Talk:Britney Spears

Reminder on wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons

Criticism and praise

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder that this is not a forum per WP:FORUM

1. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference Desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
2. Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Overly negative slant?

Is it just me or does the article as of late seem to have an overly negative slant toward it, first came the quote about Christina Aguilera and how her voice has always been derived by musical critics (which isn't true) and now we get the quotes about how Britney "doesn't compare" to Madonna and Janet? It's fine to have negative information about Spears, but shouldn't there equally be some addition to things that are positive about her?

For instance there have been many critical reviews from Spears first three albums where her voice and her vocal performances have been praised. It just seems like this article is purposely being turned into a negative article just because their are editors who don't like or respect her. I would hate to see the subjectivity of this article altered especially since she is such a high traffic article.

Skinwalker03 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to adding more positive reception, but keep in mind the reality of the matter is that its far easier to find negative criticism of Spears than it is to find positive. She is probably one of the most severly neagtively received artists of her time and the article has to give accurate representation of the WP:WEIGHT of negative reception versus positive. Key points: generally speaking, critics mostly depsise her, fans love her, everybody agrees she can't sing, but she can give a killer performance. The article is always a work in progress, but the easiest way to help is to be bold and add informaion when you come across it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Really, her vocal abilities and her album performances have been praised through the years from where the opinions MATTER! Basing a negative article over one or two reviews by a same person is unaccepatable! People agree she can't sing? Billboard and Rolling Stone have already praised her vocal abilities and yet you want to give more weight to a rock fan on an ABC review? Seriously.... --Zefron12 (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has also been highly critical of Spears:

• Rolling Stone: Baby One More Time: "Yet the ballads of her debut evoke the worst of Debbie Gibson, even as Spears mimics the mannerisms of her hero Mariah Carey. While several Cherion-crafted kiddie-funk jams serve up beefy hooks, shameless schlock slowies, like "E-Mail My Heart," are pure spam."
• Rolling Stone: Britney: "Despite Britney's five co-songwriting credits, her music is ultimately driven by producers who must work around her vocal limitations. But an identity is now asserting itself: Britney is by far her most personable album, the most consistently playful and the least wince-inducing."
• Rolling Stone: In The Zone: "But the harder Spears tries to be Madonna or Janet Jackson, the less convincing she is. Her voice is so processed, its physicality almost disappears. R. Kelly can't resist mocking her in his "Outrageous," letting her boast about "my sex drive" and "my shopping sprees" with equal emphasis. In the Zone offers strip-club, 1-900 sex, accommodating and hollow. Beyond the glittering beats, Spears sounds about as intimate as a blowup doll."

Same goes for Billboard:

• Billboard: Circus Tour Review: "Britney Spears must make other pop stars angry. Beyonce, Pink, Justin … none of them would dare use pre-recorded vocals during their live shows, despite the complex choreography of their performances. Madonna and Janet are guilty of using backing tracks to carry some of vocal weight, but certainly not all of it. Hell, even the Pussycat Dolls sing live. But Britney? She is, and always has been, about blatant, unapologetic lip-syncing. Case in point: at the New York stop of her anticipated comeback tour, Spears used her actual vocal chords only three times – twice to thank the crowd, and once to sing a ballad (though the vocals during that number were questionable, as well). Even the spoken bits in the songs came from a DAT. Somewhere, Ashlee Simpson has a dartboard with Brit's face square in the bull's-eye...The truth is that vocal prowess has never been the fuel that powers the Britney Machine. Singing simply isn't the point. Spears is an entertainer; a put-on-a-show kind of girl. And despite what happens behind the curtain, Britney's Circus tour is indeed quite a show.

I could go on, but clearly, there is an substantial amount of negative responses from music critics on Spears, even when you try to limit the entire scope of music analysis to Billboard and Rolling Stone. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, She has had some negative comments but we can find positive too, from Billboard and Rolling Stone also:

• Rolling Stone: Oops!...I Did It Again: Britney Spears carries on the classic archetype of the rock & roll teen queen, the dungaree doll, the angel baby who just has to make a scene[...]You can hear the same fury in her brilliant version of the Stones' "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" as she vandalizes the words ("how white my shirts could be" becomes "how tight my skirt should be" -- perfect) and snarls in libidinal frustration[...]Britney's demand for satisfaction is complex, fierce and downright scary, making her a true child of rock & roll tradition.
• Rolling Stone: CircusBritney may have left the psych ward, but on Circus, she proves she's still a freak[...]The fact that we're even curious shows Britney hasn't lost her talent: Her fans still can't look away.

I can't mention Billboard cause sources at the Billboard website aren't available anymore, but coming to All Music Guide we can see positive too. The matter is that on the same reviews where she's praised she also receives negative comments sometimes for not having so personal songs or even about her personal life, like in an All Music Guide review from "Blackout" where they say she pulled out a state-of-art pop dance even when she wasn't at "her best" (meaning how exposed was her personal life and how messy it looked to general public) so she worked with the best (producers). --Zefron12 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said she has never been praised. My point is that there has to be a balance between criticism and praise. Only listing reviews where she is given praise, or overemphasizing them, is obviously bias in favor of her and ignores critical commentary against her. Critical analysis of music, btw, is not restricted to Billboard, Rolling Stone or All Music (which has plenty of negative responses to her music as well). Those are only three examples of the entire field of study. The rolling stone article on Oops!...I Did It Again!, btw, I added to the Musical Style and Performace section some time ago. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

About the Allan Raible's review

I think this part of the article should be dropped. Why? Allan seems to be a hater of Britney. Read the review (http://blogs.abcnews.com/allan_raible/2009/01/review-britney.html) and you could see that. It's too repetitive, always enfocused in the syntetizer. It shouldn't be here, because that's supposed to be a serious article, without any opinion made by fans or haters. And the review is exactly like an attack. --201.127.160.216 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious articles include serious reviews written by professional music critics, both positive and negative. There is nothing wrong with the review. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But that review doesn't seem to be a serious review... It looks like an opinion of a rock fan. If you read the end, you would read that he says he's waiting for the next Nirvana. Is that professional? I don't think so.--Charles.mx (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a professional review, he analysis her voice, songwriting, and lyrics. Everyone gets bad reviews, everyone get compared to other artists. Look through all the reviews of Spears's albums from ...Baby One More Time to Circus: she gets good ones, she gets horrible ones, she gets positive comparisons to other artist, she gets negative comparisons to other artists - just like every other music artist in the world. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

His article shouldn't therefore be qualified as weighted. Since we can see Britney receiving general music reviews from where IT MATTERS! We can just quote: Billboard, Rolling Stone, All Music Guide, etc... This shitty guy is probably a fan of Christina Aguilera who can't see how she was super overshadowed by Britney and yet we can, yes, put bad reviews but do you see it elsewhere's biographies in Wiki? I guess no! Britney has received MANY positive reviews on which her vocal ability is praised and only weighting her whole musical style on a simple opinion by an ABC reviewer is not more than stupid! --Zefron12 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

About the "relationship" between Britney and Jason

The article says: "In June 2009, it was confirmed that Spears is dating her agent Jason Trawick". But that relationship hasn't been confirmed. In some magazines, Britney said that those rumors are funny for her. It's just a rumor, and curiously, the first magazine that began with those rumors was "Star", a sensationalist tabloid.--Charles.mx (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Blog and tabloids aren't reliable sources. Unless is a direct quote or something like NY, LA Times or CNN its usually BS. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead expansion

I removed the "Lead too short" template from this article, as there is no discussion here about it. Although not perfect, the coverage in the lead is not so egregiously little as to need templating. If anyone has concerns about the lead being too short, or even better, suggestions as to which parts of the article should be included in the lead summary, please post them here.YobMod 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the lead could be longer. Maybe a sentence or two on her musical style and performance. Cliff smith ^talk 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Musical style

I found a very interesting article about Britney and her music that might fit into the wikipage. I think we could add this to the page to show that there are some reviewers who don't just think of her as a manufactured pop star. This critic acknowledges that it is Britney who is the defining factor of the Britney empire not just an add along to the machine. Here are some choice excepts I think could be added.

During her world-conquering peak, she was just about as cutting edge as you could get in the world of global pop superstardom. Spears didn’t just work with big names, she gave big names their names, and maintained her high currency in the world’s most fickle industry for years, when most aspiring starlets are lucky to manage months.

