Jump to content

Talk:HoYeon Jung/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Louis Vuitton exclusive vs. red hair in lead, other issues

@Trillfendi: Hi there. In order to avoid any potential edit warring, I wanted to address on the talk page what appears to be, based on some edit summaries, a budding dispute. The crux of the matter seems to be whether it's more important to include in the lead that Jung was an exclusive for Louis Vuitton in 2017, or that she became well-known in the modeling industry for her red hair. Your argument for including that she was a Louis Vuitton exclusive is that it's akin to being an actor being nominated for an Oscar. As it stands, though, a claim like this, regardless of how true it may be among fashion insiders, is original research, since it seems to be based mostly (if not solely) on personal knowledge and opinion as opposed to any sourced material, and therefore basically boils down to WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO. Furthermore, the importance of this element of Jung's career should be measured based on its prevalence in reliable sources in relation to the other aspects of her career, not based on the perceived notability of becoming an exclusive to fans of fashion.

The bottom line is that her red hair is generally considered far more important than her becoming a Louis Vuitton exclusive, at least based on the references used on the page. Of the English-language sources that appear in the article, her red hair is mentioned in nine of them (Elle Australia, Vogue, Interview, Vogue again, Elle UK, W, The Korea Times, Teen Vogue, Glamour), two of which are focused primarily on her red hair (the second Vogue article and The Korea Times.) The Interview article writes that she was "famous" for it, W says it was her "signature look", Teen Vogue says it was her "trademark" and that she "blew up" because of it and asks her a question entirely about it, and Glamour says she was "known" for it during her early days as a model. Meanwhile, her being a Louis Vuitton exclusive is only mentioned in five of the English-language sources (Interview, Elle, W, Harper's Bazaar, Marie Claire), two of which (Interview and W) include it in passing in lists of her other achievements, and only one of which (Elle) seems to identify it as a particularly important part of her career. Four other sources (The Cut, Teen Vogue, InStyle, NME) mention the S/S 2017 show but neglect to say anything about her being an exclusive for the brand. In any case, about a third of these sources only bring up her time as a Louis Vuitton exclusive because of her becoming the brand's global ambassador, and none of them discuss it in depth. I'm sure there are more sources that touch upon both of these things, and I'm not against including that she was an exclusive for Louis Vuitton in the article at all, but including it in the lead and excluding information about how her red hair was part of the reason for her early fame as a model feels wholly misguided and contrary to Wikipedia's policies. I would still like to hear your opinion on this, though, and am open to discussing this further.

Speaking of the references on the page, there was also an issue regarding one of the sources that you added. You added the aforementioned Glamour UK article as a source, then added that she walked for Burberry, Lanvin, Miu Miu, Oscar de la Renta, Giambattista Valli, and Tory Burch. The problem is, as you admitted in your edit summary, that article only accounts for three out of the six brands listed, meaning that you added unsourced material on the page. You wrote in your edit summary that the article doesn't have to be for every. thing. in the sentence especially since it lists ones already in the article, which is true insofar as it doesn't have to support every claim made in the sentence if there are other citations to support them, but what it does have to do is support the material that you added, which it didn't. Seeing as how verifiability is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia's policies, I would keep this in mind next time you add references like this. I've gone ahead and removed the article as a reference, since the sources I added cover all of the brands listed anyway, so including it would be redundant.

