Talk:Music of Final Fantasy VIII

Merge into encyclopedia article

A series of short article based on the music of FF8 have been merged into this general encyclopedia article. The purpose of this is to consolidate the material, which will ultimately make it easier to reach GA. Most of it is poorly written; don't shoot the messanger, or in this case, the merger. — Deckiller 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese track names?

FFVIII doesn't have Japanese track names, unlike FFVI and FFX. I should add Japanese track names, but is it necessary? I feel that it is necessary to add those to the albums as well --Sjones23 23:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an issue of precedent. All FFVIII music was released with English track names. Yes, in Japan too.—ウルタプ 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the demo...

Should the fact that the demo had a totally different piece of music from "The Landing" be mentioned somewhere (though without referenced to The Rock that someone is sure to make)? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, if we can find a source. — Deckiller 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GA push

Hey; it looks like all we need are a few general refs for the albums and other minor tweaks, then we can probably attain GA status without an issue. — Deckiller 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That'd be nice, but I would really like a creation and influence section. I'll see if I can't dig up any Nobuo interview from back then. Axem Titanium 01:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go for the GANom anyway; it's not really a huge deal for GA status, and we might be able to find something before the review is given anyway. — Deckiller 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

US Release

As I said in the edit summary, I own it...plus, if you'll notice, the picture of it was left there even when the info was taken out. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article passed

Excellent work. No immediate concerns come to mind regarding this article. I suggest it be forwarded to FA as soon as is convenient. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Can we remove the infoboxes and consolidate the track listing so they appear nice and neat like on Deus Ex? That might help us take a step toward FA. — Deckiller 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I already had that in mind. I've done it with the OST. --Teggles 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome. — Deckiller 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section

A Legacy section might actually be quite easy to make. FF8 music has appeared in numerous concerts, the black mages have covered it, and so on. We could easily rack up a couple paragraphs and maybe more, since I googled and found interviews with the condutors for FF spinoff concerts, and black mages interviews. — Deckiller 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, once again, I had that stuff in mind. :) By the way, the change to the album image order you made doesn't look too... sightly. Mind if I revert it once the "piano collections" section is long enough not to use a "clear" tag? --Teggles 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead refs

• Note 9 is a dead link, I looked at the rest of the site but am not sure which page this link should be replaced with.
• ^ Nobuo Uematsu (2005). "FINAL FANTASY VIII Original Soundtrack". SQUARE ENIX MUSIC. Retrieved April 18, 2006.

Kariteh 13:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note 15 links to the same site as note 16 instead of somewhere on Square Enix's official site.
• ^ Uematsu, Nobuo (2005). FINAL FANTASY VIII Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec. SQUARE ENIX MUSIC. Retrieved on 18 April 2006.

Kariteh 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All set. Thanks for pointing those out. — Deckiller 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually note 9 wasn't fixed, so I went ahead and put the link to the main page of the album listing, which has the date of release that was meant to be sourced. I'm not sure it's the best page though, since its title is a big "SQUARE ENIX MUSIC Download"... Kariteh 09:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

I bet we can add a significant amount of info to that section. I know Tour de Japon covered "The Oath" and was perhaps the climax of that show, and several other musicians have covered "Eyes on Me" and other things. As an aside, I think we can all agree that this game has the best music in the series :) IX comes close, though. — Deckiller 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Los Angeles wasn't the only place where the "Dear Friends" series of concerts were played. I think I've heard something about some more recent concerts aptly named "More Friends". They may have played some songs from FFVIII. Kariteh 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

I think we could probably stand for two more images. A lead-off image of some sort to put in the lead, and one in either the creation or the songs sections. Perhaps a screenshot of Rinoa and Squall aboard the ragnarok to illustrate one of the scenes in which the music plays? Or from the intro? For the lead, perhaps an image of Noruma or something else? It might be hard to find such images. — Deckiller 00:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• In the creation and influence section, the best and most realistic image to use would be Nobuo Uematsu. For the reception and legacy section, I'd like to see an image like this: [1]. As you said, for the song sections, a screenshot would be our only option (unless there are images of the orchestra who created it, Faye Wong etc. - anyone have the OST to check?). By the way, is there any reason the legacy information is together with the reception? I never really found it logical. --Teggles 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• That image is PERFECT. Rinoa is such a fantastic character. — Deckiller 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Restore the Articles for the Albums

I strongly disagree with the move that was made to merge all Final Fantasy VIII albums into one encyclopedia article. Each Final Fantasy soundtrack or album has their own individual article, and there should be no exception for the FFVIII soundtrack or albums. Besides, the albums Final Fantasy VIII Original Soundtrack, Final Fantasy VIII Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec, and Final Fantasy VIII Piano Collections are all individual albums, and therefore there is no reason why they should not have their own seperate articles with general information on each of them, an infobox, and a list of tracks on the album. So I say that these articles be restored to their original state to stay consistant with the format of the other Final Fantasy soundtrack and album articles, and articles for music albums in general. –Nahald 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They are stronger together, and stand much more of a chance of attaining a higher article standard as a combined article. In other words, as individual pages, they will lack the ability to become GA or FA; they will always remain as stubs. This concept is being followed for the remaining Final Fantasy games, and has already been implemented at Final Fantasy X albums. Heck, one of these pages was just an infobox and a list of tracks. Nobody from the WikiProject has disagreed with the merge(s), so there is a clear consensus. Moreover, the material is stronger because the creation, criticism, and lead sections tie everything together. Our goal is to have all articles reach at least GA, and if an article cannot reach GA on its own, it is just a petal of a flower. — Deckiller 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You can make whatever argument you want, but the fact of the matter is that the info on all of these albums have been significantly watered down from their original content, you don't even do so much as list their release date. These albums are treated as nothing more than footnotes in this article rather than being given proper coverage that all other music albums on Wikipedia get. They at the very least deserve an infobox and a list of the tracks that are on the album because, to be quite frank, I found the coverage of these albums to be much more useful to in their original state than the state that they are right now. But hey, what the Hell do I know? I'm just a user here at this website, and everyone knows that the opinion's of Wikipedia's users are nowhere near as important as Wikipedia's ambiguous policies! –Nahald 08:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It lists the release dates — as well as other information — in the prose. The extensive track listings can be viewed in the references and external links provided. We aren't exactly dealing with a 10-song Queen or Rush album. — Deckiller 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As Deckiller stated, all of the information you want can be found in this article; aside from the track listing, which is linked (so why would you need an infobox?). Besides, listing the tracks is pointless... can you give me one reason why you need them? Remember, Wikipedia is not a game guide, so you'll be in the same situation as those demanding game guide information. Sure, it'll be useful, but it's just not Wikipedia's goal. --Teggles 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FA yet?

The article looks really good now. In fact, I think it may be ready for FAC, which is probably the best place to stamp out any last issues and concerns. Thoughts? Axem Titanium 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• This might get shot down at FAC becuase of the reliability of sources. Honestly, I think we're best just keeping it at GA and taking what we can get. I'd rather not have to get into a debate defending the sources we have to resort to. On the other hand, we might be saved from such nitpicking, since the claims aren't exceptional - they're just listing release dates and whatnot. — Deckiller 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think it may be near impossible to get a deserving FA. Look what I had to write in the Piano Collections section: "A total of 11 user-created reviews on Amazon.com reached an aggregate of 95.5%." That's about the only real "reliable" reception the album can be given, but it's hardly adequate. A Class should be the next goal. --Teggles 04:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Sandy told me characters of FF8's refs were fine with rationale that they were reliable for the subject could fly, but this might be too much of a stretch for FA status. — Deckiller 05:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberi Fatali

• "Liberi Fatales" = Latin for "Children of fate" or "Fated children"
• "Liberi Fatali" = same thing but with "Fatali" in the singular form (while Liberi is in the plural)

It's just an instance of Ratin. Not as common as Engrish, but it happens... Kariteh 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really notable or sourced. Citing a Latin dictionary would be original research. It doesn't really have to be mentioned. Axem Titanium 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless of what this mention is (and I think it's not unnotable nor OR), it won't change the fact that the alternative is totally erroneous. Liberi Fatali simply doesn't mean Children of Fate. Kariteh 11:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just so silly... Since when giving a translation on Wikipedia is considered OR and needs a source? Nobody sourced the FFT articles when it was added that Shishi Sensou means The Lion War; nobody added any OR or fact tag to that sentence. Kariteh 11:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyes On Me

