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)

--RE: Discussion forum If this is 'not a discussion forum' why post such irrelevant information such as Ms Spears' brothers marriage. 03/28/09 19.00 gmt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.90.137 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Main image

Please, everyone - stop focusing on the main image of the article. It is not important. If you want to become a real wikipedian and if you particularly want to do Ms. Spears a service, then focus on improving the quality of the text, prose and factual accuracy of her biography. This isn't a photo spread in a magazine, its an encyclopedia. Its highly unlikely we're going to receive another free image of Britney Spears anytime soon. And let me repeat It Does Not Matter. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Here, here! (damn girl, you scary when you do bold writing) :-) — Realist² 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was changed (not by me) but I think this one is worse. Now it is more difficult to tell who the article is about and get a picture of her. Why was the main image swapped with this one? The biggest argument for a new picture was for it to be a newer photo and this one is just as old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.238.211 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This image is free and does not violate any copyright laws. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it good... I still don't understand why someone does not just put up a new picture. I'm sure there are recent ones that are free and don't violate copyright laws. And if your only argument is that it is not needed, that's pretty weak. I mean, if someone has a picture that meets the conditions, why not let them upload a new one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.238.211 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. No one has uploaded a free image. The current photo is the only image we have. All other photos that have been uploaded have been owned by wireimage or the Associated Press or some other media organization. There have been a number of users uploading images of Britney Spears claiming ownership, only to find later that they simply plucked the image from a google or yahoo search and then passed it off as their own. Unless someone uploads an image they personally took of her themselves, the image is not going to change. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We need a better main image! Quarkde (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not upload FAIR USE images for the main photo

• Unacceptable use of non-free content: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. We have a free image of Britney Spears, therefore a non-free image is not acceptable for the main photo. Fair Use Images are only meant to be used to highlight a specific/notable event which is supported by text covering the event within the article (ex: Image:Britneyspearsrollingstone.jpg, Image:Janetrollingstonecover.jpg, Image:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg, Image:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg. Fair Use does not include simply using a photo to show someone's face. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambi

She just performed at the Bambi Awards in Germany, sould this be mentioned in the Circus section?--Jak3m (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Its notable for the album article, not her biography. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is starting to fall to pieces...at least the signs are starting to show...

The quality of this article is starting to degenerate at an alarming rate. There are quite a number of incorrectly formatted references, a few citation tags (there could be more if someone chose to add more) and the 2008 section has grown out of proportion. That's just at a quick glance. Hopefully we can give the article some TLC over the Christmas holidays. — Realist² 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is rubbish now! Someone has completly messed it up!

BRITNEYY ES A SEXXYY CHICCAAA! YUMMMYYYY :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.118.251 (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Some justification

Before Bookkeeper reverts, I'd like to put some justification for my recent work. I think the article needs seperation between Spears' music career and personal problems and struggles. That's why I decided to be Bold, and turn it all around for the sake of the change. I think the article needs it and works better this way, and I also will say that before anyone reverts let's first discuss it here than enter into long and boring edit war. My heartfelt regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this is worth discussion, would it not be better to have that discussion before making such wholesale changes? MrMarmite (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Separating her personal life detracts from the focus of the article which aims to cover her entire biograpahy. I've seen numerous articles which do this type of separation and they look awful (ex: Lindsay Lohan). It becomes a nesting ground for every non-notable aspect of her personal life that has been covered by tabloid press. The article can be sectioned further by splitting each section into only covering one album instead of three, but trying to split her personal life from her career creates WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on that information. With controversial figures its best not to do this (ex: Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you revert back to the previous version and continue the discussion after that MrMarmite (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Spears154 made the most recent revert, not me. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

• Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Britney Spears is a recording artist, that is, her WP:NOTABILITY comes from her music career. That has to be the primary focus of the biography. Anything which is less notable than her music career ex: her acting career, her personal life and least of all her political views should not have their own sections devoted unto themselves because they are not the reason she garnered widespread recognition. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Then explain now. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Further explaination: Ask any average person, in the United States or elsewhere in the world who Britney Spears is and the most likely answer you would receive is "that pop singer"; few people other than devoted fans know of her childhood acting, her only film and even fewer would know she has any political standpoints whatsoever. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Spears's acting and political views are less significant than her recording career and although her personal life has become a media frenzy, the only reason her personal life has become a tabloid target is because she was a recording artist first. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail,jiujiuiojijuijuijuijiuoppppppppppppj90j988776t7tvtfft6ry7 justess crawley is nuts! MUAHAHHAHAHAAHHA quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This contradicts with the statement of Notability. Her personal life has become notable in it's own right, to the point that I really think it needs it own section. But since people here continue reverting me I won't raise the issue again, because I am personally and professionally fed up. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I also have a vested and professional interest, in articles which deal with the biography of a living person. As noted in earlier sections 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. Britney Spears personal life is notable, but the fact remains it is still less notable than her recording career. More importantly, the "do no harm" clause asks that we write as conservatively as possible. That, in my opinion, means documenting the personal events in her life in the chronological order in which they transpired, rather than pulling the reader's attention to independent section within the article. Once finals are over next week, I'm going to spend most of winter break refining the article and putting it through peer review. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The personal and professional life should be interlinked. It works very well on the Michael Jackson article. The personal life used to be separated but it was terribly disjointing and prone to WP:COATRACKING. Bookkeeper is smack on correct with this one. If we ever wanted to take this article to WP:FA the majority would want a chronological biography with the tolerable exception of the artistry section. — Realist² 15:26, 10 December 2000

Reading this article and the way it sounds, makes it believable.. even trustworthy? Until i check the sources for this information. I was shocked to find that practically nothing came from people who might actually know something real about her. Like her family or management. Why do people use sources like those money hungering tabloids to portrait some kind of twisted truth about a very nice young girl with big round boobs blonde hiar and nice butt.Bold text[[[Link title]

Media:Headline text#REDIRECT [[Insert non-formatted text here]]<blockquote> {| class="wikitable" border="1" |Block quote |}<ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> </blockquote>

]] who snapped under the scrutiny of showbiz. I just don't understand. Put on your skeptic hats people. Tabloid's DO NOT know what she said, why she said it, or why she even did anything. I think it's a sad story - and the least we can do for a fellow human being (she is NOT public property) is prevent lies from being in here. I lost some respect for Wiki when i saw it i have to say. -the empathizer-

Odd sentence -- why is this relevant?

The sentence "Conservative pundit Rachel Alexander pointed out in an article that Spears' support for the president partly caused the feminists in the United States unwilling to defend her in her child custody controversy." has been in the article for quite a while -- it seems to be left over from the defunct political section.

Quite apart from the fact that it's not a grammatically correct sentence ("caused the feminists...unwilling"), I don't see how it's important to the topic at hand. It's not a big-name commentator or printed in a notable publication, and, from a quick read of the article, seems to be pure speculation and opinion. It certainly doesn't seem relevant to Britney Spears's career, or even very relevant to her custody battle.

LaPrecieuse (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can agree. I'm not at all opposed to removing it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears - slut, ho bag????

{{editsemiprotected}} So some bright spark decided that inserting "slut" and "ho bag" into the opening sentences about Britney Spears was funny huh. I'm no fan of hers but that kinda thing is just stupid in my opinion. Also not factual and based on opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HamsterOfFury (talk • contribs)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

SHE HAS A BOLD HEAD. Someone who wrote this is a big fat idiot! They spelled balled wrong!Retards!Italic textInsert non-formatted text here —Preceding unsigned comment added by A11712 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually engage in this kind of talk page rubbish (and editors can feel free to delete the whole section if you want) but I find it highly amusing how you will call someone a 'big fat idiot' for spelling incorrectly when you can't spell bald yourself. Perhaps show some restraint in calling people names in the future as it only makes you look silly. Sky83 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

She was in a documentary called E Special .

