Talk:Circus (Britney Spears album)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

MORE CRITICAL RECEPTION!

Ummm...what is going on with the critical reception page? Is this really from the Sun and if it is, can The Sun even be a reputable source for lyrics like that??? Also, the whole section doesn't even seem objective, it doesn't read like a normal section. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganpoetry005 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY GRADE: B http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20242634,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.95.242 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

USA TODAY 3 out of 4 starts! http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/reviews/2008-11-25-britney-spears-circus_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.95.242 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll add both. — Realist² 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NEW YORK TIMES CRITICS CHOICE!!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/arts/music/01choi.html?_r=1&ref=music

BOSTON GLOBE (POSITIVE) http://www.boston.com/ae/music/cd_reviews/articles/2008/11/30/return_to_pop_is_the_show_in_circus/

NEW YORK POST (EXTREMELY POSITIVE) http://www.nypost.com/seven/11302008/entertainment/music/ring_master_141478.htm

Cheers, I've added 2. The last one can't be used as they are not professional music reviews. — Realist² 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Erm Ny times is proffesinal isint ?

BILLBOARD (POSITIVE) http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/reviews-album/circus-1003917347.story

Done. — Realist² 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The billbaord reveiw should deffinetly be used or quotes from it:) - ive added it will some please check over the reveiw to improve and change any mistakes thanks

Poster

I'm not sure if this should be added or not, but according to amazon.com the deluxe edition of Circus comes with a double sided poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.15.99 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist Format

What was the "reason" it had to be changed for? A cosmetic reason is not a reason for change. A correct tracklist should include the tracklist template, a numbered list (like currently) or a table. Number list is usually used if there are no writers listed, or a couple. These songs obviously list a number a writers, as well as producers, so they should be in template or table form for easy viewing of the user. Actually normally the writers should be broken up into "Music" and "Lyrics" for the template. Bottom line, an agreed upon tracklist format needs to be found for the article, since it is constantly being changed. Greekboy (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it was changed because of WP:ALBUMS guidelines. The other info box should be used not that tacky one. Charmed36 (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is still under debate which format should be used when the information is complex (such as including many writers). A numbered list does not display the information currently listed correctly, as there is little distinction between the writers and producers of the tracks. Although the numbered list is easier to edit, the template shows the information in a better format. And like I stated before, cosmetic reasons are not a reason for change. Every editor can have a different opinion on what they think looks "tacky", and some might think the numbered list does too. So again, cosmetic reasons are not a reason for change when a template correctly displays information. Also please remember that you should not revert changed during a discussion. Greekboy (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Hard Candy (Madonna album)‎ has a clear, concise tracklist in line with WP:ALBUMS, with a detailed subsection for those who require additional info with regards to producers on the page.Reqluce (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Even with producers taken out of the track listing, the tracks on this album list a lot (an unusual amount) of writers for each track, there for creating a special situation. Greekboy (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Numerous number of writers is not a 'special situation'. Please see the example in WP:ALBUMS for a truly exceptional case.Reqluce (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for 3rd opinions on WP:ALBUMS about the template and this case. Greekboy (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD Details

Well accord to the SonyBGM Australian B2B it has the DVD Tracklisting as : DVD:
SIDE SEQ TITLE
2 1 The Making Of The Circus Album Including An Exclusive Interview With Britney USZM20800914
2 2 Womanizer
2 3 Lace And Leather
2 4 Mannequin
2 5 Circus
2 6 Womanizer
2 7 Shattered Glass
2 8 Out From Under

As well as the 2 Bonus Tracks on the normal CD:
1 14 Rock Me In (Main Version) USJI10801321
1 15 Phonography (Main Version) USJI10801324

---

I have no idea if they are live performances or if they are music videos are anything... hmm. Should it be added or should it be left for the time beng until more is released about it?

