Talk:Don't Bother

Don't Bother has been listed as one of the Music 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.
Review: October 15, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Don't Bother article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Shakira Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakira, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shakira 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.ShakiraWikipedia:WikiProject ShakiraTemplate:WikiProject ShakiraShakira articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Colombia Low‑importance

	Colombia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles 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.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

True story?

Is this song based on a true story in Shakira's life? If so, it should be stated. Brusselsshrek 12:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I personally think the line However, the request not to bother is arguably sarcastic, as it is evident that she thinks he should bother in the line "So don't bother, be unkind." should be removed. Ive tried t oremove it but it keeps coming back

The reason is: an encyclopedia article shouold include fact s, not OPINIONS. That line is an opinion, and should be removed in order to keep the entire "encyclopdia" feeling

Song genre

Why is this song classed as New Wave/ Britpop, it definitely doesn't seem to me that it fits either of these genres. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Don't Bother/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 07:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and apologies for the massive delay, first half reviewed)....

"is a song by" performed by, written by...? Which...?
"It was released..." -> "The song was..." (as the last thing you talked about was the album).
"through which" -> "in which"
"generally mixed to positive reviews" sounds like "mixed" to me.
What's a " component chart."?
"In this region" the last thing you mentioned was a "component chart", how does that relate to "region"?
Link "certified" appropriately.
"in countries such as" -> including.
"Shakira also served as the producer of the song" ->"Shakira also produced the song".
""won’t ever see me(Shakira) cry"" space and probably need square brackets here.
"in international territories" well that means the planet earth, be specific.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More

"was digitally released to the iTunes Store" do you mean "released for download on the iTunes Store"?
"Pam Avoledo from Blogcritics" is Blogcritics notable? If so, why no article? If not, why do I care about what they have to say?

Blogcritics had been linked earlier once in the BG and Composition section. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance section is dry, it keeps "In X, on the X charts, the song..." mix it up a little. And you probably don't need to tell people that the "Austrian Singles Chart" is in Austria....
"Thus, it narrowly missed charting in the top 40 of the chart by two places" yes, that's abundantly obvious, you don't need to state it.
Rock in Rio image caption doesn't need a full stop.
"Don't Bother" - 4:17" etc, use en-dash here, not hyphen. See WP:DASH. Check ref titles too, e.g. ref 2, ref 3.....
Certifications table doesn't need to be sortable.

~~The table is made using the certifications template so the sorting thing can't be modified.~~ I have merged the table into the charts section. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online refs should have access dates and publication dates where possible.
Don't use abbreviations in the refs, e.g. NYT -> The New York Times.

Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still see plenty of references without access dates, publication dates, WP:DASH violations etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Access dates- I found out that the problem was with the weekly chart templates. Access dates have been added to them. Publication dates- Every source which mentions a publication date has one. Mostly only the charts sources don't have publication dates because Hung Medien only details their chart performance and no particular date is mentioned. Dashes- Oops I read the policy wrong.

Fixed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Don't Bother. 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) 03:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don't Bother. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208202809/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3614 to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3614

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) 22:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Don't Bother. 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) 10:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]