She made an appearance herself, along with family relatives and close friends. They were being interviewed about britney's personal life and troubles (2004).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427200/

Shall we add it to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.22.82 (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't understand why "dancer" comes before "singer". Since she is a recording artist, the main aspect of her activity is singing, therefore dancing should be mentioned further on. I also can't understand why "songwriter" has disappeared altogether in the introduction. The most objective order in the first description of the artist would be "American recording artist, singer, songwriter, dancer and entertainer". This would encompass the main talents she's known for.

A mention about her acting experiences (the movie she starred in and, even more importantly, the roles she played on such TV shows as "Will & Grace" and "How I Met Your Mother"), but after the first set of mention, in order for it not to detract from the core of her activity.

I also believe that the absence of any mention to her many awards (especially the Grammy Award for "Toxic") in the introduction does not make her justice. The introduction to the article concerning an artist should mention his/her primary field of activity, the highlights in his/her career, the size of the success he/she has reached (number of units sold both nationally and worldwide) and the main awards he/she has received.

Dreamboy81 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The intro is meant to be a brief introduction as to why the individual is notable, not to give every detail that is to be mentioned later in the article. Recording artist encompasses both singer and songwriter, just as entertainer encompasses dancing. The infobox lists specifics, but the intro sentence should be broad. Spears has not been an active songwriter for the majority of her career and her dancing is a backdrop to being a recording artist, not the other way around. Her first film role should be mentioned, but not individual television appearances. Grammy awards aren't especially important for the lead of a biography, but her worldwide sales are mentioned. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated Sales (12-27-08)

Shouldn't Britney's U.S sales be updated, because of the latest releases of Blackout and Circus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.108.114 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Soprano and Mezosoprano??

Really, this need a reference. --190.81.52.202 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This observation has a derogatory flavor to it. The person who writes it seems to imply that sopranos and mezzosopranos are people who can sing impressively, while he believes the artist we're talking about doesn't. Actually, "soprano", "mezzosoprano", "tenor", etc. are labels used to classify a singing voice. And each singing voice, whatever you think about it, MUST BE classified using one of those categories. Also, these categories objectively refer to the vocal range without any reference to the quality of the voice, which is subjective. The citation of the type of voice doesn't need any reference. It can be deduced by any professional musician or music expert just by listening to all the artist's recordings. Dreamboy81 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images

Rather than get into an extended edit war, or spill discussion over a dozen places, I would direct anyone who wishes to discuss the use of non-free images in this article to this thread. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of research

NO, NO, NOOOO! Everytime I put down appropriate research it is denied. What the hell is that about. It's rude and annoying. My Research is seen on other music websites. Just go look. And stop removing my researched material.--Electroide (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

read Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre. The genre value to the info box is meant for a broad definition of the artist's music. The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). Generality means avoiding every possible genre the artist has used in their career. This has been discussed numerous times, just look through the archives. Do not change this again. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because your not using the genre infobox correctly Electroide. Infact, you are becoming a genre warrior. If you continue to use the infobox incorrectly and alter the box without consensus, I will have to file a complaint against you. — Realist² 02:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Voice type

I reverted the edits which removed Spears' voice type (sorry for not using edit summary). A source was given in the body of the article. Please give a reason why it is not WP:Reliable before removing that information again.--Agnaramasi (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the source? Tribal44 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Tribal44

This was the footnote: Dean, Maury (2003), Rock-N-Roll Gold Rush, Algora Publishing, p. 34, ISBN 0875862071 --Agnaramasi (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see it. I apologize. No more reverting, lol. Tribal44 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Tribal44

Discography Section

Could somebody please fix the discography page, it has a lot of Irish Chart positions that aren't true. I'm asking here because I've asked on that page and been ignored, i left a source so people can check the information. Realist maybe you could fix it, you seem to do a lot on this article. Thank You.89.100.221.196 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New Link

I think It should be relevant to place Britney's MySpace link on External Links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefron12 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Auto-Biography

Worth mentioning... Britney Spears is reportedly close to signing a deal worth £10 million to pen an official autobiography.

According to The Mirror, the 'Circus' singer has already teamed up with a literary agent and is expected to begin writing the book following her world tour.

"There have been numerous unofficial biographies printed about Britney, but she's never agreed to pen her own tome - until now," said an insider.

"And some of the stories she's got are absolute dynamite. She's kept diaries so there's nothing she'll leave out unless she wants to."

The source added that Spears could eventually write "between three and five books throughout the next decade", adding that it was "one of the most lucrative deals in showbiz history".

The 27-year-old's mother Lynne released her own autobiography last month, entitled Through The Storm: A Real Story Of Fame And Family In A Tabloid World.

link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/3am/2009/01/20/britney-spears-signs-10m-deal-to-write-autobiography-115875-21055078/ --86.7.147.28 britney shaved her hair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.22.131 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

In the opening statement the article states that Britney Spears is the 8th best selling artist in the US when really she is the 55th. Quite a large difference. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States Jmuzic77 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's correct, she is the 8th best female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.89.206 (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

She is not a SOPRANO!!!

According to Rock-N-Roll Gold Rush, she has a "Alto" range. --190.29.130.151 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the picture always changing

No offence to the person who changes it but it's hell confusing. Stick to one picture, and probably an updated one of Britney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.158.241 (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Errors

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

I know that the following thing is not here. But i wrote somthing about it, and any user answeres me. The thing is Britney Spears is not a Soprano. She has a Alto vocal range. The reference used in this case, was there but was eliminated. Another lie is that: "Grammy Award-winning American pop singer and entertainer". That's a lie!. She doesn't won the Grammy, the winner was her song "Toxic". She doesn't won the Grammy for "Best interpretation", "Best New Aritst", so, for this reasons, doesn't won a Grammy by herself. Please, any user who can fixed that, i'm going to be thankful for the rest of my life, hahaha!. Thanks!. --190.29.130.151 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that she is a Soprano, when she don't sing in whistle notes, falsetto or cheast. --190.29.130.151 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Excuse me for my bad english. I speak spanish.

You might get better results if you could actually post the appropriate quote from "Rock-N-Roll Gold Rush" which states that she is an alto. One word in a book isn't nearly as convincing as an actual analysis of her vocal range. My limited understanding of the topic is that she can hit an A5, which (just) qualifies her as a soprano.

As for the Grammy, Best Song awards are attributed to the artist who performed the song; this is the convention for everything other than technical awards like "Best Engineered Recording". If you have a problem with the description of Spears as having won a Grammy, then you also have a problem with text on the Dirty Vegas, Baha Men, and Kylie Minogue pages (three others who have "only" won for Best Dance Recording), and probably many others. Rvcx (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well she's maybe not an operatic soprano but she's not a contralto either. I think she's probably a mezzo-soprano. But what do I know. There is some sensible discussion in Archive 3 which seems to indicate that she might be best classified as a soubrette or a Lyric soprano. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Her i am again. I'm going to tell you something about vocal range: The central C of piano (really i don't know how to say that in english) on your country are C₄. So, the soprano singer is not only hit a "A5" note, she need to sing and speak along C4 and A6. Usally, the soprano use to sing above A5 to A7 (this is the peak of a Soprano, not it all A5, see Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey or Sarah Brighman). So, i think she is probably a mezzo soprano, like our partner Derek says. But the reference (which is so important on Wikipedia) says that she is an alto, thing that could be possible, cuz she (usually) sing along A2 to A5, a tipycal contralto-alto scale. The conclusion of all this s#!t is:

• For a sopranno, the peak isn't A5. This is a peak for a mezzo or contralto. The real peak of Soprano are A6 to A9. See Georgia Brown.
• Say that she can do a whistle or a falsette (is the normal scale of a soprano) is ilogic, cuz she never has used that. --190.29.158.79 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And for Grammys: The Grammys awared a dance record. The music, not the artist. The artist win the Grammy like an interpretation or best artist or something like that. The Grammy was won by the song, not by the singer. The category wasn't Best interpretation vocal pop, the category are Best Dance Recording. The name says everything. --190.29.158.79 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New picture on main page?