TheRevolution7 (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me the link? I'll check to see if its a reliable source. JayJ47 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

X-Factor Performance

I live in Ireland and watch the X-Factor every week. Britney is hugely rumoured to be performing but won't be on the 16th like it says in this article. Leona Lewis is performing on the 16th. Mc8755 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Phonography & Trouble

I really find it unlikely that ALL the writers of Radar wrote both Phonography AND Trouble as well. On that same note, the article also mentions that both of these songs are also produced by Bloodyshy & Avant and co-produced by the Clutch, the same people who did Radar. It seems as if this was just filled in because we have yet to find out who really did write and produce these songs, but I really don't think this is accurate information as I believe Trouble is a cover version of the Elvis Presley. Britney performed a snipit of the song as the intro to Gimme More at the 2007 MTV VMA's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.15.99 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Bloodshy & Avant could have sampled a part of the Elvis Presley song, or just made a very different opening, or used a completely different song all together (it was never stated that this is the same song that she opened the VMA's with). And the Clutch and B&A co-produced Freakshow on Blackout as well, with the exact same writers. The thing is, both tracks were both confirmed to be co-produced by them, and were most likely written by them. 66.153.174.40 (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Panasonic Penguin

Quotations

Seem to be too long not to veer close to breaches of copyright; please take a look at this guideline and decide what can be cut whilst retaining the essence of the reviews. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed copy vio of Pop justice review - DO NOT reinsert in this full format,

Popjustice: Review deleted. Putting it on the talk page doesn't keep it from being a copyright violation. It's here.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the other too reviews, which didn't actually say much in between the shit waffling. We need to keep these reviews trim, there will be many many many more of them to come. Crazy Britney fans chill please. — Realist² 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

^and you should trim your language.Spears154 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

7:55 Circus Preview Really A Leak?

I'm guessing no. http://www.britney.com has a download link for the "leak". Does this constitute it as a leak, or promotion? My vote is for it being for promotional purposes, since this was done by Sony BMG on purpose. It is because of this that I think it should by moved to the Promotion section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.174.40 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazon - 30 second clips

Resolved

Amazon.com posted 30 second clips of each of the "Circus" tracks today (November 13th).

http://www.amazon.com/Circus-Deluxe-Version/dp/B001L2BIHU/ref=dm_ap_alb23

Amnesia Japan and UK?

According to the UK edition of the back cover of the album, Amnesia is a bonus track. Circus back cover: http://www.breatheheavy.com/picture%20links/6080.jpg

Circus Deluxe back cover: http://www.breatheheavy.com/picture%20links/6085.jpg

table format

can someone please edit the tracklisting table width of the column for the producers most especially for the rows of Shattered Glass and Lace and Leather.. please adjust it so that if the list of producers is too long, it won't overflow to the next row.. just seems unsightly.. thanks! ^__^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattMamba (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

leaks

Why exactly do we not keep leak sections up? The roll out of leaks has become a big part of many album releases these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.18.72 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it's so common that it lacks notability, is terribly boring and amounts to trivia. — Realist² 22:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The big leak sections are tedious sure... but I think the full album leak is public info and should be mentioned somewhere? Re- the source listed (the mirror), it does not report the leak of the full album, but rather it explains that 5 tracks were leaked to youtube over the weekend. The FULL album leaked early November 17, and has so far only been picked up by a few small blogs. http://apocalypsemusic.blogspot.com/ , http://www.jonnyalisblog.com/ . (Torrenting sites have probably picked it up too by now.) I have the files and can confirm its 100% legit... if you wanna check it out theres download links on those sites. Can we possibly post a mention of the full leak and list it as unsourced for the moment? (TehLostBug (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

I agree. A full leak is common but not a guarantee for albums. IMO it is sufficiently notable to include. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 13:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly I don't understand how the time of a leak is any more trivial than some of the other information that has been allowed to stick around. 152.7.18.72 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, (internet) leaks are non-notable per Wikipedia:ALBUM#LEAK. --Madchester (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No need for producers that didnt make the final cut.

