Talk:The All-American Rejects

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

band[edit]

The All-American Rejects have a new album out called Move Along. With this album is their titled hit " Dirty Little Secret. " With that "The Rise of the Fall Tour" is now in progress. Some tour dates have been canceled due to Tyson Ritter , the lead singers, laringytis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty REject (talk • contribs) 2005-11-25 12:24:05

Are the Rejects a one-hit wonder anymore? I mean, "Dirty Little Secret" has gotten really high on the charts ... their one-hit status should probably be changed, along with "they're best known for 'Swing Swing.'"

UM... Why hasn't it been mentiononed the guest star in an episode of House (HOU-317) yet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_Position_(House_episode) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.98.63 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Those Who Keep Deleting the Address[edit]

You have no right to delete the address. It is properly verified. If you delete it again, you'll be reported. The information is FACTUAL.

JBull12 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody douted that it's factual. I for one just don't consider it noteworthy in an encyclopedia. --HarryCane 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's YOUR opinion. However, unless you have proof that it is not factual, which is impossible since the proof is there, you have no reason by Wikipedia standards not to include it, or rather, to delete it once its there. JBull12 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference though, between what's factual and what's noteworthy and encyclopedic. That some website states the singer's home address is most definitely NOT noteworthy! But rather random trivia. And I beg to differ on the Wikipedia standards issue. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.", and this is not MY opinion but a Wikipedia guideline. --HarryCane 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that addresses do not fall under those guidelines for lack of inclusion, therefore its not your right to delete what I've written. That's why you're just trying to justify it rather than actually claiming it. JBull12 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Harrycane: Just because something is true doesn't make it important and justify its inclusion. That some website lists his adress has no importance for the article and therefor should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Trivia. And just because adresses aren't explicitly mentioned at WP:NOT does not mean the rules don't apply to them; the sentence Harrycane quoted applies to everything on Wikipedia, not just to those things in the list below it. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that there is no explicit reference to it, one cannot just assume such things. Just as people in most democratic countries are allowed to do as they wish provided the activities they engage in are not explicitly banned by Constitution or enaction of law, I can post what I want. It is proven by a reputable source, and what you consider to be trivia is not explicitly sited and therefore a matter of opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JBull12 (talk • contribs) .
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but so are others and Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. Judging from the removal of that paragraph by multiple editors and editors disagreeing with you here on the talk page, the majority thinks it should be removed. And you haven't really made any attempt to explain why this is important and notable. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two people talking is not a majority. It appears that no one but you and the other guy have even bothered to contest it. I think it's notable. It's up to you to find a way to prove that it is not allowed. That's the spirit of Wikipedia; you cannot delete factual information unless it is explicitly not allowed. So, drop it, because you obviously haven't proven anything. JBull12 16:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still more than the number of people saying it should be included, which currently is just you. Thus, currently, it IS the majority. Why do you think it is so notable anyway? --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable because it's information that somebody might want to know. If you were to propose building a Trivia section on the page, as many celebrities on Wikipedia have, I wouldn't be against it. --JBull12 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections – although many articles have them – are usually discouraged on Wikipedia. Wouldn't it fit the Tyson Ritter article much better anyway, because it isn't directly relevant for the band (and the Tyson Ritter article already has a Trivia section). --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, three people (me, User:Lastdrax and User:Fritz S.) opposing you alone is most definitely a majority. And your claiming "you cannot delete factual information unless it is explicitly not allowed" is pure nonsense. Where on Wikipedia does it say that? If an article is not notable, it gets deleted, no matter how factual it is. That very rule applies to single pieces of information just as it does to full articles.

The section should be left out of the article for three major reasons:

  1. The information you provided is not his address, but that his address is found on a website, which is even less notable than his actual address would be.
  2. It bears NO relevance to the article/band history whatsoever.
  3. I doubt that Mr. Ritter would approve of you posting (or linking) his home address on an as highly frequented website as Wikipedia. I would, if not for the first two reasons, alone out of respect not post such information on Wikipedia.

