unreleased songs by Evanescence are copyrighted AngelOfSadness talk 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I've added a "Reception" section to the article since the first review is out. Please expand this part with more reviews to come and more information from the review. A "Reception" section appears in all the album articles. I have also merged the promotion and album history section together since there wasn't alot of info. When the album comes out, I suggest also adding a "Chart Performance" section since it appears in other articles too. Planecrazy22 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it was going to end up on there.  :) Phoenix1304 02:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leak

The album is leaked now Fugio 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh :S Oh well, it was gonna happen anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.7.219 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? it's everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album was leaked weeks ago but the songs were under different names on the filesharing sites and such. AngelOfSadness talk 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the demos? I know it's not the retail that you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said they were demos? They (the media) said tracks were leaked but didn't mention that it was the demos themselves that were leaked. Even the article itself says due to numerous unauthorized online leaks of the songs. I could be wrong here, please correct me if I am. I mean if it was the demos that was leaked wouldn't there be fan-made videos on youtube using the demo of gimme more? There is currently seven results for britney spears blackout demo on youtube and 5 of them aren't sure if they are the demos or the real tracks. Hardly anyone has heard the final version of the album so who has said that the tracks released weeks ago were demos. Even MTV.com said this about the leak But as it turns out, few of those tracks are on Blackout — most of the leaked songs may have been demos Taken from here. Notice the may have been demos, no-one is sure and MTV is a pretty reliable source. AngelOfSadness talk 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were demos becuase they were all unfinished. Compare them to the album version (i.e. unfinished isn't the same as unmastered).
But where exactly does it say, in a reliable source, that those songs were definately demos as nearly every source are calling them possible demos like the mtv.com article I linked in the comment above. Sure the possible demos that were leaked could be remixes made for the singles b-sides for all we know. Or they could be the first demos made of the songs like you said but nothing has been confirmed. Seeing as you have heard both the leaked tracks from three weeks ago and the album tracks, do any of the first lot of leaked tracks sound exactly the same as the official album versions? If none of them match then we can conclude that a lot of the sources about the first lot leak are false. But this does not automatically mean that they are demos unless there is a really reliable source that says so. AngelOfSadness talk 21:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to find a source saying that, they are infact demos, but the album versions sound almost nothing like the demos. The songs were all re-recorded and have changed parts as well as changed lyrics in some of them.
It would be wonderful if you could find a definate source regarding the first leak, as like I said, none of the sources are sure. If we can find a reliable source with definate information on what happened, we could then add the info to the end of the album history section. AngelOfSadness talk 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were 'leaked' on the same day the whole album was available to listen to on VH1s website, so it wasnt really a leak.--Jak3m 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Then it wasn't a leak at all if it was originally from a notable/reliable website stream. So there isn't a need to mention the second "leak" in the article then as no-one can be sure if it was leaked then streamed or streamed, copied and uploaded onto other websites. AngelOfSadness talk 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were leaked on October 22nd. THe stream was made available October 23 if this article is correct. Ian-sama 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source saying the album was leaked on the 22nd, by any chance? AngelOfSadness talk 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source saying it leaked on that day, but that's when the album started popping up on message boards and blogs for download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is unfortunate. However, my Blackout leak .rar file has a creation date of the 22nd. :/ Ian-sama 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been great to have the leak info in the article(album history) but without a reliable source it can't be added in without getting deleted. Although if anyone happens to come across a reliable source about the leak(the Oct 22nd leak) then post the link here and hopefully it will be added to the article. AngelOfSadness talk 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Asian' cover

wheres the source? to me it just looks like someone has cropped the promo poster: http://www.breatheheavy.com/picture%20links/3227.jpg im going to remove this image until a reliable source is found. --Jak3m 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mentioned it, it does look like the promo poster was cropped into the ration of an album cover. I'll try to find any sources of the "Asian album cover" but so far there has been nothing unfortunately. AngelOfSadness talk 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cover

Here's a new cover: http://bp1.blogger.com/_xLmz70vCl58/RyDUjEVnk1I/AAAAAAAAAeA/d0rjMftUNz0/s400/austrian_cover.jpg I think it's official because it's not a scan or anything, it's a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ang3lus (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should try and find this image Thanks for the info--Jak3m 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just found this http://www.breatheheavy.com/picture%20links/3249.jpg --Jak3m 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same pictures here. But we really should try to find out if this is a real cover by finding a reliable source. AngelOfSadness talk 18:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added Personnel

Please expand this section and the production section. you can find all personnel and so on here: http://britneyexperts.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=2868 --Jak3m 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the official album edited?

