Talk:Faye Wong discography

Other albums
What about her 1997 Album "Not For Sale / Fei Mai Bun" found at http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/8598/faye/disc/24.html. If I had more information on the album, I would edit the article, but unfortunately I do not. Raztus (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a compilation, and not notable. I actually have a different Faye Wong compilation from China by the same title! - Fayenatic (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Theme songs and Cover songs
Does anyone else's discography contain such sections? I don't really see a need for these sections.Timmyshin (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I can't recall any. Although I put quite a bit of work into the cover songs, that section has got larger than I expected and, while it is of interest to fans, it's probably not notable enough to stay in a general-purpose encyclopedia; so I won't object if there is a consensus to delete it. If anything, covers of an artist's songs by other people would be more notable than this.
 * However, the list of theme songs seems more notable, showing this artist's contribution to another artistic medium. I would therefore keep that table. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the list of cover songs. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I restored the cover songs list because they are still a significant part of Faye Wong's career. By removing the list, you also removed a whole bunch of songs not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I personally believe all other discographies should also have a "cover songs" section. If you do not want it, you can remove it, but I suggest you take those songs and add them elsewhere in the articles, including "theme songs" and "singles." The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit deleted the theme song table with the summary "rm non-notable songs per Peer review". The peer review is at Peer review/Faye Wong discography/archive1.

The reviewer asked what makes ent.163.com a WP:reliable source. Although the cited 163.com page included some minor mistakes, which I had corrected, isn't 163.com generally considered a third-party site of sufficient stature to use for citations? A later edit struck it out along with the fansites as "unreliable websites", but it is also used as a news source in the main biography article Faye Wong and many others. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 163.com is a resemblance to Yahoo and MSN. I'm not sure if I call it reliable; that site has no references except self-publishings of albums.   --Gh87 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * re "self-publishings of albums" -- what site are you talking about? 163.com i.e. NetEase? This page appears to be journalistic work, not a fan site, and I would like to reinstate the table in the discography that was based on it. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...So that's a secondary source, a source that analyzes or reviews primary sources, such as albums themselves? Should the source be verified? I swear, I have seen it before in fansites, unless this source is either original or a copy of another fansite. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "the site has no references", or "should the source be verified". I don't know how good 163.com is; when I try to explore it, the pages take ages to load, perhaps because I am refusing to accept cookies... As for the table of cover songs, it is highly likely that fans would copy it, so seeing it somewhere else does not call it into question. – Fayenatic (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The site has no references": I was too ignorant to verify the source. They must have used primary sources but did not cite them; I should have said "primary sources" instead of "self-publishings of albums". I did not realize: albums may also be primary sources rather than self-published sources. "Should the source be verified": There were misspellings in English titles and some non-notable performances of songs; that's the reason I doubted the source's reliability. --George Ho (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you George, that's clear now. I acknowledge that the table is not entirely accurate (that's why I wrote "mostly right" in the footnote), but it was a very useful source. I compared it to another list posted by fellow-Wikipedian user:Jason Gervais on the IMDB forum, and resolved the differences by referring to primary sources. I treat 163.com like tabloid newspapers: not an ideal source, but useful and allowable if there is nothing available from better sources. (Likewise, Yahoo News/Music/Finance is generally correct and usable as a source, although I avoid giving Yahoo in citations as the links tend not to last long.) – Fayenatic (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand Chinese... just a little bit. I have checked the source: http://ent.163.com/ent_2003/editor/music/musicidea/040602/040602_251274.html. It turned out to be a list of only derivative works that Faye Wong performed and recorded and Faye Wong songs that became later covered. This list includes Tori Amos's song, "Silent All These Years," derived into 冷战 ("cold War").

I am afraid to say this: this is a list of songs that do not indicate notability of songs themselves and Wong's performances on those songs. In other words, this source is unreliable. I don't know whether it plagiarized a fansite or not, but, if a work of an editor or author, the source should credit someone. Moreover, how does the person know one song derives from another or not. Also, the last update was 2004. This is not a discography of main albums, unfortunately. --George Ho (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon, I assumed that your first language was Chinese. I am aware of what the table is, as I used it as a source for the Cover songs section, which I propose to reinstate. Many of the songs have their own articles, indicating notability. In any case, non-notable would not mean the same thing as unreliable. Journalists do not normally credit their sources, and their works are no less reliable where they do not do so. There is no dispute over any of these songs being the same, as the sleeve notes indicate the same composer, and listening to clips confirms instantly that the melodies (and sometimes even the arrangements) match; copies of clips are available at the Internet Archive copy of the Eurofayenatics site. Lastly, this section of this page is not about sourcing the main discography, but deletion/retention of the tables of cover songs and theme songs. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Oh, I must have assumed we were discussing something else. Well, the cover songs should come later for now. The cover songs themselves... Why re-inserting them into discography? I still don't get it. Does it signify Wong's career or merely trivialize the meaning of this discography? The derivative songs should meet notability standards in any way. How do derivate songs prove significance for Wong's career? --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... almost forgot: songs that were charted should be included rather than merely cover songs. I'll find sources while I can. --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sequence
The tables are currently in different orders. Last time I checked the Manual of Style, either first-to-last or last-to-first is acceptable, but a mixture is a mess. I suggest that all tables should be in ascending order by date, i.e. earliest first. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The G7 deletion was contested; now I'm proposing a merger because I was the starter of this article, and I am struggling to learn what is and is not encyclopedic. If this page is encyclopedic, why aren't there non-primary online and offline reliable sources to verify this discography? Fansites are not reliable and not acceptable as "external links" nowadays. I don't know if Notes I did were OR or not, but Madonna discography is superior and currently FA. Can this discography survive as a stable stand-alone article? --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the biography article is long already, and does not need to be cluttered up with lists of unofficial albums or compilations. As for sources: WP:V states that sources are required for material that is likely to be challenged. IMHO, discographies are not likely to be challenged as the information can easily be verified, e.g. at online retailers. Compared to your example of a Western star, it is more difficult for editors of English wikipedia to source articles on overseas subjects, because of lack of access to original media and language difficulties. In practice it is hard to recruit overseas/native language editors for the task, and even you have declined to assist in the past. I have painstakingly tracked down some citations from mainstream popular Chinese media such as Douban and 163.com but it is frustrating when you then question their reliability as they "resemble Yahoo" (even though the latter seems to be accepted as a source for other articles). It seems to me that they are certainly good enough for discographies. If you can suggest better sources for Asian chart history or sales figures, please do. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For: For one, it's impossible to find reliable sources for the sales of Chinese recordings, because there is no authentic chart in either China, Taiwan, HK, or SE Asia even remotely comparable to the Billboard or Japan's Oricon (as a matter of fact, only Faye's sales in Japan, which are available online with subscription for Oricon, are trustworthy). Moreover, since most of Faye's recordings each has a separate page already, the info on that discography page can be moved to each separate page.
 * I can help editing. Ikasamah (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those insights. I see that a source for the album lists in Anita Mui discography was found in a booklet in a late release from Capital Artists (I am not aware of anything similar for Faye from her record companies). While the chart history and sales information adds value to Madonna's discography, I do not see why the lack of it rules out a separate discography page for other artists in Wikipedia. I just found a discography at Discogs which I believe is accepted as WP:RS; it's currently incomplete, missing the early releases under the name Shirley Wong, but it's a good start, and provides useful sources for the album articles too. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)