Should be merged into this article. Kariteh 11:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Final Fantasy fans are the only people that count. Kappa 13:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, people who do things out of process are the only people that count. Seriously, take a look at the two versions. One is a neat section in a good article. The other is a crufty repetition of the first, along with a humongous plot summary that was already repeated elsewhere. Aside from the fact that the merge/redirect was discussed and agreed upon, which version would you prefer? Axem Titanium 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Yeah Final Fantasy fans are the only people that count." -> Yes, that's exactly what I said. [/sarcasm]. Kariteh 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep separate - I think that Eyes on Me should stay where it is. Although quite scruffy, all it needs is to be tidied instead of the "lazy" way and just merging it with this article. It was released as a single and there are many many more non-notable singles on the wikipedia. RIANZ 00:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "lazy" way is to give everything a separate article instead of attempting to maximize flow, organization, and quality by consolidating loose concepts into a stronger whole...— Deckiller 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Show me a Good Article-quality version of the article in your sandbox and I will reconsider un-merging. Axem Titanium 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from and understand that but I've noticed that less than 24 hours was given for the merge and then it was done. I doubt it merge proposals work that way since people do have to vote on whether to merge or keep seperate. I guess a "new lazy way" to do things has been found to justify turning an article into a disamb page. It explains why the Eyes on Me article is getting reversed. It would have been fine if noone cared that it got merged but someone (other than myself) did care. As for the sandbox challenge... If I had the time and wasn't too busy concentrating on two other wikiprojects (comic and New Zealand music) I would. Though I doubt you could do any better than merging it. RIANZ 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that it had already been merged long before User:Kappa revived it without discussion (see its article history). The merge was a long time coming and I don't think some hot shot with an agenda should have the power to unilaterally undo that (to the crappy old version no less). Axem Titanium 03:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lucky I'm not the referred to hotshot, hence why I really can't be bothered starting an edit war. But it may have been the "most universally disgusting article ever made in the history of the wikipedia and defies being even associated with the Final Fantasy project" but really it just needed work. Yes, I could have done work on it, you could have done some work on it. The "hotshot" could have as well. But instead the simplistic (I refrain from saying "lazy") way was taken because someone found it that repulsive I'm positive they "threw up in their mouth" a few times whenever they viewed it. Now to regurgitate all this on the project... how tedious... but fun :-p RIANZ 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point. — Deckiller 15:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image position

With such a narrow image, it looks better to me outside the infobox. See my sandbox. Advantages: infobox is shorter, within section "Eyes On Me"; less white space. Opinions? - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. It does look better that way. Axem Titanium 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Eyes On Me 2

A waltz version of this song was played at the party after the wedding of Princess Märtha Louise of Norway and Ari Behn. There used to be a video of it here (titled Se bryllupsparet svinge seg i brudevalsen (Windows Media Video)), but since it happened in 2002, the video is long gone. I know this is a long shot, but I was wondering if any other Norwegians who frequent this site might remember it and know where I can find a copy. I think it'd be an interesting addition to the article if a reference could be found. Davhorn 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about the video, but the "waltz version" is in the game, called 'Waltz for the Moon' on the soundtrack. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EyesOnMeSmall.jpg

Image:EyesOnMeSmall.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 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 06:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed- rationale added. --PresN 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Odeka Ke/de Chocobo

Through Googling I found that most sources, the vast majority of them, list track 8 of disc 3 as "Odeka Ke Chocobo", 2 times as many as sources with "Odeka de Chocobo" actually. Can someone verify which name is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.14.87 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Next time, you should check the Official Website, where they name this track as ODEKA ke Chocobo. Makes sense, since in Japanese, odekake means leaving or going, I'm sure — Blue。 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

NEVER trust the internet by "more people say this than that". 95% of websites, especially for websites about tracklists and whatnot, just copy off of each other, mistakes and typos included (even big names like iTunes do it). As Bluerfn said, find what is official, and trust only that. And once you've done that, double check. Sometimes even THEY don't know... happypal (Talk | contribs) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

iTunes version of Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec different

I am unsure of whether it worth mentioning in the article that the version of the FLWV album sold in the iTunes music store differs from the physical CD version (the iTunes version has a truncated "Ending Theme" and is missing the "Eyes On Me" track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisistheHenry (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

See Talk:Music_of_the_Final_Fantasy_series#Requested_moves. SDY (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of album covers and more

Why were the album covers removed? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember there was a discussion on this - and the reason was that the album covers were violating fair use for being non-informative and mere decorative. I do think the editor in question should have mention this in his/her edit summaries... pointing out where discussions like this took place instead of making an edit that seemed to others akin to removal of content/vandalism, not that I think it is since I understand the reason, but still.... — Blue。 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The image for the single "Eyes on Me" is iconic. The article on the single was merged into this article. I am therefore reinstating that one. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And again. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Conjecture