Every album has producers, some make it, some don't. There is no need for that paragraph on people who didn't make the fnal cut. --Jak3m (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree for the most part, unless there was a notable reason why the producer didn't make the final cut and it would have to be reported by notable sources. — Realist² 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Philippines Release Date

according to the Philippine Label's website, the release date for Circus in the Philippines is December 2, and that the Deluxe Edition is available.. please edit this.. thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattMamba (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattMamba (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Philippines release date is December 2, 2008 please change fyi

http://www.sonybmg.com.ph/index.php/artists/upcoming/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cq40 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Out from Under

http://www.bsworld.com/?p=9921 Out from Under is the third single! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.132.129 (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because a song is listed on the album's sticker doesn't mean that song will be a single. With "Blackout", "Radar" was listed on the sticker, and it was not offically released (though it was intended to be), and on Britney's "In the Zone" album "(I Got That) Boom Boom" was listed on the sticker and was never released. It very well may be the next single, but the sticker alone isn't solid proof at this point as the second single hasn't yet been released there is always time for her and her label to switch things up and they could still be deliberating on the next single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.15.99 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaked

the entire album is on youtube. it was leaked on Nov. 17, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.47.33 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland in the UK?

It says that there will be a UK and mentions Dublin tour but Dublin is not in the UK. Its like saying Canada is in the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.181.114 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition cover

hey i was just wondering ,, why dnt we put the Circus Deluxe Edition cover on the alternate cover thingS3o0dk94 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As usage of non-free images on Wikipedia is limited only covers with a stark difference between them (and can be used to discuss in the article) are used like what was done in the Blackout article as they are two completely different covers. The Deluxe Edition on has a different coloured border (the colours in the border are the same just in an alternated order) - a different coloured border will not allow us the right to upload another non-free image. AngelOfSadness talk 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Britney wrote Mannequin

I got my Circus today and it stands that Britney co-wrote "Mannequin" in the booklet. I will add it to the page. ραncακemisτακe (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated/Cleaned up Promo sect

Just updated Promo section and adding her French appearance on Star Academy. --Jak3m (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Britney at G-A-Y

After X-Factor she performed at G-A-Y and this needs adding to the Promotion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.193.127 (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't confirmation that she did perform at GAY. — Realist² 03:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

17:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Look at this then http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tBAgRF8JS_Q

Sorry, we can't use youtube as a source. I'm sure a reliable source will comment on it soon. — Realist² 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.britneyspears.com/2008/11/exclusive-britney-birthday-video.php - 17:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog on the site, posted my a fan. We need reliable sources like the BBC. — Realist² 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's her official site sweety. For christ sake she was at the club stop being such a fag and add it http://perezhilton.com/2008-11-30-britney-spears-effed-over-london-fans 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedy2k5 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 November 2008

Unacceptable response. Please see WP:CIVIL. - eo (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again perezhilton is not allowed, also, calling me a sweety or a fag has just got you a warning for incivilty. Good day. — Realist² 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5263866.ece - Starts at paragraph eight.

Well the source specifically says she did not perform, so end of story, the fact that she got pissed in a night club has 0 relevance to this article. — Realist² 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Circus released day earlier on UK iTunes.

Can someone please add this. It was meant to be released on the 1st of December but was available to download on the 30th of November. Thanks.

I can back you up here, I'm from the UK and purchased the album myself on November 30. Xamkou (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Live Preformances????

Can you really call Brits preformances live?