Also, I would kindly ask that you abide by WP:CIV in your edit summaries and communications with me and other editors. When you begin using unnecessary expletives (For fuck's sake), making loaded assumptions about other users (People who don't know shit about fashion wouldn't understand), and completely dismiss other people's edits (But somehow red hair she doesn't even have anymore is "notable" enough for the lead. Yeah ok.), the process of coming to a consensus on these types of things becomes a lot more difficult. Thanks! benǝʇᴉɯ 08:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's another article from HuffPost that mentions her red hair (and makes no mention of her being a Louis Vuitton exclusive) which says she "made fashion headlines in 2016 thanks to her fiery red hair". benǝʇᴉɯ 18:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Benmite: One of the most prominent modeling agents in America, Jeni Rose of IMG, is the one who said an exclusive of that calibre is like an actor winning an Oscar, so it's not like I'm going to sit here and take credit for an expert's commentary. It doesn't matter who's a fan of fashion, only a couple hundred people even cared to read the article before, it matters that for a model an exclusive booking is about the most notable thing that can happen to them during their debut season. It the thing that sets their career in motion. To her credit she did open Bottega Veneta the next season, so good for her. To say having red hair, which was only for a short period of time (judging by the updated polaroids of The Society Management by the Fall/Winter season of 2018 it was gone for good and evidently hasn't made an appearance since. Like Rihanna before her.) is more notable than the most valuable luxury brand in the world choosing her to star in campaigns and only walk in their shows (i.e. solidifying that rise to prominence) is mind-boggling. Long before she became a global ambassador, multiple sources in this article already talked about her being a Louis Vuitton exclusive because that's what made her one of the top models to watch. Anyway, get your lies in order. For one, I readded brands that had been there since the very first edit in 2018, but had been unceremoniously removed for no reason. You can't say that the Glamour UK source supported three out of six inclusions then say it didn't. It should've been left as an option regardless because it contained translated excerpts about how she got the role of Kang Sae-byeok, unless someone would rather read it in Korean then voilà be my guest, I guess. I assumed an editor would bother to read that portion and recognize the value it could bring to the article. Silly me... Trillfendi (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: Again, you're relying on the subjective importance of someone being selected as an exclusive for a brand to explain why it should be included in the lead, as opposed to what sources are saying about how important it's been for Jung's career in particular. We are not weighing the importance of red hair and Louis Vuitton as independent topics, we're weighing them in relation to how important reliable sources say they've been for her career, meaning that Louis Vuitton being the most valuable luxury brand in the world is irrelevant, as is the amount of time she had that red hair, which also seems to be original research. Per the bevy of references I listed in my original messages, the frequency with which her red hair is discussed and the ways in which it is discussed in reliable sources illustrates how essential those sources consider it for her career, while her being an exclusive for Louis Vuitton is mentioned much less frequently in those sources, let alone at length.
Prominent as she may be (and again, prominent according to whom? The Vogue article merely names her as the senior VP at IMG) Jeni Rose is only one person, and her opinion on what it means to be made an exclusive is just that: an opinion. More importantly, though, she was not specifically talking about Jung being made an exclusive in the sourced article. Per WP:OR, sources used to make claims about a subject need to be directly related to that subject. If celebrity X says, "Pancakes are my favorite meal," and then a famous chef says, "A celebrity saying that a meal is their favorite is an unbelievable honor for that meal," that doesn't mean that the Wikipedia page for pancakes should now have a sentence in the lead saying, "Pancakes are X's favorite food." Policy-wise and otherwise, it is a non-sequitur, and amounts to WP:WHATABOUTX. You also reiterate that it matters that for a model an exclusive booking is about the most notable thing that can happen to them during their debut season, and that it is the thing that sets their career in motion, but again, not only is this based mostly on personal knowledge, but you are also talking about all models here, not Jung herself. You can find any number of sources emphasizing the importance of being an exclusive for anyone in the modeling industry, but if none of those sources are about the subject of the article in question, then it stands to reason that it shouldn't be used to prove anything about the subject. You add that multiple sources in this article already talked about her being a Louis Vuitton exclusive because that's what made her one of the top models to watch, but in order to make a claim like that, you have to provide those sources as I did in my first message.
As far as the brands that you reintroduced to the article go, you state that they had been unceremoniously removed for no reason. However, with this most recent addition, there would have been a reason to, at the very least, remove the three brands that could not be verified using the source you added to substantiate them. If you are adding material like that, there has to be a source that proves that that material is true. Otherwise, it becomes original research. I'm also a bit confused by your assertion that I can't say that the Glamour UK source supported three out of six inclusions then say it didn't, because what I said was that three of the brands you added (Lanvin, Giambattista Valli, Tory Burch) were supported by the source, and the other three (Burberry, Miu Miu, Oscar de la Renta) were not, which is true. Your suggestion that it should be left in the article because it contained translated excerpts about how she got the role of Kang Sae-byeok is a straw man because you did not add that article as a source for anything related to how she got her role on Squid Game, you used it to prove something that it did not prove. On top of that, there are already citations in the article that contain those exact same excerpts, such as this NME article. This should no longer be a point of contention, though, since I already added sources for all of the brands and fashion houses listed.
