Talk:Parafora

Parafora

Can you please stop changing the commercial section on Parafora. The statements are sourced and you need another source to disprove these "incorrect facts", since wikipedia is about verifiability not necessarily truth. It pretty much ends there. And there is a difference between speculation like Rouvas will probably perform here or release this as his next single and what the newspaper was saying, which is estimation based on observations and facts. It is the same thing Billboard does when estimating who will be number 1 next week or how much an album is expected to sell. These are notable.

Anyway, it just states that an artist at Hatzigiannis' level (ie Rouvas, Remos etc) could expect to get 150K or more for a brand new album. Perhaps that Remos deal had not been made yet/made public record up until then, so it is not necessarily wrong, they just took the highest known figure and estimated Rouvas would surpass it. Either way, you only have leaks for Remos as you said, which are not a reliable source. You can't disprove that Rouvas got the most interest unless you have a source, considering as you were not there to see the bidding, but if an album gets bids before any of its material is even commercially released and it happens to be by (one of) the most relevant artist on the scene right now, you can make a safe bet it's correct.

As for the crisis? Is that really up for discussion? Obviously it is known they started doing it afterward because it slowed down the music industry (along with previous factors ie illegal downloads) and sources for this are easily available. Like I said I am still adding in sources but that statement is not that controversial. GreekStar12 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

With all do respect, you need to stop adding your personal take on things, and then using a source to try to justify it, when in reality it only covers a tid-bit of what you have added. I am not referring to this specific situation only. There are lots of instances when you had your POV on things, then use a source to try and back it up when the source mentions nothing of the kind. You just assume that everyone thinks the way you do. Anyway, end of rant. :p I have re-worded the statement in the article to give a proper representation of the subject. Concerning the crisis, yes it is up for discussion. Newspaper sales have been declining worldwide way before the crisis even started. You can easily Google it to find that information. Covermounts are not a new concept either, worldwide, or in Greece. Yes, they have become extremely common in the past few years, particularly for new studio releases, but they have been going on for a while. I remember buying a number of Greek covermount compilations back in the 90s in fact. Greekboy (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I find that as being the hardest thing to distinguish when checking for sources. Oftentimes Greekstar, you use sources to complement your own points of view instead of expressing the facts stated specifically by the sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there is something called paraphrasing, making comprehensive to the article reader what the point is of the whole thing. Taking the idea of the paragraph and putting it into one sentence, which, no offence, but you usually take several little sentences to get the point across Greekboy. I try to find only really good and in-depth sources that support the claims that are not just typical commercial MAD etc that really offer nothing. The fact that your interpretation of the source is different does not mean that what is written is wrong. Greek in general is a language up for interpretation b/c nobody directly says what they mean. Again, I can't judge your level of Greek b/c I have no idea, but the source completely supported what I wrote (- the crisis thing, which is common knowledge). I get what you're saying with the Hatzigiannis thing, but, this was in fact your interpretation that the whole thing was speculation as the n/p source itself does not say that the artist did not endorse this or that it was speculation, so if you know so, then the burden is on you to outsource it. I wrote exactly what was said. Which reminds me, Stephen, you wouldn't allow a temporary (1 day) blog source about the forbes news that had already been widely reported, which ok, i get your reasons, but ie on the Paparizou article there are several blog sources that have been there for years p. It is easy and convenient to only see other's faults when in fact we do the same.

