Jump to content

Talk:All Star (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAll Star (song) 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 1, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 11, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a June 2015 performance of the 1999 Smash Mouth song "All Star" went awry when audience members began throwing loaves of bread onto the stage?

Untitled

[edit]

"It may also be a parody of the well-known line from the Led Zeppelin song Stairway to Heaven." What well-known line? You can't assume people have heard the song. Provide the line. 74.140.218.179 12:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its OBVIOUSLY about global warming, not "seems to be from a scientific perspective."


It seems that these lyrics are full of metephors. I sincerly doubt that it is about global warming....but I don't think that Smashmouth ever officially said what they were about, so we may never no. Travis Cleveland 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but one CAN in fact over-analyze a song, and I think this is an example. Topperray 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To this effect, I removed the Lyrical References section. It was all conjecture and not encylopedic. Livewireo (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single label

[edit]

Although the label for this single is identified many places on the Web as Under the Covers, I'm almost certain that this is incorrect. Under The Covers--according to news items at Yahoo and MTV--is a cover-version label that cashes in when the record company doesn't make a single available. The only official-release single I could find was an import from Phantom Sound & Vision, in a listing at [http://www.amazon.com/All-Star-Smash-Mouth/dp/B00000JIOA Amazon.com]. The actual label for the single is probably either that one or the album label, Interscope Records. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but it seemed to me that Under The Covers was very unlikely to be right. --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

[edit]

Could be something about the music video (starts with the superhero audition scene, or whatever it is, and goes on through various rescuing antics)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have confirmation Joel McHale was in it? I think someone just mistook him for Doug Jones and no one bothered making sure. If he's in there, where is he? 70.172.195.175 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone List

[edit]

The Article says that the song was #137 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time - yet on the original version of the list from 2004, the spot was taken by Eleanor Rigby, and on the revised version from 2010, #137 was Your Song. In neither version of the list does All Star even appear, as a matter of fact, no Smash Mouth song does. Is there an earlier version of the list, I'm not aware of? 87.60.112.87 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All Star (song). 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) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Award

[edit]

42nd Annual Grammy Awards mentions that this song was the subject of a performance award. Is this worth mentioning? 73.238.134.62 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Meme

[edit]

I don't mean this as a joke, it seems the song has been a very popular meme on youtube etc. Should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.92.231 (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There have been many videos, possibly even hundreds (google "all star but" on Youtube). Some of these videos have viewing figures of 2+ million . Perhaps an extra bullet point under the Pop Culture section to mention the widespread editing and remixing of it as a meme? --Melonbob (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DBZFan30

[edit]

DBZFan30 As I told you on your talkpage, I removed it due to Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Wikipedia policy and sentiment has come against popular culture sections of articles. I notice this is the bulk of your edit history. AllMusic is a good source when it is about the music, not a WP:RS when it's about WP:TRIVIA. If this is your continuing habit of editing, get used to editors removing such trivia. You should read Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references. At any rate, it's time for you to stop.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you're back, color me surprised, kid. I was polite then. That's done. Continue to hound and follow me, you'll wish you hadn't.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Usage in media"

[edit]

This is another "In popular culture" section, by a different name. As it stands, it is an indiscriminate list of uses in popular culture which tells us nothing about the song other than the fact that it was used in whatever items someone thought to list.

"When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias....Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not."

"When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract trivial entries, especially if they are in list format."

Currently, it is indiscriminate because the sole criterion for inclusion is that someone thought these particular items should be included and others should not. If we followed this scheme at "Happy Birthday" or "God Save the Queen", we would have far more extensive lists with a recentism bias. The other possible approaches to this particular problem would be to find a source giving selection criteria (which you are unlikely to find) or somehow provide an exhaustive list of every movie, TV show, play, speech, novel, short story, etc. that uses, quotes or discusses the song. Again, at "Happy Birthday" this would result in a far more extensive list.

In any case, the list would not tell us anything encyclopedic about the song. It currently tells us some of the places the song has been used, without explaining that it may or may not be complete and that it is limited to items that someone thought to add.

What should be included, IMO, though not necessarily in its ow section, would be instances where the song has a significant impact on something else or something else had a significant impact on the song, citing sources of course. Did the song create buzz for a movie? Did the song's use in a movie contribute to it's charting? "At This Moment" was a low charting (briefly at #79), more or less forgotten song prior to its use in "Family Ties" five years later when it went to #1 and crossed over to the R&B and country charts.