She may not have had the moves of Beyonce or the vocal chops of Christina Aguilera, but she made up for it with a flair for theatrics and a willingness to go places most teenage pop stars wouldn’t dare. Her shock flesh-toned body suit at the MTV Awards in 2000 predates Lady Gaga by almost a decade, while Spears was tumbling through the air on bungee ropes years before Pink even staged her first concert tour.

There is also an excerpt that I think could be added into her vocal style in the page:

The thing about Spears, though, is that her biggest songs, no matter how committee-created or impossibly polished, have always been convincing because of her delivery, her commitment and her presence...Spears expresses perfectly the conflicting urges of adolescence, the tension between chastity and sexual experience, between hedonism and responsibility, between confidence and vulnerability. And unlike the somewhat aloof Beyonce, Spears’ trials and tribulations just make her seem all the more human and believable.

Net-worth:

In addition to her music sales, Spears has earned a reported $370 million from ads and endorsement deals. Some of the products to carry her name include a series of perfumes from Elizabeth Arden, a video game called Britney’s Dance Beat and a singing Britney Spears doll.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/music/2009/10/24/1256147928875.html

Skinwalker03 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a few passages. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

album sales

Hey can somebody change the album sales back to 85 million cause it said on her " Britney Spears discography " that she sold over 85 million! --TotalBlackout —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

I know that this has been disputed a lot, but I am not complaining about the number. I just think you should change the wording from records (which means singles and albums combined), to just 83 million albums sold; because her total albums sales are estimated at more than 83 million, so that is the way it should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.218.24 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in 2004, Sony/Zomba/Jive announced that the 84 million stated to album sales, but they reverted it recently on press releases that she sold nearly 66 million albums worldwide, and near 60 million prior to the 84 million stated, so it would make 24 million singles sold until the 84 million data was released. It's expected that by now she has passed the 100 million mark (counting singles and albums) just see> 84 million + 6 million (Blackout + Circus) = 90 million + 5 million (Womanizer, Circus, If U Seek Amy sales in the US only) = 95 million + 1 million (Gimme More) = 96 million + Worldwide sales of GH:MP (released in 2004, when the 84 number came out), it's expected to have sold 5 million, so it's already 101 million. I don't know when, and if they ever will, correct this number, but since there is no reliable source stating she has passed 100 million records sold (albums and singles) we can't post it based on our calculations, that besides being true, it's expectation and not 100% accurate! --Zefron12 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)85 million is totally wrong! According to britney's record label, Jive, she has sold over 172 million records worldwide.

she sold 92 mill albums . in 20007 before blackout she sold 85 miil blackout dold 3 mill and circus sold 4 mill togther its 92 mill . you need you need to check your source and to update the details

About the article

I think the article became highly negative since Bookkeeper began writing about it. Also, there's fake information about the Australian shows. It says that her fans were disappointed. They weren't her fans! Her fans knew that she was going to be lip-syncing. And, I guess no one left the show.

Britney can sing, but almost all the reviews about her in the article are negative. That's so bad. --Charles.mx (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I replaced that particular quote since it comes from a tabloid and not a reliable source. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell started with those stupid comparisons with Madonna and Janet Jackson? We're not comparing Britney, everything's just about her. It was too way better before, but someone, who seems to be a hater, began citing comparisons. And, of course, it's not neutral. why? Because, all comparisons are nergative! I hate this article since then. --Charles.mx (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spears herself is the one who named Jackson and Madonna as her inspirations, all comparisons from critics stem from that fact. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say it was widely covered in the Australian media that many of the Brittany Spears fans did walk out of her first few concerts when it was first discovered that she was lip syncing. It's a practice that isn't accepted by Australians, especially in the live music states such as Victoria. Please see the following News.com.au article - http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/confidential/fuming-fans-ditch-britney-tickets/story-e6freq7o-1225797239986 --58.168.233.134 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Born In Mississippi??