And as for the crisis, compilations are completely different. Would you release your brand new studio album that you've worked hard on (leme tora) for 2 euros? I have found several sources about this, newspapers, fake certs and sales claims, the fall of laiko-pop artists, and how the industry is using lower thresholds and newspaper shipments to give the illusion of the artists being successful in Ta Nea and some other newspapers, which I plan to add soon. So, basically, the nps may have declined for years, but the artists are not exactly doing it out of the goodness of their hearts; they wouldn't if there was no gain. GreekStar12 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you identify which sources are blogs on the Elena article I will take a look at them. I haven't been really deep into editing for a few months now, maybe even a year. I mainly do small or easy edits reverting vandalism or adding updates. I haven't sat down and reviewed an entire article, checking for sources and the like in a while. To be comptelely honest, the only reason why it may seem like I am mean or tough about your editing is because I know that you possess the passion and ability about your articles to dig deeper and address my issues and concerns, but sometimes you think that what you have is good enough. In the long run, it's best to have an article as good as possible from the start. This begins with pointing out sourcing issues and pov that would soon run rampant in an article. Also you need to consider that what may be "common knowledge" for a Greek person or even just someone interested in music may not be for some random person who came upon the article. You often say the media covered something and it was big, but how does someone from another country know that? Are they supposed to take your word? I personally don't have plans for a GA or FA nom for any of your articles, but it's not like they are going to be any less strict than me in a review. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is something called paraphrasing, but what you do is completely change the meaning of the source. We paraphrase all the time: writing the source in our own words. If we didn’t paraphrase, we would be quoting. What you do is interpret the source, something completely different, which adds your own personal opinions and takes on the situation. Per Wikipedia guidelines on original research, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.". You are doing EXACTLY what it says not to. Especially since we are working with predominantly Greek-language sources, it is unacceptable. If the article for example has to go up for GA review, or even if a non-Greek reader wanted to check the sources, they would not be able to get what you, or I, or any other Greek reader gets when checking the source with an online translator. Whatever you source in the article, needs to be directly supported in the source. That means every claim you make must be sourced even if it is common knowledge and it requires sourcing every sentence. I learned that the hard way when one of the Greek Eurovision articles went up for GA review, then reassessment later. Your current style of editing presents problems. For example, there are a lot of articles where you explain the composition of the song, or related musical details, and most of the time it is not sourced. It is all original research on your part. Although it is common knowledge to you, especially since you have a musical background, it needs a source or it can be removed as unsourced material.

Also, Greek is not the only language up for interpretation; you can interpret text in virtually any language. It all depends on the style and tone it is written in. And if this were to happen with an English-language source, you would not be able to interpret that and use it on Wikipedia because someone would instantly realize what you've done and call you on it. You would not be allowed to use it as it is original research, simple as that. And it’s not like the Greek Wikipedia has different rules on this specific subject so you could argue that the Greek-language is an exception; they have virtually identical guidelines. (Not that Greek Wikipedia guidelines would apply here anyway)

By the way, the point I was trying to make before about the Music and Media pieces by "To Paron", was that they are predominantly hybrid opinion pieces. (so to speak) I am not sure if you follow them, but I read upon their release on Sundays. They are mostly the editors take on the soundings of the music and media industry, and most of the times it includes speculation and rumors of what has been heard around the industry. Just because they publish it, doesn’t make it true. If you decide to use the site as a source, you must do so in a way that states that it is someone’s opinion or speculation, not a fact. Greekboy (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said Greek was an exception, but rather that the fact that you might interpret what the source is saying differently does not mean that that is indeed what it is saying. It heavily depends on metaphors, so knowledge of certain expressions etc are factors. You cannot compare Greek to English; Greek in general is symbolic and uses irony in 99% of writing, including some used in El-wiki. And for the most part, the composition sections are just unsourced, not sourced w out of context material, because they are not in such detail (ie key signatures, range etc) to create any significant controversy (ie "is a pop song") although of course these would be needed to further the article. TBH I think GA is a waste of time, just about sourcing and neatness rather than quality and completion, so unless I felt an article was at the level/completion/sources to the level of FA, for me personally, as long as there is verifiable/insightful information, I am not concerned w GA formalities, can't speak for anyone else.

