Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 7

message: "Spears has been the subject of media scrutiny from a series of controversial behavior in public"
The person who wrote this article as evidenced by the captioned mastery of grammar and diction is EXACTLY why Brittany Spears is what she is.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisum.ili.dilm (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was at the supermarket today, just about all the "scandal sheet" magazines at the checkout seemed to be cover-featuring the alleged conflicts and controversies involving Britney and her kids. *Dan T.* 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia, tabloid, gossip should be avoided in this article 

message: Please can someone remove the "You can check out some great pictures of her working on her latest music video on www.24forums.com"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 07:57, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
::done and done. Oidia (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: When talking about Britney Spears, it's best to Spears, and not Britney. Using Britney makes the article look unprofessional and it gives a lack of consistency. Also we don't need to use Spears in every single sentence, use it in the lead sentence in a paragraph, then start using she and her for the rest of the paragraph. Oidia (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try not to use the word ''Britney'' in the article 

message: OK, I know that the Public image section was a disaster because it became almost impossible to achieve NPOV. There have been many suggestions in this talk page to have a section outlining Spears' contributions to pop culture. So this new section titled Cultural influences should be a great addition to the article, and it's not hard to achieve NPOV for describing the impact of Britney Spears on pop culture.
To start off the section, we should gather points, information, and sources that will be put in it. To start off I have this: 
*Forbes ranked Spears as the world's most powerful celebrity in 2002.
(Since Maddyfan thinks this statement is out of date for the introduction and I personally think it sounds awkward in the Career development section, that's why it's a good idea to have a section like this)
Please DO NOT go ahead and create that section yet. Start throwing points, info and references here in the talk page first, then we'll evaluate whether if it is neutral and noteworthy, and then we add it into the section. And remember to have a RELIABLE SOURCE to back up every points that we wish to contribute to this section. Having a creditable source can justisfy the neutrality of this section. Oidia (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the suggested section really amounts to a proposed claim about Spears' "cultural influence" built from facts relating to her career and reception in popular culture.  This sounds suspiciously like the kind of original research proscribed by WP:SYN, and I think it would add nothing to this article.--Agnaramasi 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we are brainstorming here first and then evaluate if there's a need for this section. Oidia (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is, that was the first thing to go last time.  Just because you find one reviewer saying, "Oh she did this," doesn't really confirm any impact.  68.82.82.248 08:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural influences 

message: Is it true that the fake personna of Britney Spears is called "Brittany Person", similar to Christina Aguilera's "Xtina"? Kaksisi 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britney Spears alias

message: Have a look at Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_in_s.2C_z.2C_or_x as well as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html and http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-possessive.htm  Also refer to the book Eats shoots and leaves. Also note the the article about her 5th album has been correctly moved to indicate this. Also note the BBC pages on her, 
Please don't mis-correct these back to Spears' just because many people make the same error. Only plurals ending with S loose the post-apostrophe s MrMarmite 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the wiki page you quote says
"If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended."
So it seems to be up to the writer's discretion about whether they think the word is difficult to pronounce with the added 's'.  A lot of the sources you give seem to back you up though, lol so I'm confused now.  It looks wierd to me with the extra s.  Because I'm not so used to it being written like that- 65,800,000 basic google search results for Spears' , 273,000 for Spears's.  Like you say, that doesn't mean they're right, though.  http://www.csbsju.edu/writingcenters/handouts/apostrophes.htm really seems up to what the writer's individual 'ear' thinks sounds right.Merkinsmum 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the 6th paragraph in this article , the writer used Spears'. Oidia (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: hehe, yeah. I asked about this in the reference desk and there were varying answers. Have a look  Oidia (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has made me think about it. Plural possessives with an s always take a lone apostrophe. Speaking for myself, I've applied this to other possessives ending with s which are pronounced with a single s ...and have never been nettled over it. Something like lens's would be an exception for me. That said, I guess it's ok to add an apostrophe-s to a given or family name ending in an 's' but since I'd tend to pronounce the possessive of her name with a singly-voiced s at the end I'd likewise tend write it Spears'. Looks to me like taste and regional pronunciations likely have something to do with the varying approaches. Gwen Gale 04:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting to see how various sources tackle the question. The BBC's most recent article on Britney has as it's lead sentence: "By now, you will know that Britney Spears' much-vaunted comeback appearance..." while the New York Times says in its review of her movie Crossroads: "Ms. Spears's style of acting is exactly what you would expect from this highly disciplined performer...". So there you have two of the most visible news sources going in entirely opposite directions. Tabercil 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, especially as the BBC usually uses the Spears's form. MrMarmite 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is not the only story on the BBC website which does not follow the apostrophe with the letter s. (And I'm only on page 8 of 46 of the results of a search of all the pages on the BBC news site with the phrase "Britney Spears" present). Tabercil 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just forget it. English is a messy language. Aran|heru|nar 11:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spears' should be Spears's 