{{editsemiprotected}}

It says she born in Mississippi, but the citation site says born in Kentwood, LA. This doesn't make sense. Can someone clear this up and/or edit it? Also numerous other site's say she was born in Kentwood, LA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinojroy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where the issue is here. The citation points to her birth certificate. There, it clearly states she was born in Mississippi but lived in Kentwood, Louisiana. Everything seems to check out. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the citation points here http://www.billboard.com/artist/britney-spears/bio/290150#/artist/britney-spears/bio/290150 it's the first citation. --Kino (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, that's a marriage certificate, not a birth certificate. --Kino (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfumes

Under the "Products and Endorsements" the article says: Her latest Elizabeth Arden fragrance "Believe", was released in September 2007.[231] In January, 2008, Spears released "Curious Heart".[232][233] Spears released a new fragrance entitled "Hidden Fantasy" in January 2009.[228] The "Her latest Elizabeth Arden fragrance" part should be updated to reflect that it is no longer her latest (as Curious Heart is a new variation of previous Arden/Britney Heart, and likewise Hidden Fantasy of Fantasy; you can check the wiki pages on Heart and Fantasy for proof). If you wish to count Curious Heart and Hidden Fantasy as the same thing as the earlier Heart and Fantasy fragrances, I'd recommend changing the word "latest" to "next" to circumvent the confusion and seemingly sloppy wording while retaining accuracy. 24.181.233.0 (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

conservatorship

I think the 2009-present section should include how her conservatorship was extended

Conservatorship was not extended, as clarified by TMZ, but remained as normal.

So isn't that noteworthy? Her latest appeal to regain control of her personal affairs was denied?i

No it isn't. Britney did not 'appeal to regain control of her pesonal affairs', it was simply a hearing, to discuss progress, and for the order of legal payments to be paid, next hearing is schedueled for January 14th. It has been hinted that steps to eliminate the conservatorship will be initiated on that date.

Typo

On the second paragragh, last sentence, it reads, " In the late 2009, Spears released The Singles Collection which include Spears third number one hit single entitled 3." The word " include has the wrong part of speech; and it should at least be "included" or "includes". Someone please fix this.

7th Studio Album

I was wondering is there enough information to produce a page on her next studio album? We know sum of the songs, the writers, the aproximate date. It would just seem logical even if it was just a small page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.242.82 (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to pass WP:NALBUMS at this time. You generally require a track listing, officially announced release date and sources for all of this. See WP:HAMMERTIME. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take of May 2010 for the predicted release date. Here's a new article which says a summer release instead of a spring one. http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/new_britney_spears_album_is_epic_SAOzmGyFUNIVRm77GWG1vN

Britney.com confirms a album is being recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.131.176 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New INFO!!! http://www.britney.com/us/blog/new-music-questions-answered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.242.82 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NEW INFO!! 

Hi, Britney Spears stated on her official website that the rumours about a seventh studio album wwere bullsh*t http://www.britneyspears.com added by Jordan Voase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.15.199 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Breast implants rumours not mentioned?

There was only a brief period when I was aware of Britney Spears. It was just after "baby one more time" was released. For months, every mention of her included a comment about her having gotten breast implants. When sources said she spent some time in hospital, her spokesperson said this was for a knee operation.

I remember Marilyn Manson commenting on how she accepted a video award: a teenager with breast implants thanked god for her video's success. How come this article has no mention? A quick web search turned up ample sources:

• http://britney_spears.utopiax.org/britney-breast-implants.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/britney-breast-implants-_n_85367.html

Is it because these comments were never proven? Does that make this topic contrary to the BLP policy? I'd have to think about whether or not that would make sense... Gronky (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Every incident in a public figure's life is not automatically notable enough to be recorded in an encyclopedia. Not to say this particular rumor isn't noteable, but there needs to be careful consideration on what information, over the course of the subject's entire life, needs to be recorded to give the reader a comprehensive and neutral critical analysis. I'd rather see more exceptional sources on how deeply the rumor impacted her career or pop culture than simply addressing the rumor itself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proven or not? Have you heard Britney Spears herself actually say the album is to be released in May of 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.28 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Candies re-signes Britney for 2010 campaign

Source : [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smolu (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Album Sales

I am so confused i mean go to 8notes.com then click on artist and find Britney Spears. 
 Go to biograpy and scroll down to where it shows album sales and it said
     