I'm also going to ask again that you keep WP:CIV in mind. Telling me to get [my] lies in order and being mockingly sarcastic (I assumed an editor would bother to read that portion and recognize the value it could bring to the article. Silly me...) doesn't help move the discussion forward. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: Just wanted to address some of my recent edits as well. Like I mentioned in my edit summary, per WP:RSPRIMARY, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources that present the same material, meaning that the article from The Korea Times is preferred as a source for Jung's appearance on the Models.com list than the list itself. Saying that you [went] through all that effort to find the archived version of the Top 50 that year as a rationale for using the original list instead of the secondary source is begging for mercy, and based on you as an editor rather than the content of the article itself. The Vogue article that you replaced was the source for her signing with ESteem in 2012, which was not supported by any of the sources that you added. I also restored material about her auditioning for the second season of Korea's Next Top Model, which was removed without any explanation. I removed the Vogue Korea covers as you put a citation needed tag next to it when you first added it, and material on the page should be sourced. benǝʇᴉɯ 00:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Benmite: It was removed because it was trivial, fruitless (she wasn't even on the show that season) and there was no inline citation. At any rate, I find it tragic that editors (and don't take this personally because it's not even about you, this is a relatively common occurrence) are willing to accept it as a notable accomplishment that a model was ranked in the Top 50 or on the Industry Icons list (which it's very likely she will join in the next year, the way her career is going.) or whatever of models.com, then in the same breath say or insinuate models.com isn't a reliable source for models. Time after time on this website, editors who never even edit fashion model articles are the first ones claiming models.com isn't good enough. It always serves the reader to know why she made the list, so for that reason it's going right back. Using the Wayback Machine ([...] useful if a web page has changed, moved, or disappeared) isn't "original research". Unfortunately, when a model leaves that list, it's no longer accessible on their page because it's grayed out, thankfully the Wayback Machine captured the page several years ago; if I personally emailed the Features Editor and asked for information specifically for this Wikipedia page that would be original research and totally out of line. Finding a publicly accessible and recommended website that archives the Internet... isn't.Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: I'm not saying that Models.com is an unequivocally an unreliable source for models, which is why I didn't remove the interview she did as a source for her being scheduled to be an Alexander Wang exclusive. What I am saying, and what I said in my message, is that WP:RSPRIMARY states that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources if both are presenting the same information. If Jung made it onto The Korea Times list of top 50 models and Models.com reported on it, I would opt for using the Models.com source. Not only is it policy, but the whole point of using a secondary source in place of a primary source is that it establishes that her making this list is important enough to be included in the first place. According to WP:GNG, "'sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." I removed it as a source for her agencies because all of them are sourced in the body, so including it in the infobox is redundant in the same way that it would be redundant to add a separate source for her birth date in the infobox, since there is already one in the body which supports that information. WP:INFOBOXREF states, "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." Focusing on any editor's contribution history (Time after time on this website, editors who never even edit fashion model articles are the first ones claiming models.com isn't good enough.) in a talk page discussion is WP:ABP, and, per that policy, "Content is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors."
