Jump to content

Talk:Jung Eun-ji

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jeong Eun-ji)

Requested move

[edit]
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus seems to favor the move, but it must also be noted that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, if there was an absence of consensus then the page would revert back to its stable title prior to the controversy arising; in this case, the title from the creation of the article in 2012 until one month ago was Jung Eun-ji. Following this discussion, it must remain at that title until there is consensus to move it to another. bd2412 T 16:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Eun-ji → Jung Eun-ji – Jung Eun-ji is the WP:COMMONNAME for the artist. A google news search for Jung Eun-ji shows 679 results while a search for Jeong Eun-ji shows 10 results, of which are actually for Jung Eun-ji. A Naver dictionary search for Jung Eun-ji shows her Korean name as the result while Jeong Eun-ji does not. While Jeong Eun-ji appears to be the name used by her entertainment company, it is not deemed her 'official' English name and is decidedly less used than Jung Eun-ji. KJ Discuss? 04:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although Jung Eun-ji is her common name on media, Jeong Eun-ji is the correct Romanized name. I changed the article title because I think the correct name should be used instead of old name. I don't know why her surname was Romanized Jung, and used by media, while 정 is Jeong (in Revised Romanization) or Chŏng (in McCune–Reischauer). If that surname is used in her birth or school certificate, I can accept this move and revert all edits on her related articles. But, we don't know what's right. In WP:COMMONNAME, there's a sentence:

Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

If two A Pink official websites is not reliable sources, what is the reliable source for this case, when they're the official sources, provide date of birth, name, position of six A Pink members, and supported by A Cube and Universal Music. K34c l4m v13c t0t 06:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Keaclamviectot: From WP:COMMONNAME:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources

Ambiguous or inaccurate names refer to names that may refer to multiple subjects, such as heart attack (as seen by the footnote). Just because her Korean last name is usually translated into 'Jeong' does not make that name 'official' name, and neither does sites of entertainment companies. KJ Discuss? 07:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I have a thank to Revi, thank you for taking on my side. Second, I want to talk further.
Taekwondo should be romanized as Taegwondo, of course it is, but it is the correct Romanization of Hangul 태권도 in McCune–Reischauer system. Jung is not. It can't be a Romanized word in McR (that system doesn't have j), and it's also not a Romanized word of 정 in RR. The correct Hangul of it is 중 (use RR system).
In WP:NCKO,

Personal, organization, and company names should generally be romanized according to their common usage in English sources. If there is no established English spelling, then Revised Romanization should be used for South Korean and pre-1945 Korean names, McCune–Reischauer for North Korean names.

So, her surname should use RR system → Jeong.

Unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise such as Kim, Lee, Park or Yoon, family names are romanized per Revised Romanization (RR) for South Koreans and pre-1945 Koreans

