Jump to content

Talk:Brittany Pierce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBrittany Pierce has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Episodes

[edit]

We should change her name to Brittany Pierce in all season one episodes. 216.204.206.155 (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to spend the time, go for it....otherwise it redirects here anyway. CTJF83 chat 21:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Others: Please put further comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Glee task force#Brittany Pierce & Santana Lopez a couple?

[edit]

Doesn't anyone think that Artie and Puck should be listed too here? I mean she did sleep and date both of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.230.157 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Kurt, since they dated for a while even though he is gay. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion about the 'significant other' parameter in Glee-related articles here, where consensus was that single sexual encounters/one episode relationships aren't really notable enough to be considered significant. Frickative 00:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Santana was one scene.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting. People keep changing it back and no one bothers to counter my argument here, so I'm going to keep reverting until they do.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Santana has been hinted at in several episodes. It has been said they sleep together multiple tomes. Now that Artie is trying to get back with maybe he should be included but not definitely. JDDJS (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said? I've never heard it. And no one said anything on Santana's talk page.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Sectionals, Santana says that sleeping with someone is not the same as dating them, and Brittany says if it was she and Santana would be dating. JDDJS (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I'm still not sure. I still think they were experimenting. Kurt says he's the only one "out" at his school. If Santana and Brittany were in a qualifying relationship, it seems to me that would have outed them.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to give up on this but the fact that Kurt said he's the only out doesn't mean it isn't so because 1 it's different for guys then girls to be out 2 they will qualify as bi which is again different 3 they have a lusty and love based relationship. JDDJS (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Kurt doesn't know (or believe) they're out, I don't think they are. If they were keeping it a secret, it would be like Kurt and that football player. I just feel if the relationship really qualified there'd be more said about it. I suppose it is possible they could both be bi and have a qualifying relationship.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more that Santana and Brittany are best friends and somewhat "slutty" and "lusftful".. not a romantic relationship. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with that but that doesn't mean they don't count as significant others. Puck and Santana are considered significant others. JDDJS (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santana publically says she is dating Puck. She never suggests having an official "relationship" or anything similar with Brittany. Brittany mentions that they have had sex, which Santana seemed embarassed for her to see. They are not in a relationship. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I knew I was right.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were nominated for an award for best lesbian couple. JDDJS (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link? Plus they would both be bisexual anyway...Santana for sure. CTJF83 chat 12:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the award nom to the article last night - they're up for "Favorite Fictional Lesbian Couple" at the AfterEllen.com Visibility Awards. (For context, Kurt and Blaine are up for the corresponding award at the AfterElton.com equivalent). That said, while I think Santana and Brittany have a significant connection, and one that it's important to discuss in the body of the article, "Duets" demonstrated that Santana doesn't consider them to be in a relationship, so they're not 'significant others' in the traditional sense. Frickative 18:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany flat out said that she and Santna have slept together in Sectionals, something we later saw in Duets. Other than that Brittany and Santana were seen in many cutesy romantic moments in the first season: hugging longingly in Throwdown, Head-leaning in Home and Journey, their "date" with Finn in Hell-o in which they ignore him to have a date with each other. In the second season, you have Me Against the Music, a very sexually charged performance, and Touch-a Me in which they sing out wanting to be with each other whilst frollicking down the school halls. Brittany and Santana are far from a one episode. User talk: Ranjaq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.43.198 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a source in the article in which Heather Morris says that most of those cutesy background moments are just her and Naya fooling around - not an indication that Britt and Santana are couple. They're friends that have sex, but per "Sectionals" and "Duets", they aren't a couple. Frickative 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even a Friends With Benefits Relationship is still a persistent significant coupling between two main characters, and therefore should be included in the infobox of both characters. I mean come on, it is kind of a defining characterization for them. 146.151.43.198 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Ranjaq[reply]

Why do we even have "significant others" when couples so frequently change? Why not just make a list of romances and included both Artie and Satana. That way Everyone is happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.43.198 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because one episode partners give undue weight in comparison to multiple episode partners CTJF83 chat 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fox.com/glee/bios/naya-rivera/ "But Santana's not all bad. Dopey-but-kind fellow Cheerio Brittany is her best friend (with benefits), and they share a close bond." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemarie001 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest we move this discussion to WP:Glee because with the 2 different articles it gets confusing. JDDJS (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Significant Other" from infobox

[edit]

The suggestion was made on Wikipedia talk:Glee#Significant others to do this with Santana Lopez. User:Noted Seven did it. No reason not to do it with Brittany.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as soon as I did it an IP put it back. I removed it again and said to discuss it first.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP left a message on my talk page saying he/she did discuss it. So that's that.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

[edit]

She hasn't claimed lesbian or bisexual. You saying she is bi and not lesbian is unsourced WP:OR. See also this edit summary CTJF83 21:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she hasn't claimed lesbian or bisexual, then we can't really say that she's LGBT either. The only real onscreen relationship she's had is with Artie, and based on that one would say that she's hetero (plus the fact that she's said on screen that she's had sex with all the other boys in the school). If saying that her being a bisexual or lesbian is unsourced WP:OR, then so is saying that she's LGBT, in which case we should remove both categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake fuersturm (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...That is reasonable...for all we know, she has only made out with Santana, which doesn't make her bi or lesbian. CTJF83 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. Personally, I still think she's bi, but if that violates WP:OR then agree we remove both cats. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In "Laryngitis", I'm pretty sure she claimed to have made out with most of the boys and girls in the school (as well as Mr. Kidney the janitor, heh.) Frickative 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to clarify, what is Wikipedia's standard for determining a character's sexual orientation? Seems to me that most characters aren't going to make things easy for us by declaring onscreen "by the way, I'm bisexual/gay/lesbian/transgendered" -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frickative, do you think we should say bi? FYI, I'm out of town til Friday or Saturday. CTJF83 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She had a long lasting sexual relationship with Santana (scissoring, anyone?). If that doesn't make her bisexual... 151.46.149.172 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ctjf, I'm sort of thinking myself round in circles on this one right now. I think I'd be inclined to put her in the fictional bisexuals category, but ultimately I'd prefer to have an independent source attesting to that in the article, rather than skirting around OR and basing it on interpretation of the episodes. @Jake - I don't think there's a cut and dry way of going about it, but failing an on-screen declaration, I'm pretty sure the best thing would be a statement of intent from the relevant writers/producers/performers. If no such statements exist (and my search skills are failing me, here. Fairly recently, Rivera commented that Santana's sexuality is "one of the great mysteries of the show", but I can't turn up anything relevant/recent from Morris) then it may be appropriate to detail opposing views from reliable sources in the "Development" section, noting potential ambiguity in the character's orientation. Frickative 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@CTjf83: in response to the edit summary you referenced above: "(incorrect, I know lots and lots of gays personally who were in loving committed relationships with women for years and have kids, doesn't mean they are bi now)" -- I don't understand how a person can be fully gay and fully hetero at two different points in time, because if that's true, then that means one's sexual orientation is a matter of choice. But if you believe that one's sexual orientation is hard-wired in them (i.e. you-are-who-you-are), then I don't see how someone who starts out as hetero can become gay later on, without actually being bisexual overall, and they're simply defining their current sexual orientation based on the gender of their current love interest. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me that she's bi because they say she has strong romantic feelings for Santana and they also say she has strong feelings for Artie and she has also relationships with various guys in the school. JDDJS (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Santana's sexual orientation has been resolved --- she just got outted by Brad Falchuk. Now if only he'd do the same for Brittany .... -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With fictional characters, the BLP rules don't apply. So if the character is identified within the show as "fluid" and claims to love and have sex with both men and women, that's enough. It's a bit like adding the Dutch descent category, based on a line of dialogue. Other "I've known..." comments are merely imposing external meanings onto the text. If the writers later have Brittany, like Santana, realise that her relationships with boys weren't real (though I think they won't, as the Santana-Brittany difference is what makes Santana's storyline interesting) then it can always be changed. No biggie.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's obviously bi, the fact it's even a debate is a huge joke. She has sex and intimate relationships with both males & females. And you people wonder why they make fun of Wikipedians. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except by that logic, Santana would be "obviously bi" too, yet we know that's not the case, so a discussion to clarify was worthwhile. Unrelated to this subject, but edits like this are trivial in nature and have been reverted several times now. Wikipedia is written for everyone, not just Glee fans. Frickative 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Frickative, and all, I'm up for putting bi if that is what the consensus is. I'm not going to make a huge deal out of it.
@Jake, I know we are going off topic, but take it from me first hand, being gay still has a stigma around it, so you can pretend to be straight, and marry an opposite sex person and have kids to try and convince yourself and others that you are straight...and one day decide it is better to not live a lie about yourself, and be who you are, and then be gay. You were gay all along, just hid it, and pretended otherwise. CTJF83 03:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect?

[edit]

It seems like we have a lot of anonymous users editing only to remove the male characters from the relationship sections of this page and the Santana Lopez page. Is there a way we could temporarily protect it from editing by anonymous users? Really annoying to have to keep reverting these edits, especially since it's increasingly looking like it's a lot of the same people just changing their IP addresses. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it's happening several times a day, and that's the only kind of IP editing that's happening. They're reluctant to hand out semi-protection except in severe cases: the first time I asked for protection on Glee season 3 this year, due to added future episode titles that were only given on fan sites, I didn't get it, and when I asked again a little over a week ago and got it over the spate of unsourced episode 8 and 9 titles, it was only given until mid-December. If any IPs are making useful contributions to the article in question, they'll also be reluctant to protect.
Generally, if you're running up against the 3RR rule because you have to do many reversions on an article in a 24-hour period due to problematic edits from new accounts, it's an indication that a semi-protect request might be in order. It's one of those things, like the edits by the ones who want to assert that Quinn and Rachel are significant, that we just have to revert whenever they resurface: one of the less fun things about maintaining Wikipedia articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I didn't know the particulars of how semi-protection works, so thanks for explaining it. (Still kind of new to counter-vandalism). Beggarsbanquet (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are seriously people who assert that Quinn and Rachel should be recognized as "significant" on Wikipedia? I know a lot of people who love them as a non-canon relationship, but there are people who seriously think it's been represented onscreen in any sort of significant way? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songs featuring Brittany

[edit]

There's an abundance of songs where she, on the show, actively does backing vocals (see Get It Right, Spotlight etc). Should all of these performances be counted under "Songs"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.207.22 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brittany Pierce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Brittany Pierce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brittany_Pierce&oldid=1212512800"