"This track is essentially Liberi Fatali transcribed into a piano score" is conjecture and opinion without reference. I move to strike it. DKqwerty (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Great catch. — Deckiller 06:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Track listings

Why are the track listnings hidden by default? I can understand the second part, but the first seems to be short and could help the proper formatting of the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The first could be expanded, as it doesn't stretch the page; I think it's only hidden to be consistent with the other 3 track sections, all of which would stretch things. I'll unhide it. --PresN 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote in FFVIII OST section

Hello, I just want to advise you that one of the quote in the FFVIII ost section doesn't match the link in the reference : "When signs of age of the Final Fantasy franchise are shown, Uematsu counterbalances this by creating something weird and wonderful. When the soundtrack becomes too serious, Uematsu suddenly inserts a light-hearted number to lighten the mood". It's not exactly what the reviewer wrote... Zandra^[Moa ?] 10:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Eyes on Me" image

The notion that the image should be deleted because our content guideline militates against cover art in discographies is obviously misguided. What our guideline seeks to bar is the application of images to summary lists of musical recordings. But what we see here is an extended narrative that is the primary discussion of the item on Wikipedia. It unquestionably goes beyond, far beyond, a "discography" treatment of the item. The cover art is thus presented in the context of extended critical commentary—our encyclopedia's primary critical commentary—on the item and is clearly acceptable use per our content guideline and the overriding policy.

On a broader point: Whether we are contemplating adding fair use media or thinking of deleting such material that another editor has added in good faith, we must keep in mind the purpose and rationale of our policy. In the present case, our policy sheds a clear, strong light. There is simply no worthwhile free content that this image is possibly replacing. This is unquestionably an example of the judicious use of media that enhances the quality of our encyclopedia. It would be worthwhile if all involved reacquainted themselves with the rationale of our policy to understand exactly what its purpose is.—DCGeist (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what you're saying would be all well and good if this cover was of any importance at all. However, it isn't. What the cover looks like simply doesn't matter. Yes, the current practice is that the cover is used on the article about the recording- however, when the recording isn't even worth its own article, and the cover isn't even worth mentioning in the article that does discuss the recording, you really don't have a leg to stand on. A good article on a musical artist will discuss major albums at length- that does not mean that the articles should be decorated with the album covers. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You've misused the word "decoration", both in its ordinary language sense and its specific meaning on Wikipedia. The image here serves as the illustration of a recording that receives extensive critical commentary, its primary critical commentary on Wikipedia. Whether the interested editors decide that our readership is better served by that primary discussion appearing in (a) an article exclusively devoted to the recording or (b) a section of a broader article that covers the context of its release is irrelevant to its significance and status. As for not having a leg to stand on, any sensible reading of out policy's rationale reveals that this is what your argument lacks: There are three legs there; not a single one supports your position. I also note that you have elected to conduct an edit war against two independent editors and have not hesitated to flirt with WP:3RR. I suppose you won't complain then if I flirt as well.—DCGeist (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a picture of a cover. If you want to claim there is "critical commentary", you're going to have to show critical commentary of the cover- the cover and the release are not one and the same, this is not a difficult concept. You can wikilawyer and argue about semantics all you like, but until you grasp this simple concept, you're not going to get anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so not interested in playing out this argument for the bajillionth time, but I will point out that the rule is:

"Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item." (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images)

