Talk:Sandstorm (instrumental)

Reason for my change
I changed techno to electronic dance music. Trance is not a subgenre of techno, it is seperate from both house and techno(although it does have techno influences). It actually isnt really a subgenre of anything. I am actually going to simply change it to "It is from the genre of trance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killanator (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Omnibus
Can anyone give a reference to teh song stealing where Darude stole this beat form the song Omnibus by Laut Sprecher? I've heard that it was stolen, and it's pretty obvious given that they sound the same and have the exact same beat. -OttOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.205.3 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Omnibus by Laut Sprecher was made in 2001, Sandstorm by Darude was done in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.93.67 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Best Selling Instrumental
I dont think so, I beleive the Halo soundtracks are in actuallity. --Kyle112 03:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for popularity
If anyone has any idea how this track became so popular (promotional methods, etc) I'm sure it would make a fascinating addition to this article. Thanks! - logan dot koester at comcast dot net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.214.122 (talk) 22:57, June 15, 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was just because it is so awesome. Recury 17:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with Recury... T3h 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for its popularity is today as it is known as a Meme and sandstorm is one of them but i think there is another reason which also have made this so popular Wkc19 :) (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Diverging data
I just found this 01. 	   	Radio edit 02. 	 	JS16 Remix 03. 	 	JS16 Dub 04. 	 	Spectro remix 05. 	 	Extended version 06. 	 	Out of control original version

on the darude website. this doesnt match the current wikipedia site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnipotence407 (talk • contribs) 23:45, March 16, 2007 (UTC)

Complements on arm-chop description
i would just like to say that the description of the sandstorm arm-chop in this article is genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.162.8 (talk) 22:15, May 8, 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know of a video source for this arm-chopping dance? I have never seen it and find it hard to picture. 86.137.77.251 12:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to take seriously. Unless someone can cite a source or video, I'd say it was a prank. Cybersavior 03:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandstorm as baseball entrance music
If I remembered correctly, there was two major league pitchers who come out on this song, one might be Chris Young of the San Diego Padres, the other one I do not know.Hmsrenown 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Sandstorm single.jpg
Image:Sandstorm single.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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents of the case
The following music video - "Feel The Beat", features a very similar steel case as used in Sandstorm (A song which is sampled in FtB, during the scene...) in which the case is opened to reveal a gold record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.116.39 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In sports
There's been a large addition to this section recently, and I'm afraid that it will continue to grow as editors will mention every single team or event that the song has been used for. No sources were added with the new material and there may not be any available at all. I'll place a citation request for that section specifically and give it some time. Dawnseeker2000  02:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Turns out I was able to easily find a reliable source for the use by The University of South Carolina Gamecocks, though the section could still be trimmed a bit. The tone could be improved some. Dawnseeker2000   02:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As an Internet meme
The song is currently becoming an Internet meme. --109.92.125.3 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it already was a meme when internet was still on floppy disks, and the question "what's the name of the song" was a meme before streaming started being a thing. it was a meme before the word meme became mainstream, it was a meme before youtube even existed 80.251.112.199 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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)

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)
 * Support Change to Sandstorm (composition) or Sandstorm (instrumental) per WP:SONGDAB. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Blame WP:SONGDAB poor writing, not its supporters.  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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, where it is the consensus? I see none. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 02:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean yes that's right I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music) and added a proposed line with tag underdiscussion-inline Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music) 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)
 * There it is a clear consensus the page is to be moved, what it is not clear is where it is to be moved. and  said "Support", despite the fact this is not a votation to say "aye/no".  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.  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 03:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, Sandstorm (Darude composition) is okay. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SONGDAB. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Sandstorm (Cast song), can be a speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support Zacwill16 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Sandstorm (Darude song)". Support Sandstorm (Darude composition) or simply Sandstorm (composition). This "song" lacks of lyrics and it is unbelievable supporters like, and , 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)"."  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 09:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. !Vote changed accordingly. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * There's no evidence provided and 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)
 * 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. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Sandstorm (Darude composition); but Sandstorm (Darude song) would also be OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisting
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 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)
 * 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.

This song is a popular internet meme, and it's not on this page. Why?
Right now on the internet, especially on sites like Youtube and 9gag, this song is used as a joke especially when one asks for the title of a song used in a video. The reason why should probably stem from the fact that the song itself sounds generic and ambiguous to people. How the joke works is if a user asks for a name of a particular song used in a video for the purpose of finding it online, when another user, much of the time a internet troll, replies "Darude - Sandstorm". At the time of this writing, this joke is a common sight on the internet, and I'm surprised that there's no information whatsoever on this page about this phenomenon. Some other variations on this joke include writing: "Sarude - Dandstorm" in reference to the fact that the joke is overused, and some people have made posts or videos depicting a theme known as "The rude sandstorm" referencing the fact that "Darude - Sandstorm" sounds like "the rude sandstorm" The reason I didn't edit this page is because I don't have a reliable or specific source to base my edit off of, but Darude - Sandstorm is indeed a real thing as I personally use the internet on a daily and regular basis and see this thing getting thrown around a lot. So I ask that someone see this note and write a section about this phenomenon and link their written content to a reliable source or sources.

