Talk:Korean idol

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, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korean pop idol → Korean idol – The Korean page refers to this type of artist and group as just an "idol" just like a Japanese idol. Both the Korean and Japanese pages of each idol, (Korean and Japanese page of "Korean idol" and Korean and Japanese page of "Japanese idol") don't use the word pop and I think it would be good to change the name of the page to just "Korean idol" since that's what they use in Korea and "idol" is also the term that is used in Asia in general to refer to this type of singer from any Asian country. The term "idol group" is also used in both countries to refer to their respective pop group singers as well. It's also used here: List of South Korean idol groups. This change would also be similar to K-Pop, J-Pop and J-Rock, K-Rock. JAMendoza (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've seen idol used in some Korean media so I think the change is good. Alexaclova112330 (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supoort. I've rarely, if ever, seen "pop idol" used and "Korean idol" is much more commonly used, so WP:COMMONNAME comes into play here. Plus, it's quite common to see some idols release hip-hop tracks (G-Dragon/Bigbang, BTS, Block B) so the name isn't totally accuarte. Nyantatata ^-^ ^{(Say hi!)} 22:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Supoort --Garam (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Korean idol → Idols in South Korea
• Japanese idol → Idols in Japan

– The current title of these articles don't quite reflect the contents within. The articles do not simply cover "idols" as a profession, but of the idol system and its impact on culture and society at large in each respective country. Additionally, the current titles become a problem when dealing with idols who work as idols outside of their country of citizenship. For example, Takuya Terada is Japanese, but he works in South Korea. He isn't a Japanese idol in the sense that he's an idol in Japan—the term is remarkably different than "Korean idol"—nor is he a Korean idol because he is ethnically Japanese. Describing him as a "Japanese idol" or a "Korean idol" are both incorrect. The systems operate differently and the terminology in South Korean is distinct from that of Japan. As a result, he is not categorized in either the Category:Japanese idols or Category:South Korean idols trees (I plan to take on the categories following the closure of this discussion). Renaming the articles as above, or alternatives like Idol industry in South Korea and Idol industry in Japan, would rectify these problems. ℯxplicit 04:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose fine as is, but if moved then Pop idols in South Korea and Pop idols in Japan okay but Idols in Babylonia would clearly mean graven images. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible oppose moving the article "Japanese idol" anywhere. Japanese idols are not "in Japan", they are Japanese. South Korea simply copied the marketing approach or, rather, simply took the word "idol" from Japan and started calling their commercial product (boy bands and girl groups) like that. Cause Japanese idols were popular, and South Korean entertainment companies wanted to create a product that would be as popular as that.
  By the way, look at the edit history of the "Korean idol" article. The first version was created in 2011 (in 2011, just recently!) by copy-pasting from the article "Japanese idol". Look: [1]. It was exactly the same, only the word "Japanese" was replaced with "South Korean". That's actually very telling of how South Korea copied from Japan, don't you think?
  And I very, extremely strongly oppose to In ictu oculi's proposal too. Japanese idols are not "pop idols", do you see the word "pop" in "アイドル"? You can't cause they are simply "idols". You are now trying to Americanize the phenomenon, to redefine it in some strange Western way. Japanese idols aren't "pop singers", they transcend genre boundaries (pop, rock etc.) and media boundaries (music, television, magazines, radio, movies, animation etc.). Your proposal is like renaming "Manga" → "Japanese comics"/"Comics in Japan" and "Anime" → "Japanese cartoons"/"Cartoons in Japan". Manga, anime, idol culture are part of Japanese culture and there are Japanese terms for them, you can't give their articles some descriptive titles, cause it is even impossible to explain the phenomena from the Western point of view. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And actually, the same goes for the "Korean idol" article. I think I would oppose renaming. Since it was possible to write a long article about Korean idols, then they are surely a distinct phenomenon now. And they aren't "in Korea", they are "Korean". If, like, Avril Lavigne or Miley Cyrus move to Japan/Korea and start singing Japanese/Korean songs, will they become Japanese/Korean idols? They surely won't. Is Joji a Japanese idol? I think you can define him as a Western mass culture icon of some sort, so he is an "idol". And he lives in Japan. Then according to your logic he is a "Japanese idol"! --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I think that the article "Korean idol" should be merged to "K-pop". I don't see how a standalone article is justified in this case. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi and Moscow Connection: I think you're both missing my point. These articles aren't about Korean idols or Japanese idols specifically. They cover the function of the idol system in their respective countries. Someone like Henry Lau, who has a Hong Kong and Taiwanese background (according to his article) and is from Canada, is clearly not a Korean idol. Although he promotes in both South Korea and China, he is based in the former. He also wouldn't fall under the category of a Chinese idol simply because of his ethnic background, as that system is also distinct from the two listed above. Weather Girls is a group based in Japan, yet all the members are from Taiwan. There is no way you can label them as "Japanese" people, which is the implication both of these article titles have.