And your threatening users (I'm referring to what you wrote on User:Lastdrax) with having them banned proves just how little you know about how Wikipedia works. A difference of opinions like this is not going to get anyone banned. --HarryCane 15:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stillwater Elementary School[edit]

They did not perform their first gig at Stillwater Elementary School. There is no Stillwater Elementary School. I grew up in Stillwater - I'd know. Perhaps it's Stillwater High School or the junior high or the middle school they're referring to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CountCrazy007 (talk • contribs) .

I can't fine a Stillwater Elementary in Florida (I assume) either. I thus removed "by playing their first official gig at Stillwater Elementary School in Stillwater, Oklahoma" from the "The All-American Rejects began their career in the late 1990s..." line. Thanks for the heads up! Janet13 06:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Dispute[edit]

There seems to be a dispute about where the band's name came from. One sentance says, "Their name came from a Green Day song "Reject", where the lyrics are "You reject All-American"." and the other says "Nick Wheeler thought of the name, All-American, since they are all american, and Tyson thought of the name, The Rejects. So when they put it together, they got The All-American Rejects." --Stacey 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love it when an article contradicts itself. A citation (I'm sure one exists) would be much appreciated. 208.59.171.97 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought they got their name from the Bikini Kill song 'Reject All American.' It makes the most sense. --216.160.108.251 01:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah are there any sources to mack up either of these? They should be properly referenced. Also if it is the case that they were referencing Green Day, then it might be a further indication that they reference punk. Xsxex 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Ritter Name and Real Age Correction:

Tyson Ritter's real name is Jason Ritter, not Tyson "Jay" Ritter. His actual birthdate is February 17, 1980, and is now public due to postings of producer's assistants on his most recent film work. Thus, he just turned 29 and is scheduled to appear in two upcoming films in post production. This contradicts his previous Wikipedia bio, which cannot now be located, and his record company and management released bio: this is a common technique in the recording industry when groups and individual musicians are guided to sell to a teenage demographic. The film industry bio and resume brought this information out.

Why his real name was not used in the bio may have been to keep press from ordering his birth certificate under his birthname to check his age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.14 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.18 (talk)

Later Punk Groups[edit]

Should The All-American Rejects really be in the Later Punk Groups category? --Stacey 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they aren't a punk group, I'm thinking no. --HarryCane 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arent they in the top 40?

so is green day and they are punk. AAR is a power pop, pop, rock, and a pop punk band. They have punk connections, its not as strong as say, The Sex Pistols, but then again, they stole their act from NYC & The Ramones, (well The Ramones gave it to them, July 4th 1976.. go do your research, oh yeah it was the 200th anniversary of Americas independence from the British MONARCHY!!!!!), ANARCHY in the UK,... BUT THE Ramones, .. they were the first Punk Rock band... who you could say, well there it is ... thats a punk rock band... (but that label was only applied later.. maybe in 1977/78? or something, in '74/75, they were not really labeled as punk... read The Ramones)... Also, they were pre-dated dozens of punk-rock bands, like Iggy Pop who no one knew what to call other than wild rock, which is now considered protopunk, also check out List of forerunners of punk music. So it always comes back to "Who is punk?" and the answer is always gonna be, "Do I feel lucky?".... "Well, do ya?, PUNK???!!" Xsxex 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That might be right, but it does not settle the question of whether AAR is a pop punk band... or does it? --HarryCane 17:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the original question was whether AAR should be considered a "later punk grous" I think its still up for debate. But I have no problem describing them, in part, as a pop punk band. But pop punk doesn't necessarily mean that they are "later punk" unless you want to include "pop punk" into your definition of what constitutes a "later punk group" That debate should be engaged on the "later punk group's" talk page.. Xsxex 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Band?[edit]

I havent seen them in Video hits in Australia lately. I reckon they are better than GreenDay...

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --Scotteh 08:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette Song[edit]

This song was released on the LP version of their album, as well as on a Doghouse Records sampler. How should this be added?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.43.48.86 (talk • contribs) .