I've found a picture of Britney that is royalty free. The link to the picture is http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Britney%20Spears.jpg and the website says "You may use any of the pictures in The Probert Encyclopaedia in your own projects. But, you should not link directly to pictures served from our web server from your web site. Instead, copy the pictures you want to your own web server" (from http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/author.htm#PICS). Can this picture be used as the main picture on her main page and on her discography page instead of the picture that's being used (which isn't a very good picture of her)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.61.84 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Citation

The citation listed for the text: More controversy arose when Spears declared that she would "remain a virgin until marriage".[22] links to an article that is itself only a reference to the original claim. Does anyone know the correct citation for the original claim? Lokicarbis (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to create an article listing Unreleased songs from Britney Spears. Any want to help?

Sabrina The Teenage Witch

Under Filmography it says she sung Soda Pop. This is incorrect, she performed You Drive Me Crazy.

Back

I've returned from a semi-wikibreak and shall be editing regularly agaim. Going by this talkpage there seems to be a lot of issues. Look forward to resolving them. Oh, I almost forgot incase your wondering, I used to edit under Ogioh. OgiBear (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Britney Spears/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Initiating a long overdue reassessment. As I stated here, this will take a long time to read and thoroughly review given its length and issues (I imagine at least a couple of weeks, possibly more), so please be patient while waiting for my list of concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for starting this. I think we can save the article from being de-listed. I'll help you when I can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, but I unfortunately am pessimistic about that, even if the article wasn't fully protected. I will still take the time to note what should be done to improve it either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to help out with this article as well as I can also see that there is plenty of work to be done here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how much longer it'll take to compile at this point (it's already taken even longer than I expected), but you'll have quite a task to take on once it's up! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries; take as long as you need. I can definitely see that there is a lot to improve with this article so I will try to at least address some of the concerns when the time comes. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey again; I was just wondering if there have been any updates on this? Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So far assessed up to the "Circus" section. Will post everything once fully compiled. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the update! Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• File:Britney Spears 2013 (Straighten Crop).jpg is taken from File:Britney Spears 2013.jpg, which is being claimed as a user's own work. I will assume good faith since the uploader has disclosed their identity and I can't find any evidence of it being copyrighted.
• Not sure if her dancing is prominent enough for her to really be called a dancer when I don't remember her ever being noted for that as a profession (not counting times she dances while singing)
• I fail to see how Larry Rudolph (or the "agent" parameter for that matter) is truly worth including here
• I'm not certain whether this is a good source for Net Worth
• HollywoodLife is a disgraceful gossip rag that shouldn't be used in articles, and height doesn't belong in infobox anyway when it's not a trait she's particularly noted for
• No support for Legacy Recordings within the article text, plus she moved to RCA after Jive closed down and hasn't gone to any other labels since

Lead

• See above comments on "dancer"
• The Mickey Mouse Club was a major part of her early career (even if largely overshadowed by her music) and needs to be mentioned by name here
• "Spears's first and second studio albums" → "Spears's first two studio albums"
• There's nothing in the article body mentioning any sales records for the "Oops! I Did It Again" track.
• While "I'm a Slave 4 U" might not have had the same impact of previous hits, this could be worth noting when discussing the Britney album
• "In 2007, Spears's much-publicized personal issues sent her career into hiatus" is misleading given how she released Blackout that year, though she certainly did go through lots of shit back then
• "became her first to yield three top-ten singles in the United States"..... Let's mention "Hold It Against Me", "Till the World Ends", and "I Wanna Go" by name
• While I wouldn't say Britney Jean and Glory were complete commercial failures (at least with regards to how their lead singles charted), it should be noted in some way that they overall weren't as successful as their predecessors
• The second half of this goes overboard in emphasizing achievements. While sales and awards are fine to include, most of the rankings are too promotional aside from Forbes earnings, US decade/Nielsen era sales, and RIAA certifications.
• This is about albums and mentions nothing about song purchases.

Life and career

1981–1997: Early life and career beginnings

• Mother Lynne's memoir doesn't need to be cited thrice in a row (just use colons and dashes to note ranges of pages). Searching through the URL provided for this book, it doesn't mention Britney's dad by his full name (only calls him "Jamie") or where she was born, but I found pieces for name and birth place that can be used.
• "Carson was impressed with Spears's singing and suggested enrolling her at the Professional Performing Arts School; shortly after, Lynne and her daughters moved to a sublet apartment in New York" is a rather long sentence. I would split this by putting a period after "School".
• If Britney was only an understudy for the Ruthless musical, then I'd go into why she never officially got the role
• "was cast in a number of commercials"..... specific examples would help
• The year "I Have Nothing" was released is irrelevant here
• Let's try to use something more definitive than "reportedly"

1998–2000: ...Baby One More Time and Oops!... I Did It Again

• A tour name should be included for "Her first concert tour followed, as an opening act for NSYNC"
• Rolling Stone doesn't mention when in 1999 ...Baby One More Time came out, though iTunes supports a January 12, 1999 release
• "It became the biggest selling album ever by a teenage artist" is a big claim not supported by Fox News (which shouldn't be used for contentious claims anyway, especially if involving politics)
• "lead single" is a commonly recognized term that doesn't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
• Music video details are better for the "...Baby One More Time" song article
• Both "As of today" instances should be replaced with specific times per WP:RELTIME
• "Rockonthenet.com" is a poor source to use, and I don't see the need to include mere Grammy nominations anyway when she's known to have actually won a Grammy
• "Title" from "The title track" is redundant; it's already known what song we're talking about here
• Not sure if "Everyhit.com" is a credible source, so try to find something better for UK record claim. The Official Charts Company (OCC) is ideal or at least something known to be affiliated with it as that's known to be the ultimate authoritative UK charts and sales publication.
• Skipping from an album's first single to its third is completely illogical, and I wouldn't be surprised if a fan at some point decided to cherry-pick only big singles to promote success (creating neutrality concerns), and it's particularly glaring when "Sometimes" reached number 1 in New Zealand and "Born To Make You Happy" topped the charts in Ireland and the UK. Even "From the Bottom of My Broken Heart", which had much less commercial success, is worth noting. You don't necessarily have to list exact chart positions of every song (i.e. ranges like "top 10" and "top 20" are acceptable when talking about how multiple tracks performed within a nation), but songs at the very least should be mentioned by name when in fact they are known to be released as singles.
• "hit" from "top-ten hit" is too informal
• While I do see 25 million sales noted here, it doesn't state or even suggest that ...Baby One More Time is among the world's best-selling releases or a best-selling debut album (though it wouldn't personally surprise me if these bits are true given its massive success). Furthermore, it mentions nothing about "(You Drive Me) Crazy".
• Announcing plans to remain a virgin until marrying are superfluous, and Britney didn't live up to that claim anyway when she fucked her future fiance Jason Alexander behind Justin Timberlake's back before they were briefly married
• Canoe notes favorable reviews for the "...Baby One More Time Tour", but not a beginning date. I would also include when the tour ended and (if known) total earnings.
• Let's elaborate on "Crazy 2k"; was March 2000 the only time it ran?
• 20 million copies are indeed mentioned in the given source, but it also doesn't state or suggest it's an all-time best seller globally, only that it had high opening sales
• I'm guessing this is the OCC link that was supposed to be used for the "Oops! I Did It Again" song going #1 in the UK. The Ultratop link used also isn't loading right, so I found a replacement here.
• It's worth noting how long the "Oops! I Did It Again" tour ran (months are fine). The earnings aren't mentioned in Fox and her book can't be used to cite such a claim since artists and labels are known to often inflate their revenue/sales figures for promotional purposes even if it does mention the tour's money (which I highly doubt given its time of release).
• See above comment on cherry-picking singles
• "On September 7, 2000, Spears performed at the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. Halfway through the performance" seems to be a bit much in this case; maybe try "While performing at the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards" before going into details on her stripping
• Fox doesn't say when she and Justin Timberlake got together or when either of them confirmed anything (though Lynne's memoir notes she was 18 at the time, indicating it could've been any date from December 2, 1999 to December 1, 2000, while Denton Record-Chronicle says it ended "in early 2002" after four years, suggesting they got together in 1998). It might also be better to mention him within the NSYNC tour bit for better flow.
• I'm not sure if "TripShock" is a viable reference or details on buying a place in Destin, Florida are worth including to begin with