Moscow Connection, your examples of Avril Lavigne or Miley Cyrus especially don't make sense. If they moved to Japan, they aren't automatically idols. The Joji example is equally misguided, because he is not marketed as an idol. If I debuted as an idol tomorrow in South Korea (where I currently live), I would not be a Korean idol. I am not ethnically Korean. I would be an idol based in South Korea. I do agree that In ictu oculi's suggestion is much worse. Perhaps other titles we can consider are Idol industry of South Korea/Idol industry of Japan and Idol system of South Korea/Idol system of Japan; the current titles are simply a misrepresentation of the information is the articles. ℯxplicit 04:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I see no problem in your examples. If that's the only reason you want to move both articles, there's no reason to even think about it. Takuya Terada was a member of a Korean idol group, so you can categorize him as a Korean idol. Just as Junjun and Linlin are categorized as Japanese idols now.
2. Concerning Miley, Avril and Joji. Yes, surely, they wouldn't become idols. That part was a reply to In ictu oculi who wanted to rename the articles to "Pop idols in South Korea" and "Pop idols in Japan".
3. The "Japanese idol" article is not about some strict "idol system" in Japan and there isn't some "one and only" idol industry cause there are different types of idols. The "Japanese idol" article also mentions net idols, gravure idols, etc. If that is what exists in Korea, a strict "idol system", than you can probably rename the "Korean idol" article, but don't touch the Japanese one. And I must say that I don't see how the scope of this future "Idol industry/system in Korea" article would be different from that of "K-pop". Even now, the "K-pop" article has practically all the information this article has. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscow Connection: Except Category:South Korean idols and Category:Japanese idols are child categories to Category:South Korean people and Category:Japanese people, respectively. Takuya Terada is not South Korean, just as Junjun (singer) and Linlin are not Japanese. The Japanese idol and Korean idol titles and their related categories are defining idols by nationality. The proposed renames simply eliminate that aspect.

The Japanese idol article mentions how the term "idol" really is used as an umbrella term for all types of idols, so I don't see the issue here. In South Korea, the definition are far narrower.

The K-pop article is really just a mess. It should be distinctly about the genre, but is incorporates things that belong in the article about idols and Korean Wave. The article is over 250,000 bytes long, so it needs work. I don't think the issues with that article are directly connected to the issue brought here. Ultimately, I'm not stringent about other article names, I simply believe the current ones are s not appropriate. Idols in South Korea, Idol system in Japan, Idol (South Korea), whatever the case, I'd be interested in seeing other suggestions. ℯxplicit 00:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few exceptions don't make the category "Japanese people" incorrect. What do you propose? To add Junjun and Linlin to some "Chinese idols" category and to classify them under the category "Chinese idols in Japan"? That would be crazy. I don't think anything should be changed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The next step would be to classify Japanese idols by ethnicity. Marius Yo then will be a "German idol in Japan", Anna Murashige a "Russian idol in Japan". (And actually I think that you are proposing basically the same thing. At least, your proposal looks to me no less absurd than this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are apparently missing the point of the current title. The word "Japanese" in "Japanese idol" is what's called a "natural disambuguation", it "naturally disambiguates" the people who are called idols in Japan from other usages of the word "idol" in other countries. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscow Connection: As I mentioned in my proposal, the followup would be to have the categories renamed to match the article (this is actually a speedy renaming criterion); for example, if Japanese idol was renamed to Idols in Japan, Category:Japanese idols would be renamed to Category:Idols in Japan. Such a rename would clarify any misconceptions of the current category name, and would nicely fit all the idols based in Japan, from Tomomi Itano to Linlin, because they are all based in Japan, even if they are not necessarily Japanese citizens (which they are not). This would be reflected in the South Korean idol category as well for people like Takuya Terada, who is based in South Korea but is not a citizen of the country he's based in. The renames would simply serve to clarify that these idols are based in a country and as a result follow the structure of the idol system of that country, and to avoid confusion over "why is this non-Japanese person being categorized in a single category for Japanese people"? That's why I brought the proposal forward to begin with; the current names simply do not reflect non-citizens, and adding them to categories that reflect citizenship doesn't make sense. The "natural disambiguation" argument really falls flat as it fails to be, as the guideline suggests, as "equally clear" as the title suggests.

Why would there be a need to create subcategories by ethnicity? This was never brought up, nor is there any need for such an implementation. ℯxplicit 05:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that is a good idea. As I've said, the people categorized under "Japanese idols" are not some "idols who live in or moved to Japan" and that's how the name of the article and the related category would sound like if your proposal was implemented. (And tomorrow, if they move to Japan, they will be "idols in Korea". And if they move to the United States, they will become "idols in the United States"). No, it's incorrect. They are "Japanese idols" in the sense described in the "Japanese idol" article. In Japan they are called simply idols, but for the outside worlds they are "Japanese idols," which is exactly how the article is titled now. There's nothing to change here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I don't reply anymore. It takes too much time and I need to concentrate on other things. And I've already said everything I wanted to say, I don't want to repeat myself. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.