Yes. — Realist² 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Quite rightly the reviews were cut down to 10, however the cut down was not exactly wonderful, very important reviews by The New York Times were removed but ones by USA today were kept. Here is the link to the alteration. A total of three reviews by professional institutions were removed, The New York Times, The Guardian and The Boston Globe. Some, if not all need to be reinserted. Some of the less professional entities need to be removed. If I get no response I'll make the necessary alterations myself. — Realist² 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

another review

NME review

"Quicksand" and "Rock Boy"

Have either of these two songs actually been released anywhere, as the "Circus" page claims (with no source given)? www.amazon.de isn't listing "Rock Boy" on the German deluxe edition of "Circus", and being in the U.S., I have no way of confirming any exclusive UK i-Tunes tracks (such as, reportedly, "Quicksand")

I've listened to the "leaked" versions of both songs, and "Rock Boy" especially sounds like more of a demo than a completed track, bonus or otherwise.Heidijo236 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quicksand was actually on the documentary "Britney: For The Record" Xamkou (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Promotion on Radio"

Australia's 2dayFM are holding a competition for Britney's Circus tour and is giving the chance for Sydney viewers to enter and choose an artist to go to see live across the world Britney's tour is mentioned, should this be in promotions or not? link is here http://www.2dayfm.com.au/win/hitsandstars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheraymond (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If You Seek Amy NEXT SINGLE

At least, that is what it says in the artical.

http://nyulocal.com/entertainment/2008/12/03/britney-spears-comes-clean-with-america/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.104.165 (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

no chart performance

There no chart performance info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.1.49 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) yes, someone please add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.97.102 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock Boy

the song Rock Boy is also a bonus track of Italian Digital Store Dada, here the link: http://www.dada.it/audio/13035887/Britney-Spears-Rock-Boy/ --151.83.5.79 (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Trouble

I have heard rumours that Trouble might be being released a single in the future... Does anyone know the website with the confirmation on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.40 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No reliable source state that Trouble will be a single in the future, so don't put it on the article unless there's a resource (Fan clubs web sites aren't sources) --BittersweetJoJo (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Status

It says on Britney.com that, having sold over 500,000 copies in its first week, the album went gold. Why isn't it mentioned in the chart section for the U.S. that it is certified gold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.130.167 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the RIAA that certify albums, not Britney.com. When the RIAA certify it we will mention it. I promise. — Realist² 22:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And Why RIAA doesn't certity it yet??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.66.24 (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Out From Under - third single needs soruces!

DO NOT add Out From Under as the third single unless you have a source. confirmed on many fansites is not good enough!

UK Sales!

Circus dropped to #14 in the UK charts this week and sold a further 50k copies, now her total sales are around 128,000, as confirmed by music week, can someone please change this.

Ok, seriously, It's been on the UK charts for 3 weeks now, and the sales figures still say 76,000, whereas we already know it's sold 100k more than this, so why hasn't anyone changed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.43.85 (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

TheRevolution7 (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Circus in Argentina moved from four to number two

http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?CodOp=ESCS&CO=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.136.61 (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Ouro

Circus In The U.K

In the U.K, Spears hasn't sold as much as expected, her last album "Blackout" charted at #2, but "Circus" charted at #4 and then dropped 10 places to #14 a week later. Unlike the album, her upcoming world tour "The Circus Starring Britney Spears" is set to be a big tour. A source from AEG, the producer of the tour explained that she has sold loads of tickets in one morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannisrai (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First week sales of Circus outsold those of Blackout in the UK. Comparing peak positions can be very misleading. — Realist² 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibley tour promoters don't always give the most objectively direct impartial infomation62.7.171.236 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CANADIAN AND AUSTRALIAN SALES

The Canadian sales have been at 80.000 for like 2 weeks. It's well known that the Canadian sales have surpassed 100,000 and the australian ones are close to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.224.66 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If You Seek Amy controversy

I have supplied sources that are proof the song has cause havocin Australia, and yet it was delted because someone "THINKS" it had been deleted before. I placed it back up there, and don't remove it as there is no reason to. User:Billy4kate, (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2009 (Australian Time)

It's been removed, controversy sections are strongly discouraged and there is no actual controversy anyway. — Realist² 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, did you read the articles from the links? User:Billy4kate, (talk) 10:51 1 January 2009 (Australian Time)

Yep, and in no way do your edits comply with WP:NPOV and our policy on controversy sections. — Realist² 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Platinum?