Note that "item", the final word of the sentence, is referring to the actual product (in this case the single/album) and not the cover. You can tell this because it is the repetition of the first term "item", which is described as the thing that has cover art rather than the cover art itself. You can call it wikilawyering all you'd like, but saying that the critical commentary needs to be of the artwork itself is materially misrepresenting the rule in question. --PresN 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Explain to me what this image is adding to this article. Go on, surpirse me. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I am truly in awe of Administrator conduct in this discussion. User:Angusmclellan deletes the image in question (reason: why wait?), while you, J Milburn, revert four times in a row and post snarky comments like "Go on, surprise me". To answer your question: the image is used for identification of the subject in question. The subject is discussed by critical commentary in the text of the article. Therefore, everything that the Wikipedia:Non-free content rules are looking for is satisfied. The only thing that is not, apparently, satisfied is your own personal opinion of what "the truth" of the rules is. --PresN 22:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, according to your reading of policy, we can use a non-free image for anything, providing "the subject is discussed by critical commentary in the text of the article"? J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If only you properly understood our policy and content guideline, this would be easy for you to comprehend. Our policy and guideline do not require critical commentary on the cover art itself. Cover art used to illustrate an item that is the subject of extensive critical commentary—particularly when it is our encyclopedia's primary commentary on that item—clearly falls within both the spirit and letter of our policy and guideline. If you would only read and remember the guideline, you would know this. Now, in the spirit of holiday giving you introduced to this colloquy, be so good as to surprise us. Please reread the rationale of our policy and explain which of its three legs you believe supports your position.—DCGeist (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes. That is specifically what the non-free content rules state, is that to use a non-free image, "the subject must be discussed by critical commentary in the text of the article". There is nothing in those rules that states that the subject of the image/critical commentary must also be the only subject of the article. This is why, when uploading an image, two of the preset "use" options are "in an infobox" and "in a section about the subject". There is an entire section devoted to critical commentary of the subject of the image, therefore a non-free image is allowed under fair use rules. --PresN 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'm getting a bit sarcastic here as well, which is not really conducive to discussion. Let me be specific: you seem to think that there is some incredibly obvious statement somewhere in the rules that says that identification of the subject of critical commentary is not enough, that there needs to be critical commentary of the image itself. That my understanding of that sentence in WP:NFCI is blatantly contradicted somewhere else. Well then, and I truly mean this quite literally, please show it to me. Quote it right here. Because while it is possible that I'm just missing it while it's staring me in the face, I think that it isn't there. This may mean that the wording needs to change- and why not, we the editors wrote the wording in the first place. But if it isn't there right now as written, then the image is fine until the wording is changed. So please, give me a quote that says I'm wrong. --PresN 06:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is sufficient commentary about the song that a visual identification would not violate copyright law. To the extent that it might violate WP:COPYRIGHT is an opportunity to change WP:COPYRIGHT. However, as this article contains many pieces of music, the icon can be much smaller and still be used for identification. As such, the size of the image is unnecessarily large. The image could easily be cut down by 50% on each side. The words need not be legible to be used as an identifier.

Rather than edit-war here, a third opinion may be useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• The point is not about violating copyright law. Wikipedia's policies on fair use are deliberately more restrictive than copyright law. There's been a loooong standing agreement that covers on discographies are almost never allowed. They've been stripped out of discographies for a very long time now. Years, in fact. The general rule of thumb; if an album/single is notable enough for its own article, the cover can go on the article. If it's not notable enough for its own article, there's no sustainable argument that it deserves a fair use image. Consensus has LONG supported this. If you want to change that consensus, then start an RfC to overturn the decision on not allowing covers on discography. Barring some revelation that this article is an entirely different type of article than all the other discographies on this project, you're going to have to demonstrate that consensus has changed to allow covers in discographies. And please, demonstration that other...crap...exists is not compelling. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• No one tried to say that "other crap exists", so good job on the strawman there. We're (I'm) not looking to overturn consensus that you shouldn't put non-free images for every album in a discography article (list). What I'm saying, and unlike every "admin" here am backing up with a quote from the guidelines/rules, is that a single image to illustrate a subject that is the target of critical commentary is allowed. To repeat that quote, "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item." (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images). There is critical commentary of that item, therefore, the same rules apply to that image as apply to the images in the top right corner of 100,000 album, book, movie, and game articles on here. We don't need to overturn your "consensus" that you are trying to stretch into "no article about multiple subjects can have any non-free images". You need to try to overturn the specific wording of that guideline, or provide some other guideline that contradicts it. So far, no one in this discussion has done so, resorting instead to threats and childish deletions. --PresN 18:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are attempting to use a part of the guideline that has to do with specific articles on specific subjects and applying it to a wider realm. With your interpretation, there is a guideline that supports using episode screenshots of each episode on episode lists. There's been a long standing agreement about discographies. I'm sorry you don't like that agreement. Nevertheless, it exists. If you desire to overturn that consensus, fine, but you can't declare it null and void because of a new interpretation you propose of the guideline. As for the portion of guidelines you are quoting, you're misusing it. That has to do with specific articles on the subject, not a mass cover article such as this. There is no one album that is all the music of Final Fantasy VIII. If your interpretation were valid, then all album covers would be allowed on discographies. That obviously isn't the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Alright. I would argue that the list case you're talking about, where each episode gets one line in a table, is intrinsically different than an article like this, where each of the four albums/single gets its own multi-paragraph section. However, in the end I'm unlikely to win that debate, and I'm so impressed that you have finally quoted/pointed to a guideline that says I'm wrong at all (after John, J Milburn, and Angusmclellan couldn't be bothered) that I'm just going to drop it. It's been a fun discussion, and I recommend that all of you admins in the future point to that line in the guidelines rather than moan about all us plebians that "just don't understand it like you do". --PresN 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• There's been arguments surrounding the idea of what constitutes a list, videography, discography, etc. before. Few people walk away happy from those debates. We've attempted to create something that addresses the issue more in abstract, resulting in Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. But I don't think anyone ever meant for that section to be applicable to discographies, bibliographies, or videographies. The intent was for list of characters, episode lists, and similar. I remember reading a debate specifically about discographies, concluding in support of the abstract concept of removing non-free media from discographies, but I can't find that specific debate now. But, I'm sure the last line of Wikipedia:NFC#Multimedia was a result of that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