From what I've heard so far, the bad language on the album will be edited, and no parental advisory stickered album will be issued. From the leak on mtv and vh1 to snippets from itunes, the f word in "Hot as Ice" is edited out. Will it be this way on all the versions or is it just this way because these previews are open to the public? For it's listing on Walmart.com it says "Edited: no" however, it also says this with Rihanna's CD "Good Girl Gone Bad" and the word "asses" is edited out of one of the songs. Hopefully someone knows the answer, because i think we have the right to know if something we intend to buy will be edited. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamcracker07 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I saw some site stating that the album has no explicit material. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK it has an explicit content sticker.--Jak3m 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean it will be unedited though? (From the leak I've heard, "motherfucker" or something similar is edited out of "Get Naked (I Got a Plan)" too) because I'm not buying it if it's edited. But I also don't want to have to pay extra for the import. >< Ian-sama 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the album has an explicit content sticker, then the album is unedited (contains swearing etc.). AngelOfSadness talk 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But do you know if there will be unedited US copies too? Because that import costs a LOT on Amazon. Ian-sama 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm from the US and I'm thinking that if the non-US version has a parental advisory sticker, then the US version will also be unedited. Markets in other countries, from what I've been told, are more strict when it comes to language and what not. Avril Lavigne's sophomore album "Under My Skin" had a parental advisory sticker on it in some markets, but not in the US, and the US version was still unedited. I think it's just edited on all the online leaks (mtv, vh1, etc.) because those are open to the public and all ages can listen to it at free will without paying for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.68.33 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I hope so. Because if it is edited, I'm gonna want my money back. :) (I just don't buy edited albums, I have a problem with it) Ian-sama 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's edited. *sigh* Should this info be added to the page? And is it unedited in any other markets? Ian-sama 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance

I have added a Chart performance section in the article since her other albums have them too. The album is released in Europe now, and should be filled in. Also added about expectation in the US. Please fill in more. It should be described in this section. I also suggest a separate Charts and certification section with a table and numbers like the other articles. Planecrazy22 08:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the US shouldn't be in there, since it's base speculation, but I mean, come on. How could it not? So let's just overlook that just this once. Phoenix1304 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think it should be mentioned that the album is currently at #5 on the itunes album chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20-Crazytowel-07 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A charts section is not necessary until it actually charts. A blank table just waiting to be filled in violates WP:CRYSTAL, as does any speculation about what it "might" do in the U.S. Once sources are available, then add them. And per WP:CHARTS, the iTunes Store should not be included in any tables, as this is just one retailer and is not an official chart. - eo 18:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Text in Personnel

Is the small text in personnel really necessary? It hurts the eyes and I don't see why it should be that way. --JennicaTalk 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing that but I discovered that its not the standard way per WikiProject_Albums. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I only followed what was on previous Britney album article, go look at in the zone.

Personally I think the small text makes it look better. Sure looks better than those stupid quotes on the reception section.--Jak3m 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the convention? And also the personnel, I was surprised when the section was written like that. --Britand&Beyonce (talk•contribs) 07:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I changed it, I hope nobody changes it back. --JennicaTalk 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

