# Talk:All Star (song)

"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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/666S5mmSv to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-singles-1999.htm
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090709044506/http://longboredsurfer.com:80/charts.php?year=1999 to http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1999
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)

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)

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) 

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)

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

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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


### Infobox and lead
Target 7-inch to Phonograph record in the infobox
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"a song by American rock band Smash Mouth" → "a song by American rock band Smash Mouth from their second studio album, Astro Lounge (1999)"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"it was released on" → "the song was released on"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"as the second single from their second studio album, Astro Lounge (1999)" → "as the album's second single" with the appropriate target
Done. Also corrected as this is the first single, not the second. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh I didn't know that, why is the album page listing as second single though? Also, change to lead single now with the wikilink. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. The album page is wrong. It considers a song that was released as a single from a soundtrack album months beforehand the "lead single", but it was never a single from the album and "All Star" is correctly identified by sources as the first single. Toa Nidhiki05 21:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"The song was one of the last" → "It was one of the last tracks"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"Astro Lounge after the band's" → "Astro Lounge, after the band's"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"requested more songs" → "requested for more songs"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"In writing it, Camp drew musical influence from contemporary songs from" → "When writing the song, Camp drew musical influence from contemporary music by"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"Third Eye Blind and sought out" → "Third Eye Blind, and sought out"
done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"to the more ska-punk" → "to the more ska punk" with the appropriate wikilink
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"of the band's 1997 debut album" → "of Smash Mouth's 1997 debut album"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
""All Star" adopts a more" → "the song features a heavier" to avoid repetitive wording
I’m not sure the wording “features a heavier radio-friendly style” makes the most sense there? I did add the first part though. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it doesn't; you should find a way to not repeat "more" in the same sentence either way though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"received positive reviews from critics" → "received generally positive reviews from music critics" with the target
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, note what was praised by critics, specifically, in this sentence
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"for the Grammy Award for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals" → "for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"have regarded the song favorably" → "have regarded "All Star" favorably"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The chart positions are out of order; you should mention that it reached the top 10 of lead charts first, then mentioned topping secondary US charts. Also, change "All Star" to the song in this sentence.
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"ranking in the top ten" → "ranking in the top 10 of the charts"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Target to Billboard Hot 100 should be on Billboard Hot 100
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I will probably have further comments after you have fixed ordering
"the Billboard Hot 100 and topping" → "the Billboard Hot 100, while topping" to avoid repetitive wording
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Why no mention of the music video here?
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"ubiquitous in popular culture following multiple" → "ubiquitous in popular culture, following multiple"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"most notably in the 2001 DreamWorks Animation film Shrek," → "most notably in Shrek from 2001."
I’ve made a different change here - added (2001) after Shrek to match it with how Astro Lounge is listed above. Does that work? Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"and received renewed popularity in the 2010s" → "It received renewed popularity in the 2010s"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"ranking as one of the most-streamed" → "while ranked as one of the most-streamed" with the target
Changed this to “and ranked”. “While ranked” doesn’t seem to work grammatically? Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


### Background and recording
Img needs alt text
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove the release year in brackets from the main text
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"the last song recorded for Astro Lounge (1999), Smash Mouth's second album" → "the last song recorded by Smash Mouth for Astro Lounge in 1999"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"Like the rest of the album" → "Along with the rest of the album"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Target mixed to Audio mixing (recorded music)
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Target engineered to Audio engineer
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"on the strength of its" → "from the strength of its"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"no other hits had been spawned from the record" → "the album did not spawn any other hits"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"some to label the band a" → "to some labeling the band a"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"the band's producer, said the album" → "Smash Mouth's producer, said the album"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"returned by buyers as the rest of the album" → "returned by buyers, as the rest of it"
done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"very little like "Walkin' on the Sun"" → "very little like the single" since we know which single this refers to
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"In creating Astro Lounge, the band" → "For the creation of Astro Lounge, the band"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"the band's guitarist, was tasked with" → "Smash Mouth's guitarist, had the task of"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"for Astro Lounge due" → "for the former due"
I really don't like this proposed wording here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I feel as if it becomes repetitive to write the title out too many times. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Target pop to Pop music
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"Smash Mouth presented it to Interscope, their record label" → "Smash Mouth presented it to their record label Interscope"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"the label declined to release it" → "the label declined a release"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"they felt it didn't have a viable first or second single" → "they felt there was no viable first or second single" with the target
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"him to a copy of Billboard" → "him to a copy of Billboard magazine"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"which featured artists like" → "which included artists such as"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"which would become the first two singles from the album" → "which later became the first two singles from Astro Lounge"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"In writing "All Star", Camp considered" → "For the writing of "All Star", Camp considered"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"Many of the fans that had written" → "Many of the fans that had written to"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"with the band. Camp" → "with the band, and Camp"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"with the upbeat instrumentation" → "with the upbeat instrumentation of the song" with the wikilink
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"The band had very little time" → "Smash Mouth did not have much time"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"to record instead of their regular drummer" → "for recording instead of their regular drummer"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Target drum loops to Looping (music)
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure the last sentence of this section shouldn't be in the following section instead?
Not sure what you mean here? It references the recording process, which is why I included in here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It is about who performes the whistling, which is part of the composition but not included in that section as of current. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose the whistling could be mentioned in composition, but who performs it isn't really relevant there. Toa Nidhiki05 21:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