'Nuther can of worms

Now that it's pretty clear we can have song and album covers in the article, within limits, should we have the ones we have? It's pretty clear a visual identifier for the main soundtrack is helpful in understanding the article. If it weren't for the "please don't use a lot of them" language in WP:FAIRUSE I would recommend images for all of the songs. But since that would be problematic due to "fair use image overuse" it may be better to put them on none so the article looks more visually balanced, and remove the cover for Eyes On Me. This should not be done as a way to claim "the image cannot be used for fair use" but rather "even if it can be used, we choose not to use it."

Given the recent revert wars, I recommend the images stay as they are until there is a consensus to change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify. It appears to me that three albums and one single were released in connection with Final Fantasy VIII. If that's correct, the current choice of illustrations—cover images for the primary album and the sole single—is judicious and appropriate. What would it mean to illustrate "all of the songs" (not that it would be judicious to do such a thing)?—DCGeist (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant all of the musical releases, in this case, the main album, the two other albums, and the single. And yes, having 4 fair-use images would likely not be fair. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. The two albums containing orchestral and piano arrangements, respectively, are clearly less significant releases than the original soundtrack album and the single. It is thus appropriate in terms of article emphasis and design, and judicious in terms of our NFC policy, to illustrate the latter two items, but not the former two.—DCGeist (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, since the original soundtrack was clearly so notable, why doesn't it have its own article where the cover belongs, rather than on this discography in violation of our guideline? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Because the involved editors made a rational decision to create one article, encompassing both the soundtrack and the related single, "Eyes on Me"—which is also notable according to our standards—as well as two less significant related ones. They could well have chosen to create three articles: one for the notable album (illustrated), one for the notable single (illustrated), and a third covering all four recordings that would offer summary coverage of the two notable ones. They chose to go this route, I gather, because they thought it was the more effective, efficient means of conveying information about a group of closely related recordings. An insensible reading of our policy and content guideline has now resulted in the two notable recordings being stripped of illustration. Do you believe that our readers and our policy will be better served if the original soundtrack album and the award-winning single are accorded stand-alone articles and illustrated in those?—DCGeist (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I saw a related discussion that occurred some time ago about this subject. Editors had made the decision to merge so that the content could achieve at least GA status. If the content, spun off from this main article, can not achieve GA status what business does it have requiring illustration? That's a pretty easy answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there's always an easy answer when the question is a red herring. Targeting GA status and guesses about whether or not it "can" be achieved hardly go to the heart of the matter here. You suggest that distinct coverage of the soundtrack and single would exist only if "spun off" from this article, but one could just as logically argue that coverage of each stand-alone-worthy item was "merged into" this article. The choice of phrasing is, in the end, merely rhetorical, and does not address the relevant status of the content.
• Once again, both the original soundtrack album and the single clearly meet our notability standard for stand-alone articles. Do you or do you not believe that our readers and our policy will be better served if they are each accorded such stand-alone articles and illustrated in those?—DCGeist (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, everything I have to say is red herring. Feel free to ignore me. If they're so damn notable they meet our notability guidelines, then create an article about them. This article is about ALL the music of Final Fantasy VIII, not just the notable bits. There is no one album cover for all of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The single Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song) is demonstrably notable, and I have finally got round to creating its own article again. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ultimania development information currently not in the article