On Rollingstone.com it says "Platinum was the theme of the week as Britney Spears "Circus"...passed the million-selling plateau." Does that mean it has been certified platinum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.169.111 (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, RIAA certify albums, not Rolling Stone. — Realist² 02:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And RIAA does certify "Circus" with platinum status?? If no,why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.66.24 (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The RIAA haven't certified it. These things take time. — Realist² 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why these things take time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.66.24 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this article, I'm sorry if the RIAA are too slow for you. Maybe they are on Christmas holiday. — Realist² 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

---

united world chart

britney's circus is at 2 million mark worldwide... you can see it in the www.mediatraffic.de just count all of the week 51-53 of 2008 and week 1 of 2009 and add it ad you got all the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitback666 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of third single by Jive Records

It's "If You Seek Amy", i'll try and put it in the article but someone can clean it up if they feel it's not perfect. Here's the source anyways [2] 86.45.212.3 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just realised this page is protected so maybe someone else can add the link I added above, thanks86.45.212.3 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a blog, isn't really a reliable source. A reliable source will spread the news eventually. — Realist² 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

its not a blog ,,, its britney's label website ,, its has been announced on he website too ,,, why can't you accept the fact that it has been announced ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S3o0dk94 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any report posted by some fan called "lead bitch" is not a reliable source. — Realist² 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Realist. It won't hurt us to wait until a reliable source confirms it, it does hurt us if we spread rumors. --Amalthea 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It was posted by the blog part of her website - the post was not posted by Jive or Britney and the post did not reveal a source for their information. Maybe when the actual website says it in it's news section (not blog), then the information can be put in. Either way blogs are not reliable sources so the information is best left out until some definate official confirmation comes through. AngelOfSadness talk 19:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[3] This is Britney's website confirming, the two websites are official! 86.45.212.3 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether they call themselves bitches or not, it's Britney team who writes in her official website, they are not fans. xWomanizerx 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, after having another look at britneyspears.com, I actually now think that the so called "blog" section actually is their news section – cause really, they have no other section where they post current information, and there are only five different accounts posting there: "Britney", "Team Britney", "Lead Bitch", "Blonde Bitch" and "British Bitch". All about as juvenile as that song title is, but I think now that this is to be considered a primary source, which is reliable for facts like these. I'd be more comfortable if it came from one of the non-bitches, but still. --Amalthea 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's completely unreliable, a complete joke. People have been using these sources to say that the album is certified platinum when the RIAA has not done so. They've been wrong about that and they've been wrong before. — Realist² 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair they were basing that on a Rolling Stone Magazine report (and only slightly misrepresented it;)). And it obviously isn't a reliable source for such facts, but I would be inclined to trust them with first-hand facts like this. Or where is a more official outlet for such facts on her "official website"? --Amalthea 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3rd single

it has just been announced that Britney's next single off 'Circus' is 'If U Seek Amy'.. http://www.britneyspears.com/2009/01/breaking-news-britneys-3rd-single.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattMamba (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

official label websites aren't reliable enough apparently! UKWiki (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing official about a post by the name of "lead bitch". Sorry this is an encyclopedia. — Realist² 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they call themselves. It's the most reliable source with Britney.com.--Sakrileg (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it's the official site but that still isn't sufficient proof. I recommend waiting for an official announcement from her record label.Xamkou (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the fact that her record label run site (britney.com) has posted it means that it's an announcement from her record label? And isn't it a little snobbish to refuse to publish an official confirmation because the person who confirmed it refers to herself as 'lead bitch'? Doesn't make her any less employed by Jive, or any less qualified to comment on matters which directly affect Britney Spears or Jive, does it?