### Composition
"key of F♯ major with" → "key of F# major, with"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"described it musically as alternative rock[6] and power pop.[7]" → "described it as an alternative rock and power pop track, musically.[6][7]"
This shouldn't be done since it makes it appear like the two sources say both of them. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"According to an interview in 2017, songwriter Greg Camp was interested" → "During to an interview in 2017, Camp stated he was interested"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"with the stripped-down song: the social battle cry" → "with the stripped-down song; the social battle cry"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Add wikilink on music videos
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge the second para with the first
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"he described as a "tradition" for the band" → "he called a "tradition" for Smash Mouth"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"according to Camp, the band" → "according to him, the band"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


### Critical reception and accolades
"received a generally favorable reception from music critics" → "was met with generally favorable reviews from music critics" with the target
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge the following sentence with this one, since that should be done grammatically here; however, you can add more of what was praised in the lead instead
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"example of the band's musical progression" → "example of Smash Mouth's musical progression"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"Todd Norden of the Calgary Herald" should be the start of a new sentence
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"praised it as being" → "praised the track for being"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"than the songs on Fush Yo Mang" → "than the tracks on the album,"
Not sure this works here as the context is their previous album, Fush Yo Mang, not Astro Lounge, where All Star is from. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You're right, keep as the album's title like it is but that comma is needed for grammar fixing. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
[10][11] should both be solely at the end of the sentence
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"The Associated Press praised it" → "the staff of the Associated Press praised it"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"as an example of the band's" → "as an example of their"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"infectious"[13] and" → "infectious", and"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
[13][14] should both be solely at the end of the sentence
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"felt it had the potential to be a hit" → "felt that the song had potential to be a hit"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"Sandra Sperounes" → "Sandra Sperounes from"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"as an example of the band's" → "for being an example of Smash Mouth's"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"specifically its" → "specifically noting its"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"calling it a" → "calling the song a"
done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikilink MTV to itself
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"At the 42nd Annual Grammy Awards," → "At the 42nd Annual Grammy Awards in 2000,"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"losing to Santana's" → "ultimately losing to Santana's"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"from the editorial staff of" → "from the editorial staff of both"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"ranked it as one of the best songs" → "ranked the former among the best songs"
Not sure this is the best wording here, since there's no latter. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Was thinking so, as a mention of "Maria Maria" is included, but context makes things obvious as to what "it" is in reference to. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"noted its lasting cultural impact" → "noted the song's lasting cultural impact"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikilink Shrek to itself
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Target popular meme to Internet meme
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
[19][22] should both be solely at the end of the sentence
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"and had become a" → "and became a"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"called it " the best reason" → "called the song "the best reason"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
What does "glowing review" mean?
Very positive. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"lauded the song as having" → "lauded the song for having"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikilink Noisey to itself per MOS:LINK2SECT
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"Annalise Domenighini calling it" → "Annalise Domenighini calling the song"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikilink ska to itself
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


### Release and chart performance
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)

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)
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)


### Music video
"the music video features cameos by" → "the accompanying music video features cameos by"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"from the superhero film Mystery Men (1999)," → "from Mystery Men,"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"prominently featured the song" → "prominently features "All Star""
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikilink on body doubles
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"The video opens with the characters" → "The visual opens with the characters"
Why visual? Not familiar with that wording here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
That term is often used an alternative for music video in these sections across Wikipedia articles. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"seeking recruits. The group rejects" → "seeking recruits, with the group rejecting"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"expressing interest in Harwell" → "expressing interest in Steve Harwell"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"The remained of the video focuses on Harwell" → "The remainder of the video focuses on him"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"rescuing a dog from a burning building and flipping over a toppled school bus" appears not to be backed up by the ref
The music video link embedded in the site does. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"In June 2019, the video was" → "In June 2019, the music video was"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikilink on subtitles full word instead
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"By that point it had received" → "By that point, it had received"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove "and it has over 286 million views..." since YouTube is continuously updated
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


### Live performances
"The band performed" → "Smash Mouth performed"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"in July 1999 at" → "in July at"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"in reference to plans to" → "referencing plans to"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"rain as the opening act of" → "rain, appearing as the opening act of"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"A June 14, 2015 performance of the song" → "On June 14, 2015, a performance of the song by Smash Mouth"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"the crowd, threatening to beat up anyone who threw things onto the stage" → "the crowd, with him threatening to beat up anyone who threw things"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"sang the song in place of Harwell" → "sang the song in place of him"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"had passed out in the middle of the set" → "passed out in the middle of the set"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"but the band continued" → "but the band continued their set"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