The following source should be translated and used to expand the current incomplete article:

• FFVIII Creator Interview 3 – Sound Team (from the Final Fantasy VIII Ultimania)

Anyone willing to help translate even one page is welcome! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Updated the link. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Music of Final Fantasy VIII. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.laphil.com/philpedia/nobuo-uematsu
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120065126/http://ff8.hoogetech.com/page.php?file=press-23nov1999.php to http://ff8.hoogetech.com/page.php?file=press-23nov1999.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3166165
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/1999/09/11/final-fantasy-viii-3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208065545/http://ffdistantworlds.com/program to http://www.ffdistantworlds.com/program

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) 10:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Music of Final Fantasy VIII. 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/20130120065505/http://www.squareenixmusic.com/albums/dvds/tourdejapon.shtml to http://www.squareenixmusic.com/albums/dvds/tourdejapon.shtml

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) 05:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song)? (2022)

The article "Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song)" was merged into this article in August 2021 by PresN. At an FFD discussion, someone opposed the merger, citing past discussions in 2007: this one and Talk:Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song)#Eyes On Me. Redirecting the song page was undone, but I've not yet undone the copy-and-pasting of the content from the song article. Shall the song article be redirected (again) to this article? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Im inclined to fall in the keep side of things here. Going triple platinum and a top ten charting on a major music chart are some pretty strong points on the WP:NSONGS side of things. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• No merge - I suspect there's a large untapped corpus of Chinese language sources that would cement the song's independent notability. Faye Wong is one of the most popular Chinese singers of all time and Eyes on Me is one of her most popular tracks, domestically and internationally. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • A quick comment - this article's Chinese Wikipedia counterpart uses no Chinese sources. I may try to find some Chinese language sources. MilkyDefer 08:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, please do! I don't have a good sense for what's reliable in Chinese. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

      @MilkyDefer Were you able to find any Chinese language sources? Article was recently redirected and then unredirected so it's a bit top of mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

      Thank you for letting me know about this comment that I have long forgotten. Since this song is released in Japan, the majority of available sources are in Japanese. There are a handful of Chinese sources.

      • 王菲99新风暴 “太空战士第八代”轰动日本 [Faye Wong's Newest Storm in 99 "The Eighth Generation of Space Warriors" Hits Japan]. Wenhui Bao (in Chinese (China)). 1999-06-08 – via Sina. [Trivia: Long ago the "Final Fantasy" series was translated as "太空 (Space) 戰士 (Warriors)" in Taiwan (and subsequently influences HK) simply because the first entry of the series involves space stations. Although nowadays Taiwan uses the English name without translation, people in China still use this example to ridicule Taiwanese people. In China, the series is translated literally as "最终 (final) 幻想 (fantasy)" since the beginning.]
      • 宇多田光称霸日本唱片奖王菲夺亚洲音乐奖 [Hikaru Utada Tops Japan Record Award, Faye Wong Wins Asian Music Award]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese (China)). 1999-12-03 – via Sina.
      • [策划]匆匆那年的青春:王菲唱的影视主题曲 [[Special]The Days of Youth in Those Passing Years: Themes Songs by Faye Wong]. Netease (in Chinese (China)). 2015-09-25.

      Whether these sources consistutes significant coverage or passing mention is up to your discretion. MilkyDefer 03:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not opposed to PresN's bold merge of the article since I trust their judgment, and that much of its current content is still adequately covered in the bigger Music of FFVIII page. At the same time, both Axem Titanium and SergeCross made important points about the song's significance which certainly justify the presumption of a standalone article in mainspace. Perhaps what the article does need is expansion with more content, and not a mere duplication of its summary in the parent article, to justify a split? Haleth (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, this strikes me as one of those articles that would stop being questioned as soon as it was spruced up and expanded a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• @PresN: Seems that the editors have opposed the merger/redirecting of the song article. You performed the merger that editors have still opposed, so I'm pinging you. I still have trouble reorganizing and/or copying-and-pasting the song article and trimming the section about the song itself. What can be done to undo this or something like that? George Ho (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  If people are opposed then I'm not going to try to re-merge it. I don't quite know what you're looking for here- you want to take content out of this article? Why? There's no reason why the section here needs to be arbitrarily shorter than the other article- there's not that much content. The solution there would be to make the Eyes on Me article longer. --PresN 13:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)