Template talk:Britney Spears

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Britney Spears This template is within the scope of WikiProject Britney Spears, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Britney Spears on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Britney SpearsWikipedia:WikiProject Britney SpearsTemplate:WikiProject Britney SpearsBritney Spears articles Pop music This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles

I added Key Cuts from Remixed, to the template again, because i added more info and sources that it exists.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is far too large; we don't need to provide links to every Spears-related article. Extraordinary Machine 17:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, that's why I'm, to make the template a bit smaller, removing the years behind the singles... -- Luigi-ish 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Its fine the way it is and who cares (if u do u need 2 get a life)

User Hotwiki has a problem with the bigger version which I prefer, I see his version as very small and cluttered, so let's all decide on a version we can all somewhat agree on. Myrockstar 18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Hotwiki's version. Seen as Extraordinary Machine and Luigi-ish both has a problem with the size I would assume that they would also prefer Hotwiki's version.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the bigger one, it's much nicer and it really isn't that big.

The section says... Singles, then why the hell are you adding: "Girl in the Mirror", "That's Where You Take Me", "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)", "Chaotic", "And Then We Kiss (Junkie XL Remix)" and "Get Back"? Those songs are NOT singles only promos. Kraft. 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back has been decided as single so please make changes, and Britney Spears "Untitled Fifth Studio Album" should be changed to Blackout because that is the confirmed name. Dom10194. 20.57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankssir (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't figure out the template/code to use, so I manually inserted line breaks. Needs a fixer upper in the singles section. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is so confusing and really unnecessary! please stop adding this.--Jak3m (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is she getting another template just for singles now?

---Shadow- (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are everyone getting these titles from?, wheres website that confirms these titles!, someone recently said the album title was chicken farm ??? now it's Unstoppable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.MENSAH (talk • contribs) 21:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the "Chicken Farm" one was vandalism and the "Unstoppable" one was just wishful thinking fueled by rumours. I changed it back to TBA but it probably won't stay like that for long. AngelOfSadness talk 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be a page for Britney's 6th album soon?, i think theres been some created but they got deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.MENSAH (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as it's been deleted about ten times under different titles in the last two/three months and the album itself won't be released for at least another six months, another article probably won't be created for at least another two months if not longer considering it has been deleted so many times and very little confirmed information is known about it. A new reasoning in album article AFD discussions has been determined on whether the album's title, tracklisting or release date has been confirmed (the reasoning is based on a Wikipedian's essay). Considering all three things, at this moment, are currently specualtive, creating an article wouldn't be too wise as it could lead to the article being deleted again if it contains the same content as the deleted versions. But who knows it could be re-created at any time if a lot of new verifiable infomation is confirmed. AngelOfSadness talk 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is going to be a sixth album, that much has been confirmed. Maybe that should be put on to the template, just as TBA or as like Britney Spears' Sixth Studio Album, we know that it's going to come out, so it might as well be on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Carlson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there isn't enough material to pass the notability guideline for future albums the announcement alone isn't enough to warrant an article about it just yet. Once we have that article, it should also be added to the navigation box, but not before. The purpose of the navigation box is to provide a concise list of links a reader is probably interested in. Per the essay at Wikipedia:NAVBOX, "the goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space" and "navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles".
So unless there is consensus here to add the information about the TBA album into the navbox anyway I'd stick to that. --Amalthea^Talk 22:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting in the link would be against the purpose of a navigation box, and putting in the article would violate WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. The article has been deleted over a dozen times, with two AFDs. I've requested semi-protection of the template so that newbie and anonymous editors can't keep jamming it in. I'm tired of the edit war.Kww (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Not Me? Okay after being told about the sixth album not being confirmed and stuff, which I have learned my lesson from and all, but isn't it a little premature to even think about a seventh album when Circus isn't even out yet? I think it is under speedy deletion so please get rid of it.User:Nick Carlson (talk) 2:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose merging Template:Britney Spears and Template:Britney Spears singles again.
Best I can tell, there was no discussion or consensus to split this, so I can only guess that it was split for size and flexibility concerns: the {{Britney Spears singles}} navbox is not used on all pages {{Britney Spears}} is used. My main concern with the current setup is that there is no place to add other notable Spears songs, foremost Radar (song). It keeps being added and reverted at {{Britney Spears singles}} since it wasn't released as a single. Renaming that template to {{Britney Spears songs}} might help with that, but I'm still not happy with having two Spears navboxes on most of her related articles in the first place, which is why I propose using a conditional navbox depending on whether the singles/songs should be included or not, depending on the article. I've added three notable songs to it that I know we have an article on, but there might be more.

{{Britney Spears}}:
User:Amalthea/Britney Spears

{{Britney Spears|songs=yes}}:
User:Amalthea/Britney Spears

This isn't very clear about what her albums are, maybe they should be listed in a seperate line in any case, or maybe all albums should be combined into a subgroup.