It's already in the non-album tracks section. Where else would you want to add it? --HarryCane 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is on the album, is what I was pointing out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.43.32.86 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not too sure I get what you mean... but the "Non-album tracks" section is for songs that were officially released, but cannot be found on the conventional versions of any of the band's albums (e.g. foreign bonus tracks, compilation/tribute songs, single B-sides, etc.). Are you suggesting that "The Cigarette Song" should not be listed in this category? --HarryCane 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

The all music guide lists their genre as power pop, indie rock and emo. Shouldn't we change their genre to that. DavidJJJ 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, as indie rock would imply some sort of underground/independent/DIY ethic or affiliation, when in fact AAR is pretty mainstream. And I wouldn't want to be engaged in yet another discussion on whether or not a band is emo (see talk pages for Panic! at the Disco, Dashboard Confessional). AAR have very little with the early form of emo (Sunny Day Real Estate, Texas Is the Reason) or the current form of emo (Taking Back Sunday, Thursday) in common. --HarryCane 10:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---I don't think they're emo, but they aren't 'power pop', since A Hard Day's Night is nothing like this... I think it's just Rock.. =\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.69.103.54 (talk • contribs) .

And a musical genre applies only to one song? In genre discussions, why do people always dig up the oldest song tagged with the genre and compare any newer songs to that? Britney Spears doesn't sound like Frank Sinatra either, but they're still both pop. And "just Rock" is not a sufficient genre classification. --HarryCane 12:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is reverting the genre of pop punk, which I oppose. --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But to be honest, what you, me or the general public think what the genre of the band is, is really irrelevant. Going by google hits (or MP3 labels from probably an awful lot of people who've never held one of their CDs in their hands) is also not the best way to determine that, as for example "all-american rejects" and "emo" brings up even more hits, and anyone who thinks they're emo seriously deserves a lobotomy. See, for instance their Purevolume profile (official), or their Absolutepunk profile (independent and (mostly) unbiased) list them as "power pop" instead of "pop punk". Hell, AMG doesn't label them "pop punk", even though they tend to slap the moniker on every band that uses a distortion guitar (they also don't (anymore) list "power pop", I know). I really think the "punk" label should stay out of the article, because they are not part of the thrid wave punk movement and weren't inspired by bands like blink-182 and Green Day, but by pop/rock bands like The Cars, Def Leppard and AC/DC. --HarryCane 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lucky for us, it doesn't matter what we think, per WP:V. We just say what other people say. If AMG thinks it's indie rock, they might be wrong, but they said so, so it goes in. If you think it's something else, find a source and cite it. I've added (back?) "emo" with citations. Dylan 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian 28th december They have nothing in common with emo. They're slightly punl poppish but there more alternative than anything else.

Not sure if this is correct, but I'll say it anyway. I think the best way to get a band's genre is to ask the band members. Of course this probably isn't possible but if it's noted in any interviews then put it up here. Hah I really don't make sense today. Jedi feline 09:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they definitely aren't emo. This is false assumption, as their music is emotional and it is quite annoying that people keep putting the emo tag under their name. So, to the person who added the emo tag, remove it, because they are not emo. It is similar to saying Boy George is metal. Singing emotional songs does not mean you're emo. Piisuke 11:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually call them second wave emo, just like Jimmy Eat World - their first album has the same sound, feel, and emotion that Jimmy Eat World's Clarity (album) has. -Violask81976 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

swing swing is textbook emo. Effeminate puberty emotion lyrics and random notes masquerading as a melody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.83.46 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed something...odd[edit]

There was a bit of messed up stuff, so I edited.24.192.149.188 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Random dude[reply]

Chart positions[edit]

Just looked at the Chart positions for the billboard charts and they are all too high! Compare the main page of this article to http://billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=491174&model.vnuAlbumId=722447 I'd edit it myself but they won't let me so...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.122.59 (talk • contribs) .