Regardless, we've gotten completely off-track here, and that's my fault for not starting a new section to discuss this. This discussion is about whether to include her being made a Louis Vuitton exclusive or that she was known for her fiery red hair in the lead. I would appreciate if you could address that. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure where you read that I was calling the use of the Models.com source original research. I was just saying that The Korea Times source works better because it's a secondary source and including the primary Models.com source based on how hard it was for you to find it doesn't make sense if it's being used to prove information already proven by another secondary source. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Benmite: Models.com is de rigeur for every fashion model's infobox because it's entirely independent of agencies, if you want to go unilaterally removing every single infobox reference of it on just about every working model on Wikipedia because you don't like it, I suggest taking that over to the Manual of Style/Biography talk page. It would be nonsensical to reference each branch of every agency she is signed to because agencies are equivalent to employers. That's too deep in the trenches of primary, those agents literally earn 20% of her paycheck and often provide embellished biographical detail (e.g. inflating height which in turn, deceives the reader and causes the information to be removed for its contentiousness.). It's models.com's job to track this kind of stuff, but like I said, people who don't edit models' articles don't seem to realize this before they try tossing it to the wayside. That has been there since the very first edit creating this article for a reason. Nothing in this article besides models.com references her affiliation with Elite World Group, of which The Society is also a subsidiary. Be that as it may, if you feel so vehemently that this romp of red hair deserves primo position (it would be nice if this article could have a photo of it but I won't get a head of myself), Louis Vuitton shouldn't be forsaken for it. Not many models these days can say Nicolas Ghesquière himself picked them to be an exclusive and years later a global ambassador for the LV brand (and according to his statement it was her talent and personality that made him work with her.). And as you should know, these essays you find aren't "policy", but I'm sure you read the templates beforehand. Trillfendi (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: Not sure what WP:MOSBIO has to do with this, since nowhere on that page does it support your claim that Models.com is de rigeur for every fashion model's infobox. I never suggested that we put sources for each of the agencies she's signed to, let alone primary sources from the agencies themselves, in the infobox because those agencies are already sourced in the body, which is why it is redundant to include the Models.com source in the infobox especially when, again, WP:INFOBOXREF states, "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." Your claim that Models.com is the only place to find information about her being signed to Elite is also not true, as an article in Marie Claire España mentions her being signed to Elite Milan, Elite London, and Elite Spain. I am not entirely against using the Models.com source at all, but if we are going to use it, it should only appear in the body per the aforementioned MOS guideline.
Throughout this discussion, you repeatedly rely on your opinion about the importance (that is an essay, but it ties into Wikipedia's policy about notability and verifiability) of this Louis Vuitton deal, and moreover, you have not responded to my very first message about the fact that what the sources are saying is that Jung's red hair was an important factor of her modeling career, whereas her being a Louis Vuitton exclusive was not. It doesn't matter that Not many models these days can say Nicolas Ghesquière himself picked them to be an exclusive if you can't find sources to prove that any of that matters for Jung specifically.
Also, the only essay I included in my last message was for arguments to avoid on discussion pages, but the section that I referenced about ad hominem refers back to Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks, which I am again going to ask that you abide by, as you did exactly what you did what I cautioned against in your previous message in this one (people who don't edit models' articles don't seem to realize this before they try tossing it to the wayside.) We're talking about the content here, not the editors. benǝʇᴉɯ 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Benmite: Nothing in the Manual of Style or anywhere besides your own ideologies says models.com cannot be used in the infobox. If it wasn't so frequently used in fashion model Wikipedia articles, I would understand having a problem with it for this article that you started editing this week. But it's the de facto, there is no other reliable source out there that keeps track of each agency a model is signed to. Vogue has other things to do and New York quit almost a decade ago. I originally added a source to this article several days ago with Ghesquière comment about casting her (yes, Hoyeon Jung), but it's evidently been replaced. I challenge anybody who cares to find another source with the creative director of Louis Vuitton and we can compare and contrast. Trillfendi (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: At this point, I'm just repeating myself, so I'll try to keep this message as brief as I can. You say that there's nothing in the Manual of Style or anywhere besides your own ideologies that says models.com cannot be used in the infobox, but you seem to be glossing over the MOS section that I have already quoted twice now, and will quote once more. WP:INFOBOXREF states, "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." In this case, I added the info about her being signed to Elite Milan, Elite London, and Elite Spain to the body with inline citations, meaning that the reference in the infobox is redundant. Like I already said, I am not wholly against using the reference at all, specifically in the body, but keeping it in the infobox is unnecessary per WP:INFOBOXREF.