A different variant would be to add a collapsed child navbox containing the songs:

{{Britney Spears|state=uncollapsed}}:
User:Amalthea/Britney Spears (variant 1)

That one is showing as collapsed by default since the javascript finds more than one collapsed navbox in the page, but one could live with that I guess.

I'm not what to do with {{Spears family}}. At the moment it's only used at the Britney Spears article, and many of the links redirect to Britney Spears anyway. The only two that aren't in {{Britney Spears}} already are innosense and Zoey 101, which I've added to the related topics. I think that the few articles that make sense at Lynne Spears and Jamie Lynn Spears can be put into the "See also" section.

Opinions? I like the second variant more, and both variants more than what we have at the moment.

Amalthea^Talk 13:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the link to The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) has been removed?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatinumFire (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not replacing Britney & Kevin: Chaotic with Chaotic (Britney Spears extended play) in the "EPs"?????

PlatinumFire (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, not a single RELIABLE source has confirmed the album. ---Shadow (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. What about removing the link to A Mother's Gift titled Brave New Girl from section FILM & TV cause it's in fact a book! It should be only about films and tv shows where britney appeared on or directed them. And Brave New girl film is an useless information here and confusing. And also Will & Grace should be removed cause she only did one episode, ya?

2. And i was also thinking why Britney & Kevin: Chaotic isn't in film/ tv section? It should be there

3. I think DVDs need to be changed to Video albums and remove Britney & Kevin: Chaotic and Britney: For the Record from the section, cause a. They're not video albums, b. they should be only in film/ tv cause that's what they are. c. Why having two identically the same link in one template - e.g. Britney: For the Record?

PlatinumFire (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Already done by User:Xwomanizerx. GrooveDog (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template is now protected for a week, please discuss the merits of including or not including Britney & Kevin: Chaotic#Bonus CD below please. Amalthea 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I think that, since there is no official name for the bonus cd of the DVD set, it has to be named like the DVD set: "Britney & Kevin: Chaotic". It's ok if in the show's article it is named "Bonus CD" cuz it has no independent name or independent article, but when we name it on the template or on other articles, it should be named Britney & Kevin: Chaotic". Like, for example, on the singles template, where we can not unlist the "Bonus CD" cuz a single was released off that record, but we can't name the ep "Bonus CD" on that template cuz the name, is in fact, the same than the DVD set. Furthermore, we should not remove the "Bonus CD" neither from the Britney Spears main template nor from the albums chronology nor from the discography, because it is one of her main records due to the fact that a single was released from that EP. It has to be mentioned on all the articles, and we should call it "Britney & Kevin: Chaotic". Fortunato luigi (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: On the BS discography, we shouldn't mix the "Britney & Kevin: Chaotic" release with the miscellaneous releases, cuz those are promotional releases or things without a real importance, that were released with promotioanl objetives and now are out of production, clearly opposite to the "Britney & Kevin: Chaotic" release, wich is a very important Spears' release. Fortunato luigi (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRITNEY & KEVIN: CHAOTIC - THE BONUS CD ISN'T IMPORTANT AT ALL. IT ONLY HAD 3 PREVIOUSLY UNRELEASED SONGS. AND THE NEW SONG SOMEDAY WAS RELEASED SOLELY AS A SINGLE, AND IN JAPAN SOLELY AS AN EP. AND THE OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RELEASES LIKE KEY CUTS FROM REMIXED AT LEAST WERE RELEASED SOLELY UNLIKE BK:C. BK:C ISN'T ANY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE OTHER RELEASES. SO NO, IT SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED. KTHNX. 79.101.78.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Of course that is more important than the others!!! Someday was a single from that EP, the other releases were just released with promotional an limited purposes, not important purposes like Chaotic was! We can not merge those!!! The fact that IS an EP with "brand new" songs makes it more relevant than those others releases WERE!!! Fortunato luigi (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The fact that a main single, not promotional single puts it above all others. Not to mention the fact that it was packaged with a DVD made it more available (mainstream) then the other EPs. It clearly has more significance then the others, and should be included. As for the name, does anyone have the EP? We should use the name that is on the actual EP. --Shadow (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the other problem. I have the DVD set, and the EP doesn't have a particular name, the EP is just called on the DVD box "Bonus CD" and the CD is just labeled as "Britney & Kevin: Chaotic... The Bonus CD". It has no independent name, as far as I can see. So, I propose to use the name of the DVD set, since it has no name by itself. Here is a link that shows the DVD set [1] without the bonus track. Fortunato luigi (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the time has expired a decision must be taken. Only three persons here discussed, two of them being on favor of incluiding the EP, and just one against. I will include the EP on the template calling it like the DVD set. Fortunato luigi (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

britney nose ingles pero me gusta tus canciones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.239.54.19 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

britney nose ingles pero me gusta tus canciones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.239.54.19 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... the design is clearly needed to be changed :) What would be brighter , nebudu ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.125.193.60 (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello can't redesign your template like Template:Jennifer Lopez Template:Selena Gomez & Template:Bridgit Mendler are you sure redesign by User talk:121.54.64.38 7 October 2013 (UTC)