2001–2002: Britney and Crossroads

• File:Britney Spears.jpg doesn't quite give a clear view of her face
• When the article talks about starting her next album (In the Zone), it would probably help to include this in the section title and expand it to 2003, or maybe 2004 to accommodate its promotion.
• I'm not so sure about the use of "funkier" unless it's part of a quote (in which case it should be in quotation marks) or referring to funk music.
• I've linked above her OCC profile that can be used for the UK peak of Britney, but the other URLs are dead and need to be replaced
• Only "I'm a Slave 4 U" and "Overprotected" are even mentioned out of all the Britney singles? Surely this page can do better than that! See above for rationale. I'm especially surprised that "I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman" was left out when it was also part of the Crossroads soundtrack.
• Again, use something more encyclopedic than "hit" from "top-ten hit"
• "scrapped plans for an anti-fur billboard that was to feature Spears" is blatantly plagiarized from its source's text: "scrapping plans for an anti-fur billboard that was to feature Spears". Please use quotes or your own words.
• I would add a duration for when the "Dream Within a Dream Tour" ran
• When mentioning film endeavors, I'd note her role as a flight attendant in Longshot since this was her first movie role, even if minor. Same with the robot version of herself from Austin Powers in Goldmember and voicing Donner in Robbie the Reindeer.
• For the Forbes ranking, I'd say her pay for the year ($39.2 million) should be added
• Let's include how Britney's role in Crossroads tied with Madonna in Swept Away for Worst Actress, especially since tying is rare for this sort of thing (despite any praise her performance received)
• I'm well aware that there was lots of speculation that Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me a River" video alludes to her cheating on him, but that sort of detail is better for the song's article and seems rather gossipy for a BLP article. I'd also keep lyrical details on "Everytime" in its own page. What we should really focus on here is how future fiance Jason Alexander was her side-piece while dating Timberlake (I've linked to an article about this above).
• While Britney insists rumors she got with Fred Durst were false and its citation merely states they "allegedly" were a couple, brief flings also aren't worth noting even if they did get together (which Durst doesn't quite seem to explicitly confirm).

2003–2005: In the Zone and marriages

• File:Britney Jean Spears Live.jpg has a somewhat blurry view of her face; and this upload is a copyright violation when its file source says "All Rights Reserved"
• See above comments on moving In The Zone material there. I also seem to recall at one point the article once had a "Marriages and motherhood" section for 2004 through 2007, which gives me the idea that it could be changed to "Marriages, motherhood, and personal struggles" before a 2007 section on Blackout.
• Simply saying the 2003 VMA's kiss was "highly publicized" feels incomplete; there should be some sort of commentary on this beyond that
• While the Fox biography doesn't mention opening sales for In the Zone, I did find them here, and neither citation specifies this was during the Soundscan era. I would highly prefer a stronger source for the claim on being the first woman to have her first 4 albums debut at #1 in the US, though.
• The references for worldwide sales and "It also debuted at the top of the charts in France and the top ten in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands" aren't working; get something else
• "hit singles" is encyclopedic and vague; you don't state whether this was something like top 10 or top 20. I should note that "Outrageous" was by no means a "hit" when it hardly even charted, though the latter three all reached number one in Australia and Ireland.
• This only mentions "Toxic" and its Grammy, none of the other In the Zone tracks.
• No mention of how Jason Alexander was her side-piece while dating Justin Timberlake (see above link)?
• "In June 2004, Spears fell and injured her left knee during the music video shoot for 'Outrageous'. Spears underwent arthroscopic surgery. She was forced to remain six weeks with a thigh brace, followed by eight to twelve weeks of rehabilitation, which caused The Onyx Hotel Tour to be canceled."..... the tour wasn't cancelled entirely, just the last portion of it, so let's try something like "In June 2004, Spears underwent arthroscopic surgery after falling and injuring her left knee while filming the music video for 'Outrageous'. She had to wear a thigh brace for six weeks followed by eight to twelve weeks of rehabilitation, cancelling the remaining dates for The Onyx Hotel Tour as a result."
• I'm not seeing any indication here that 2004 was when Britney took up Kabbalah
• The Fox News biography doesn't mention a month for getting engaged to K-Fed, also "since Federline had recently broken up with actress Shar Jackson, who was still pregnant with their second child at the time" was obviously plagiarized from the article text "especially since Federline had very recently broken up with actress Shar Jackson, who was still pregnant with their second child at the time"
• I don't think fragrances are supposed to be italicized
• "cover version" is a commonly recognized term that shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK
• The link used here for "My Prerogative" charts doesn't mention Ireland at all or how it was the lead single for Greatest Hits: My Prerogative, but I did find the Irish peak in a link noted above and here's something that does note the lead single bit
• The Ultratop link used for "Do Somethin'" isn't working, but I found a replacement URL for it that can be implemented
• This mentions nothing about "Someday (I Will Understand)", only that she had her first son Sean Preston Federline on September 14, 2005. Also, the song couldn't have been dedicated to him when written before she even knew about the pregnancy, and he should at the very least be mentioned by first name; it's not like she or K-Fed withheld his identity from the public. On anther note, you can find August 2005 releases from 7digital and Amazon.
• I'm not so sure we need to mention here how many songs on B in the Mix: The Remixes as that's really more relevant for the album article, but would be fine with including its general lack of promotion compared to past releases.
• Even if brief, there should be some mention of her appearances in Paul Shore is Dead and Fahrenheit 9/11, especially when she received a Razzie for the latter.