message: yo this needs a current event regarding 2007 video music awards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.128.215 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VMA

message: I put in a section about her unreleased album 'The Original Doll'
I think it's notewhorty because Britney confirmed the album itself and there were songs recorded but it was eventual canceled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing of it is, you didn't provide a reference to anything except the chart performance of Got Me High, so that's all that could remain in the article. Please provide a reliable source and it can be reinserted. Jeffpw 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Original Doll 

message: I have noticed that many new editors simply put (ref) [url] (/ref) when they cite a website. This is not the correct method for wikipedia.
When you are citing a website, you need these information:
*the publisher of the source (which is the website itself)
*the author that wrote the source (usually "editors from the website")
*the date of publication (if not available, then leave it)
*the retrieval date (the date that you found the source)
*the url (of course)
*the title (a name for the source)
Now, click on "edit" and see how you should code in all the information for citing the source 
Thanks. Oidia (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention new editors - correct way to cite websites 

message: Her first single and first four albums made their debut at No.1. Since then Spears has sold 76 million records and amassed a $150 million fortune.
The source here  (go to the 20th slide) says she sold 76 million RECORDS, not albums. Please DO NOT change it to albums. Thanks. Oidia (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME Magazine says 

message: Someoone had put in the article that 'gimme more' was a success with high chart posiitions.  That's not what I've read and the sources they gave didn't back that up. So I removed it, hope people don't mind too much.  Sorry if this was rude for me to do, but I've only heard it being panned.  If it has done well I'm sure sources could easily be found which say that.Merkinsmum 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, I think the best solution is to not mentioning whether the single is a success or not. Just put in sourced factual information like sales figures and position on charts. And then let the reader themselves decide whether or not it's a success. Oidia (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: single a success?

message: See here for some more info. Apparently, as of the moment, Mrs. Spears has been banned from the Chateau Marmont hotel, her lawyer has dumped her, she is likely to lose custody of her kids, Playboy might not want to take pictures of her naked anymore (gee, big surprise), and she's been holding emergency meetings with Fed-Ex, apparently over her kids.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the news flash! links, please. :-) Jeffpw 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More news about Britney

message: Since she was only managed by them for a month and this does not really belong in this section anyway, I suggest we delete this useless info.Soapfan06 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does belong, it's very much part of her struggle in the return to music. MrMarmite 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Management

message: I feel that a few sentances should be included about her suitability as a role-model for Young People given her life-style.
Webpendragon 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Behaviour 

message: I added a reference to all the trouble around Spears to the introduction. The last few years, and especially this year, Spears has only been known to the public as that troubled star of the past.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looskuh (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Does anyone like that picture? My head says "ill, gross" everytime I look at it. When we have a new, better looking image of her recent career activities, we should replace this existing one. Oidia (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. What on earth could be wrong with Britney in underpants????? It subtly illustrates everything going on with Britney right now, from her poor MTV appearance itself, to the birth of her children and resulting weight gain and her chopping off her hair and needing those awful extensions. It positively encapsulates Miss Spears, and as such should remain, and possibly replace the main image of the page. Jeffpw 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said is all true, but I started to avoid "Return to music" section because that picture really turns me off. IMHO I enjoy starring at Britney Spears in underpants, when she used to be good looking. Like these pictures , . That MTV VMA one though, it's not very pleasant to look at. Yes you are right, it does show the consequences of her actions (giving birth resulting to weight gain, drugs, too much red bull) But don't use it as the main, it's horrible. Oidia (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gross. Also it's a fair-use image, I thought that wasn't allowed. Kraft. 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-free media is probably OK in this context, since there isn't a free alternative and it serves an encyclopedic purpose. --Phirazo 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, It is only being used in the infobox to show what she looks like. There is a free alternative :Image:Britney-Spears082.jpg that can be used for that purpose and it will be replaced per WP:NFCC policy - don't use a fair use image when a free image is available. --Eqdoktor 09:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I meant in the "2007: Return to music" section, not as the lead photo.  I agree that the lead photo should be a free one, but I think an image of her performance at the 2007 Video Music Awards serves an encylopedic purpose that words alone do not. --Phirazo 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:MTV 2007.jpg 