   Baby One More Time sold over 25 million copies
   Oops.. I Did It Again sold over 20 million copies
   Britney  sold over 16 million copies
   In the Zone sold over 10 million copies

It said that the article was taken from Wikipedia back in 2005 and how could Britney Spears' album sales decrease 

if it was taken back nearly 5 years ago from wikipedia??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notagirlnotyetawoman (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Recently at the grammys the sun and many other papers and web sites have said Lady Gaga and Britney talked and have said they will soon colaborate. I believe this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.242.82 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

it was mentioned but, someone took the info out. can someone restore it?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.117.155 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Does anyone think Britney Spears' religious beliefs/worldviews should be mentioned? Is he religious? Wandering Courier (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't strike me as an obviously religious person, though I admit I am no expert on her work. --John (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

She has said in 2009 interviews that she still believes in God when she looks at her kids so... --212.187.45.107 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Learn to spell

It's awesome that Wikipedia doesn't need anonymous contributions anymore, but someone should either change the spelling of perfromed [sic] or update the corresponding entry in Wiktionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.241.88 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done thanks. I can recommend getting an account, it is beneficial and only takes a minute. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Unusual You

Hi, At the time, i thought the re-direct was a good idea as discogs was the only source we could find. I always knew it was real as i own a copy of the CD Single. But now, there are reliable sources confirming the singles release. The Music Charting Industry confirms that the CD Single was released worldwide on 15 September 2009.[2] Also, it states that it was released worldwide, not just in Australia. If you look at "3" on that site, it states the pacific countries where it was released. It tells you where the CD Single was released and the EP was released. However, on the Unusual You CD single, it doesn't give a pacific area, which means it was released worldwide. I think that giving one for the most reliable sources on the net, that Unusual You can be a single on Wikipedia. Is it possible to put it back up? Thank - You--Apeaboutsims (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For the single to have a standalone article, you'll have to find evidence that it charted somewhere ( preferably on one of the charts listed at WP:GOODCHARTS), won an award, or was covered by multiple notable artists.—Kww(talk) 02:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unusual You charted on the Billboard 100. Does that count as a chart?--59.101.183.5 (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Show me a source. Billboard indicates that it has not charted.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It charted on the Pop 100 chart: [3].--Apeaboutsims (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is troublesome. That Pop 100 listing makes it squeak past WP:NSONGS. However, when I look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual You, the focus was not on the charting, it was on the lack of release data. You are misreading http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Britney+Spears&titel=Unusual+You&cat=s . The way it is listed there shows it as an Australia-only release, but that is a release. That means that in the only country it was released as a single, it did not chart; and in the only country that it charted, it was not released as a single, but only got on a chart due to album-track airplay. My advice: create a really great article in your sandbox, and start a discussion here to look at it and get consensus about restoring it to the main article space. If you need help creating a sandbox article, put a message on my talk page.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Add husbands to Infobox?

I would like to suggest that Britney's two husbands get added to the infobox. I tried, but it would not stick. Due to the protections?

Jason Alexander (June 2004: annulled)
Kevin Federline (Sept 2004 - July 2007: divorced)

Nutster (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you incorporate a decent reliable source  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That should be added. As for a " decent reliable source", that would only take about 30 seconds using the Internet, since it is common knowledge that she was married to these 2 men.--BeckiGreen (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New Picture?

That one has been up for a while, I think you should change it to;

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1//2009/08/britney-tcas/britney-spears-teen-choice-awards-2009-02.jpg

or

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1//2009/08/britney-tcas/britney-spears-teen-choice-awards-2009-04.jpg

Relationship Between Brit and Jason Confirmed

Britney's rep released a statement to People Magazine that Jason and Britney are an item and that therefor he quit working with her professionally.

I wanted to put this in the article but I don't know where since they don't say how long they've been dating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

overly positive bias in the musical style section

basically every criticism is knocked back with the help of about 5 different quotes in her favour. it seems way too overly positive for someone who is so frequently criticised - Drthatguy (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bar17, 25 May 2010

to change britney spears page.there's a mistake in her sales. she didnt sold 85 millions , she sold 92 millions. according to Nielsen she sold 85 in 2007 before blackout. blackout - 3 mil circus - 4 mil = 92 mill you need you need to check your source and to update the details

Bar17 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)