Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 12

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) :-) — Realist  2  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)
 * I know nobody wants to hear about the "new image" debate any longer, but could we not use one the ones from The Circus Starring: Britney Spears article, where shes in the "Ringleader" outfit? She would look less stoned than the current picture, and it would be more relating to the theme of her current work. Mc8755 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 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. — Realist  2  22:47, 29 November 2008 (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, 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. — Realist  2  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. 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????
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 text Insert 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. 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. — Realist  2  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 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)

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, 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."

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)

awards
i think it should say that she has an emmy because her video 'live from las vegas' won an emmy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.60.179 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ I put it in the awards section of her article Sprite7868 (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Radar
According to a post on BritneySpears.com, Radar that was in her album "Blackout" will now be featured the 4 single in her album "Circus" And if you choose not to believe me then heres a link of proof http://www.okmagazine.com/news/view/14075