message: This girl is a train wreck in full color. Yet the article doesn't get this across and completely ignores the matter in the lead.  Its like a big white elephant in the room that no one talks about.   --Blue Tie 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't talk about it because its interpretation not fact.--Agnaramasi 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not quite true.  It is a fact. How that fact is interpreted might be open to discussion.  But probably not for True Believers. --Blue Tie 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've actually been an editor on wikipedia longer than you have. You seem to be missing my point.  --Blue Tie 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a point.--Agnaramasi 18:24, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Laugh, I ALWAYS goto Wiki for the best tabloid bashing and dirt I can find on people. This site ALWAYS (times infinity) features the same trashy gossip, rumors, and personal dirt that the tabloids have. So stop pretending like this article on Britney is going to be fair and only cover the truth. I'm not her fan, in fact I can't stand her, but I don't like these high and mighty editors who think their running Encyclopedia Brittanica.... 76.172.250.188 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe you can help contribute to Wikipedia by eliminating trashy gossips and tabloids from articles. And we should not "pretend" to be neutral in this article, we have to be neutral since it's the fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Oidia (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Train wreck and white elephant

message: This was deleted.  Why?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/01/spears.federline/index.html
And he ordered the parents to go through "joint co-parenting counseling" and barred them from using corporal punishment on the boys.
Inclusion of this in the article does not say that either abused the boys.  It is merely a fact stated by the judge. Mrs.EasterBunny 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: both parents ordered not to use corporal punishment

message: I find this sentence "As an actress, she is most noted for her starring role in the 2002 movie Crossroads.[6]" rather ambiguous and not entirely accurate. (The reference is only to the IMDB page for the film.) Crossroads was a star-vehicle like Michael Jackson's Moonwalker. It was created for Britney, there was no audition process and it was a pretty dismal failure (again like Moonwalker). Something about the text as it seems to suggest that this was a serious movie and that getting the starring role is worthy of note. Can we rephrase? I'd favour something like "In film her most notable work was the lead role in the star vehicle Crossroads (2006)." --Rhi 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I don't know how to change it, you can do it. Oidia (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crossroads

message: OK, since it appears that no one is responding to this and the lack of enthusiasm in general from editors to bring this article into FA, I've sent it to peer review. Wikipedia:Peer review/Britney Spears. Oidia (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: "Whilst" is a deprecated and archaic word, yes, even in British English.  It should never be used when "while" will do.  Having said that, though, the subject of this article is an American woman, and most of the events in this article take place in the USA -- making the use of "whilst" all the more jarring and inappropriate.  Somebody with access, please replace any occasions of "whilst" with "while".  There's currently only one, but I've noticed that "whilst"s tend to proliferate like dandelions.  Thanks a bunch!
--63.25.100.198 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it is not archaic, but is in everyday use. And it is not "deprecated" - see  Worldwide words. Perhaps you shouldn't be editing - cranky and ignorant, not a good combination. Virginia has worldwide reputation for being backward, it would be better if you didn't confirm it. Thanks a bunch! 62.64.206.147 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one person above showing their ignorance. Assume good faith is a mantra of wikipedia, you should give it a go. Very few Americans use "whilst" and it would seem out of place in an American based article. I happily use it when writing for an English audience but not when writing for Americans. FYI..I am half America half English and an author. MrMarmite 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Whilst" is never appropriate, least of all in this article. 

message: According to her record label "Zomba" she has sold over 83 million records. Shouldn't we update the article? 
http://www.zombalabelgroup.com/news.html#57741
Skinwalker03 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britney's record sales 

message: Since Britney was only with them for 1 month, is there any point to include it in the article for return to music? I think not. Soapfan06 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably let it stay for now, when more information becomes available and when that section becomes too long, we can then remove it. Oidia (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped by The Firm 

message: That page is really getting messy! First it talks about the single than it talks about the firm and the page is titled: return to music: blackout. But there is no mention of blackout in the section!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.54.31 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is, "The album, entitled Blackout, is scheduled to be released in November 2007". Oidia (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean the return to music section! 