I've seen items a hell of a lot more poorly sourced (if at all) than both of Britney's OFFICIAL websites allowed to stand on Wikipedia.Heidijo236 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because other article are crap, that does not mean we lower our standards. But other article are much worse is not a valid argument. — Realist² 03:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So when I ask for a source for some of the remixes listed in these entries and NEVER get one, I can just go ahead and delete those remixes?Heidijo236 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove any unsourced piece of information on Wikipedia. Some might argue it's not the most...helpful...thing to do, but you are well within your right.— Realist² 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Realist2...I thought that enclopedias were UNBIASED. It is LUDICROUS to suggest that this is not accurate, as BOTH OFFICIAL WEBSITES... britneyspears.com and britney.com have confirmed it. They call themselves Britney's bitches because of the line in the song Gimme More...it is a joke. Just because you high-nosed editors do not think Britney's article is important does not mean everyone does. IF YOU SEEK AMY is the next single, and to suggest otherwise is LYING. You are being extremely abusive, and I am so tired of the SNOBS who edit this site.24.130.6.43 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind you to remain civil, please avoid person attacks. Also read our policy on reliable sources. One source is a blog, the other is written by a miss "lead bitch". Also, this is not "Britney's article", it belongs to Wikipedia. Note, I'm not saying "If You Seek Amy" is not the third single, I'm saying the sources to back that up are shit. — Realist² 03:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

BUT THAT'S THE THING! It's NOT A BLOG! It's britney.com. HER OFFICIAL WEBSITE. They call it a "blog" to make it seem more accessible to the average joe. This "blog" meanwhile, has been a source for COUNTLESS aspectes of these articles. It is a NEWS site...and what about britneyspears.com? It is BRITNEYSPEARS.COM? How much more official can you get? Do you want a Jive Records Employee or even Britney herself to post a video saying IF YOU SEEK AMY is the next single? Then will it be reliable enough for you. And although it may have come off as that, I was not trying to personally attack you...rather everyone who acts as if the wikipedia Britney articles are of lesser importance to other music articles. As of now, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to not include IF YOU SEEK AMY as the next single.24.130.6.43 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with Britney Spears, I'm quite the sympathizer really. However the sources are not reliable, noted recently, when they falsely reported that the Circus album had been certified Platinum. It has not. — Realist² 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But it is her official site!!! I don't understand! What differences does it make what they call themselves! It's britneyspears.com! There is no other location on the entire internet that would have more accurate information regarding the third single! It's britneyspears.com. How is it possible that this is not accurate? Please...I don't understand! If I have one of my employees post something on my official site about one of my singles on my album, is it less accurate than if my record company did? It's her official site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!24.130.6.43 (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the exclamation marks make we want to ignore you, so please stop using them. Has it not occurred to you to look elsewhere for reliable sources on it? Post some of them on the talk page and we can see if their any good? If the BBC, Rolling Stone etc aren't talking about it, maybe it's not true. — Realist² 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.accesshollywood.com/britney-spears-announces-controversial-third-single_article_12920Spears154 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/entertainment/Britney_Spears_Announces_Controversial_Third_Single.html http://www.popcrunch.com/britney-spears-if-you-seek-amy-third-single-release/ Meanwhile, I'm very sorry that my punctuation has offended you.24.130.6.43 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better, please hold tight, I will try to get someone to unlog the page to that we can create the single. — Realist² 04:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I might as well ask this here, since I can't seem to get a response on either of the individual talk pages for the songs in question: If both of Britney's official sites are to be called into question as sources because they contain "blogs" (rather than press releases?), fine. But where are the sources that indicate that "That's Where You Take Me" and the Chris Cox "Megamix" were released as singles? A page is devoted to the fact that TWYTM was supposedly released in the Phillipines, offering as proof a blurry photo of an "official" TWYTM CD single; as for the "Megamix", the song and video were only released either a bonus track or a b-side on various discs, and the only "CD single" I've seen is a promo release. No chart information is available for the CCM either.Heidijo236 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"That's Where You Take Me" was released as a single, which I can vouch for, as I own a copy (I lived in the Phillipines for about ten years), and I'm fairly certain that the CCMegamix was released on air-play only. This is, however, the wrong place to discuss it, and you should really redirect your discussion to the 'Oops!...I Did It Again' album page and the 'Greatest Hits: My Prerogative' page.92.2.7.239 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already posed this question on the discussion pages for both "That's Where You Take Me" (which was on the "Britney" album, not "Oops!...I Did It Again") and the Chris Cox "Megamix". As for the "That's Where You Take Me" CD, what is the catalog number on the disc?Heidijo236 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Two new songs "Abroad" & "Take The Bait"