2006–2007: Personal struggles and Blackout

• While File:Britney Spears car october 2007.jpg is free of copyright, I can hardly see her face in it
• "In February 2006, pictures surfaced of Spears driving with her son, Sean, on her lap instead of in a car seat. Child advocates were horrified by the photos of her holding the wheel with one hand and Sean with the other. Spears claimed that the situation happened because of a frightening encounter with paparazzi, and that it was a mistake on her part." is mostly another instance of thinly veiled plagarism from Fox: "In photos published in February 2006, Britney was shown driving with her son, Sean, on her lap instead of in a car seat. Child advocates were horrified by the photos of Britney holding the wheel with one hand and Sean with the other. Britney claimed that the situation happened because of a frightening encounter with paparazzi, and that it was a mistake on her part." This is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be paraphrased much more. You can also use quotation marks for certain portions as long as they're concise.
• USA Today says nothing about Britney's character in Will & Grace, but I found a piece from Stereogum talking about her role that can be used. "Lesbian" should also be unlinked per WP:OVERLINK as a commonly recognized term.
• "Two months later, Spears posed nude for the cover of Harper's Bazaar. The picture was heavily compared to Demi Moore's August 1991 Vanity Fair cover"..... no; it was the same month she quit Kabbalah, and let's just say the cover "was deemed similar to the 1991 cover of Demi Moore for Vanity Fair, who also posed nude while pregnant" or something along those lines
• Son Jayden should also be mentioned by name; no good reason not to when it was publicly announced rather than withheld from the press
• Even if close to aunt Sandra, I'm not convinced her death is worth mentioning unless it perhaps delayed the release/recording of future material
• Not sure whether "hollyscoop.com" is a good source for the Louis Vuitton lawsuit
• Don't cite press releases from record companies when talking about charts as labels often inflate claims about their artists for promotional purposes; use the actual chart publications themselves. That link also doesn't give a release date.
• I've found the link used for The Times isn't working, and the one that does needs subscription access, but will assume good faith that it mentions the album (I can't fully access this myself due to subscription issues)
• While I personally already knew "Gimme More" is from Blackout, that isn't stated or even suggested here, but found something that can be used to support that bit
• "Despite the backlash" doesn't really belong here since commercial performance and critical reception aren't exactly connected
• Looks like you forgot to include the Irish peaks link (see above), and I'm guessing you meant to use this for the UK
• None of the given citations even mention "Break The Ice"; you'll need separate references for that track and any peaks included in the article

2008–2010: Circus

• Even though File:Britney SpearsMontreal3.jpg is appropriately licensed, it's rather unflattering with a pale-looking face
• All of the text before "The court placed her under temporary, and later, permanent" is missing a citation, which I thankfully found here. While obviously better than nothing, I would highly prefer something stronger than Fox News be used for big personal claims.
• "She was released five days later"..... that's actually not so clear when no specific date is given, maybe go with "the next week"
• I would include the ratings for her How I Met Your Mother appearance when they were a record high for the show, and while neither provided citation gives a character name, I found something that does
• The link used for 2008 VMA details doesn't seem to be working right, though I've found a good replacement that can be implemented
• "Directed by Phil Griffin, For the Record was shot in Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and New York City during the third quarter of 2008" seems more appropriate for its own article; I'd note when it premiered instead on this page.
• None of the details on viewer stats are supported, and it seems this was actually 3.8 million viewers
• For what it's worth, while December 2, 2008 (Britney's 27th birthday) may have been the US release for Circus (which MetaCritic uses), the original release was actually November 28, 2008.
• When talking about a US debut at #1, but you've used a "Gimme More" link for other nations..... that obviously needs to be replaced.
• "She also became the only act in the Soundscan era to have four albums debut with 500,000 or more copies sold" should specify that this is for the US as opposed to other nations (keep in mind that Nielsen also tracks Canada sales)
• If possible, I would try to use a secondary source for the Guinness World Records bit (artists and labels can sometimes inflate record claims)
• "The album was one of the fastest-selling albums of the year"..... nothing on the matter provided, nor can I find any solid evidence for such a claim
• I'm guessing you meant to use this for "Womanizer", but should note that it doesn't include Canada (though it did indeed go #1 there). While I also personally already knew it was the lead Circus single, we don't have specific notes of that, which thankfully can be found.
• Don't think we need to talk about Grammy nom in this case when she didn't win
• Seriously, please learn how to paraphrase better or at least use quotes properly; "all of whom, court documents claim, had been conspiring to gain control of Spears's affairs" is almost word-for-word plagiarism of "all of whom, court documents claim, had been conspiring to gain control of the pop star's affairs". Even worse is how "The restraining order forbids Lutfi and Ghalib from contacting Spears or coming within 250 yards of her, her property or family members" is exactly the same wording without any attribution/rephrasing.
• Even if "3" was the only single from The Singles Collection, all that really needs to be noted is how this was a single from the album, so go with "its single"
• "Spears's representatives"..... names would be helpful to include if known
• I'm not sure if "Zap2It" is a good source to use, but this mentions nothing about the Glee episode either way, and here is a more explicit mention of her guest appearance in the episode

2011–2012: Femme Fatale and The X Factor

• It would be nice if File:Britney GM Detroit FFT.jpg could zoom in more on her face; seems rather distant right now
• The link for album release isn't working even when archived, so here's a replacement
• While we can safely say Femme Fatale topped the Australian and Canadian album charts as well as the US (and cite those accordingly), it seems to violate WP:No original research to claim "nearly every other chart" had a top 10 peak without any source specifically indicating that; it's talking worldwide! My instinct tells me that someone just looked at the album page and presumed that the charts listed there were the only ones that actually existed.
• "It has sold 1,000,000 copies in the United States and 2.2 million worldwide, and has been certified platinum by the RIAA"..... you can't just presume an album has sold a specific amount of copies within a country solely based on a certification, even for albums released before certifications started incorporating streams. A safer assertion would be that it was certified for shipments of 1 million units in the United States. Worldwide sales would need a separate source.
• You can't use a song premiere announcement for chart details; what you're actually looking for is probably this
• We've got a dead link for the bit on "I Wanna Go", but a replacement can be found (which also supports how "Till The World Ends" peaked at #3 in the US in May 2011 as opposed to the piece currently used that simply states it reached a new high there)
• While Digital Spy doesn't give a release date or a single count, I've found a single count from Idolator which also mentions video controversy. For what it's worth, the earliest release date I could find is October 11, 2011.
• "badly" from "badly affected" is POV language
• The link for 2011 Billboard 200 artists isn't working; let's fix that
• The number of performances for Femme Fatale Tour is better for the tour's article; the focus here should be on when it ran, how much it grossed, recordings spawned, and maybe accolades received
• October isn't "the next month" after August; that would be September
• The citation used for Jason Trawick becoming a co-conservator is dead, and Us Weekly is a fucking terrible gossip rag that's unsuitable for BLPs anyway
• TMZ is also disgraceful; don't use shit like that for claims on being (or not being) a co-conservator
• Is it known why Britney and Jason ended their engagement? All I've found so far is that they remained friends after mutual choosing to break up.
• Other judges from The X-Factor and details on who she mentored belong in that season's article
• I'd note that the reason she left The X-Factor was to focus on recording music
• The reference used for "Scream & Shout" (Entertainmentwise) only even mentions the album name, no detail on the song itself, and is a poor source to begin with.

