Talk:Babymetal

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Merger discussion for Live at Budokan: Black Night

An article that you may have been involved in editing, Live at Budokan: Black Night, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. It has gone 15 days (half its discussion period) with no discussion, and while discussion is not required to merge, I thought people may not have realized it was happening, so I thought I'd notify relevant pages in the interest of drumming up discussion. Thank you. Purplewowies (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of Idol with J-pop in the infobox

I feel as though the term Idol less of a genre and more of a type of music artist, so I believe the articles lead and the first history paragraph should both contain this, which they do, however I don't think it's a genre, the article for Japanese idol even states "Most idol singers work across genres of Japanese pop music, usually in the genre that is most popular at the moment..." therefore while it means J-Pop now it could mean something else at another date, I think it would be much better to replace it with either Pop or J-Pop since they are both genres and more specific, Idol just seems to describe the band's format and reason of being more than a accurate description of the bands sound. - SilentDan (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In Wikipedia articles it's not about what **you** feel, or what **you** think, or what **you** don't think. There are policies and guidelines in Wikipedia. If your only rationale for your repeated removal of a valid inline citation of a reliable source is your personal feelings & thoughts, then you should seriously take a good read of WP:5P. The source in question is a reliable source, as it fulfills the requirements of a reliable source. The editorial staff is listed on their website. This source is not a blog or a one-man-show site. Please refrain from removing valid inline citations. Thank you. 93.133.24.226 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That really didn't answer my question at all but ok I'll try again, Idol is technically not a genre, so it should not be in the infobox. The article for Japanese idol even states "Most idol singers work across genres of Japanese pop music, usually in the genre that is most popular at the moment..." meaning it doesn't have a structured sound, merely what ever music is popular in Japan at the time of the musicians popularity, be it rock, pop or metal, so it is incorrect to have Idol in the genre parameter and should be replaced with an actual genre such as JPop or even just Pop since they are sourced in the article as actual genre's and actually fulfil the parameters purpose. Idol should only be mentioned in the articles prose since that too is a feature of the band backed up by many sources of course but it is not a genre, simple as that.
Also @93.133.24.226: two editors have gone against your edits on your addition to the fake Idol genre, myself and @Shikari 123: have both asked for you to refrain from adding this addition and to instead back up your argument, fail to do so is disruptive in itself and goes against Wikipedia policies, just because we disagree with one of your edits doesn't mean we dictate the article, we are merely two contributors who disagree with your edit, and that's fine. - SilentDan (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Touching on the concern of the term "idol" not being a musical genre, there are loads of reliable sources which define the word "idol" as a musical genre. Here are just 2 sources: 93.133.28.98 (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to ignore everything else I just said? Please refrain from repeating your edit as it is now blatantly disruptive, if you want Idol to be recognised as a musical genre please edit the Japanese idol article because despite that being backed up by several references the article merely says "...one can say that idols themselves form a sort of music genre of their own." so one source out of 27 states this, the sources you yourself practically state the same thing I have already repeated to you, that it is simply what ever is popular at the time. Please be more considerate, less disruptive, and more cooperative by not forcing your edits onto the article and by discussing this properly, by all means we would be thankful if you made these corrections to the Japanese idol article if they are wrong as well, maybe then we can interoperate Idol as a genre but as of now there is no reason for us to do so. - SilentDan (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source to verify or justify your edits. 93.133.28.98 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No I cannot but I can reference its references which I just did, as I said only one reference out of the 27 there reference Idol as a genre, it is widely accepted that it is not. SilentDan (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This issue here is not about a "replacement" of jpop with idol. I dont care what genre is placed in the infobox. What I do care about is editors removing a valid inline citation from a reliable source. It's not about jpop or idol, I dont care about that. The question must be asked why these 2 disruptive editors are bent on removing a citation from a Russian source? Is it because the source is in the Russian Language? There is not guideline or policy in Wikipedia which forbids the usage of non-English sources in English Wikipedia articles. Apart from all this, with the addition of the above mentioned 2 sources, WP:BURDEN has been fulfilled, which stipulates: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. 