I'm willing to bet similar sources can tie the song's success to Shrek. At present, the article seems to say it's use in Mystery Men, "Digimon: The Movie" and "Rat Race" were equally important in the song's history. I don't think that's really the case. Without reasearching anything to back it up, I rather suspect three of those four films are of trivial importance here and we are burying Shrek in an indiscriminate list of little value. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SummerPhDv2.0. I restored the list after rereading WP:IPC and not finding anything concretely supporting its removal. I've had this page on my watchlist for around a month, and in that time have added references for each entry that lacked them and have seen to it the removal of false and unsourced entries and in doing so have ensured that it is not among the class of unmonitored lists with laughably non-notable entries that are a problem in other articles and that WP:IPC is written about. The informal guideline I use when considering the noteworthiness of entries (which could certainly become formalized if necessary) is that each represents a sourced instance of the song being played, in full or in part, in a feature-length film that saw wide theatrical release (≥600 theaters) in the United States (no instances of usage in television and other media have yet been presented, so where to draw the line for them has yet to be determined). As such, I certainly would have removed entries about the song being played in a direct-to-DVD film or merely being mentioned in a TV episode. I do think that a list is not the best format for this information; the features in the three non-Shrek films would probably be better mentioned in a single sentence. With that, please allow me to respond to the points you make:
"When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias....Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not."
Each entry is properly sourced and to my knowledge does not violate any policies or guidelines. If this is not the case, please notify me and I will gladly comply in rectifying the problem.
"When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract trivial entries, especially if they are in list format."
What part(s) of the list do you believe are poorly written? Although I wouldn't go so far as to say my oversight constitutes high-level maintenance, it would be disingenuous to describe the list as poorly maintained.
Currently, it is indiscriminate because the sole criterion for inclusion is that someone thought these particular items should be included and others should not. If we followed this scheme at "Happy Birthday" or "God Save the Queen", we would have far more extensive lists with a recentism bias. The other possible approaches to this particular problem would be to find a source giving selection criteria (which you are unlikely to find) or somehow provide an exhaustive list of every movie, TV show, play, speech, novel, short story, etc. that uses, quotes or discusses the song. Again, at "Happy Birthday" this would result in a far more extensive list.
I have explained my informal inclusion criteria above; none of the entries are — or should ever be — instances in which the song is merely mentioned or discussed. I believe the criteria should be adapted for the purposes of each article, and for popular public-domain standards such as those you have named, the criteria would need to be extremely stringent or the song is so ubiquitous that there is no reason to include such a list. Three of the four entries cite, and all are mentioned (including Mystery Men), in this Den of Geek article; although it does not list any inclusion criteria, the fact that each film's usage of the song was considered noteworthy enough to warrant mentioning might mean the article can function as a type of sieve for notability.
In any case, the list would not tell us anything encyclopedic about the song. It currently tells us some of the places the song has been used, without explaining that it may or may not be complete and that it is limited to items that someone thought to add.
What should be included, IMO, though not necessarily in its ow section, would be instances where the song has a significant impact on something else or something else had a significant impact on the song, citing sources of course. Did the song create buzz for a movie? Did the song's use in a movie contribute to it's charting? "At This Moment" was a low charting (briefly at #79), more or less forgotten song prior to its use in "Family Ties" five years later when it went to #1 and crossed over to the R&B and country charts.
I would certainly support fleshing out each entry with information about where in each film the song is used — and the context thereof — as well as its impact upon the respective media (provided these can be sourced), but I fail to see how the lack of it is rationale for removing of the list altogether. I have explained my informal inclusion criteria above; there was an entry that "someone thought to add" that was promptly removed for failing to meet those criteria.
I'm willing to bet similar sources can tie the song's success to Shrek. At present, the article seems to say it's use in Mystery Men, "Digimon: The Movie" and "Rat Race" were equally important in the song's history. I don't think that's really the case. Without reasearching anything to back it up, I rather suspect three of those four films are of trivial importance here and we are burying Shrek in an indiscriminate list of little value.
I don't particularly care about the level of coverage Shrek receives in the article; my point was that removing any mention of the franchise from an article whose subject is closely associated with it would have left it incomplete. I would certainly not be opposed to adding more sourced information about the song's ties to the franchise, but again I fail to see why not having it means the list should be removed altogether.
Based on my earlier comment, I intend to convert the list to prose; I don't believe doing so will address any of your concerns, but I think it's a better format for the information and will help to de-emphasize the individual notability of each entry. LifeofTau 23:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the concerns of the consensus template. The section should "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances". That first sentence ("In addition to Mystery Men, "All Star" is featured in the films Inspector Gadget (1999), Digimon: The Movie (2000), and Rat Race (2001).") is a list of appearances written as prose.
Your selection criteria are your POV. We could generate such criteria for "Happy Birthday", "God Save the Queen", etc. and create prose lists of "only top 10 sitcoms where more than 10 seconds of the song is played" or "films with a released soundtrack album which included the song" but they would still be indiscriminate (your inclusion criteria cannot be part of the article) lists (though written as prose) and would not explain the film's impact on popular culture.
Richard Nixon shows up in popular culture a lot. He's in countless films (often as a character), novels, histories, TV shows, album titles, hit songs, operas and his head in a glass jar is a recurring character on an Emmy winning TV show. Of those occurrences in popular culture, absolutely none of them are listed in Richard Nixon. Gerald Ford OTOH, includes his appearances as a character in Saturday Night Live skits (but not his appearances in films, novels, etc.). Why? The skits impacted Ford's reelection, as discussed by the New York Times.
While we could likely dig up a BuzzFeed article mentioning Nixon's head in a jar, the overwhelming majority of the world does not associate Nixon with the reanimated headless body of Agnew. Similarly, there does not seem to be any significant association between this song and Mystery Men. It -- apparently -- was used in the film. Some people saw it, heard it and promptly forgot it. No one thinks of this as the "song from Mystery Men" or the movie as "the one with 'All Star in it". - SummerPhDv2.0 13:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the disputed material: "In addition to Mystery Men, "All Star" is featured in the films Inspector Gadget (1999), Digimon: The Movie (2000), and Rat Race (2001)."