I'm not sure if it's got to do with Circus or not but details are here http://www.breatheheavy.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1230931364&archive=&start_from=&ucat=& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.134.232 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, it's only a fanmade blog. Also, it has not been confirmed by Jive Records and no source state that the songs exist. BittersweetJoJo (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Uk sales

Circus hasn't sold 76,000 in uk,that's the sales of the first week not total!!Someone can change it??

UK Sales - "Circus" gone Platinum

The album has sold 300,000 copies in the UK, being certified Platinum there, according to http://britneyspearscircus.net/?p=515 . Please, change the information on the main page. Thank You!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.143.172 (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NO - it SHIPPED 300K to retail and is yet to reach even 'underperforming' "Blackout" total (in ACTUAL SALES to CUSTOMERS) yet and given that "Circus" has just plummeted(from #73 LW) out of the UK Midweek album chart top 100 this week its unlikely it ever will

SOURCE; The Official UK Top 75 Albums - Week of Mon 02 Mar

http://uk.launch.yahoo.com/c/uk/album_charts.html

62.7.171.236 (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

fa link

fa:سیرک (آلبوم) in fa.wikipedia!--213.217.57.53 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

9 Weeks

it Actually spent 9 weeks in the top 10 making her longest running album [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womanizer.81 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it has, i've tried changing it two times, but it always keeps getting changed back to eight.--Brandontepapatapp (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we need a source that states it is 9 weeks. One will eventually materialize. — R² 23:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok then, well here is a source that clearly states the nine weeks in the top 10: http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/28585/week-ending-feb-1-2009-thats-why-they-call-him-the-boss/ Circus is now her longest running album since Oops!...I Did It Again =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandontepapatapp (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated it. — R² 23:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Circus" GOLD IN POLAND

In Poland 'Circus' is gold record http://zpav.pl/plyty.asp?page=zlote&lang=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.198.2 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Circus" GOLD In greece

Her album is certifeid after selling 7500 copies see here

List of music recording sales certifications

see has also been certified gold in the greek chart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.10.95 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The only source the article uses is this, since I can't understand greek, I can't see the figure 7,500. — R² 13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of article

Since Britney STILL even this far into her career has never managed to become anything more that a wholly manufactured/managed Jive cash cow - negligible input of her own ideas into her career/music path - Record co. puppet, aren't the categories used for this article rather high ? ie

- C-Class Album articles

- Low-importance Album articles 62.7.171.236 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quicksand Feat Lady GaGa

Quicksand CLEARLY features Lady GaGa; You can hear her voice very well, so why is she not credited as being in it? She's credited as a writer but not for the vocals.

68.254.164.150 (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because she supposedly performs background vocals it doesn't make her a featured artist. You must be a Gaga fan and need to see her name everywhere. Charmed36 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If the album credits don't say she's featured, she's not featured. Period. Percxyz (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There's parts where it's only GaGa singing.... 68.254.164.150 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You need a source and background vocals don't make a person a featured appearance. Charmed36 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...really? I have the song, and I actually don't notice any solo vocals from her on that song at all. But anyhow, the point is that the track listing on Wikipedia is written in the same format as the track listing on the actual album (with a few minor exceptions sometimes.) If the song on the actual track listing on the back of the CD states Quicksand (Feat. Lady GaGa), then that's how it's written on Wiki. If it only reads Quicksand, then that's how it's written on Wiki. Since she's not stated as being featured on the song on the album track listing, she shouldn't be stated as being featured on it on Wikipedia either. It could be misleading. Percxyz (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)