For the third time now, you are talking about me as an editor instead of about the content. Saying "this article that you started editing this week" is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. It doesn't matter how long any editor has been editing an article, what matters is the content itself. Finally, if you can find that article with Ghesquière's comment, please link it if you think it would work as proof of how notable Jung's appointment as a Louis Vuitton exclusive was. Your challenge to "anybody who cares to find another source with the creative director of Louis Vuitton" goes against WP:BURDEN, which reads, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you want to make a point, you have to be the one to find sources that back that point up. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Benmite: Content you've taken upon yourself to unilaterally erase every time I've made almost any contribution, all because I moved one sentence to the body. You start a tirade that you call a "discussion" about everything I've done on this article since and when I react, all of sudden it's about my "tone" (but it's not about the editor, right? Ok.) and nitpicking everything I say. I had already put Nicolas Ghesquière's comment in the article several days ago but let the record show, you specifically removed it and replaced the source. Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: You are making a clear assumption of bad faith with this entire message. I do not want to focus on any specific editor's contributions in this discussion, but, seeing as how you've brought it up, the accusation that I am hounding you would only make sense if I was following you from place-to-place on Wikipedia, which I am not. It might make sense if I was indiscriminately reverting every single one of your edits, or if you were the only editor whose edits I was making changes to, but that's simply not true based on the history of this page. I'm grateful for a number of the edits you made to the page, including adding the [when?] tag for the second season of KNTM and her being scheduled to be an Alexander Wang exclusive, putting the events of her career in chronological order, and adding her appearance in the Chanel-Pharell collaboration, among others, which is why I either left those edits as is or tweaked them so that they were more on topic or had better sourcing. I've also made several other edits which tweaked, removed, or improved upon content from other editors as well on this page. I can guarantee you that my motivations with these edits are not personal whatsoever, and are merely my attempts at making sure the article is as close to meeting Wikipedia's policies as possible.
I do not want to get off topic here, though. Can you please link that Ghesquière article here in the discussion? Thank you. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Trillfendi. If you could link that Ghesquière article, it would be helpful. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Trillfendi, can you please link the Ghesquière article? benǝʇᴉɯ 23:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Trillfendi: Hi there. I figured I should start a separate discussion to talk about some of the edits I made recently since the above discussion appears to be getting a bit cluttered, though I would like to see the Ghesquière article that you mentioned so that we could continue this discussion; otherwise, I will probably end up taking it to DRN.

As far as the personality quote goes, the assertion that if she felt it important enough to mention this in an interview, it's suitable for the appropriate content space is contradictory to the policy I pointed to in my prior edit in which I removed it (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Jung has stated plenty of things in interviews that would not be suitable for the article in the same way that this detail is not suitable for the article, because Wikipedia is not a diary. There has to be an actual assessment of the content being added and an assessment of the importance being placed on it by sources. I think this can be discussed further but I am leaning heavily toward deeming this undue trivia.

When you originally added the W list, it was used, along with a People article that was already used as a reference, to replace a Harper's Bazaar article as a reference for this sentence: "Also in 2016, she made her Paris Fashion Week runway debut as an exclusive model for Louis Vuitton at their S/S 2017 show." The problem with this, as I addressed in my edit summary, is that neither of the sources you used make any mention of Paris Fashion Week, and the Harper's Bazaar article is sufficient as a source for the sentence because it mentions everything in it, whereas the two other sources do not. I appreciate that you added the People reference, as it stated that it was the Spring/Summer show and not just the Spring show (even though they are interchangeable, having a source that clarifies that is good.) Using the W list, however, was redundant. You say, The W ref didn't have anything to do with Paris Fashion Week, it says clear as all hell "[...] helped her land an exclusive with Louis Vuitton", but the problem with this is that the Harper's Bazaar ref already did that. You also write It's quite obvious that a French brand would have a show in Paris, but the point is that it was her Paris Fashion Week debut, not just that the show took place in Paris, and not every Louis Vuitton show takes place in Paris. You then added it as a primary source for itself, writing, In October 2016, W magazine and models.com selected her as a "Top Newcomer" on their respective lists and in September 2018, models.com named Jung on their list of the "Top 50" models. The issue of using these lists as primary sources for themselves if there is no other coverage of them is a separate (albeit relevant) issue, and I want to address that in a separate talk page section, but there is also the fact that the W list was not from October 2016 nor did it call her a "Top Newcomer", so the whole addition is unverifiable. Also (and this is mainly for future reference, not an explanation as to why I RVed) it should just be "W", not "W magazine".