Does this explain the subject's impact on popular culture or is it a list of appearances?

This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0: The issue with me wasn't the tag; I have no issue with including it because I agree that the song's appearance in each of those films needs explanation. The problem was when you removed the list altogether; note that the only two times I reverted you were to reverse that specific action. You should be taking this up with AsianHippie or AlexanderHovanec, since they were the ones who felt the tag was unnecessary. LifeofTau 02:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is wanting to keep the list of appearances contrary to the template with the hopes that someday someone somewhere might explore how the trivial uses of the song impacted popular culture when there is nothing to indicate that it impacted popular culture in any meaningful way.
The problem is that the selection of these particular uses is indiscriminate. There have been other equally trivial uses.
The problem is there is nothing to reorganize and no meaningful explanation to cite.
The tag identifies the problem and is intended to get editors to improve the section. The only way to improve a list of trivial uses is to remove it. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: The problem was that an editor removed the tag and instead of simply restoring it or engaging in discussion with them, you decided to remove the list in its entirety despite knowing that I monitor the page and that this issue has been the already been the subject of discussion here. My reverting you should have come as no surprise. Simply repeating "indiscriminate" and "trivial" in every comment and edit summary doesn't make either true; the former is demonstrably false (I have explained why in a previous comment) and the latter is subjective assessment. If you want the list removed, get consensus, perhaps by way of an RfC. If you want to discuss whether the tag should be present, take it up with the editors who felt it wasn't needed. LifeofTau 22:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: Update (sort of): In the interest of avoiding additional discussion speculating whether the appearances are trivial, I went ahead looked them up on a popular video streaming website, where they were all easily found (I will not be linking to them out of copyright concerns). Based on my viewings, I will concede that the appearances in Inspector Gadget and Digimon are indeed trivial; in each case 20–30 seconds of the song are played, but the song's presence is incidental and irrelevant to the film's plot. You may remove those entries without my reverting you, but I can't promise another editor won't. However, the appearance in Rat Race, in which Smash Mouth themselves appear in the final scene and perform the song in its entirety, a rarity in non-musical films, marks a significant usage, so much so that retrospective articles about the film specifically mention the song and viceversa. Having seen Mystery Men, I can vouch that the song's appearance there is similarly notable. I will be adding short summaries of the song's appearances in the last two films with references citing the linked sources. By doing so, my hope is to highlight the significance the appearance has to each film, satisfying the need to "explain the subject's impact on popular culture." I will be leaving the other two entries aside at the end of the paragraph to do with what you wish. LifeofTau 22:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the problem may be a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of the phrase "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances". Now we have, essentially, "The song was in Mystery Men. Here's what was happening in the film." and "The song was in Rat Race. Here's what was happening in the film."
My go-to for "impact on popular culture" is SNL and Chevy Chase's skits on Gerald Ford. Yes, every president is satirized on SNL, talk shows, etc. by Chase's bits highlighted a foible of Ford to such a degree that countering it became a concern for his reelection campaign. Skits on a late night comedy show affected the real world beyond song downloads and talk at the college snack bar.
In this instance, the Shrek usages had an impact well below impacting a presidential election. While the sources don't come right out and say it, the impact here was more synergy for the two: the films' and song's popularity boosted each other, to the extent that the two are strongly associated with each other. Google "Shrek song" and the results are either the full soundtrack or this song. Doing the same with the other films bring up the full soundtrack and various songs. The song had an impact on popular culture, but all of it seems to be tied to Shrek.
Yes, the song was used in 6 other films (at least), several scripted TV shows and numerous appearances on talk shows. Listing those does not explain an impact on popular culture. Listing those while explaining that they performed the song on "Joe Smith's Late Nite Talk Show" and it played over the closing credits of Late 1990s Comedy Film does not explain an impact on popular culture. It's still a list of appearances. If a song being in a movie is "impact on popular culture", every song in every film should be listed in every song article. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