Someone change that awful reception section. It doesn't look better. Charmed36 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing.--Jak3m 16:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting that "Pop Matters" review. Because it's a blog and isn't really relevant. We have enough reviews that cover both sides of the album. Postive and negative. We don't need one from a blog.Skinwalker03 19:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, Popmatters is not a blog - it is a websine with professional writers and critics. - eo 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's section it states it's a blog site. I think it should be taken out due to the fact that we have both sections of the article covered (both postive and negative) buy creditable writers from credited papers and the like. There's no reason for it to be here since we have covered both sides of the article from more creditable and established sources. Quite honestly all blog opinoated peices should be taken out since they are generally irrlevant and opinoated pieces that aren't influenctial or prestigious.Skinwalker03 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as has been stated, Popmatters is a webzine not a blog- it has a blog- and one of the more renowned and reliable ones too. Anylayman 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mark here, please include the review according to metacritic.com for the Blackout album. her is the ink http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/spearsbritney/blackout#critics pls include this thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.178.146 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... the reception section is messed up again!! I think blackout recieve positive reviews.. but somebody edit it and and says it's a "massive failure".. somebody should fixed it!!!
Nemo24 12:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the reception section is the positive reviews, the first paragrph is the negitive reviews. It might be a good idea to add more to the postive reviews paragraph so it doesn't seem like the article is holding a POV that the album was a failure. AngelOfSadness talk 13:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Some positive reviews do exist though, despite the massive criticism" piece should be taken out. The album didn't receieve "massive criticism" at all. It receieved a lot of negative criticism, but also a lot of positive criticism. This piece makes it seem as if most of the reveiws for the album were bad, when that is not true. Most reviews were split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.71.30 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reception section is really good the way it is now. It explains both the positive and negative reviews in nearly the same amount of text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamcracker07 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Metacritic ,Blackout recieve mostly positive reviews it scores61/100 http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/spearsbritney/blackout?q=Britney%20Spears so it should say "it mostly recieve positive reviews"!!
Nemo24 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Cover

Last night I noticed someone posted links to a possible new cover, where did that come from, and can I see a link to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowRanger (talk • contribs) 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance, PopMatters & Producer/Writers

Hi, just wanted to tell if you'd like to add the chart performance (sales) of the UK. 13,500 copies sold in about 12 hours. Also: Is PopMatters going to be deleted? And some producers are fake. I actually have the album and "Toy Soldier" is produced by Bloodshy & Avant and co-produced by Sean Garrett. But The Clutch co-produced "Freakshow" so I don't think co-producers should be in there. And a little question: Are still writers gonna be there? I think they should because they were in others Britney's albums. And I just changed length of 'Piece of Me' from 3:31 to 3:32 and total length 41:25 (not sure) to 43:41 according to Windows Media Player and my own copy of Blackout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ang3lus (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the UK Sales - if you have a reliable source then there should not be a problem adding it. As mentioned above, PopMatters is a webzine with professional writers and reviewers (they have a blog section, but their reviews are an entirely different portion of their site). If you have the CD in your hands and you notice producer credit errors, then definitely change them! - eo 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source to be honest! User:Anonymous 14:10, 31 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.235.119 (talk)

Huh? - eo 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion / Controversy involving DELUXE edition

various sources have a deluxe edition listed (target, amazon, etc). however, reminds to be readily available Apelike 19:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic church

The Catholic church controvesy should be added. Charmed36 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, if there is no controversy at all. Thankssir 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is. You have the Catholic church upset of the images and calling it "bottom barrel" stuff. Especially since MTV covered the story too. This is part of the ALBUM HISTORY.....Planecrazy22 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "might be." That is so wishy-washy it makes my brain hurt. Removing it. 152.33.90.27 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (User: Thorns among our leaves, not logged on)[reply]
No. Only the X17 link says that. There are links from MTV and FOX NEWS that specifically say in the title "Britney Spears Slammed By Catholic League For Blackout's Religious-Themed Photos" and " Catholic Leader Upset About Sexy Priest Photos in New Britney Spears Album". Articles at [5] and [6]. So adding back in with correct sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planecrazy22 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Producers: Britney Spears (executive)

Why isn't she there anymore? She totally has to be ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ang3lus (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

OK, I don't know who wrote this section, but the album has not been regarded as a "massive failure". Most of the reviews have been average to positive, with few overtly negative critiques. This should be reflected in the article, or risk POV problems. Phoenix1304 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

124,000 Units Sold On The First Day Of Release

On its first day of release "Blackout" sold 124,000 units. Zomba estimates "Blackout" will open in the range of 330,000-350,000 units,The album is set to debut at #1 on the Billboard 200 charts. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003665998

I Added that to the article --Dinoj45 02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)dinoj45[reply]

Great, but from now on, please add new topics at the bottom of the page, for archiving purposes. Phoenix1304 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded it to the article - this time properly sourced. - eo 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Critical Reception Section is total B.S. if you ask me.