93.133.28.98 (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This suggests then I can simply move the sources to the article then? Why you never stated this at the begging of the discussion I probably won't understand, but if this was the case why did you change the genre field in the first place? - SilentDan (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Last but not the least: there are 2 types of "idol". The one refers to the person, and the other refers to the musical genre. The Japanese idol article clearly refers to a person, and not a musical genre. Why then are you using this non-related article to justify your removal of a valid inline citation from a reliable source? You cannot use the Japanese idol article to "reference its refernces" cause that article is not about the musical genre "idol". On the other hand, there are loads of reliable sources which clearly define "idol" as a musical genre. Also, there is nothing like "reference its references". Please go and read WP:5P to familiarize yourself with the basic Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia 93.133.28.98 (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add any material into Wikipedia articles, you must provide verification. Understand this, that there are lots of sources which use both idol and jpop on Babymetal, so both must be in the infobox as a genre. I have provided reliable sources for "idol" as a genre. Now it's up to you to provide a reliable source for "jpop". Thank you. 93.133.28.98 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all you're failing point 4 in terms of edit wars, you are doing nothing but revert after revert at this point, and you even stated you don't care about what genre is in the infobox yet you reverted my attempt to simply move the references to the articles prose which is what you appear to have suggested when you said you didn't actually care about the genre. You also fail on the fifth rule, that being there are no firm rules, the policies and guidelines are not carved in stone, in the end it's what the majority of contributors feel is best for the article so long as they have good reason for those edits, you are currently contradicting yourself simply by removing the warning on your talk page to then place them onto mine, your the one responsible for the edit war in the first place.
And you wan't me to go through every reference to tell you which is more popular of a choice: JPop or Idol? It is all across the article, to go through every reference would take ages, just because you have provided three references doesn't mean you have to ignore every other reference mentioned throughout the entire article here. - SilentDan (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to say that the recent two additional sources do not aid this article what so ever, they are merely discussions of what the term Idol means and have nothing to do with Babymetal, just because you use them to back up your argument does not mean you should place them in the article. - SilentDan (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply provide a reference for your "jpop" addition, and let us all try to remain civil. Can we then agree that in the infobox, there are going to be three genres? Heavy Metal, jpop and idol? 93.133.28.98 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The genre in the infobox is subject to WP:V. Most especially in cases like this where a musical band incorporates various genres. Therefore, the genres must have a direct inline citation. If you dont like my 2 references, you are free to replace them with a reliable source of your choice. 93.133.28.98 (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here's The Guardian: [1] The source states they are a teen-idol group (referring to the band's structure) but calls them a j-pop group throughout the article. Also there is no point in having both JPop and Idol if they both mean the same thing, there has been huge arguments in the past, admittedly involving myself, regarding this, the infobox is supposed to have the most generalised terms, hence why all the metal sub-genres aren't mentioned here such as thrash metal, symphonic metal and speed metal, they are all mentioned in the Musical style section because that goes into more detail, hence why Idol is also down there in the first place, the consensus was reached that Heavy Metal and JPop should be the only two used because they are the most generalised terms while the article prose goes into more detail regarding their sound, you can look through the archives if you don't believe me. SilentDan (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a brilliant article which precisely supports both your preferred version of "jpop" but also the "idol" genre. This article therefore, in my view, points to the direction we should go: include both terms. To support this, check this article from Chicago's Tribune, which writes about idol pop, metal idol groups, idol groups, idol music fans, idol artist etc. even referring to the music of Babymetal as "leading ambassadors of idol pop". We as Wikipedia editors are to report what the sources say, and the sources typically use the genres "heavy metal (or metal)", "jpop (or pop)" and "idol" to describe the Babymetal muscial genre. So, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH, it is my suggestion that these three genres should be placed in the infobox with the relevant reliable source: heavy metal, jpop, idol. What's your take on this? 77.4.9.99 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw, why do you write that jpop and idol are both the same? In the Chicago Tribune article for instance, a distinction is made, as the author of that article writes about "metal idol groups" and "idol pop star". 