Done. --HarryCane 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Peterson[edit]

This article is supposed to be a serious article about "The All American Rejects." However, the last sentence is about the author's roommate. (My roommate Zack Peterson listens to this band non-stop, and sometimes even does this odd tribal dance to the song "Swing Swing.") I think this line should be deleted, being as it is about the author's roommate instead of something band related. Plus, the fact that Zack Peterson does a tribal dance is not newsworthy. As the average reader, I don't care about Zack Peterson.24.47.113.126 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)SS[reply]

It's been deleted. For future reference, you are welcome to remove this sort of vandalism. :D --HarryCane 13:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration[edit]

Does anyone know what inspired the song - Move Along or what it inspired?

and By the way the rejects were not convicted of DUI this is pure vandalism (2000- present) OmG I love these people!!!!

Tim Jordan Suicide[edit]

Does anyone know how Jordan committed suicide (there's no article on him or I'd ask there)? Datapolitical 06:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa?[edit]

Someone put vandalism concerning Santa and death machines? under the Biography section. I suggest removing this because it is completely irrevelant and off topic. Sherlock32 22:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pop Punk[edit]

Somebody just added Pop Punk to the genres for this band. Is that correct? Can somebody cite it?--Dr who1975 02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are pop punk. Not powerpop. Powerpop is not a good way to describe TAAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundermaster367 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pop-punk is correct, especially for their first two albums. Power-pop would describe bands like the Nice Boys, the Vapors, or Elvis Costello. As for a citation, you can find references to the All-American Rejects at just about any modern punk site (like punknews.org or absolutepunk.net) whereas you would be hard-pressed to find power-pop fans hailing the All-American Rejects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.171.91 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I added a picture of the band, but I have no idea what there names are. If someone else does, please feel free to add the names to the caption. ShadowHalo 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:All-American Rejects - The All-American Rejects.jpg[edit]

Image:All-American Rejects - The All-American Rejects.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Move Along The All American Rejects albumcover.jpg[edit]

Image:Move Along The All American Rejects albumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about live performances[edit]

Is it common (or not uncommon, whatever) for Nick to kiss Tyson during their live performances? I've seen pictures of it and I saw it happening on Youtube. Would it worth mentioning in the Trivia section? Revolutionaryluddite 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely requesting page protection...[edit]

This page has been vandalized about six times. I am tired of reverting it, so I will add page protection because people obviously have something against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishdert (talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Trivia[edit]

Deleted the trivia section; don't know where to put this information on the page.

Tyson Ritter is known for dancing crazily and swearing during concerts. On Same Girl, New Songs the only band members at the time were Tyson & Nick. Tyson and Nick both live in Destin, FL.

TheFrog114 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo[edit]

I got rid of emo and replaced it with alternative in their genre section because alternative definately describes the correctly, whereas emo does not.

Jag0000021 19:04, 11 December 2007

whoever keeps putting emo as their genre is...just weird, show me one emo lyrics in any of their songs. on their myspace they just say rock and powerpop, but I do think alternative is a good genre for them Matt 2601 atl (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Error[edit]

Under the Reference section, the first citation is replaced with this text: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named MTV. I'd fix that myself, but I don't have the slightest clue how. x( Just a heads up, because that's been there for quite a while now. Thanks! -- Andrew Something (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup[edit]

This article is in pretty bad shape. I did some light cleanup by removing a lot of unnecessary and redundant information, but it still isn't anywhere close to being decent. There are only three references, and the article needs to be rewritten. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

emo not is style,emo not is lyric[edit]

Emos is only a simple, is post hardcore melodic.

  • style,not,the emo style not exicist,is only PUNK and GOTHIC fashion
  • lyric not,emotional?,Devils! all music is emotional
  • fall out boy,the rasmus,mcr,bfmv,all american rejects,alesana,nirvana,the cure,bmth,panda,... THEY are NOT emo!
  • emo bands only in washington in 1990s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.41.214 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Civic Tour[edit]