I am going to suggest once more that you abide by WP:CIV. Stating that it must be tiresome being so pedantic is simply name-calling, and suggesting that the edits I made were made solely for my own benefit is an assumption of bad faith. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite: Do whatever, dude. I quit. Trillfendi (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi:: I hope you know that my intention with these talk page discussions and any edits I've made thus far has never been to single you out or to tear you down. Like I said previously, I really do appreciate many of the edits you've made in the same way that I appreciate many of the other edits made to the page by other editors. I am also not the authority on what stays and what goes on Wikipedia, let alone in this article, which is why I've opened these discussions so that we can hopefully come to a compromise instead of simply edit warring. The reason that I started these discussions with you and not with any other editors is because the edits I have made that affected content added or removed by other editors was not contested by them, whereas you have reverted my edits a number of times, and I have also reverted yours.
I am still interested in your thoughts on the inclusion of the personality quote and leaving the Louis Vuitton article in the lead, and I really would appreciate if you could provide me with the article that you mentioned before. You stated in your AN/I request that I asked you to bring back something I removed, but the truth is that I have no clue which article I removed that contained the Ghesquière quote in question, so I have no way to discuss what that means for its notability. If you cannot find it, that is fine, but, since you do seem committed to leaving her appointment as a Louis Vuitton exclusive in the lead, I would really like if you could point me to sources that prove its notability outside of those that are already used in the article. If we cannot reach a compromise, I will probably end up taking this to DRN at some point in the near future. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Benmite: I didn't "revert your edits a number of times". You started mass removing things and I said hold up. Then I move one sentence and you set out to remove anything I've contributed since, going out of your way to find problems with them. And that's what the issue here is. All I did was try to find something to add to this trivium about quitting the second season before making any progress and still, you claim it's a diary entry. You've got it... so take off. Trillfendi (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2021

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.

HoYeon Jung → Jung Ho-yeon – Per WP:COMMONNAME: Time Elle Forbes Netflix. I don't think there is need of any bigger reason, but if I will see the need, I will add more points. -ink&fables «talk» 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 23:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose ferociously. As I've said too many times, before this tv series existed (or before people even knew this article existed) the "common name" has been Hoyeon Jung, or as she evidently prefers to spell it HoYeon Jung. That's what her agencies, ergo her employers, list her as. That's what Vogue has used since 2015, for crying out loud–she is a model after all. Even Vogue Korea as recently as July 2021 uses Hoyeon Jung. Being credited on a series doesn't make it the common name, neither does a Time article that came out yesterday. Elle UK says one thing, meanwhile Elle proves my point even further. People who discovered who she was on September 17th do not decide precedence; how some people have used her name in two weeks doesn't supersede the past ~6 years of her career. By the way, editors can't use Forbes as a source if the writer is just a contributor. Trillfendi (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Trillfendi, WP:NCKO states that "unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise, family name should be written first". I'd argue that this naming convention paired with arguably much more recent English language press coverage calling her Jung Hoyeon as a reason to move. Yes, the coverage will vary as we have no standardised way so each organisation will word a name differently, but we should probably stick with WP:NCKO here on the English Wikipedia, as we do for the vast majority of other Koreans, see something like Category:South Korean female models for an example. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 01:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Trillfendi regarding this article title, HoYeon Jung is clearly her common name. Ordnerud (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Trillfendi. I would like to further add on that while I do support the current page name I think HoYeon should be changed to Hoyeon or Ho-yeon as pointed out by user Sawol. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I think HoYeon Jung is her U.S or Western name but there's no English name i think the page is need to move on Jung Ho-yeon --Xunbi45 (talk) 7:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It's Western name order (given name first, family name second), not a Western name e.g. Hannah Jones. If she were in fact using an English name this would be a completely different discussion. Trillfendi (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: While Wikipedia does prefer to avoid unnecessary capitalizations, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Personal names says, "Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications." Unless we can determine which is the dominant spelling, the discussion will probably default to the current spelling as it's the spelling on her Instagram. — BriefEdits (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Now notice how almost all of those (except a few which were at the end of September) were in the span of the past week and a half, meanwhile she's been called Hoyeon Jung in the press since almost 6 whole years ago. It's recentism to think Squid Game is the only context of her notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it would make more sense to call this recentism if the only articles to refer to her as Jung Ho-yeon were from after Squid Game was released (and even then, it would iffy seeing as how recentism refers to the notability of certain events, not naming conventions) but that's simply not the case. Three articles from The Korea Times from 2016, 2017, and 2019 respectively ([2], [3], [4]) call her Jung Ho-yeon, a Soompi article from 2016 and an SM Entertainment press release both call her Jung Ho Yeon, and a W article from 2016 calls her Jung Ho Yeon four times and Ho Yeon Jung twice. At the end of the day, though, what matters is what the majority of reliable sources refer to her as, regardless of when they reported on her. Obviously, Squid Game is not the only reason for her notability, but it's undeniably what's brought her almost all of the attention that she's received from reliable sources. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