[edit]

This song was also used in the first Shrek movie. I Think I Peed Myself (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Not notable, trivial - FlightTime (open channel) 02:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Digimon

[edit]

The song was: 1. used in the movies soundtrack CD 2. referenced by characters in the movie (which did not happen is Shrek, by the way) and 3. a character hummed along with the song (although out of tune.) So how is that not relevant? Also, the Wikipedia pages for "All My Best Friends Are Metalheads", "One Week" etc., all mention their use in Digimon, so why not All Star?--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other articles exist. Some of them are great. Some of them are horrible. What any of those great or horrible articles do is not an argument to do it here.
As previously discussed, WP:POPCULTURE applies here. This article is about the song. That it was used in various movies, TV shows, commercials, baseball games, horse shows, etc. is likely true, but tells us nothing about the song -- the topic of this article. If that usage significantly impacted the song (perhaps it reentered the charts after the release of the movie, resulted in it being discussed in a high profile debate, footage from the film was used in the video, etc.), such an impact would be discussed in independent reliable sources and might merit discussion in the article. Otherwise, it is a trivial use in popular culture, much like the appearance of Richard Nixon in hundreds of books, films, TV shows, songs, album titles, operas and cartoons about his disembodied head; none of which merit mention in Richard Nixon. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that a June 2015 performance of the 1999 Smash Mouth song "All Star" went awry when audience members began throwing loaves of bread on the stage? Conaboy, Kelly (June 14, 2015). "Smash Mouth Singer Threatens To "Beat the Fuck" out of Bread Thrower". Gawker. Archived from the original on July 25, 2015. Retrieved April 1, 2020.

5x expanded by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Definitely expanded enough to qualify and QPQ is complete. I personally prefer the original hook regarding people throwing bread at the band. No neutrality or copyright concerns with any hooks proposed here, but I'm not familiar enough with Gawker (used for original hook) to say how trustworthy it is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s widely sourced elsewhere, like this USA Today article. There’s also video. Toa Nidhiki05 04:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today is quite sufficient. Now approving the nomation! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:All Star (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 06:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Wanting to wipe out the only songs nominee from last month. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]

Background and recording

[edit]

Composition

[edit]

Critical reception and accolades

[edit]

Release and chart performance

[edit]
  • Retitle to Release and commercial performance
  • Remove the img since it is of no relevance
  • "May 4, 1999[25][26] as the first single" → "May 4, 1999,[25][26] as the lead single"
  • "It was also the first single for" → "Also, it was the lead single from"
  • "soundtrack album for" → "soundtrack album for the superhero film"
  • Wikilink Mystery Men to itself and add (1999) in brackets
  • "It entered the Billboard Hot 100" → "The song entered the US Billboard Hot 100"
  • "on the chart week of May 22, 1999" → "on the week of May 22, 1999"
  • [29][30] should both be solely at the end of the sentence
  • "number four on August 14" → "number 4 on August 14 of that year" per MOS:NUM
  • "would peak at number one" → "peaked at number one"
  • "chart[31] as well as on the" → "chart, as well as on the US"
  • [31][32][33] should all solely at the end of the sentence
  • The Alternative Songs chart position should start the following sentence after those three peak positions
  • "peaked at number two on the Alternative Songs chart and number five on the Adult Alternative Songs chart, respectively" → "peaked at number two and five on the Alternative Songs and Adult Alternative Songs charts, respectively" with the target
  • "It has been certified triple platinum in the United States." → "It has since been certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for selling 3,000,000 certified units in the United States." with the target, and add the appropriate ref at the end of the sentence
  • "also achieved success internationally" → "achieved further success internationally"
  • "Top Singles chart[36] and numbers four" → "Top Singles chart, and numbers four"
  • [36] should not be mid sentence when it is at the end anyway
  • "It charted in the top ten in Australia" → "It charted in the top 10 of Australia"
  • "in the top 20 in" → "and the top 20 in"
  • "and in the top ten on the year-end" → "and in the top 10 of the year-end US"
  • Mention these as being year-end charts for 1999 at the end of the sentence
  • "in the year-end charts" → "on the year-end charts"
  • "ranking at numbers 31 and 4" → "ranking at number 31 and 4"
  • "The song has been" → "The song has since been"
  • Target should be to Music recording certification and be solely on certified instead
  • "It has been certified triple platinum in the United States.[47]" remove, since it is repeated entirely from the first para of this section
  • Mention what position it charted at on the Rock Streaming Songs chart in 2017 with the appropriate ref, and wikilink to itself
  • "It ranked as one of the" → "The track ranked as one of the"
  • "of 2017 and 2018 and ranked" → "of 2017 and 2018, and ranked"
  • "year-end Rock Streaming Songs chart" → "year-end US Rock Streaming Songs chart"