Thanks. Wiki nol ege (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Somebody needs to find WP:Reliable sources talking about the meme, or else nothing can be said about it. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the site knowyourmeme.com is considered a reliable source, but if so, it details the story behind the meme here: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/darudes-sandstorm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.17.207.79 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm kind of late to answer, but I'll try to get working on that right away. Epic Boss Im So Perfect LOLZ Kawaii (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry... Never mind :/ Epic Boss Im So Perfect LOLZ Kawaii (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Popularity of Sandstorm
Binksternet added that the song's online visibility "increased sharply" after after the toy-trumpet video was uploaded, linking the gawker source as citation. This, however, is an uncited fact at best (the gawker source states that the toy-trumpet video "kicked off" the progress of Sandstorm becoming a meme, but does not say anywhere that it caused its online visibility to increase at all, let alone sharply) and plain out wrong at worst (the google trends source I have linked proves that there was little-to-no increase in popularity following the toy-trumpet video in 2010. It does show, however, the song doubling its popularity after Wyllie's League of Legends video). Haha01haha01 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Google trends source is disallowed original research. Can't use it. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it, really? Lets go through the article you just linked to.
 * The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist
 * So if I have at least one "reliable, published source", as defined in the linked article (Verifiability), my claim is not original research.
 * In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors
 * Is the information "previously published"? Yes it is, as "Google Trends" is a publication of Google Inc., where they publish statistics they have collected on their search engine.
 * Is the information my personal belief? Nope.
 * Is the information my personal experience? Nope.
 * Can it be checked that "the information comes from a reliable source"? By clicking on the link, you can see the information comes from Google Inc. Now we shall base the fact that Google Inc. is a "reliable source", as defined by the linked article, Verifiability.
 * the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) - I think a list of published statistics can count as a "document" for this specific need;
 * the creator of the work (for example, the writer) - The work has been created by Google Inc.; note that I (the editor) is not the creator of the work, as I have not "created" the work but merely caused it's automated creation by Google Inc.'s systems. Also, and although I am not an expert in US law or law in general in any way, shape or form, I do believe that I would not hold up as the "creator" of this work as US copyright laws define the term - if you have a certified US copyright law expert who says otherwise, then please let me know;
 * the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). - which is Google Inc.
 * Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - If you have an issue with the reputation, reliability, or accuracy of the source, you may consult the Wikipedia articles about Google Inc. and Google Trends, and their respective citations and sources; If you still disagree that the source was "published" by a third-party, and that I am not "publishing" it right now, then lets check the definition of "publish", from the very same Wikipedia guidelines article:
 * Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". - Google Trends have been "made available to the public", and so has this specific statistic, as it is information that is freely and easily accessible by going into Google Trends (a publicly available web site) and typing the keyword that you are interested in, which in our case ("darude sandstorm") is not in any way a secret or something that the average person could not have known or accessed prior to me "revealing" it here (and thus, I have not "made [it] available to the public" as defined in WP:Verifiability, but rather Google Inc. did). Additionally, this specific link and statistic has been previously "made avilable to the public in some form" already by the Know Your Meme article on the relevant subject, which, albeit constituting copyright infringement and thus not being a legitimate source for the content of the article, can still be used content-less as proof for this matter. Haha01haha01 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a novel interpretation. You might want to ask at WP:RSN whether a Google trend search results page is considered a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2017

 * 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)

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

Animals]]" is not comparable, since it just has an instrumental, 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC) 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, since nothing else at Sandstorm (disambiguation) 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose, per WP:COMPOSITIONDAB. "Animals" and "Sandstorm" are incomparable. While in "Animals" Garrix sings the short line "We are the fuckin' animals", in "Sandstorm" there is no single lyric not vocal performances. Nothing is sang, it is not a song. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 (Martin Garrix song)|
 * Observation: If this article is moved, an example at WP:MUSICDAB will have to be replaced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

This song is used in Filth (2013) movie.
please mention in In film and television this movie name Filth (2013) also. Ram nareshji (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2017

 * 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)

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. — Za  wl  14:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  —  Za  wl  09:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support exactly as Zawl says. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) &#xF0F6;  08:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Majority of sources 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. — Za  wl  09:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "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) &#xF0F6;  10:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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".  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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". — Za  wl  06:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "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",|Sandstorm_(Darude_composition)|Sandstorm_(Darude_single)|Sandstorm_(Darude_song) as the meme. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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  . 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)
 * 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) &#xF0F6;  20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Tbhotch™, Technically it's composition not a song.... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sandstorm (Darude composition). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004153300/http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20040210IE1 to http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20040210IE1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2018

 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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  .  This makes it both WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT with other instrumental works. -- Netoholic @  05:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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) &#xF0F6; 10:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The first Finnish music video shown on MTV in the US?
The article says that "Sandstorm" was the first Finnish music video shown on MTV in the US. Sure, in the source link, the director of the video says that it was. However, I disagree with that piece of information. According to this thesis, Hanoi Rocks' video of "Up Around the Bend" (released in 1984) was the first one.

Mirage78 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)