So, four surname Kim, Lee, Park, Yoon can be excluded from RR system (don't have to change) → Park Geun-hye is correct and Romanized under RR system. It has a hyphen because If there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized (e.g., Hong Gil-dong).
There's not a sentence in that WP guideline article says Jeong must be changed to Jung. If you want to have a reliable source preferred by her company use Jeong, I have two (two official websites of A Pink: one of A Cube Entertainment, one of Universal Music Japan). Unfortunately, she doesn't have any way to contact her fan without A Cube, so we can't know she chooses Jeong or Jung.
I don't mean her surname is ambiguous, I mean it's incorrect. Like I've said before, I don't know why is it Romanized Jung and where does it come from. And I don't know why do Korean media use that incorrect surname instead of the right one. This is Wikipedia, and if you don't provide any official, reliable source and stronger than two A Pink official websites, I think admin will agree with me (I hope so). K34c l4m v13c t0t 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Keaclamviectot: Right; the romanization part in the sentence you quoted in WP:NCKO applies only if there isn't a 'common usage in English sources.' and there are. It's Jung Eun-ji, as shown by my proposal comment above. The second quote also applies only if there is no Commonname, and since there is one, it doesn't apply as well. This is based on both the guideline for Naming conventions in Korean and the policy WP:AT, which is pretty clear in using the Commonname for this issue. And as for the argument that the 'official' source needs to be used, Wikipedia is not a collection of 'official' facts, but facts as they are presented by a majority of reliable sources; this is especially true for names, in which the article title is the name that is the 'most commonly used.' Unless you can demonstrate that the name 'Jeong Eun-ji' is used more in English sources, talking about the 'correct name' is a misapplication of article titling policy. KJ Discuss? 00:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep my opinion, the common name Jung is incorrect, Jeong is. So the article should be Jeong..., not Jung.... The media has used that surname too much, make everyone misunderstand her surname. If there is a source can prove Eun-ji, in her own word, at her own will, decided to choose Jung as her surname in her career business, I will accept this move process, because it will be the correct surname, is chosen by name holder (Eun-ji). Until that clause happens, I will keep opposing this move. K34c l4m v13c t0t 06:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry, I will keep my opinion: "Jeong" should be appeared in the article title. Like I have said, "Jung" is incorrect and shouldn't be used. "Jeong" has been mentioned in two Apink websites, and album cover of third Apink extended play, "Secret Garden"; it's the correct Romanization of Eun-ji's Hangeul name (according to RR system). RR system doesn't be created to serve only English-speaking people, S.Korean gov't created it to foreigners can spell Korean words much easier. So, English-speaking people don't have any right to change a correct word to an incorrect one, just because they can't spell it. If you don't know how to spell a word, just Google it (or look up for its pronunciation in its language), that's so easy. In this article, if "Jeong" is kept, we should add a pronunciation of her name. The last words: No matter what the result of this discussion is, I will keep my opinion. K34c l4m v13c t0t 15:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revi: Official Romanization is only tangential here. Doesn't her WP:COMMONNAME make establish the article title as Jung? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkj11210 (talk • contribs)
I'd repeat Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Also, WP:GOOGLETEST - (Search engines cannot)
Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false).
Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance.. — revi☏ 08:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revi: This case doesn't fall under the exception. Jung does not violate any of the conventions in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The search engine result is not a demonstration of reliability, but of the fact that Jung is used more often then Jeong. WP:NCKO holds that common English names override correct Romanization (for instance, Taekwondo should be romanized as Taegwondo), which is true in this case. KJ Discuss? 08:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To answer "I don't know why her surname was Romanized Jung..." South Korean official names, especially the surname, are not always romanized by RR, MC or any romanization system, in fact most aren't as far as I know. Personally I've only seen 정 romanized as "Jung". The argument that "She lives in Republic of Korea... only RR" is flawed, otherwise we would have Bak Geun-hye or Bak Geunhye rather than Park Geun-hye. No idea on what the singer prefers herself though, but Jung Eun-ji had been stable for 2 years, so unless there is convincing evidence to show that "Jeong" is preferred by herself or her company, then I'm going to Support the move. Timmyshin (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. The "inaccurate or ambiguous" clause of WP:COMMONNAME is totally inapplicable here. There is no ambiguity about whom "Jung Eun-ji" refers to, otherwise you would not see such a strong preference for it in reliable secondary sources. Every major English newspaper in South Korea uses "Jung Eun-ji" dozens of times more often than "Jeong Eun-ji":