It was MUCH better the first time it was written. Whoever wrote that obviously didn't read all the reviews. For the most part the reviews were GOOD, not bad. All reviews did note out some of the negative things about the album, but it still had mostly good reviews. It's unfair to say "some postitive reviews exist" considering most of them were positive. whoever wrote this section is really only focusing on the bad press the album recieved. FYI: all album get bad press, it's inevitable. For the most part this album was well-recieved by the critics. I think it should be changed back to the way it was! And the response was not "luke warm" that's a stupid thing to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.71.30 (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reception was lukewarm, whether you loved the album or not. The fact is, out of all the ratings, the vast majority were average. Not good. Mediocre. There were, of course, a few glowing reviews, as well as a few that completely trashed it. The way it used to be, the section said it was a massive failure. Would you like to revert it to that?
I would also like to point out that there is already a topic on this very thing, if you had bothered to read the talk page before launching into your rant. Phoenix1304 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying, whoever wrote the new reception section spent much more time on the negative press the album received than they did on the postive press the album received. If the response was average then there should be an equal amount of information from both sides. I did not see this section when it described the album as a "massive failure" and no I do not think it's appropriate to change it back to that. I saw it when it said "the album was generally well-received by critics", which it was. Also, there are a lot of things in this talk section that are listed numerous times, not just this post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.71.30 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The album has a 61 on Metacritic, which is 1 step away from "mixed or average." The reviews could best be described as mixed but leaning slightly towards the positive. Here is a link: http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/spearsbritney/blackout?q=Britney%20Spears TheKillerAngel 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding why so many posters are saying it was luke warm, when the reponse has been overwhelmingly postive and met with as metacritic has said "generally favorable" reviews. I don't understand why we quote the unfavorable reviews and then don't acknowledge the postive reviews. I mean just look at the page, there are only three total negative reviews and the rest are either B+ or average. That's what I would call a postive reaction. I mean in school you don't call a B "average" or "lukewarm" that is generally considered a postive grade. Skinwalker03 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the reception has been positive. Someone should rewrite the section.. with an unbiased attitude.--Groshna 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I haven't been reading the same reviews as everyone else, because I've missed out on a whole lot of Britney worship apparently. There have only been one or two that have said more than "It's not great, but it works". Hardly "overwhelmingly positive". Phoenix1304 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Tracks

Today, I went to download Britney's album Blackout from Bearshare and I searched it and it came out with these other tracks that arn't on the album:

  1. "Luv The Hurt Away"
  2. "Kiss Me All Over"
  3. "Fillin' Me Up"
  4. "It's Been A While"
  5. "Rebellion"
  6. "Baby Boy"
  7. "Body and Soul"
  8. "Sippin On" (featuring AC)
  9. "Got Me High"
  10. "Love Is... (State of Grace)"
  11. "Right Now (Taste the Victory)"
  12. "Sugafall (Waterfall)"
  13. "Stupid Things"
  14. "The Sin City Rap"
  15. "When You Gonna Pull It"
  16. "We Can Do It"

If you do not belive me download the 5.2.5 version of Bearshare from Flippo.com and see for yourself. Seach Britney Spears - Blackout BatterBean 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOME of those are left over tracks, 1 is fake and some are actually old b-sides. It doesn't need to be in the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense if it will be included in the page. Those are mere left-overs and were not even declared by any source as left-over tracks. --Britand&Beyonce (talk•contribs) 09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found some of these tracks are fake. Such as Stupid Things and Its Been A While. Stupid things is Why Should I Be Sad and It's Been A While is Break The Ice. I know for sure Rebellion is a B-Side or a leftover because i downloaded it and its a B-Side. Dunno about the rest but i know those tracks are yeah!!!! u get me. BatterBean 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even "We can do it" is "Get naked". So why include? Some of this tracks are the same to tracks appeared in the album with different titles. Its just that it was changed because of frequent leaks. --Britand&Beyonce (talk•contribs) 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the article, they are simply songs that didn't make the final cut, just like every other album.--Jak3m 11:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackout_(Britney_Spears_album)&oldid=168737232"