I think I got everything except the 2017 RSS position, as I don't have a subscription to view the entire chart. I also added a few more missing chart refs. ResPM come to my window 12:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't fix this, then why not just remove the 2017 info and only keep the other info about the chart? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was assuming someone else would take care of it, but I'll tweak the sentence a bit. ResPM come to my window 17:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

[edit]

Live performances

[edit]

Cultural impact

[edit]
[edit]

Parodies and memes

[edit]
  • Remove wikilink on internet meme
  • "being used in mashups" → "being used for mashups"
  • [4][66] should both be solely at the end of the sentence
  • "said that it" → "said that the song"
  • "as well as the opening" → "as well as its opening"
  • Target parody to Parody music
  • "on the platform;" → "on the platform."
  • "the video, themed" → "The video, themed"
  • "has over 1.5 million views" → "has received over 1.5 million views"
  • Remove target on mashup
  • "albums (Mouth Sounds" → "albums; Mouth Sounds"
    This and the one below aren't a proper use of semicolons.
  • "and Mouth Moods) that" → "and Mouth Moods, which"
  • "alongside other popular songs" → "as well as other popular songs"
  • "Mouth Sounds in particular has" → "Mouth Sounds, in particular, has"
  • ""All Star" received additional exposure" → "The track received additional exposure"
  • "The music video for "All Star" also" → "The accompanying music video also"
  • "a massive uptick in views on" → "a large increase in views on"
  • "and peaked at" → "and reached a peak of"
  • "Harwell said the band considers" → "Harwell said they consider"
  • "because they released" → "due to having released"
  • "the band has" → "Smash Mouth has"
  • "and considers the" → "and consider the"
  • "to feature in remixes or covers" → "to feature on remixes and covers"
  • "in any because "we feel" → "in any because "they feel"
    This is a quote, I'm not going to change a quote to something he didn't say.
  • "who is no longer with" → "who has since left"
    I don't think this is useful as it implies he left after the interview took place.
    All of these are done except as noted above. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formats and track listings

[edit]
  • Retitle to Track listings, since that makes it obvious this is for different formats

Personnel

[edit]

Charts and certifications

[edit]

Weekly charts

[edit]

Year-end charts

[edit]

All-time charts

[edit]
  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION
  • Make sure you put in brackets the span of what years that all time chart took into account

Took care of everything here. ResPM come to my window 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have since added more suggestions though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Captions added in; an IP added the year span. ResPM come to my window 12:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
Toa Nidhiki05 Have done some copy editing to help out and commented just now. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at this later today, thanks for the patience. Lots of stuff to go through here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and finish the few sections left tomorrow. Toa Nidhiki05 01:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toa Nidhiki05 I will put any responses to queries directly below them. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional trivial details about "All Star".

[edit]

Found out it had some remixes by Breath Carolina in 2019[1], followed by uChill[2] and Owl City[3] in 2022.

"All Star" was also recently used as trailer music to Puss in Boots: The Last Wish's third trailer.[4]

XSMan2016 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC) XSMan2016 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://soundcloud.com/smash-mouth-official/all-star-1
  2. ^ https://open.spotify.com/track/66Jvi0E2bjFv4opkSyYmeH
  3. ^ https://music.apple.com/us/album/all-star-owl-city-remix-single/1622257376
  4. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/updates-scream-6-stranger-things-150000057.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_Star_(song)&oldid=1195541991"