Talk:List of Japanese idols

Merging Japanese idols models with Japanese Idols

• Disagree. These "list" articles get pretty long. Subdividing them into separate articles by category helps. RickReinckens 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no such thing as "Japanese Idol Models", they're both referring to the same thing. There is reason for a "Japanese Model" category, but not two articles with a list of the exact same thing.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've alphabetized the list, and removed all AV idols, singers, gravure idols, and pure models. Many seiyu and some gravure are borderline, so there may be some duplication there. There is now a List of Japanese gravure idols.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why no red links?

A list of articles is called a Category. A list in which every item is blue-linked is unnecessary, since it is redundant to a Category. A list is useful for including items that don't need an article, and for red linking those that do deserve an article, but don't have one yet. So why are red links banned on this list? If it's just the red link that offends, then why not put the name in without a link? Rizzleboffin 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: If this article truly sets out to be simply an alphabetical list of articles, then it adds nothing to a category, and should be deleted. Rizzleboffin 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with only the category being used. The reason this was created in the first place was because of the link spam on the Japanese idol page itself, and if this page is just going to be used for spam as well, then a category is probably better.

The only reason it exists now is because it is much harder to manage what articles are added to a category; you can't "watch" a category to see when new articles are added, and in order to remove articles you have to browse to each page and remove the category link from the bottom of the wikicode. There's so many people arbitrarily adding "idol" to every porn star, musician, and Japanese plastic baton artist that this is a real pain in the ass. Any suggestions?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The same is true for List of Japanese gravure idols.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I chimed in here is that I was involved in a similar situation with a "List of Anime" a while ago. I'm a fan of lists, but I did vote to delete that, because it was just an alphabetical listing of articles on anime series, and therefore redundant to a category. However, I am re-working that list as a chronological listing, by decade, with information appended after the titles. My understanding of lists (like the Filmography of Broncho Billy Anderson, which I started) are that they should be listings of items which do not necessarily warrant their own article, but the subject itself (films of Broncho Billy Anderson), do warrant a comprehensive list. A list can be useful even when each item does deserve an article (like Laurel and Hardy films) when it arranges them in an informative way, or adds bits of information that a category cannot. The Laurel & Hardy list was full of red-links a few months ago, and that provided editors interested in the topic with a map of what to start working on.

Japanese idols are not a subject I know much about, or have much interest in, but when I came across this list yesterday, I was surprised at how skimpy the list was. I'd expect such a large topic to have hundreds of names, possibly broken down into sub-lists, and decades. But instead of a list of idols, as the name of the article implies, I see only a listing of idols who have their own articles.

My suggestions would be to re-think this list. Break it down into smaller lists-- "1970s Idols," "1980s Gravure Idols," or whatever. Arrange them in some order more informative than the alphabet-- perhaps chronologically. Add information next to the names to make the list more informative than a category can be, etc. Also, either red-linked names (if they deserve articles), or non-linked names should be on the list. But, as it stands, this list does nothing a category can't do, and the absurd banning of names without articles prevents it from being any more than a mis-named category. But most important (probably before the list should even be started), an editor or editors with interest in the subject should volunteer to watch these list(s) to make sure only appropriate entries are added, and to maintain it as to sourcing and keeping out spam. Rizzleboffin 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you bring up some good points. First of all, don't count on finding any editors interested in the subject matter to help maintain it. 99% of these articles are created as machine-translated stubs from Japanese, and they don't start resembling real articles until months later. Nobody really cares about this stuff. I'm just here because I don't like things being misrepresented about Japan so I try where I can to keep things in relative order. Arranging them by decades... doesn't really work. There are basically two vague "generations" of idols; 70s/80s and now, but it wouldn't be convenient nor useful to group them in that way. The number of articles for Japanese celebrities and such is definitely lower than it aught to be, so something like a red-link list would probably help to increase that number, but I'm a lot more worried about the misinformation that people keep spreading on this page, especially concerning porn stars (i.e. non-idols). Same goes for people listing singers and "legitimate" idols under gravure. This isn't the Japanese wiki, but most of these people qualify for Category:Living people, so whenever someone adds a redlink I (or someone) has to google-verify that they're in the right place.

The only logical way I can think of to order idols in a list is by "popularity" or "worth" or something like that, but I can't see that happening. I think we should probably just get rid of both articles. Encouraging article creation is important, but I think the idols can wait. Besides, popularity is fully representative of an idol's worth, so those big enough will be added to the category eventually I guess. I say we leave it to the "fans", or "perverts" or whatever.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here also out of an interest in Japan & Korea, not in this particular subject, and in making sure articles on those countries & cultures are up to snuff. I'm not opposed to a real List of Japanese Idols-- it is one aspect of a multi-faceted culture-- but this clearly isn't it. This is a category. The decades idea was just an example for breaking down a list which I could see would become quite extensive. If nothing else, break it down into "A" "B" etc. But obviously, this is not the extensive list that the subject would require. Searching around the Japanese Wiki, I don't see an equivalent list there either, I only see articles on the subject. Until someone is willing to work up a real list and volunteers maintain it, it shouldn't be started. So, until then, I'm for deleting this list and having its function served by a category. Rizzleboffin 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How to alphabetize

Excuse my ignorance, but, should this list be alphabetized by family name or given name. This list seems to be a mixture of both. (Spellsgood (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC))

• Should be by family name. But it's just that some names are listed family name first. So if you don't know all these people, you would have to look at their articles to check if it's correct already or not. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• (But it is incorrect that they are listed family names first.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please grouping by debut years

Reason -some bands not debut in forming year -somebody want to know members ages when debut -make easier to search retro j-pop music

• If we group by debut, then no one will find anything for sure, cause there are too many groups. (It's possible to create a table sortable by name and by year, but it would require some serious work... I can't do it in the near future... And I'm afraid the result will be useless and I will have to revert everything back anyway.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)