message: Return to music looks messy and confusing, it doesn't flow very well either.--Jak3m 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy section 

message: I still wonder what needs to be done to this article, i personally think its as good as lets say Kylie Minogue.
hmmm--Jak3m 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sent it to peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review#Britney_Spears, received some comments and I've pretty much fixed all of the problems. You can still cut back on the wikilinks like a reviewer suggested. Ignore the automated review though, it's wrong. Oidia (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Jakem, I've done cutting down on the wikilinks, except for the lead which needs a revamp. Although some suggestions in the Automated review could be looked at, such as a copy edit. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and this too! Luxurious.gaurav has suggested that the lead is to be changed around. See Talk:Britney Spears#The Lead. I think it's a good idea because we shouldn't have sales information in the very first paragraph, since A. it changes all the time and B. it's usually not 100% accurate. So I'll give it another 24 hours and see if anyone objects to the proposed changes to the lead, if no one objects, I'll change it. And then we'll send this to WP:FAC. Oidia (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last but not least, this article can be a bit unstable at times. When information become available about her album, the singles from the album, the custody battle, or just the latest Britney gossip, editors will add them in, usually in a not-so-well-written manner. Also, new sentences usually don't fully integrate into the prose, and becomes like a "listing" of everything that has happened. So we'll need to keep a close eye on new materials and improve them as we see fit. Also, editors still don't know how to cite websites properly. Remember that it is . Thanks. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, of course i support this. And yes! I am Luxurious.gaurav and i have changed my name. Indianescence 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have changed the lead around. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status 

message: Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American pop music singer, songwriter, dancer, actress, and author. Her debut album ...Baby One More Time, released in January 1999, propelled her to international stardom selling twenty five million copies worldwide.[ref] It spawned the singles "...Baby One More Time", which topped the Billboard Hot 100,[ref] "(You Drive Me) Crazy", and "Born to Make You Happy". She released her sophomore studio album Oops!... I Did It Again in 2000 with similar success,[ref] along with the singles "Oops!... I Did It Again", "Lucky" and "Stronger". Her third album Britney was released in November 2001. Although not as successful as her two previous albums, Spears assumed more creative control over the album's tracks for the first time. This was followed by her the release of her fourth album In The Zone in November 2003. The album's lead single "Toxic" was an international success and has won Spears her first Grammy Award.[ref] The collection Greatest Hits: My Prerogative was released in November 2004 followed by a brief career break. Her fifth album Blackout is scheduled to be released worldwide in October 2007, while the lead single "Gimme More" has already become an international top ten hit. 
Spears has sold over 83 million records worldwide according to Zomba Label Group and has sold over 75 million albums worldwide according to Forbes Magazine.[ref][ref] The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold 31 million albums in the U.S.[ref] Spears's fame in the music industry has led her to experiment with other forms of media, including film and television. As an actress, she is most noted for her starring role in the 2002 movie Crossroads.[ref] Spears has also made guest appearances in various other movies and television programs. Her success as a singer led her to several high-profile advertising deals and endorsements including her own perfume line.
Spears's personal life has gained much attention from the media as a result of her stardom. In particular, her four-year relationship with Justin Timberlake from 1998 to 2002, and a short marriage to Jason Allen Alexander in 2004. In the same year, Spears married back-up dancer Kevin Federline. She gave birth to her first child Sean Preston in 2005 and to her second child Jayden James in 2006. The couple's divorce in November 2006 was highly publicized, followed by a legal battle for the custody of their two sons. Throughout 2007, Spears has been the subject of media scrutiny from a series of controversial behaviours in public.
So, I'll be implementing the lead based on the above model fairly soon. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course i support this. And yes! I am Luxurious.gaurav and i have changed my name. Indianescence 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have changed the lead around. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My version of the lead

message: Why isnt it mentioned that she got silicone implants when she was still a teenager? Nastykermit
Because it has NEVER been proven. This is an encyclopedia not a trashy tabloid magazine.75.57.182.37 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silicone

message: There are several problems with that list
#Her perfumes are not part of discography, so it's placed under the wrong section.
#Her perfumes are already being mentioned in "Products and endorsement" section.
#The columns were well arranged before, and now this newly added section kind of disrupted the arrangement, because it looks so blank to the right of the list.
#The title is not in line with MoS. We shouldn't use forward slash. And only the first word should be capitalised, the rest shouldn't.
I think that we don't need that list at all, we should remove it. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's totally fine. Thanks for your contribution. We've all had our first edit experience and my first few edits were a lot messier than this. LOL. Anyway, feel free to keep contributing to this article. You can also attach a signature to your comments with ~~~~. Thanks. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fragrance list 

message: How is mentioning her as a top five unsexiest woman in Maxim important to return to music? I think it should be removed. Soapfan06 22:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it doesn't belong under Return to Music.  It should go under 2007 - Personal Struggles instead.  (It's a good contemporary citation of her deteriorating public image).--Wee Charlie 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsexiest 