2013–2015: Britney Jean and Britney: Piece of Me

• File:BritneyPOM3.jpg is A-OK to use
• "Britney: Piece of Me" shouldn't be italicized in the section title as it currently is
• I'm not so sure about asserting that work on Britney Jean started in December 2012, especially when Digital Spy's deriving its comments from a dubious publication called "ThatGrapeJuice" (which easily could've fabricated comments). As far as I can tell, production began sometime in 2013 and finished that October. It's not entirely clear whether the exact start month was January or February when it was reported that May that Britney and will.i.am "worked together for three months" on the album
• Billboard

doesn't give a release date for "Ooh La La", but I found it on Amazon

• "will include a total of 100 shows throughout 2014 and 2015"..... again, exact show count is better for residency show article, so let's try something along the lines of "ran throughout 2014 and 2015"
• While December 3, 2013 may have been the original intended date for Britney Jean to come out, its first release ended up being November 29th
• Regarding RCA, I feel it's more appropriate to mention her transfer from Jive in the Femme Fatale section given how this happened in 2011, which is in the timeframe that section covers
• "The record received a low amount of promotion and had little commercial impact, reportedly due to time conflicts involving preparations for Britney: Piece of Me"..... it is true that her general lack of promotion was attributed to residency show preparation, but that piece is only speculating and I'd like something more definitive. It also mentions nothing about overall commercial impact. While it certainly is true that this didn't have nearly as much commercial success as her seven previous albums (though wasn't a complete flop given how it did have a top 10 track in Canada and the UK with "Work Bitch"), we'll need a separate citation for that bit.
• I'm not saying that [ MTV's figures for Britney Jean] were wrong, but it doesn't really indicate whether this was for the US or Canada (Nielsen tracks sales for both countries). You probably meant to include this.
• There's nothing in "The Honesty Hour" about UK sales, and I'm not sure that's a good source to use anyway. However, I did manage to find its UK debut and how it charted far lower than past efforts via OCC.
• While I personally know that "Work Bitch" is the lead single from Britney Jean, we need a citation specifically noting it's from the album, which I found from Yahoo (though the album name wasn't known at the time when searching for refs talking about its release date). Something noting both album feature AND release date can be found through CBS Radio. Leak details aren't really relevant in this case if it was only by one day.
• WAY too much detail about the US charting for "Work Bitch"; all we really need to state here is how it reached number 12 on the main Hot 100. The rest is better for the song's article. The "Yahoo!" link for this song also doesn't support chart stats for any other nations, so they need separate citations (I've provided links for Canada and the UK above). As for the UK, we really just need to note how it reached number 7 on the main UK Singles Chart.
• The current Entertainment Weekly ref doesn't note a specific release date for "Perfume", but I did find an Idolator link and pieces from MTV as well as Spin explicitly stating November 3, 2013. Again, no need to say that it was earlier than expected when so close to original intended release.
• The peak in this case is more important than debut for "Perfume"
• "charted on the U.S. Billboard Pop Songs chart"..... component charts don't belong here unless there's some really significant achievement among them, which definitely isn't the case here. What truly matters here are nation's main overall charts (which of course is the Billboard Hot 100 for the United States) as they're what actually show overall commercial success in the territory and component charts (far more often than not) are better for song articles.
• Regarding "SMS (Bangerz)", you don't need to state "2013" twice in the sentence, and overall album count (even though accurate in this case) is better for Miley's article and the album page
• "It debuted in the Billboard charts at number 10 in U.S. Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, number 29 in the U.S. Pop Digital Singles, and number 70 in the U.S. Hot Digital Songs"..... see above note on component charts
• Wrong link for 2014 People's Choice Awards; I'm guessing you meant to use this
• "'Alien' debuted and peaked at number 8 on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles despite not being released as a single from Britney Jean"..... first and foremost, single release (or lack thereof) doesn't affect whether individual songs can enter charts (except perhaps for radio airplay component charts), especially with charts implementing digital downloads and even more so ever since streaming became incorporated. Because of this, charting doesn't in itself automatically mean that something had a single release. Secondly, see my above note on component charts.
• I do see a contract renewal with RCA, but nothing on whether she had started making a new album at that point; all she really says is "In my off-time I do record" and goes on to talk about how keeping at work benefits her
• I'm only seeing a generally blank front page for "The Intimate Britney Spears"; replace that link accordingly if keeping the material in place
• Cut the fluff on "Pretty Girls" announcement, and just say it was released May 4, 2015.
• No citations provided for "Pretty Girls" chart peaks; that clearly needs addressing, and "moderately" seems like it violates WP:SYNTH without any reference using such an assessment
• "Spears and Azalea performed the track live at the 2015 Billboard Music Awards from The AXIS, the home of Spears's residency, to positive critical response"..... venue is irrelevant here, and overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable reception needs to be sourced; it isn't here and one person alone praising it isn't even close to enough support for such an assertion.
• No mention of a release date here, but the I managed to find June 12, 2015 for Deja Vu and a single relase date of October 2, though single count is better for the album's article.
• What Giorgio Moroder thinks of Britney's singing on his track isn't really relevant here when he's not a music critic; save that for the song page
• PopCrush is a godawful reference that should be avoided per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. In place, use The A.V. Club (though I'm not so sure fictionalized bit is necessary here when you can just say played herself).

2016–present: Glory and continued Vegas residency

• No licensing concerns for File:Britney Spears - Circus POM Las Vegas February 2016 (Cropped).jpg, but the lighting for her face feels off
• She confirmed in 2015 that a new album was being worked on, not 2016
• The “ for "who in our world did not grow up listening to her music?" should be " per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
• "On May 22, 2016, Spears performed a medley of her past singles at the 2016 Billboard Music Awards. In addition to opening the show, Spears was honored with the Billboard Millennium Award"..... Billboard should be italicized as this does refer to the magazine, also this is rather wordy. Try something like "At the 2016 Billboard Music Awards that month, Spears performed a medley of her past singles and was honored with the Billboard Millennium Award" given how you mention a mobile game right before that which also came out in May 2016.
• The July 14th release for "Make Me..." is definitely accurate, but its citation says nothing about album feature, which I've found at Spin (which is a much better publication anyway)
• Nothing on the chart positions for "Make Me..."? It made the top 20 in the United States, Canada, and France.
• I'm not convinced this VMA performance is worth noting; it's not like this was anything major compared to what she did at its past ceremonies. Also, "hit" from "the latter's hit song" is too informal.
• Slumber Party should be mentioned, even if it didn't have much commercial impact outside of Hungary and Ukraine
• While CNN says nothing about album count for Glory, the Spin link I've provided above can solve that
• Unless this "crippling anxiety" somehow interfered with Britney's professional career, I don't see how it's worth mentioning, especially when countless other people have felt the same way at some point in their lives
• Both instances of "I’m" from the quote on a follow-up to Glory should be "I'm" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
• "In January 2017, Spears received four wins out of four nominations at the 43rd People's Choice Awards, including Favorite Pop Artist, Female Artist, Social Media celebrity as well as Comedic Collaboration for a skit with Ellen DeGeneres for The Ellen DeGeneres Show"..... again, rather wordy. Maybe go with "At the 43rd People's Choice Awards in January 2017, Spears received the awards for Favorite Pop Artist, Female Artist, and Social Media celebrity as well as Comedic Collaboration for a skit with Ellen DeGeneres"
• Bad URL for "Britney: Live in Concert"; it just redirects to the home page
• Everything in the second paragraph after "The tour is scheduled to visit Japan, Israel and the Philippines, with more dates expected to be announced in the future" is better for the "Britney: Live in Concert" article; let's not overfill this page with details on that tour
• The third paragraph seems rather short on its own. I think it can safely be merged into the second (especially after the excess detail from that has been cut).
• Perhaps something about the RDMA Icon Award could be added (i.e. how it reflects cultural impact)

Artistry

• Nothing on her lyrical content? I'd be fine with overall album themes instead of the painstaking process of discussing all songs.