Is this really relevant enough to warrant its own section, let alone be in the page at all? If you read the source from the interview, its a one-off question near the end: "RL: And what's the plans after this tour? We did hear a rumour you were to headline the Honda Civic Tour and that had been cancelled? T: Yeah, it's weird. It's the economic crisis man, crazy. But we're still making a car with them and they're still gonna support the tour, it's just not gonna be the full blown thing." This seems more to be about the Honda tour than about AAR, which further strikes me as attributing undue weight to an event. Yeah, it's technically a valid source and a valid piece of information, but when you put a canceled tour into the context of a band that's sold millions of records, it's really not all that important. I'm removing it. Svernon19 (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

There is a ton of obvious vandalism on this page. I have no idea how to fix it or warn people not to do it. Can anybody please fix this? And possibly explain to me how to fix things like this (ie numerous vandalism posts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stocklone (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emo[edit]

the truth is that the AAR first album was emo while the last two weren't as much i think it is fair to consider them power pop though because thats thair musical style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.80.250 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Members[edit]

All members articles have been redirected here as they all fail notability based on WP:MUSIC. All were poorly sourced bios and fancruft and i could find little to merge. Feel free to merge anything sourced that i missed. --neon white talk 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All American Rejects is not emo pop[edit]

Seriously, I am getting sick of people calling AAR emo, so I changed from Emo pop to Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APR76 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I am sick of people thinking they are a better source of reliable information than professionals. Stop removing the cited sources. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say they are pop punk and not emo. Mr. C.C. (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live Performances[edit]

Does it matter to include where or what shows that they have performed on (ex.:Late Night,etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.163.166 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Ritter needs his own article.[edit]

Tyson Ritter needs his own article. He's very notable, there's heaps of articles on him and he's been in a movie for god's sake. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I made one so please don't delete it, help expand it. Tyb222 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MUSIC to understand why the article is redirected to the main band article. Feel free to add relevant (and reliably sourced) material about individual members to this article though. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

freetheband.com - Project with Lego Bionicle in 2006[edit]

I was wondering if someone could put up about the Freetheband.com project with Bionicle, which had games, and prizes, which happened to be AAR songs. Bionicle also used 'Move Along' to advertise the Inika franchise. Since the site is down, an archive can be found at 'http://portfolio.barbariangroup.com/portfoliojobs/320/freetheband/index.html'. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.193.252 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone just wants to advertise. That information has absolutely no claim for notability in relation to the band. Which is essentially what the article is about. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, look at the link. It has bios of the band, and other stuff. I'm not advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.193.252 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.193.252 (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The All-American Rejects "The Wind Blows" will might be on Now That's What I Call Music! 33 (U.S. series)[edit]

The All-American Rejects "The Wind Blows" will might be on #REDIRECT Now That's What I Call Music! 33 (U.S. series). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.83.27 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment[edit]

The section "equipment" is rather irrelevant. On no other band-page can you see such a section, and it is not at all encyclopedic. Prince Imrahil (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Band member names incorrect[edit]

Since I don't know what information is incorrect, I'm not changing anything. But at the top it says the lead singer is Tyson, and at the bottom under band members, it says the lead singer is Nick. Since I don't know if its just the names that are reversed, I'm leaving it for someone with more knowledge. Richard4339 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The All-American RejectsU.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:The All-American RejectsU.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment[edit]

I really have to agree with the previous comment on this topic... the equipment section smacks of advertising, and really belongs more on a fan page, album cover or the band's web site, not here. This should be removed. Loungelistener (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emo removed[edit]

I removed emo under genre. The band is in no way emo. Not even close. If someone adds this again it needs a reference, because the band rejects the label, their fan reject the label, emo fans reject the label, and I've never seen any credible source that calls them emo. There is literally no reason for it to be there. 2601:189:C102:2D0:E891:C421:F0D4:57FA (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The All-American Rejects. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The All-American Rejects. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The All-American Rejects. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

personnel shifts?[edit]

No mention of how Wheeler moved from drums to lead guitar. Was there no comment on this in the press? It's not entirely unheard of (Grant Hart, Dave Grohl) but certainly unusual enough to be noted, as well as comments on how this affected the sound and indeed the general direction of the band.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_All-American_Rejects&oldid=1195539329"