Anyway my point was that you basically do the same thing in several cases. I understand what you are saying about music + media pieces, but how would someone who is not Greek know that, especially if it is not presented as speculation? That is YOUR original research. Or the new statement in the commercial section about the "2010 debt crisis" being "partially" responsible for covermounts; the newspaper ONLY sources the crisis (no year) as a reason, and makes references to practices (ie kiosks, cm's etc) that were conducted before this year. The additional is not sourced and to include it it would need additional sources. You are in essence watering down what the article states, which I'm sure is also against guidelines. ;) GreekStar12 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is, you can not interpret sources. Simple as that. Per guidelines on using sources "In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments." You have to find sources that are crystal clear and do not require interpretation. And again, per guidelines, non-English sources can only be used subject to consensus. Obviously there is no consensus here for certain sources. As for the composition section, they DO need to be sourced. Although you may find it to be trivial content that is unlikely to raise significant controversy, people have different views on songs, their genre, their composition, and their lyrical content. Just take a look at any of the mainstream song articles. Even the genre is sourced. And EVERY mention of the structure to the song is sourced. If you honestly believe adding material without sources to Wikipedia is alright because it passes your own standards, than there is something truly wrong with your outlook on Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide encyclopedic content based on "reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered." I personally have been more than lenient with your additions of unsourced material to various articles, giving you the benefit of the doubt, but if you have no intent to source the material I guess I will have to start tagging it, and removing it if no source is provided based on WP:NOCITE.

As for the new statement in the commercial section, the only reason I changed it was to try to save the DYK. The article you were linking to is not directly related to the crisis in Greece. You were emphasizing 2008 economic crisis, when Greece isn't even mentioned in the article until 2010. Yes, it is common knowledge that it was a long time coming, but even the source is vague just stating "crisis". (and the article was published in 2010 on top of that). The best thing to do would be to completely take it out, as it is all on the verge of Synthesis. Greekboy (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't attempting to source unsourced statements, I just said you should focus on sourcing your own statements/articles correctly instead of just focusing on others, and there's several times you've admitted to not sourcing something just out of laziness because it is not that controversial, everyone has. ;) And there are two sources there, one which does source the crisis, so most common logic would be the recent crisis as it was talking about recent albums, so I don't really know what you are talking about, unless you were in the wrong section. There was nothing there about the 2010 crisis, that was your spin on it, and it was citing practices pre 2010. Bottom line is the sources do measure up. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Parafora (album) → Parafora —

• Support - This article should be moved to "Parafora" only, since it is the name of album. It is the more prominent of the two, and deserves the page title without any disambiguation over the title single. (Parafora (song)) There is no need for a disambiguation page, as both the album and the song are by the same artist, and can be better served using the {{about}} template. Greekboy (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Contested; seems appropriate to have a disambiguation page. Tassedethe (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Doesn't make sense to have a disambiguation page when there are only two articles sharing the name, especially when they are both music related and even by the same artist. The album, having the more prominent and "important" use of the name should have it with no disambiguation in the title while the song can have (song) after it. {{about}} can then be used on the top of the album's page to direct readers to the song if they got to the album accidentally. It would be best to keep the number of pages to watch to a minimum. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: There are only two articles with this name and both are by the same artist, under the same project. Usually, in the case of album/title track single release, only the song gets a bracket. A reader can be directed to the song by an "about" header.GreekStar12 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Until there is another Parafora entry unrelated to the current subject (Sakis Rouvas), then a non-article disambiguation page would be very redundant. Also a logical hierarchy would act in an album's favour over a song as to which article gets the title exclusively. Imperatore (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Seems pretty straight forward. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Certification

I'm having a hard time presenting the album with a 2x platinum status in the pocket, for it is stated as such by Rouvas himself. That is hardly NPOV. Is there a reliable source to back it up? Until a reliable source is found, I think stating this status as a fact múst be avoided. Robster1983 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The album was not certified by IFPI (per their chart and per an email asking), but it was certified unofficially by Rouvas' label and a cert party already took place or is at least coming. IFPI stated that they understand labels are self certifying, but they are not pursuing the issue at this time. Grk1011 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)