Musical style

• For quotation marks within a quote, use ' instead of " per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, so "(You Drive Me) Crazy" should have ' in place of ".
• The "combination of bubblegum, urban soul, and raga" quote just applies to Oops!... I Did It Again
• Since other albums are mentioned, it could be worth discussing the genres of Britney, Circus, Britney Jean, and Glory

Vocals

• I fail to see how either of the audio samples File:Britney Spears - You Got It All.ogg or File:Britney Spears - Freakshow.ogg offer any particular benefit, plus the "Freakshow" one is too long per WP:SAMPLE at 20 seconds long when the song is 175 seconds (2 minutes and 55 seconds), and sound samples should never exceed 10% of a song's total length or 30 seconds (depending on which is shorter).
• Voice type and range will need much better sourcing than some obscure blogger
• Nothing on her use of auto-tune!? She's known to include that, and it seems incomplete to leave this out especially when she's been criticized for sounding processed/robotic. In fact, there's nothing even remotely negative about her singing voice included here, which brings up neutrality concerns when she's definitely gotten slammed for it. I'm absolutely certain that one or more fans just went an cherry-picked only positive comments.
• "Rami Yacoub who co-produced" seems like it's missing a comma after "Yacoub"
• I don't think it's really appropriate to include praise from a producer she worked with; he's obviously biased on the matter

Influences

• Comparisons to people don't really belong here, and I could only find one mention of a Madonna comparison in the attributed citation anyway
• WAY too much detail on meeting Janet Jackson (which something tells me a fan may have added to promote positive Britney comments); cut the fluff and stick with the "I'm such a big fan; I really admire you" bit after saying that they met in person.
• Madonna's comments within Britney: For the Record aren't really appropriate here as they don't demonstrate how she influenced Britney
• Perhaps some quotes on other people who influenced/inspired her could be included here

Legacy

• File:Britney Spears Hollywood Star.jpg is A-OK to use
• Awards ≠ legacy, so List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears is better placed in a section dedicated to accolades
• This is ridiculously bloated and filled with fancruft; there's definitely content that could safely be deleted/placed in other sections
• "Spears early on cultivated a mixture of innocence and experience that broke the bank"..... no, the quote ends with experience that generated lots of cash; don't distort quotes
• You'll need far better sourcing for record claims than Daily Mirror, which doesn't mention anything about being an overall best-selling artist
• No mention of Britney here
• "iconic" in "Spears is known for her iconic performances and music videos" is puffery, and VH1 doesn't even suggest that anyway
• "ranked Spears the 8th Artist of the 2000s" should note this was based on commercial performance; maybe go with "the 8th most successful artist of the 2000s"
• How does this TRL ranking show any indication of impact (which isn't just a publication's personal opinion)?
• The 2000, 2001, and 2003 VMA performances are much more appropriate for the article body (where they're already mentioned), so I'd move the critical commentary to that area for each
• The Michael Jackson duet is not related to legacy by any stretch.
• That quote from Entertainment Weekly is rather long. I think we can safely cut the material after the "pro wrestling or the filibuster" bit. Also, it doesn't just go right from "simply because she's Britney" to "She's an American institution", contrary to what you've implied with the article text. Neither does "Oops!...I Did It Again" come right before "Spears is no technical singer".
• As interesting as becoming the most searched term is, I'm not sure how that's suitable for this section. It seems better for something dedicated to achievements (which this isn't). On another note, the only year NBC4 Washington mentions by name is 2008. Perhaps "was Yahoo!'s most popular search term in seven different years, most recently 2008" would be better. It also only talks about 2009 Guinness World Records.
• It would help to mention Gwyneth Paltrow's Country Strong character Kelly Canter by name
• I don't see any need to include the "underdog" bit from Nicki Minaj's comments; it just detracts attention from her main point
• Dead link for Lana Del Rey's comments on "Toxic". If it can be fixed/replaced, then I'd elaborate on how that inspires her.
• Referencing someone in a song isn't really worth including, also we've got another non-working URL that needs repairing/replacement
• I'd include some specific comments on inspiring 15 Minutes.
• Licensing for File:Britney-Spears Boys.jpg is perfectly fine, though I feel it would be better for the Circus section (and can safely replace File:Britney SpearsMontreal3.jpg there)
• Not sure if Young Hollywood is an appropriate source
• Britney isn't even mentioned here or here, (though you can use this for Marina), Pixie Lott's comments are really more about admiration, and being someone's favorite artist isn't the same thing as inspiring them
• Fergie's quote is irrelevant to legacy in that it demonstrates nothing about her impact/influence on society and/or the music industry
• Mere comparisons to Britney are irrelevant, so I'd remove that bit on Jessica Jung and Hyoyeon
• Porcelain Black very well may have been using a "love child" metaphor, but don't fabricate quotes; what she says is "I think we're in a world now where music is evolving and it doesn't have to be just one thing. It doesn't have to be just pop or just rock. You can mix it and have it still be legitimate rock 'n' roll. I like to say if Marilyn Manson and Britney Spears ... had a kid it would be me." There's also nothing in that even suggesting an influence, only that Black felt their music was partially like hers.
• More faulty links with no mention whatsoever of Britney
• Bullying details don't belong here at all
• Non-working URL; I think you meant this

Other ventures

Product and endorsements

• I don't think "Shades of Britney" should be itaclized, and there's nothing here even suggesting they came out in 2000.
• No value given for Pepsi; don't just pull figures out of nowhere
• "released her first multi-platform video game, Britney's Dance Beat"..... let's just go with "release a video game titled Britney's Dance Beat" as it's more to the point
• Don't use italics for Candie's, and though the current URL is faulty, I thankfully found the correct form. You also don't have to implement the exact same reference twice in a row without any other source in between uses per WP:OVERCITE when all content is supported by that once citation.
• "explained why they choose the singer, saying," → "said they chose the singer because"
• The temporary brand she made with Candie's is already mentioned earlier; it's best to keep the affiliations in one place whether here or there
• For the "Hold It Against Me" video, I noticed this is basing the money claim off of the dubious-at-best TMZ, so I'd try to find something with a stronger basis.
• Another bad URL for Twister Dance, and while that thankfully has a repairment, it doesn't mention Hasbro, "Twister Rave", or "Circus"
• Don't italicize the "Curious" or any other fragrance, and that should be removed from the "life and career" section above when talking about other fragrances here
• "which earned her the recognition of the best-selling celebrity fragrance line on the market"..... It's actually not so clear which fragrance of hers this refers to, and I would take such claims with a grain of salt since people often inflate their own sales figures.
• "Radiance" shouldn't be italicized either
• Radar Online is a very poor source that often fabricates things; you'll need something far better in place
• Don't use italics for "Cosmic Radiance"
• Elizabeth Arden shouldn't be linked more than once in article body per WP:OVERLINK
• "in the first five years"..... I think within would read better
• No mention of Arden for count, which I'm not sure is needed anyway
• If talking about Britney Spears: American Dream here, then let's remove the earlier mention in "life and career"
• "Private Show" isn't supposed to have italics

Philanthropy

• "where campers had the opportunity to explore and develop their talents" is too closely paraphrased from "provides campers the opportunity to explore and develop their talents". Also, "talent" is a subjective term; perhaps "abilities" is more appropriate.
• Use your own damn words more often! "In April 2002, through the efforts of Spears and The Britney Spears Foundation, a grant of $1 million was made to the Twin Towers Fund to support the children of uniformed service heroes affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including New York City Fire Department and its Emergency Medical Services Command, the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the New York State Office of court Administration and other government offices." was very obviously plagiarized with the only differences being "Spears" instead of "Britney Spears" and "terrorist attacks" instead of "disaster"
• Let's find something stronger for the foundation closing
• "other popular recording artists" → "various other singers"
• "a single titled 'What's Going On'"..... cover of or rendition of would be more appropriate since this was covering a Marvin Gaye song; "a single titled" incorrectly implies it was originally recorded by these people
• "Africa and other impoverished regions"..... you really couldn't paraphrase!?
• I'm not sure if this is an ideal reference for the bits on Music Rising, Promises Foundation, or United Way
• Dead link for St. Bernard Project, and Starpulse should be avoided as a reference anyway
• What makes Softpedia a reliable source? I'd try to find something stronger for for Gilda's Club Worldwide.
• No specific date given in Digital Spy for Nevada Childhood Cancer Foundation, and while it's far from the worst reference to ever exist, there are much stronger publications and I'd use something better if possible
• Don't italicize "Britney: Piece of Me" per my above comments
• "Spears also fundraised for the charity through social media"..... I think promoted the charity is a more accurate when that links to an Instagram post and offers ways to share through Google Plus, Twitter, and Facebook
• Is the spin class really worth noting? That doesn't seem to be as pertinent as how much Britney Spears Piece of Me Charity Ride raised or what its goal was.