Regards, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've mostly seen 정 romanized as "Jung". Some Korean names have a common romanization that does not adhere to RR or MC. For another example, 현 is almost always "Hyun" rather than "Hyeon". There is not a convincing reason to change to Jeong at this point. --Random86 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a theory: In South Korea, when the artist signs contract with his/her company, he/she has to choose a name (stage name or Romanized name) to use in public media. He/she can choose name at his/her own will, so that name may be difference to the correct Romanized name. If my theory is right, it can explain why we have Hyolyn, Suzy, Hyuna, Sohyun instead of Hyorin, Suji, Hyeona, Sohyeon. In Eun-ji's case, her Romamized full name is "Jeong Eun-ji", it is first brought into public by her company, A Cube, and no evidence proves she refuse to use the surname "Jeong". It means she has chosen that name is the name she will use in public media (according to my theory). But the public media, for unknown reasons, have used "Jung" and kept using it times after times. Like I have said, "Jung" is incorrect, and it shouldn't be used. K34c l4m v13c t0t 15:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this theory. Stage names for girl groups are often (if not always) chosen by the company, not the artists. Spellings such as Jung and Hyun are more likely to be pronounced correctly by Americans/Canadians/etc, who would have no idea how to pronounce "eo". That may be why those spellings are the most popular. Jung is used in the public media because it is the most common romanization for 정. It's an established spelling like Kim and Lee. --Random86 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, when it's a theory, it may be right or wrong, so if you don't agree with it, that's OK. But, I can also doubt your word Stage names for girl groups are often (if not always) chosen by the company, not the artists. No evidence supports it.
So, you are telling me, because American/Canadian can't spell "eo", "Jeong" must be written as "Jung"? If that's true, how about "Seoul"? Can it be written as "Suul"? Of course not. "Seoul" has a Korean pronunciation along with its English one, foreiners can spell it in Korean way without problem. So, I think your reason is a bad excuse.
If you say Kim and Lee is established spellings, I agree with you. Because American/English has a name is Kimberly (can call Kim for short), and in current public media, we can know about the powerful Kim family in N.Korea; about Lee, we have Bruce Lee, General Lee, Tommy Lee Jones. They are used very much in public media, so I have no any problem with them. But I disagrees with you about "Jung". I don't find any English name "Jung". K34c l4m v13c t0t 16:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard girl group members say in interviews their stage names were chosen by the company. Two that come to mind are Lizzy and Irene.
About the other two points, I think you are misunderstanding what I said. Americans for example know how to pronounce Seoul because they are familiar with it. That knowledge doesn't necessarily transfer to other Korean names. In my experience (as an American), most Americans would not know how to pronounce Jeong unless they were told. Americans would know how to pronounce Jung. I was just making an observation about why spellings like Jung may be preferred by Koreans. Jung being established and used in the public media doesn't have anything to do with similar English names existing. For example, Yoon is used instead of Yun and that is not an English name. It's more to do with spelling the name to match English pronunciation. --Random86 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you said that, I don't have anything to talk back. I still believe "Jeong" should be in article title, but I will accept this move process. Because I don't want to continue this discussion, I'm too tired to protect my opinion while other users (except -revi) disagree with me. It's take my time too much, and it don't give me anything back. Well, maybe I should avoid doing thing like this from now on. K34c l4m v13c t0t 14:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UE. Although I don't really like the rule, WP:UE explicitly states that common usage is more important than systematic transliteration for foreign names: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic." Dekimasuよ! 21:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you said that, there will be a conflict between my quote sentence and yours. If I follow my quote, I'm right, but if I follow yours, I'm wrong. How can a Wiki guideline article have two conflict sentences? I will keep my opinion. K34c l4m v13c t0t 01:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not right. There are no conflicts in Wiki guideline. WP:COMMONNAME is the prevailing policy in this case. Your opinion relies on Jeong being the 'official' name of the artist (which should not be used, as explained in the policy and the essay WP:OFFICIAL) and your rebuttals hinge mostly on guidelines on romanization and exceptions to Commonname, neither of which is valid in this scenario as there is a clearly established Commonname. You are free to keep your opinion, but you must recognize that the opinion does not conform to Wikipedia policy. KJ Discuss? 02:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this discussion don't reach a consensus, the move process won't be done. If you want to use that rule to win this discussion, I will use its exception to fight back. Actually, Random86 and Dekimasu can make me think I'm wrong, but you can't. Addition, I never call "Jeong" or "Jung" as English name, I call them Romanized name. K34c l4m v13c t0t 03:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, your arguments are WP:LAWYERING. Arguments cannot be just made against consensus without proper foundation. It's been shown by romanization is superseded by English name. Why are you being so obstinate? KJ Discuss? 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use rule, I also use rule. If we don't accept the other's opinion, I think we should stop talking about this, let other users express their opinion. K34c l4m v13c t0t 05:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is moved like your proposal, no one want to discuss about this anymore, and how can we reach a consensus? I think admin should not accept his/her proposal. If you want to change my mind, give me a reason I can't refuse. K34c l4m v13c t0t 06:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this sort of case, a "no consensus" close would return the article to the stable title (this could also have been done without discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requests to revert undiscussed moves). It is good to note the previous undiscussed move, though. Dekimasuよ! 17:05, 27 October 2014 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jung Eun-ji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jung Eun-ji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jung Eun-ji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jung_Eun-ji&oldid=1207878933"