Talk:Still Not Getting Any...

Canada: Music Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Reference ideas for Still Not Getting Any...

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

If I Die Tomorrow

They wrote the song and didn't like it, so Motley Crue used it for their album, "Red, White And Crue". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfinator-x (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

This article contains a large section describing each track. This section appears to violate Wikipedia's policy on original research. If nobody disagrees, I'm going to remove this whole section within the next couple of days. If you disagree, though, please feel free to speak up and indicate why this is not original work. --Yamla 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Describing each track by itself does not violate WP:NOR, and actually the descriptions look pretty honest to me. If you see a problem, your probably better off rewriting it then just using deletions. --unsigned comment from T-rex

Actually, I wrote this segment just previous to creating an account here. I felt/feel that describing each track on the album, (hopefully from a neutral standpoint) would give the reader a better idea of what the album, and by extension, the band, is like. You will note that for some of the descriptions, I used references to easy-to-find material, particularly from cannon sources such as the DVD special features from the Dual-Disc version of the album, and the Simple Plan website. I also included paraphrased comments that reflect professional reviews, such as the one linked to in the "overview box" (or whatever it's called), and reviews on [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com]. If you wish, I can provide more obvious links to those as well. Although, there are a few small matters I feel must be rectified, particularly my rather thoughtless comment about The Matrix... edit time... Caligari 87 06:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can see how much effort Caligari put into writing the song section, I could tell at an instant that it was POV and written by a fan.

It is way too favourable and I don't know if there is anyway to describe each song whilst also being neutral.

Just delete the whole thing. Why not have a "critical response" section instead, detailing the reception to the album on a whole, from a NPOV of course. --Rachel Cakes 06:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that (EDIT: The rewrite). I tried to write from NPOV, but I admit I didn't do a good job, so I'd like to see it evened out a bit. But these kinds of things are quite imformative to me when I'm looking at music-related stuff; track-by-track breakdowns instead of a general overview. Please don't delete it. Let's try to make it better. Caligari 87 06:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this song by song type review for other albums and I like it. I think the best way to get it to be netral is to have a number of different people write up and edit the section --T-rex 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the section describtion is just fine. In fact i think it is very informative. Perhaps what can be done is add a more diverse set of view to make it neutral instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.71.20 (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name

whats the name of the album mean? SkaterBoy182 (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

title

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Still Not Getting Any…" with an ellipsis (…) instead of "Still Not Getting Any..." with three periods (...)? --Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. There is no reason to use a special character in the page title if it is not necessary. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]