If I google hoyeon jung right this minute and click the news tab, I see over 50 different sources calling her HoYeon Jung in the headline. Capital y and all. Trillfendi (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Using a WP:SET only works if you can provide those 50 different sources and those sources are reliable. If you could find them and list them here, that would be helpful. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
HuffPost, Parade, Vogue (American, Spanish, and Scandinavian), New York Times, Women's Wear Daily, New York Post, Marie Claire (American, Spanish, and Italian), W, Buzzfeed, L'Officiel (American, French, and Italian), Us Weekly, Paper Magazine, B&T, Esquire Spain, Gala, La Razón, La Vanguardia, ABC (Spanish), Amica (Italian), Vanity Fair France, Vanity Fair Italy, La Nación, Cosmopolitan Spain, Cosmopolitan Italy, Observador (Portuguese), Public (France), El Comercio Peru, La Verdad Noticias, Harper's Bazaar, Elle (American, Canadian, and Italian), InStyle, Men's Health, Newsweek, Nylon, Glamour (British), CR Fashion Book, Grazia (British and Italian), MSN (American and Mexican), Russh Magazine, Yahoo!
@Trillfendi: I would prefer if you could link those sources. Regardless, most of these, according to WP:RSPSOURCES, are not considered generally reliable. BuzzFeed, Us Weekly, Cosmopolitan, and Newsweek are considered marginally reliable, while New York Post is considered generally unreliable. MSN and Yahoo! are also news aggregators, meaning most of the articles that appear on their website were not published by them.
Also, not all of the sources you listed refer to her as HoYeon Jung: Nylon and Grazia Daily call her Jung Ho-yeon, Esquire España calls her Jung HoYeon, Vanity Fair Italia alternates between calling her HoYeon Jung and Jung Ho-yeon, Paper calls her Ho Yeon Jung, El Comercio Peru and CR Fashion Book call her Hoyeon Jung, Parade makes note of the fact that she refers to herself as Jung Ho-yeon in her Time interview, and I couldn't find the Cosmopolitan España article but a Cosmopolitan Middle East article calls her Jung Ho-yeon. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
As it appeared on Google, Nylon wrote "'Squid Game' Star HoYeon Jung Is The New Face of Louis Vuitton". Why headlines change when the reader clicks it, I won't pretend to know. The Grazia articles that I'm talking about say "Squid Game's HoYeon Jung Is A New Global Ambassador at Louis Vuitton" and "HoYeon Jung beauty look: lo stile glam dell'attrice di Squid Game". Grazia's American version says "Louis Vuitton Announces Squid Game's HoYeon Jung As Its New Global Ambassador". Vanity Fair Italia's headline said "Squid Game: 5 curiositá su HoYeon Jung alias 067". El Comercio Perú's headline said "‘El juego del calamar’: ¿Quién es HoYeon Jung y por qué su presencia en la serie es importante?" CR Fashion Book's headline said "Squid Game star HoYeon Jung is the new face of Louis Vuitton". Parade's headline says "Who Is HoYeon Jung? All About the Squid Game Star and Supermodel". TIME, valiantly, translated the interview from Korean, so Eastern name order was given. Though I have yet to see her stop using either her capitalization or Western name order (including for the November covers of Vogue Korea). Cosmopolitan Spain now says "'El Juego del calamar' desveló las muertes al principio" but the headline on Google was something like HoYeon Jung es la estrella de Squid Game y un top model, whereas Glamour México said "HoYeon Jung, de la serie 'El juego del calamar', gana 15 millones de seguidores en Instagram en tres semanas". Trillfendi (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The argument that the current name was common before so it should remain as the page's title is not really solid because WP:NAMECHANGES. The current WP:COMMONNAME appears to be Jung Ho-yeon since it has been overwhelmingly used by most of the sources on the web since her new series was released. It is true that she was notable before Squid Game came out, but she was not as famous. There's no denial in that. So I guess what the sources are using is not necessarily recentism; they are just simply reporting on a person who became famous worldwide within a few weeks, and the format that the majority of sources choose is the one that we need to follow. Keivan.fTalk 15:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:NAMECHANGES implies she has changed her name and the press followed suit, which she didn't. She has kept this same stylization since at least 2014, and Western name order isn't a change of name. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
comment to Trillfendi, it does not make sense exactly for Asian people to adopt their names in Western name order, which was why I chose to move it in the first place before some guy just reverted my move. No offence, but you need to understand the way Asians preferred the order of their names. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020: Her given name has not changed. Even with Eastern name order, that doesn't make her family name her given name. She's the one who decided to use Western name order. She's the one who decided to spell it HoYeon. It's not hard. Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It could be that she did not mind how the Westerners spelled the names of the Asian names, while not necessarily her voluntary choice. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox image

Which image should be used for this page?

Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after relist. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


HoYeon Jung → Hoyeon Jung – To avoid unnecessary capitalization MOS:CAPS. Sawol (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@162 etc., SnowFire, and Trillfendi: As above mentioned Talk:HoYeon Jung#Requested move 7 October 2021, there are many sources of Hoyeon. Is important her choice? If she chooses to spell her name with HOYEON JUNG, will Wikipedia follow her choice? Sawol (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:ABOUTSELF... yes, her choice is absolutely important. Barring an overwhelming COMMONNAME argument otherwise, or if there's only scanty evidence that a particular spelling really was their preference, of course. Somebody's name is their choice. We don't "fix" spellings of names which would be incredibly insulting. See bell hooks, Muhammad Ali, etc. Of course in this case the COMMONNAME in English media is also HoYeon (do a quick Google), so there's not even a need for COMMONNAME vs. ABOUTSELF, they suggest the same title anyway., so this argument seems entirely without merit. SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@SnowFire: To be fair, the way someone's name appears on Wikipedia isn't based on their own preference, or even what the subject's "official" name is. WP:ABOUTSELF merely states that self-published sources can be used for information about a subject under certain circumstances, not that they should necessarily be used, especially for the name of the article. There were plenty of arguments about using all caps for MF Doom's article due to his insistence that his name always be spelled using capital letters, and the title of Kanye West's article is still Kanye West despite his legal name change. In most if not all cases, WP:COMMONNAME is the most important rule to follow. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
No, you got these from Google, and the first page of Google results would have showed a preponderance of HoYeon. Anyway, yes, you've found low-quality fashion blogs that didn't bother to get the capitalization correct (similar to how some low quality sites will drop diacritics that a source uses), but the actresses is credited as "HoYeon" in Squid Game, her personal Instagram is under "HoYeon", and high quality news sites consistently capitalize HoYeon - The New York Times and The Washington Post for two quick checks. To be sure, sometimes sources are showing just the straight-up Romanization of her Korean name - this BBC article uses "Jung Ho-yeon" - but that's a different issue. I recommend you send her a letter expressing your disapproval of how she spells her name and that she should change it to match your tastes. If she agrees and changes her future credits / Instagram / etc. to your preference, then ABOUTSELF will work in your favor on naming. Until then... SnowFire (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed fake info.

There used to be a section that said she appeared in the 2013 music video going crazy by leehyori that i added but recently was found to be false info. This info was added because some korean and english articles(which has a problem of recycling info without proper fact checking) used to mention this fact, however it is impossible. By checking the footage of episode 4 of kmtm4 which could be checked on the video site dailymotion, hoyeon jung was eliminated in ep3 and the music video was shot as a mission for other contestants on ep4. Hoyeon later returned in ep5 as she was given the opportunity to return to the show during the revival round. Thus hoyeon jung is not in this music video. Thus do not add this info if you find this from other sites. Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HoYeon_Jung/Archive_1&oldid=1139651728"