message: I wanted to contribute a passage to Spears's article, but figured I should first post it in the discussion page before going ahead with it.
As many of you may know, Spears's unofficial nickname is "Pop Tart". Many people believe this is simply a pun, with her being a pop singer and/or having a "tart" personality, but what some folks don't realize is that the name most likely originated from Spears's well-documented love of Kellogg's Pop Tarts. So, I was thinking maybe we should mention this in the article. The fact that she likes Kellogg's Pop Tarts may sound like general trivia, but this fact is fairly important because this nickname is often used in print and many people don't realize its exact origin. With that in mind, here is what I would like to write (word-for-word):
Spears is often colloquially referred to by the media with the moniker "Pop Tart". Although an obvious allusion to her status as a pop singer, the name more likely originated from Spears's known prediliction for Kellogg's Pop Tarts. 
What do y'all think?
I do have one citation for this, but I'm looking for one or two more. If the passage is acceptable enough to be included in the article, let me know and I'll provide the citation before I post it. Additionally, let's be fair and civilized when critiquing the suggestions of others. ;) Sean 2015 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a bit of a stretch, as I've heard the term applied to other performers.  The implication of "pop tart" usually is of a pop performer that is a 'tart' -- In British English: "A promiscuous woman or a woman who dresses in a sexually provocative way, or a prostitute."  I would care to bet that this definition is closer to the mark.--24.57.234.251 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Pop Tart" nickname 

message: ARE custody battles, trouble with law, etc. That is redundantSoapfan06 05:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persoanl struggles 

message: This section could do with a cleanup, especially the legal side of the section. 
Shes regained visitation rights as well so it needs to be updated.--Jak3m 18:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, she has just lost all visitation rights. I find the section OK for the time being, although the information on the legal cases could be summed up further. Besides, we don't want a maintainence tag while it is a FAC. So I'll just remove it for the time being, if it needs clean up, then I'm pretty sure the FA reviews will definitely point it out and we'll clean it up then. Thanks. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Struggles 

message: The opening is never suppose to have the entire article listed below, in it's opening.  Please see other Wiki pages. This has been discussed numerous times.  It is sloppy and Wiki no-no.  The opening is to give a broad overview of the person that the article contains.  All the information now there, is written in the topics below, and the opening basicallycontains the entire entire article in full.  It is way too long.  I hope you understand the trimming.  This is going to keep the article from getting any kind of high grade. Maddyfan 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is meant to summarise the entire article as a whole. Your so called "trimming" is unacceptable. It failed to mention her 4 existing studio albums as well as some of her most well known songs. Like you said, when checking the other feature articles like Gwen Stefani and you'll see that albums are mentioned in the lead. 2 editors including myself and Indianescence have reached the consensus above, you need to follow them. Finally your "trimming" has caused problems in the references. Your edits have caused ref 21, 27 and 59 to become an error. I am reverting it to a slightly shorter section and please be more responsible next time when you make edits like these. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: Why was the instruments removed from the infobox? I think it is worth noting that she plays the Piano, as is seen in the track Someday (I Will Understand), in which she played all of the piano accompanying the track.
Save-Me-Oprah 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She also played the piano on her tour to Everytime :)--Jak3m 16:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments 

message: Just like to let you know that from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Britney Spears, I have to cut back on the excessive details in that section. These cut backs are a nessecary step for the article to enter FA. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News reports in Personal struggles 

message: Shouldn't we change it to something more recent?
I mean that image is 4 years old.
Maybe something from her new album? example; this one or this one--Jak3m 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be nice, however I doubt there are any free images out there. She's changed a lot so the pic should change with it. Save-Me-Oprah 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: How is saying eat it suck it...making any impact on the personal struggles section? It does not belong..it could have been ajoke and some say she did not say it at all...it does NOT belong! Totally useless...75.57.166.80 05:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Britney said 

message: I tried adding the information in http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah7214.shtml and people here don't like it.  Maybe they're all huge Britney Spears fans.  If I come to this article, I want it to have stuff like what's reported there--the good details, not some vague stuff everyone already knows.  Their quote of her there is one of the best quotes I have ever heard of anyone. William Ortiz 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of wikipedia in particular is to inform a person with absolute no knowledge of who Britney Spears is. So that's why wikipedia is about the stuff that "everybody knows about her". Please have detail read through What Wikipedia is NOT and you'll understand what belongs and what doesn't belong in wikipedia. Last but not least, the quotes from that site belong in Wikiquotes, not in wikipedia. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is with people against Access Hollywood as a source?