### Cultural impact
#### Film and popular culture
"It featured in 1999's" → "The song was featured in 1999's"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"where the band performs it" → "in which the band performs the song"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"live concert over the" → "live concert, over the"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on Shrek
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"where it plays over the" → "being played over the"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge the second para with the above one, since Shrek is first mentioned in the first
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"about being featured in what" → "about being involved with what"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"the band was impressed" → "the band members were impressed"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"for the movie's ending" → "for the ending"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"suggested they use" → "suggested for them to use"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"perfectly fit the tone" → "perfectly fits the tone"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"is commonly played at" → "has been commonly played at"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove target on sporting events
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"that the band played it" → "that Smash Mouth were led to playing it"
I don't think this is an improvement because I'm not sure what this means? Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The popularity among sports fans lead to them playing it at that event. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on 1999 Home Run Derby
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"Derby and has performed it" → "Derby, and have performed it"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"The musical only has one song, "All Star", adapted" → ""All Star" is the sole song of the musical, being adapted"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


#### Parodies and memes
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)


### Formats and track listings
Retitle to Track listings, since that makes it obvious this is for different formats
Done Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


### Personnel
Retitle to Credits and personnel
(Credits from the album liner notes)[2] → Credits from liner notes of Astro Lounge.[2]
Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel
Make sure that you don't mess up Michael Urbano, especially
All of these should be fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


### Charts and certifications
Retitle to Charts
This has been done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


#### Weekly charts
See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Wikilink Rock Streaming Songs to itself
Remove target on Billboard in the 2019 chart table, since that is the second table
All of these appear to be done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


#### Year-end charts
These different years should be split into separate tables
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
See MOS:TABLECAPTION, the caption will be different here though
I think this is done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The 1999 table should be made sortable
This has been done one. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove targets on ARIA, RPM and Billboard
Done, I think? Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
US Hot 100 (Billboard) → US Billboard Hot 100
Done, I think? Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilinks on Alternative Songs, Adult Top 40 and Mainstream Top 40
This has been done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't know why that Hot Soundtrack Singles chart is there, sure you shouldn't remove it?
This has been done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
For the 2017, 2018 and 2019 charts, remove the targets
This has been done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


#### All-time charts
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)

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


### Certifications
See MOS:TABLECAPTION
This has been fixed I think Toa Nidhiki05 00:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


### References
Make sure that all of these are archived by using the tool
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio score looks good at 24.2%
Give all of the refs accessdates
This isn't possible with the links using the charts templates. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05 I understand you can't for things like CD releases, but many of the refs with URLs are missing accessdates and charts/certifications in tables can have them added. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 4
Done? Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite Musicnotes.com as publisher instead for ref 5 and fix MOS:QWQ issues
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure ref 8 is a reliable source since that's a blog? Also, add publisher.
It's reliable because it's an interview with Camp. His words are the reliable part. 02:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite Associated Press as publisher instead for ref 11 and remove Courier-Post altogether
Actually, I just realized it was wrong but in a different way. Cite news says you should list an agency and the newspaper for syndicated content, so I've corrected it to that. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove target on Billboard for refs 19, 29, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 94
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on Rolling Stone for ref 21
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikilink Noisey to itself on ref 24 and remove the publisher
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite The Ringer as publisher instead for ref 26 and fix MOS:QWQ issues
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove target on Spin for ref 27
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove target on RPM and delete the publisher for refs 43, 92 and 93
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure about ref 53 against WP:SELFPUB?
I don't see a self-published source at 53.
MOS:QWQ issues with ref 54
I think this is done? Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite WBUR-FM as publisher instead for ref 56
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite MTV as publisher instead for ref 57
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite Gawker as publisher instead for ref 58 and fix MOS:QWQ issues
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Ref 59 is missing a title or publisher and are you sure it's not unreliable since is from a blog?
I fixed the formatting issue. It's not a blog, it's from a rock radio station. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on Noisey for ref 60 and delete the publisher
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on The A.V. Club for ref 61
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite WBUR-FM as publisher instead for ref 62 and remove the wikilink
Remove target on Polygon on ref 64
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite NPR as publisher instead for ref 66
Cite MTV as publisher instead for ref 67 and remove the wikilink
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 68
All QWQ issues should be fixed Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite ABC News Radio as publisher instead for ref 70 and fix MOS:QWQ issues
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove targets on Interscope for refs 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove targets on CD for refs 74 and 75
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilink to United States on ref 74
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove wikilink to Europe on ref 76
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


### External links
Remove the music video since that is in the infobox
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold after reviewing this long article, will be fine once you fix the issues! --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll go through these as time permits. Toa Nidhiki05 00:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05 Have done some copy editing to help out and commented just now. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
That's great to hear --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll try and finish the few sections left tomorrow. Toa Nidhiki05 01:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05 I will put any responses to queries directly below them. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Great, I’ll respond to any of them and finish off the references (the last section left) today. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Kyle Peake I've addressed all issues and responded to the comments above Toa Nidhiki05 21:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05  Pass! --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Found out it had some remixes by Breath Carolina in 2019, followed by uChill and Owl City in 2022.
"All Star" was also recently used as trailer music to Puss in Boots: The Last Wish's third trailer.
XSMan2016 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC) XSMan2016 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Shrek song has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 5 § Shrek song until a consensus is reached.  Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)