Talk:Sandstorm (instrumental)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Sandstorm (Darude composition), per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstorm (song) → Sandstorm (Darude song) – There are other songs of the same name, regardless of the song's popularity --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Change to Sandstorm (composition) or Sandstorm (instrumental) per WP:SONGDAB. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are not songs also (composition)s? So what purpose does removing the artist name serve? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blame WP:SONGDAB poor writing, not its supporters. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sandstorm (composition) or Sandstorm (instrumental) per WP:SONGDAB. Dohn joe, songs are also compositions so your counter-proposal does not avoid the need for (Darude ). Likewise the extensive edits to the article and replacement of "song" by "composition" by Tbhotch also do not change the fact that (Darude ) is still required by WP:SONGDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and Barrel wanted evidence, now there is evidence. You and Barrel wanted it reflected in the article, now it is reflected in the article.[1][2] What do you want then? You are saying this article is about a song. A "song" is a musical composition "for voice performed by singing or alongside musical instruments." There aren't vocals being perfomed here. Now, for real, what do you want? Me, asking you for permission to edit "extensively" pages? If anything is needed here is evidence "Sandstorm" features vocals. Also WP:SONGDAB still saying that "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using '(composition)' or '(instrumental)'." What you are saying, basically, is that WP:SONGDAB is wrong when I apply its current wording, but it is correct when you use it.

Also, you, by yourself with no consensus added this phrase to the page, despite the fact it begins with "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." So @In ictu oculi:, where it is the consensus? I see none. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, following the "poor writing" above that's why there's talk page discussion. You're welcome to discuss there. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, you are ignoring the whole argument I gave you and only replying ambiguously "That's right" (what's right? The fact you and Barrel wanted evidence and now there is but you aren't satisfied with it; I should ask you for permission to edit articles; that I can't use WP:SONGDAB but you can; that you are violating Template:Guideline requirements for guideline page editions; or all of them are "right"?) You can't "support"/"oppose" other users's arguments selectively--in other words, to say I or Dohn joe are wrong supporting to move it to "composition" per SONGDAB, but you are right to support a move to "Darule song" per SONGDAB. This is not an selective election, you are saying "I support the first part of WP:SONGDAB, but not the second, it is wrong". If SONGDAB allows this page to be moved to "(composition)" or "(instrumental)", it is correct to move it to "(composition)" or "(instrumental)" as long as the guide is reworded. Your addition of this phrase conveniently because of and for this RM, seems more than a "poor writing" situation and the closing user should take it in consideration in the final result, and other users should take note of it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean yes that's right I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#When (song) and (instrumental) both exist and added a proposed line with tag ^{[under discussion]} underdiscussion-inline Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#When (song) and (instrumental) both exist which is an invitation to discuss. You're welcome to discuss there. User:George Ho User:Zacwill16 User:Binksternet User:BarrelProof are also welcome to discuss there. User:Richhoncho and User Talk:Dohn joe are already there. However this RM doesn't have to wait on that. There's already clear support here for George Ho's proposal in modified form. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There it is a clear consensus the page is to be moved, what it is not clear is where it is to be moved. @Binksternet: and @Zacwill16: said "Support", despite the fact this is not a votation to say "aye/no". @BarrelProof: said "per WP:SONGDAB", when SONGDAB states tracks that are not technically songs are not to be labelled as "songs". And Dohn joe supports it to be moved to Sandstorm (composition) or Sandstorm (instrumental), while I support Sandstorm (Darude composition) or Sandstorm (composition). It is obvious it will be moved per WP:SONGDAB, the place it will be moved is not clear yet because WP:SONGDAB's writing is not clear yet. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble following some of this discussion, but I haven't noticed any negative reaction to Sandstorm (Darude composition), so can we move it to that? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho User:Old Naval Rooftops User:Binksternet are you okay with Sandstorm (Darude composition)? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sandstorm (Darude composition) is okay. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SONGDAB. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sandstorm (Cast song), can be a speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There is no primary topic for "Sandstorm (song)", so this move is probably for the better. ONR (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Zacwill16 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Sandstorm (Darude song)". Support Sandstorm (Darude composition) or simply Sandstorm (composition). This "song" lacks of lyrics and it is unbelievable supporters like @Dohn joe:, @BarrelProof: and @In ictu oculi:, who cite WP:SONGDAB, deliberately ignore the sentence "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)"." © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 09:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You're absolutely right. !Vote changed accordingly. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Sandstorm (Darude composition) seems fine if that's the case. Tbhotch, it appears, seems to be following WP:ABF in the discussion. Does the article even say the "song" lacks lyrics? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a "If a tree falls in a forest..." situation. The article is clearly incomplete, and just because there is "no proof" in it doesn't mean it is not true. If I "WP:ABF" is simply because all of you been moving over and over again "Song (song)" articles to "Song (Artist song)" titles (or even worse: "Apparently Unambiguous Song Title" to "Apparently Unambiguous Song Title (Artist song)") without even putting an effort to verify if the song is in fact a song. And for the record, it now says it lacks of lyrics. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for the record, my ignorance was not deliberate. I did not know that the "song" had no lyrics and didn't remember (and lacked the knowledge to cause me to think about) the instruction that "composition" or "instrumental" would be preferred in such a situation. I'm afraid you gave me too much credit about that. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence provided and Wikipedia:Assume bad faith and WP:Personal attacks are pretty much the norm from this editor. Plus of course "song" is still a composition, so the the editors proposed removal of Darude is contrary to the sense of WP:SONGDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I can't AGF in you as you has given no evidence you edit here in GF. If you require the "lyrics" here they are, or you can watch a YouTube video and listen to the song. As there is no "official video", per copyright reasons I can't post a link here. His official video through his official channel. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if WP:SONGDAB contradicts its own spirit is your fault as you've been shielding yourself in it you never noticed that contradiction. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sandstorm (Darude composition); but Sandstorm (Darude song) would also be OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sandstorm (Daruda xxx) with xxx meaning song, instrumental or composition. FWIW a song is anything with vocals, not necessarily a lyric. Thanks Andrewa for relisting --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sandstorm (Darude composition) - as noted above it's not technically a song but more an instrumental so although "composition" sounds odd It makes sense. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have consensus above that this article should be moved, but not yet on the destination. I suggest that any who wish should state clearly below which one name of those already [3] suggested above they prefer. Feel free to also state second or subsequent preferences, or even to propose yet more possibilities (or of course to support any new suggestions), but I think the most promising road to consensus is to choose one from the above, so I request that you do that too. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, and no prejudice against trying again for an alternative title if it looks like anything suggested in the discussion could achieve consensus. (non-admin closure) (ps. I don't really recall, but I see I weighed in on the 2014 RM on this, where I was pretty neutral on this choice.) Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstorm (Darude composition) → Sandstorm (Darude song) – Even though the song is instrumental, I would not consider it a composition. There was a similar issue with Animals (Martin Garrix song) earlier which ended in it being "song" at the end. "Composition" is just not right especially when the song has become a success. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:D83D:EF7:C74C:30E9 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a move discussion back in 2014 with consensus to move. If you want to move it back, I suggest you start another move discussion. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "song" is more natural and better represented in sources for this type of work. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per WP:COMPOSITIONDAB. "Animals" and "Sandstorm" are incomparable. While in "Animals" Garrix sings the short line "We are the fuckin' animals",[4] in "Sandstorm" there is no single lyric not vocal performances.[5] Nothing is sang, it is not a song. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per COMPOSITIONDAB and perhaps per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NONSENSE. The rationale makes no sense, since whether a composition is successful or not has nothing to do with whether it's a composition. It clearly is not a song, so there is nothing "natural" about calling it one; "(song)" fails WP:NATURAL, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:PRECISE since such a mis-disambiguation would be directly misleading and confusing. " Animals" is not comparable, since it just has an instrumental version, and is not innately and solely an instrumental. "Sandstorm" only exists as an instrumental composition. If electronic-music-focused editors don't like "composition", they're welcome to go to WT:NCMUSIC and propose the addition of another disambiguator, such as "(track)" or "(tune)" for that set of genres and subgenres, which would be more in line with actual usage both within the field and (more importantly) by the general public in reference to it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternative also permissble: WP:MUSICDAB also permits Sandstorm (instrumental); this would be a WP:CONCISE improvement at the cost of some WP:PRECISION, but I have no objection to it if others prefer. It is still precise enough, since nothing else at Sandstorm (disambiguation)#Music is an instrumental. That title should exist as a redirect, regardless, so I've made it one. "Sandstorm (composition)" will not work, because songs are a subset of compositions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation: If this article is moved, an example at WP:MUSICDAB will have to be replaced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. There isn't a consensus that the page is at the correct title, but neither is there a consensus that this page should be moved. Because of that, it defaults to staying at the current title. There were enough alternates proposed that another RM after some discussion might be fruitful in a few months, but at this time, there is not a consensus to move the article from its stable title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstorm (Darude composition) → Sandstorm (Darude song) – "Composition" is used for classical music. "Sandstorm" is part of pop culture and electronic dance music, in which song creators are called producers not composers. The song is also widely known as an internet meme, which doesn't sound good as "a composition". Whether it has vocals or not, doesn't decide that it's a composition. Most EDM songs these days don't use vocals, instead they use vocal chops or just melodies. — Zawl 14:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. — Zawl 09:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support exactly as Zawl says. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to Sandstorm (instrumental) to sidestep the issues from previous RMs. Would also support the proposed title.  ONR  (talk)  22:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because it's not a song. Composition is a generic term meaning a creative musical work, song is a narrower term meaning one with a vocal section. Darude is surely registered as the composer of this work with a collection society such as MCPS-PRS and thus gets royalties for it, and also for any hypothetical cover versions of the composition that are recorded and performed, and either his next of kin or whatever music industry corporation he sold his soul to will continue to own the copyright for his composition until 70 years after the death of the composer. I disagree with the premise that "composition" is only used for classical music and so do WP:SONGDAB, our article musical composition and the OED to name a few.