References

• See above comments on reliability of sources
• ALL citations need authors, publication names, titles, and publish dates when available. There shouldn't be any bare URLs or incomplete citations. When citing pages from the book, include the author and page numbers.
• Don't italicize Recording Industry Association of America, National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Jam!, or Ultratop
• Not sure if "Live Design" or "View London" should be italicized
• "Ninemsn" should read Nine.com.au without italics
• Remove ".com" from "MuuMuse.com" and "NPR.com"
• Be sure citations to books are properly formatted; I find HARVref errors due to improper formatting. Install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to detect them if you haven't already.
• Don't include publication names within titles; (i.e. remove "Metacritic" from "In The Zone reviews at Metacritic.com:", "NPR" from "The 50 Most Important Recordings: S-Z : NPR", "Entertainment — msnbc.com" from "Forget Kabbalah, Britney's baby is her religion — Entertainment — msnbc.com", and "USATODAY.com" from "USATODAY.com — Britney maybe one more time")
• Remove the italics from "Zap2It" and Digital Spy
• "PeoplesChoice.com" → "People's Choice"
• "E! Online" should read "E!" without italics
• I don't think "Las Vegas Blog" is supposed to be italicized, ABS-CBN News definitely shouldn't be
• "SCMP" should read out South China Morning Post
• "Channel Newsasia" → "Channel NewsAsia"
• Don't italicize eMusic, CD Universe, or Universo Musical
• "Pop & Hiss: The L.A. Times music blog" → Los Angeles Times
• "Ccmmagazine.com" → CCM Magazine

Bibliography

• This section title is discouraged as vague per MOS:APPENDIX. I think "Book sources" would be better as a clearer title.

Overall

• Prose: Multiple copyright violations and instances of close paraphrasing is flat out unacceptable, and that alone is more than enough to warrant an automatic delisting. Other parts could also certainly be improved.
• Referencing: Many claims aren't supported by given sources and there's lots of subpar/malformatted references
• Breadth of Coverage: The article is missing a number of important details while going into too much on others
• Neutrality: I'm not convinced the "Voice" and "Legacy" sections are balanced, plus parts of the lead come off as promotional, and I worry about cherry-picking as well as using unattributed biased terms in the article
• Stability: The article was fully protected for quite a while due to edit warring back in August, but not much has happened since semi-protection was restored aside from a few reverts and minor insertions.
• Media: One image is improperly licensed, others give poor views, and the use of audio samples is questionable (especially with one being overly long)
• Verdiect: Delisting per the very exhaustive list of concerns given above. This article is one hell of a mess as well as quite a nightmare to read through, and even without copyright violations or instability, I seriously doubt all of the issues could be resolved anytime soon. I knew it would take a while to compile everything, but this ended up being much more tedious than I had anticipated. Regardless, it should provide plenty of insight for what needs to be addressed. Best regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. When I was looking through it, I also noticed that this article was too far gone to be fixed in a timely fashion. Hopefully, someone in the future will make all of the necessary corrections for this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Whoever does that will have quite a task to take on! Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link title$SmallText$[[Media:[Example.ogg]]]Strike-through text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.99.132 (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

bebo norman song

Bebo Norman on his new album wrote a song entitled "Britney" here is a link to him talking about the song. I noticed the legacy section of her article and thought this would be something that would be cool to add to it.

http://www.ccmmagazine.com/just_for_you/story_behind_the_song/11581817/

"Suddenly, I saw her story not as something to mock, but as a real-life tragedy that is desperate for redemption and hope—a story not so different from any of our stories. Take away all the lights and cameras, and it’s really just a narrative of a girl so clearly in need of love, so clearly in need of the redeeming love of our God."

Hdwalla (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this could go under the "Legacy" section. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

only problem is I am not allowed to edit this article yet, so any takers? Hdwalla (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

I only have this page on my watchlist from the GAR, but the lead image changing so often is annoying. Can people discus which image is best before changing? I reverted to the most recent stable image, as i think the latest was too big, and the one before was needlessly pervy as the first image. I am assuming that all thee are free use though, so this is a different discussion than the one above? YobMod 12:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about her name

Shouldn't her main (bolded) name be "Britney Spears"? I don't know of any major source that has ever referred to her by her given legal name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitanode (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I can't change it, or I would do it myself. It seems obvious that it should be "Britney Spears." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitanode (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the changes someone made. She's not "more commonly known as Britney Spears", she is ONLY known as "Britney Spears." I'm not sure what the hangup with putting that she's "Britney Spears (born Britney Jean Spears)" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitanode (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Per consensus formulated at our Manual of Style, "the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph". See the examples at WP:MOSBIO#Names, please, and countless other articles like Michael Jackson, Robert De Niro or Rihanna. The "more commonly known as" part is superfluous here though.
I'll be changing it back since this is a pretty established style guideline, and if you are seeking Wikipedia-wide change then it should be discussed there.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about all the manual of style stuff. Sorry about that. It just seems "common-sense" to have the most common name as the first mentioned, with the birth name in parentheses. But if that isn't what Wikipedia wants, then that's what we'll do, I guess. Unitanode (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to be sorry about that! I actually like it if the intro section starts with the full name, but I did have to look it up how it's usually done here; about issues like that there has always been plenty of discussion already. :)
The "common sense" part comes in with the article title, which is usually the most common name of a topic (if there is such a thing), i.e. Rihanna or Frank Sinatra.
Cheers, Amalthea 01:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"singer and entertainer" versus simply "entertainer"

I think "entertainer" by itself is too oblique, and that excluding singer seems a bit like inserting a point of view about her singing abilities. Unitanode (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, she is foremost known to be a singer, so we should explicitly name her as one. --Amalthea 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

2004-2005 Compliation Albums Etc Section

I believe in the second paragraph it says:

"It also featured three previously unreleased songs, them being a cover version of American R&B singer Bobby Brown's 1988 hit "My Prerogative", "Do Somethin'", produced by Bloodshy and Avant, whom she had worked with on In The Zone, and "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)", which was a song recorded for Spears's fourth album, In The Zone, but did not make the final cut.

al cut."

It should say

"It also featured three previously unreleased songs, one of them being a cover version of American R&B singer Bobby Brown's 1988 hit "My Prerogative", "Do Somethin'", produced by Bloodshy and Avant, whom she had worked with on In The Zone, and "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)", which was a song recorded for Spears's fourth album, In The Zone, but did not make the final cut.

I tried to edit myself, but the page is protected. --RCNARANJA 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)