77.4.9.99 (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it seems to me that listing "Idol" as the band's genre would be like listing "boy band" as One Direction's genre. The basic concept of Babymetal is the fusion of J-Pop and Metal; it starts to get more complicated when talking about other genres/styles, therefore these extra genres/styles should be discussed in the article, and the infobox should only list the very basic and general ones, in this case Heavy metal and JPop. Shikari 123 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources for your assumptions about your version of an alleged "basic concept of Babymetal", please kindly share your sources. As long as you do not provide any reliable sources, what you've written about an alleged "basic concept of Babymetal" is your own private opinion and original research. I wonder why some Wikipedia editors are bent on removing the word "idol" from the infobox? By the way, the word "idol" is correctly mentioned in the opening section of the article. As far as the available sources are concerned, each source that is out there uses the words "metal" (or some variation of it), "pop" (or jpop), and "idol" to describe the music and genre of Babymetal. Having these three genres in the genre section of the infobox is not complicated. Three is not complicated, especially when it is backed up by the majority of available sources. 93.133.25.1 (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One source is one used on the Wiki, quote: "Idols sing songs, and in addition to serve as models for advertising, play movies, TV shows and appeared in commercial programs." ([2]) clearly stating that an Idol is a type of person in the entertainment industry, not a genre. That's one source, I'm somewhat limited on time outside Wikipedia so I won't be able to contribute and discuss much for the next couple of days, but yeah this is one source that pretty much states that an Idol is a person, not a characteristic. SilentDan (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Also just checking your google scholar sources, they both contradict each other it seems, one states it's rock and the other states it's pop orientated, which one is it? - SilentDan (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just quickly came across another source backing up Idol to be a sub-genre of pop music: [3] It pretty much states that Idol pop is simply a term used as a marketing scheme, yes it's a genre but it's not actually any different to that of J-Pop, again this falls under the generalisation issue where Idol is simply a sub-genre of JPop, which istelf is a sub genre of Pop, so by all means we should be using either Pop or JPop (since the group is Japanese of course) as their second genre, no need to add sub genres just cause you have one single additional source stating the band is of the Idol category. SilentDan (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The source from the Japanese embassy in Russia does not state that "idol is not a genre". There is nothing like that in that source. The word "idol" can be used to refer to a person, and also to a genre. What's there not to understand or to argue? You've already been informed here about this. The Google-books sources that I've provided undebatably define the word idol as a genre, and these are just 2 sources. There are loads of additional sources which define "idol" as a genre. Again, the word idol can refer to a person and to a genre. The article which you've now provided, writes about idol pop being a sub-genre of jpop but also writes this about Babymetal: "Finally, far to the left of Momoiro Clover Z sits Babymetal—idol pop’s most recent sensation". The author of that article places Babymetal in the very classification of music which you apparently have issues with, namely "idol pop", therefore this classification should appear in the genre field of the infobox, or are you saying that there is a Wikipedia guideline or policy that forbids this? The Japan Times in an article from 2012 defines idol-pop as a genre. So we have 2 reliable sources to back up idol-pop as a genre and as a sub-genre. The consensus here therefore should be that idol pop will be included as a genre since there is no Wikipedia guideline which forbids its inclusion. The infobox template for musical artists suggests placing 2-4 genres in the genre field of the infobox, so if we place "metal", "idol" and "jpop" (or some derivations of them) into the infobox, it would be a good consensus. 77.4.130.162 (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Found images to use (Flickr)

Found two images that could be added to the article if anyone want's to upload them:

• Babymetal Live in Toronto 2015: [4]
• Babymetal live in Paris 2014: [5]

SilentDan (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core content policy of Verifiability

Every content added to Wikipedia articles must be from "published information", and the evidence of this is given by providing "a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. When you add material into an article without providing a reliable source, your addition may be reverted at any time. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. 93.135.19.191 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)