Also, while composition and production have a lot more overlap in EDM than in other genres and it's true that "composer" isn't a word you hear a lot, they are still separate parts of the creative process. Composition means putting together the musical elements of the work and production means realising it as a completed product (through arranging, mixing etc.) Unlike in other pop music styles, most electronic music producers do them both and do them more or less simultaneously, but it isn't necessarily always the case. I also oppose "Sandstorm (Instrumental)" because that qualifier usually implies an instrumental version complementing a vocal mix of the same track on the release.

I agree that (composition) as a dab label sounds a little overly formal but my preference is for the current title. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of sources[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] call it a song, and Google search-term trend shows higher count for "song" than "composition". A song doesn't need to have vocals, as defined by Merriam-Webster, a song is a poetical composition. Sandstorm (song) has all of the characteristics stated at the article titles policy. It is more recognizable and natural. Readers are likely to search for "Sandstorm song" than "Sandstorm composition" as evidenced in the Google link above. Editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. As most sound recording articles on WP has the song disambiguator, the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. — Zawl 09:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A song is a poetical composition" - exactly, "poetical" means among other things that it is in some way recitable using linguistic elements, of which there are none in this track. I hear your point about "song" being commonly used to refer to any popular music track by music journalists, but my point of view on these kinds of RMs is that we are an encyclopedia and we are allowed to be a bit technical and precise at times. If we are going to use "song" as a generic word for a piece of popular (or folk?) music regardless of whether it has vocals or not then we should start by rewriting the article song which quite clearly defines a song as a piece of music with a vocal section. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "song", mostly because of filelakeshoe's comments, and the Merriam-Webster link provided by the requester ("the act or art of *singing*"; "*poetical* composition"; "a short musical composition of words *and* music"). In order to be a song it has to be sung, otherwise it is just music (the definition of an instrumental: "played on an instrument *rather than* sung"). Yeah, this track is commonly called a "song", that happens a lot because people use the word "song" for any kind of musical piece that can be listened to, even if you Google search "Beethoven songs" you will see what I mean. If the problem is the word "composition", then change it to Sandstorm (Darude instrumental) (or simply Sandstorm (instrumental) if it is not conflicting with Sandstorm (Cast song)). But changing it to "song" will make us part of the problem of incorrectly calling instrumentals "songs". © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The definition of song is debatable but the point is per WP:TITLE policy, Sandstorm (Darude song) is the preferred title as people are more likely to search for it than "composition". — Zawl 06:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The definition of song is debatable", how so? The only place to debate a dictionary definition is with the dictionary itself. And you were the one that brought dictionaries to the discussion. Now you change to WP:TITLE, that page is for titles, not disambiguation. And lastly, the most likely and obvious search term is not "Sandstorm (Darude song)", it is "Darude - Sandstorm",[13] as the meme. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it should simply be Sandstorm (Darude) in the same way that other compositions (orchestral and the like) are handled. See works linked from Symphony No. 1 for example - they use simply [[title (composer name)]]. Yes, I really did just speak about Darude in the same context as Hadyn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. What have I become?.-- Netoholic @ 19:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this too, for the record, this would be a nice compromise. In pop music the same title with "Song"/"composition" and "album"/"single" sometimes need to be disambiguated, I guess that's why we use them, but we could restrict these dab labels to cases where it's necessary. And this should probably be taken to the relevant project pages to suggest a change for naming conventions. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Tbhotch™, Technically it's composition not a song.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's consensus for move to the new name. I take into account the other suggestion by Netoholic but that point has been slightly weakened and generally no opposition to the first suggested name. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstorm (Darude composition) → Sandstorm (Darude instrumental) – Now, I know this is the fourth page move request; but I believe this is fair. As discussed before, "composition" mostly refers to classical music and is not fitting for the topic of this article, and as concluded, neither is "song". However, there is no denial of "Sandstorm" being an instrumental (non-vocal) track, and "instrumental" is a correct alternative dab per WP:SONGDAB, (examples: Burnin' (instrumental), Albatross (instrumental)) so this would satisfy for a title. Lazz_R 23:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Sandstorm (instrumental) per my comments in the last RM. There is no other instrumental by that title.  ONR  (talk)  04:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Sandstorm (Darude) in the same way that other instrumental compositions (orchestral and the like) are handled. See works linked from Symphony No. 1 for example - they use simply [[title (composer name)]]. This makes it both WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT with other instrumental works. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for Sandstorm (instrumental), which already redirects here. I suppose I'd be fine with Sandstorm (Darude) as well but there is a bit of a difference between "Sandstorm" and "Symphony no.1", which is that one's primary topic is clearly a musical composition and the other's is not, so it makes more sense to have a word in the title that suggests it's a music topic. I still disagree with this made-up premise that keeps flying around that "composition" only refers to classical music, it is just wrong, and no one has provided a dictionary definition or similar source proving otherwise. The OED defines it is "a creative work, especially a poem or piece of music". I suggest one of you write to Cliff Richard and let him know his non-classical non-compositions are in fact not protected by the changes to copyright law he lobbied for recently. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. I will correct myself that "composition" doesn't exclusively refer to classical music, however, it is very closely associated with it by the majority of people. Lazz_R 20:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:NCM when there are multiple songs we give artist even if only one of them is an instrumental. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]