This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This page was originally at
Talk:Eyes on Me. That article was merged into
Music of Final Fantasy VIII and that page became a disambiguation page. This article was later re-created with better references. The discussion page was therefore moved here.
When I played the game, I was really touched at the part when Laguna came into Julia's room. It's clear that she wrote a song for him and let him hear it, but he just said "it's nice song", I think that Julia recorgnized that Laguna just cared for her as a singer, he just admired her and didn't love her. So the lyric has this: "I'm not a dress and a voice...". I'm right or wrong?
Laguna was a bit more than simply infatuated. He never had the chance to express his feelings to Julia though. When Raine came into the picture however, his memory turned into an old crush and died out. Of course on Julia's side her lyrics clearly stated that she hoped for more in the "relationship".
70.132.31.7206:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Why doesn't it have the lyrics for Eyes on Me??
Eyes on Me DOES have lyrics, so how come the article doesn't have lyrics?? Can someone add them ASAP?? Thanks, from Danmeister (Can't be bothered signing)
I've taken the liberty of removing the lyrics section from the article, for exactly the reasons LBMixPro stated above. –
Seancdaug07:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
deleted "though criticized as sappy at times"
Pretty much any pop song with love as its theme can be criticized as such. Thus, this statement is frivolous and unecessary. And besides, who criticizes it as being sappy? Musical critics? Other musicians? I doubt it - most likely it is the person who wrote that sentence.
Please don't merge
This song sold 400,000 copies, won major awards, and made Faye Wong an international star. Please don't bury it inside some random sub-article.
Kappa12:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Burying it for the sake of making some random sub-article into a featured article is still burying it.
Kappa13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
How is it buried? A person searching for "Eyes On Me" would be sent directly to the section about Eyes On Me in the main article. No burying about it. Please don't turn this into a debate about "second-class articles" and such.
Axem Titanium14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't actually give a damn about FFVIII (my least favourite FF) and I see no problem with Eyes On Me being on this page. All the information is present, the song is aptly covered, the larger topic is aptly covered, and readers can read what they want on the article. What problem could there possibly be? You seem to have yet to bring any concrete argument in this whole discussion to back up your opinion, apart from the fact that you "don't like it".
Kariteh13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I'll take your word for it that all the information is there in the article, but you are still forcing me to read a whole article about an irrelevant topic to find it.
Kappa14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
First, the topic is not irrelevant. You might be a fan of Faye Wong and a FFVIII hater, but it would not change the fact that Eyes On Me was composed by an FF composer for an FF game. Second, no one is forcing you to read the whole article! The links redirect to the correct section, not the top of the article. You don't have to "find" anything, redirections do it for you. Also, please stop reverting Eyes On Me before a consensus is reached; you're the one who acted without discussing first, contrary to the people who had properly discussed and merged the article two month ago. Kariteh14:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
OK I'm stuck with a shitty treatment because this
belongs to the Final Fantasy project. If there was proper discussion two months ago, where the fuck it it? Is there a deleted revision of this page somewhere maybe? "The links redirect to the correct section?" WTF are you talking about. Read the fucking article.
Kappa14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Aww, what do you expect me to answer when you're putting words in my mouth in my place? I'll just note that nobody ever said that this(ese) article(s) belong(s) to the Final Fantasy project, except you.
Kariteh20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Notability is just a guideline; the fact of the matter is that we are not a shrine to everything. Thus, it's a minimum standard. We present material in the best and most encyclopedic way possible, even if we have to
ignore some rules. — Deckiller19:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
ROFL that's the "proper discussion" that gives you the arrogance to revert my improvements and threaten to ban me for trying to make them.
Kappa20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes I can see there's whole army of Final Fantasy fans who insist presenting everything from their perspective.
Kappa20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, most of the die-hard fans have gone to the Final Fantasy Wikia because of Wikipedia's restrictions... — Deckiller22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
(bumping back indent) I really don't see how this being "from [Final Fantasy] perspective" is bad. You yourself chose to leave the story-related section in your version of the article. The song is tied to the game so excluding that segment of it would simply be censorship of information.
Axem Titanium21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
When suggesting a merge in future, please use
Template:mergeto on the article to be merged, and leave it long enough for editors interested in that article to comment. On this occasion it seems there was no notice on the article before it was merged. I'm prepared to
assume good faith but I can understand why others were put out by what happened here.
Fayenatic london(talk)22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Kappa, I understand your fustration as everyone has their own opinion on how the articles should be presented. But please remember, noone owns the article on Wikipedia and it seems like that you want to 'own' the article by ignoring what the other users think (from the look, you are the only one who actively revert the article to the old style while a number of users have reverted your edits). It would be great if we can discuss on this before getting into another edit war. --
Cyktsui23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No-one owns the article, but there are a large number of assholes from one project who are preventing improvements to it while pretending there has already been some kind of discussion about it.
Kappa10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I've already gone back into the page history and added your recent improvements there into the "Music of FF8" article. I left out Angela Aki's comment on Nobuo's views as it was an indirect report and I was unsure whether Excite was a reliable source; in any case the same text remains at
Kokoro no Senshi. "Red Bean" didn't seem important.
As to the importance of the song for Faye Wong, it's obvious that the song introduced her to some (many) more Western hearers, but do you have a source for how much impact it had on her international standing, please?
Fayenatic london(talk)12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Kappa, please be careful on the way that you speak to others, your wording, WTF, assholes are all considered as personal attack. We are most happy to discuss the situation with you, provided that you stop using offensive languages. If your behaviour does not change, it is possible for your account to be banned due to personal attack. --
Cyktsui00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Cyktsui please remember you have been removing valid additions to this encylopedia with completely bullshit justifications.
Kappa03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Lyrics extract
The fully lyrics of the song have rightly been deleted in the past as a violation of copyright. However, a few brief lines are included because they explain and give context to the song title. This is believed to be
fair use, and within Wikipedia's policy at
WP:NFC#Text. –
Fayenatic L(talk)17:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
@
Fayenatic You contested this merge over two years ago...and then nothing was done with this article by you or other editors. While there's no deadline on wikipedia, reasonably when something is still visibly failing notability there's a reasonable point to say "this should be merged."--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
21:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, two years ago. I don't think anyone has a problem with an article being here if someone's a) putting the work in to demonstrate notability, even with a reflist and/or b) putting the work in on it. But you have to establish notability at the very least and some indication of it being important enough from the list that it needs to be separate. So what do you have to establish that?--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
22:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Kung Fu Man: the chart rankings, and media coverage including BBC News, seem sufficient to me. The awards are not as significant as those listed in
WP:NSONG, but also contribute to the overall notability. As stated, this has been put to a discussion, and there was not a consensus to merge the article as NN. –
FayenaticLondon23:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply