Talk:Taeyeon/Archive 1

Move? (2009)

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved. Convincing argument that this is the primary topic for Taeyon. Hatnote will be added to the disambig page. -- Aervanath (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim Taeyeon (Girls' Generation) →  — Well, first off, the original name wouldn't fly per WP:MOS. Second, the girl goes by her first name as her stage name (she's referred only as "Taeyeon" in the news).  Third, this wouldn't be a problem at all because in the AFD I said that I would move it here because it wasn't created yet, but someone created it yesterday and made it into a redirect into a redirect into a disambiguation page that goes back to this.  So a direct link would be easier. :P —
 * There are other people with surname Taeyeon or Tae-yeon, e.g. in disambig page Kim Tae-yeon. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taeyeon is her first name; Kim is her surname. And I do understand that; however, in Korean media (and "officially"), she's known as Taeyeon; she is not referred to as "Kim Taeyeon" at all.  Looking up "Kim Taeyeon" and "Girls' Generation" results in only 4 results on Google News. "Taeyeon" and "Girls' Generation" is 2,620. Plus, the other "Kim Taeyeon"s aren't as notable.  If you look up "Kim Taeyeon" in Google News, you get 11 results in the past month. Taeyeon, in comparison, totals 416 results.  So what I'm proposing is that this be moved to "Taeyeon", and a disambiguation link be on top of the page to Kim Taeyeon.  It's quite likely that anyone simply searching for Taeyeon is looking for this specific singer, as opposed to the other Taeyeons, who would most likely be searched by full name because they go by their full name. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hanja
Her real name is "太軟", while her stage name in Mainland China is "泰妍", while in Hong Kong and Taiwan it's "太妍". Check the Korean Wikipedia for further information. PLEASE STOP CHANGING IT!Famitsudc (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famitsudc (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture
Can someone PLEASE upload a picture in the common domain or that they have rights to? We NEED a picture of her in this article!13:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.107.3 (talk)

Move? (2012)

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:NCP. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim Tae-yeon → Taeyeon –
 * there was a consensus discussion to move it to Taeyeon in 2009, and no subsequent discussion, so the various moves to Kim Tae-yeon have violated consensus established when it was renamed from Kim Taeyeon (Girls' Generation) (see Talk:Kim Tae-yeon). 70.24.248.211 (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD would suggest this should have been reverted as Speedy, or WP:CONSENSUS as reverting a bold that broke an existing consensus should have resulted in a revert at Speedy, as it was proposed at speedy. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one voted in the 2009 RM that you're making such a big deal about. It was just the nominator. One editor is a consensus? Perhaps one man with courage really is a majority, as Andrew Jackson never said. Kauffner (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: as per my message a few years ago. Nothing has changed.  Like all the other members of Girls' Generation, she does not use her surname professionally, and she is the only one that goes mononymously.  This should be under "Taeyeon", and "Kim Tae-yeon" should be a disambiguation page. SKS (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The comments above are short on guidelines and RS, long on puffed-up proclamations regarding what "she does". It is certainly a common practice to drop the family name of a celeb in informal usage. But this is an encyclopedia, so we have them at their formal names, i.e. Oprah is at Oprah Winfrey, Ozzy at Ozzy Osbourne, Beyoncé is at Beyoncé Knowles, and so forth. The relevant guideline is WP:NCP: "don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used." KBS gives the subject as "Kim Tae-yeon", and her Facebook page is "Kim Tae Yeon". If you google, you get pages and pages of results about this subject. So obviously many fans know her by her full name. No music is released under the subject's name, and she hasn't appeared in any movies. But Sooyoung is credited under her full name for her movie roles, so you can't assume that band members would necessarily be credited by given name only. Kauffner (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Article Picture
The new picture for the English Wikipedia page (featuring a very slightly blurred cut-out of the Girls Generation group photo) is not as good as the previous photo. I believe it should be changed back or replaced.Warsilver (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Kim Tae-yeon or Kim Taeyeon
Why is her first name spelled with a hyphen? If we google her name up, all fans know her as Taeyeon (without the hyphen) instead of Tae-yeon, while I do understand that there is not anything different whether there is a hyphen there or not, but I'm just wondering whether it is necessary. Should we move it to Kim Taeyeon? --TerryAlex (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably due to the default naming conventions for Korean names. - WP:NCKO - Given name
 * Koreans variously spell two-syllable given names as a joined word or separated by a hyphen or a space, with the second syllable occasionally capitalized. 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).
 * Personally I have no preference, as long as its consistent with usage on other articles. Evaders99 (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should just move it, because that is just how we acknowledge/spell her name in the "fandom" world.
 * Can we just put "Kim Taeyeon, also known as Kim Tae-yeon"?--TerryAlex (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You either move the article to "Kim Taeyeon" and use that spelling or keep it under its current name and use "Tae-yeon". In either case the name used in the article should be the same as a the name in the article's title. DragonFury (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 07 August 2014

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Kim Tae-yeon → Kim Taeyeon – Kim Taeyeon is a well-known singer in South Korea, all of her fans know her by the name Taeyeon without the hyphen. This can be confirmed by Googling up her name. (Even) when editing her Wikipedia page, some editors would just automatically spell her name without a hyphen; therefore, to prevent confusion, I propose that we should move it to Kim Taeyeon. Right now her official page has her name with a hyphen Kim Tae-yeon and Kim Taeyeon is a redirect page. Please have the two pages switched. Thanks Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC) – TerryAlex (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

-
 * You can easily find examples both with a hyphen or without, see here. It's Wikipedia convention to use a hyphen for Korean given names, according to WP:Naming_conventions_(Korean). Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * Support I'm looking at this article Article titles, and I'm seeing a few points:
 * Recognizability: I think all the viewers/fans recognize her as Taeyeon.
 * Naturalness/Consistency: I'm sure when we google her up, all would search for Taeyeon instead of Tae-yeon. Also, when we look up other articles on Wikipedia such as Girls' Generation, Girls' Generation-TaeTiSeo, SM the Ballad or some of GG's albums, all of the editors link her name to this page but insert it as Taeyeon, like this Taeyeon.
 * Right now, her page has a mix usage of Taeyeon and Tae-yeon, I (or other editors) can easily fix it, but I want to wait and see if it would be okay to move the page first before going back to edit it. Also, all of the references on her page list her as Taeyeon so it's a bit funny to have the entire article as Tae-yeon, but all the references as Taeyeon. I did tried to edit out the all "hyphen" once, but my edit got reverted, so I left it as it is, but then I observed that a few other editors were also trying to edit out the "hyphen" recently. So that's why I want to propose moving this page.
 * Even with the naming convention, I do see there are Wikipedia articles out there that have Korean celebrity's names without a hyphen.
 * I don't want to break any Wikipedia rules regarding the naming convention and I do understand that there would not be any difference whether there is a hyphen there or not, but it just seems rather odd to have it there.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support; I have only ever seen Taeyeon used in the various media concerning K-pop. I would require consistency which ever option we choose to use. So no more mix-and-match with Taeyeon and Tae-yeon. DragonFury (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)in
 * Oppose. This issue here is not unique to Tae-yeon, but exists for K-pop celebs generally. When they are working for their band, their names are given in the form "[band]'s [hyphenless given name]" (i.e. "Girl's Generation Taeyeon.") This usually the most common form of the name, but it doesn't look very encyclopedic. If they act in a movie or do something else unrelated to the band, they are given in the form "[surname] [given name with hyphen]" ("Kim Tae-yeon.") This is the actual name given in our standard format for Korean names. I doubt if there are many sources to support the proposed form, which I take to be a hybrid. The Billboard site has over hundred hits for this subject, but not one of them is in the proposed form. See . Chosun Ilbo uses the hyphen. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * Putting the naming convention aside, I'm still seeing Kim Taeyeon as the most familiar form of her name that most people would know her as. So yes, she is Girls' Generation's Taeyeon, but she is also Kim Taeyeon to most people as well. [Just a note:...If the page does not get moved, it would still be fine with me and I would know it definitely which form of her name to go with when editing.. ] but...honestly, having the hyphen there is just strange--TerryAlex (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per Clodhopper Deluxe's argument. Since the hyphenated name shows up in Chosun Ilbo among other reputable sources, the naming convention should be applied before she does something solo where we could see her preference. Just because she's known as "Taeyeon" among Western fanboys should have no bearing on this, in my opinion, unless the discussion is to move it to Taeyeon (singer). Two other points: #1 I doubt any Korean person, including the subject, would find the hyphen strange; #2 I don't understand why the nominator needs to support his own proposal twice. Timmyshin (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the Korean version, but since this is the English Wikipedia page, shouldn't its familiarity about the subject be targeted towards the "Western" readers? Like I said, I'm fine with either Taeyeon or Tae-yeon, but it just needs to be discussed for once. We might have different opinions, but our overall goal is too improve the quality of the article (and Wikipedia in general) anyways--TerryAlex (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Taeyeon is WP:COMMONNAME. Sawol (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) (WP:COMMONNMAE of course). I'm not sure why others opposing this move refer to reputable sources and Western fanboys, but neither phrase appears in the article title policy. (-> Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So who is supposedly using the proposed form? I certainly didn't find any RS examples. Perhaps this can considered an argument to use "Girls' Generation Taeyeon." As far as that idea goes, I must say that Wiki does not generally give personal names in their most common form. Instead, they are styled according to our naming conventions. After all, it's Barack Obama, not Obama. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * Oppose: Technicality with Korean Names as suggested by User:Clodhopper Deluxe is my reason to oppose this move. Also, the same applies to Kim Hyo-yeon and Yoon Doo-joon. Tibbydibby (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: both Korean names policy and specifically against WP:COMMONNAME - WP naming conventions for people addresses this - WP:SINGLENAME. Essentially Taeyeon and Tae-yeon are equivalent in Korean. Because Taeyeon is not a pseudonym, the formal encyclopedia article should be Kim Tae-yeon.
 * "Similarly, don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there. Only if the single name is used as a true artist's name (stage name, pseudonym, etc.) can the recommendations of Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens below be followed."
 * Evaders99 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: per Clodhopper Deluxe's argument. &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Below is a provision of the romanization of Korean notified by Government of South Korea. Refer to English or Korean.


 * Naming conventions (Korean) is old-fashioned. I see that Park Geunhye is written in principle but Park Geun-hye is the commonly used name to be selected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used. In the case of this, Kim Taeyeon is under the principle and the commonly used name. Sawol (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this info comes officially from the South Korea's government, shouldn't the Korean naming convention on Wikipedia be updated?--TerryAlex (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A vote would be needed for a big change like that. Even Koreans spell it in different ways. (Ex. Taeyeon, Tae-yeon and Tae Yeon.) &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 19:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a vote, I mean that, sometimes a rule might need some changes (when appropriate), especially when this comes directly from the South Korean government.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Let's think about those who are not familiar with the Korean language and are struggling to pronounce names.


 * And if the rules were changed to having all names to exclude the hyphen, how many are willing to do all the moving? I'm sure when the Korean naming conventions were created, the hyphen for given names was long talked about before implementing it. &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.

Personal life section
I do feel that the personal life section which only contains information who Taeyeon is dating or is not is kind of pointless, it is not note worthy. I feel that it adds nothing to overall article. Editors are also constantly deleting it and restoring it. I think that if the personal life section only contains information on who someone is dating should be deleted. It should only be kept for more important things like marriage or something. Equil 짱 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal life/breakup
Please remove the sentence stating that she broke up with Baekhyun. It was only a rumor and her company never released a statement or a confirmation about the breakup. As Girl's Generations company speedily confirmed rumors regarding each of their relationships (ex. Yoona, Yuri, Tiffany, and Hyoyeon), their lack of response towards Taeyeon's relationship shows that the rumors are not true, and as Wikipedia aims towards facts and not rumors, this sentence needs to be deleted. Kittykat407 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittykat407 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, I do agree that this section is redundant, however, for the sake of consistency it will remain. Secondly, why does her relationship status even matter to you. Whether SM chooses to confrim the breakup has nothing to do with the previous few, nothing is set in stone, just cause they did something before does not mean they will do so again. Lastly, it being reported is a fact, there's also a word called "reported" in the sentence (do I have to explain to you?); it was also reported by a reliable source. WP:KO/RS Lets hope this puts an end to "fans" constantly changing it. Equil 빵 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I will ignore you're condescending tone if you heed the gravity of mine. The fact that it was posted by a reliable source does not make it true unless confirmed by the individuals in question, or their respective company, neither of which have happened. There is no consistency in it remaining as is for it is not fact, again, it is a mere rumor. If it must remain, there should be additional information letting readers know that it is only a claim, as it leads people to believe something that could be false. A clause that states their breakup was unconfirmed. Next, I can't even begin to explain how much you're response insulted me. Her relationship does not matter to me, I am not her fan or a fan of her group, I go about K-pop related pages (and other pages having nothing to do with the genre) and edit accordingly using the platform of facts and confirmed news. I am an editor, a contributor, and a fact-checker, not a sniveling bot that makes an account for the sole purpose of causing trouble. I take pride in what I do, and I will not be spoken down to by an individual who's too arrogant to see that some people are merely trying to help improve a page so it can be a clean, fully-functional, and an informative read. If you can't reply to people with care and tact, do not take it upon yourself to dictate what shouldn't, and should be done, especially if you don't know that 'reported' doesn't directly translate into 'fact'. Kittykat407 20:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood my point of "reported" = fact, I have never said that it being reported made the breakup a fact. What I meant was it being reported was a fact, the fact being it was reported.The removal of this sentence has been constantly undone by other editors with experience, far more experience than you or me. This sentence has also been here for quite some time, I am sure your points would have been considered before. This talk section should be about the topic at hand, please refrain from going off topic. If you are not happy with what I said, use my talk page. Equil 빵 (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see I misunderstood you're meaning (I apologize) but I did not go off topic anymore than you did. You sassed me by asking why her relationship even matters to me and I responded in kind. If you don't want people going "off" topic, try not using sentences like that. However, even though I realize why it was phrased like that, I still can't help but feel people will misunderstand. I guess readers will have to look it up to find out more about it themselves. Kittykat407 19:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Discography Section
Should we start moving the bulk of her discography section to Kim Tae-yeon discography? It's only going to get lengthier as her career progresses and it makes sense to only have to update the same information to one area instead of two. Anonymouspoutateoh (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Awards & years?
What is a rule about years for each award, like Gaon Chart K-Pop Awards, Seoul Music Awards etc? For example gaon chart awards, should the year in which the award ceremony was held be used (2016), or the period which the award covers (2015)? 86.58.36.235 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's usually the year in which the award was presented (so 2016 in your example). Anonymouspoutateoh (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency of name and date format / Endorsement section
I've noticed there is an inconsistency of usage between Taeyeon/Tae-yeon and S.M. Entertainment/SM Entertainment throughout this article and related pages. Can we come to consensus of which we'd prefer? I believe we should follow the romanization the person/company in question utilizes which is "Taeyeon" and "S.M. Entertainment" respectively as per their official sites taeyeon.smtown.com and smtown.com.

The date format used varies between D/M/YY and M/D/YY. Which is preferred? The infobox and references all list dates in the M/D/YYYY format so it's of my opinion that we should stick to that in order to keep the entire page's date format consistent.

Endorsement section There is a dissenting opinion that a list of endorsements isn't needed but I'm unsure why this is thought when articles such as Girls' Generation, Beyoncé, Rihanna, etc. all have a section for their endorsements.

Thanks for your time and opinions in advance. Hermittons (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Endorsement" section needs to be fully in prose and have details that explain why it is important to be mentioned. For example, Girls' Generation has sources that described them as "one of the most sought-out advertisers" or "they were the celebrities that shot the most commercials during...". Rihanna's perfume "was expected to gross US$80 million at retail by the end of 2011" or "Beyoncé signed a $50 million deal to endorse Pepsi". Simply stating a list of endorsements don't make it encyclopedic, and honestly, just because other Wikipedia articles have it is not a justified reason why we should have it here either.
 * Regarding the spelling, I think S.M. Entertainment should be the standard spelling for SM since that is how it's spelled on its own Wikipedia article. Taeyeon is a bit more tricky as we have her full name as Kim Tae-yeon so I have never been sure whether we should spell it as Tae-yeon or Taeyeon. I even unsuccessfully tried to move the article and have the spelling of her name changed once, but having a hyphen for Korean name is a convention here on Wikipedia. I do prefer the spelling Taeyeon, though, as that is how she most well-known as. For the Date format, as someone who lives in the US, I prefer the MM/DD/YYYY format.--TerryAlex (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With regards of the name; my preference is "Kim Taeyeon" but I can see a case for Kim Tae-yeon if that is indeed the preferred or accepted spelling on Wikipedia. However, I see the name "Taeyeon" as essentially a monosyllabic stage name so when referring to her as an artist I think "Taeyeon should be used over "Tae-yeon". On date I prefer DD/MM/YYYY but prefer DD Month in full YYYY above all eelse. DragonFury (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Radio guest appearances etc.
Hermittons, I don't think it is usual practice on Wikipedia to list every radio guest appearance in a table. As for the online V-live shows, what is the purpose of listing them in a table? The over-use of tables makes it look like a fansite rather than an encyclopedia article. This kind of thing has been discussed extensively before, and some editors (such as and ) also question why every television guest appearance is listed in a table. Random86 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. If this user reverts again I will file a report at WP:3RRN. Dr.   K.  00:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The purpose is to provide an encyclopedia on the article subject's filmography. All the added radio guest appearances and online shows made notable waves in the media and have several third party sources discussing them which I can provide if need be. The purpose of listing the online shows in a table is because it follows the section's formatting. If the filmography section becomes too lengthy it can be to sectioned off to its own page such as Girls' Generation's has. I can't see how this is unusual for biographies of living persons whose notability hinges on media presence in this digital age. My only intention of adding these is to have the information here as complete as possible. Hermittons (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am reverting your reverts because there really is no consensus to include a complete list of radio guest appearances and V-live broadcasts. At least one group has more than 150 V-live broadcasts, and it would be ridiculous to list them all on Wikipedia. If something in an V broadcast or radio show really made a "notable wave", it could be mentioned in prose, either here or in the song/album article it relates to. Random86 (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of dating news
When editing articles, I tend to look past this section as I don't care and I find dating history, most of the time, tends to be a trivial matter to someone's life and career. But lately, I've been thinking about this and I question the need for it to be here, starting with my encounter with this edit here.

I read this discussion from Jessica Biel article and I particularly agree with when they said this: "This section was referenced on WP:BLPN. I agree that we don't want to be keeping a detailed history of someone's love life unless there's something particularly notable about it (marriage, children, divorce, lawsuits, jumping up and down on Oprah's couch...). Single people usually date, and famous people usually date famous people, that's not something we should devote space to. While I wouldn't immediately strike the section while yelling BLP, I would argue that unless there was something particularly memorable about any of these romances, we shouldn't list them, any more than we would list the clothes she wears or the restaurants she goes to. Any of those would fit fine in a celebrity gossip magazine, but it's not of encyclopedic interest."

What do you all think? Can we discuss this?--TerryAlex (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Dating news are just a fancruft by some fans, it should be included only if there is a long-term relationship or marriage (stated above), while the rumours like "xxx has been reported to be dating yyy since January 2017", usually cited with crap allkpop.com or soompi.com sources – well, just delete it, it looks like the "Personal life" on kpop articles could be renamed to "dating rumours" since its always just dating in all articles, Seohyun is a fine example of how the personal life section should look like, while Kwon Yuri and Taeyeon for example are not. On Sooyoung's personal section, the section starts with "Sooyoung's father suffers from retinitis pigmentosa" which is completely irrelevant to her. Snowflake91  (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason for "Sooyoung's father suffers from retinitis pigmentosa" was because of the Beaming Effect charity that she started. If you can rewrite that more succintly, please do. :)--TerryAlex (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is discussion about this at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive250; apparently its okay to list current relationships if there is a reliable source, but all past relationships should be deleted.  Snowflake91  (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's understandable for current relationships, as it would be hard to argue case-by-case. Serious or long-term relationships will likely lead to marriages anyways. But past relationships mostly don't demonstrate anything important and should be deleted. I'll start removing them soon.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
This was the first article I made. I accidentally clicked "Save Page" thinking that it could save my work so I can get back to it later. Unfortunately it saved the page on the web. Realizing my mistake, I quickly attempted to finish. The administrator that issued the deletion of this article most likely saw my just started article before I had a chance to finish. I am now done and it is up to you to delete it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaeyeonSaranghae (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 April 2009‎ (UTC)

Social 50 position
Taeyeon peaked at #16 on the Social 50 chart — Simon (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kim Tae-yeon. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227201232/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/art/2011/11/135_97862.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/art/2011/11/135_97862.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=27&hitYear=2016&termGbn=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=ALL&targetTime=27&hitYear=2016&termGbn=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=ALL

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018
The name of taeyeon is 金泰妍，not 金泰耎 Hau xun (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Certification?
Taeyeon's debut single "I" has sold over 2.5 million downloads, but does this qualify as a music recording certification? I hope someone with considerable Korean knowledge can help me out (cue the given link), HĐ (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2019

 * 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: MOved as proposed &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Kim Tae-yeon → Taeyeon – Alternatively Taeyeon (singer), though right now Wikipedia operates with her as the primary topic and "Taeyeon" redirects to her. I'm not really sure why she's deemed more notable than all other Tae-yeons (and further is deemed the only notable "Kim Tae-yeon" of the four on the Tae-yeon page) so if people feel she isn't the primary topic, there's the alternate.

She is much, much more commonly referred monoymously without the dash. It's also what she uses professionally, see her Instagram and her website. It's also what Wikipedia seems to use to disambigulate her music, see I (Taeyeon EP), Why (Taeyeon EP), Voice (Taeyeon EP), Why (Taeyeon song), Fine (Taeyeon song), This Christmas (Taeyeon song), and I Love You (Taeyeon song). The prose of this page also refers to her as just "Taeyeon" instead of using her family name "Kim", which is standard. Her main page as well as her discography, list of songs recorded, and list of awards explicitly state she's better known by the mononym. It's odd to me that the general consensus among editors is to use her mononym elsewhere on Wikipedia but not for her page title. In terms of what's more commonly used by reliable sources, it's just "Taeyeon". The requirement for for a mononym as a title outlined in WP:MONONYM is that the name is "true artist's name" and I think "Taeyeon" more than fits this requirement. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 01:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Appears to be better known by the mononym "Taeyeon" and is also the most notable person with that name. All variations of the given name redirect to the singer anyway. PC78 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'll agree these policies always conflict everytime this occurs, but I'll put out that WP:SINGLENAME recommends the use of last name if known and used fairly often. I believe it is in this case, esp since Tae-yeon is not a pseudonym but a fairly common used Korean name. Similarly, don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used.
 * I would also consider it is the stable article name since 2012 and matches the policy and discussion at the time on Kim Hyo-yeon, Jessica Jung, Kwon Yu-ri, and Im Yoon-ah - see their Talk archives Evaders99 (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Her family name isn't commonly used though. Look at this google trends chart comparing use for just "Taeyeon" (filtered so it's just referring to the singer) and use of "Kim Tae-yeon". It's hardly a contest. 2012 was seven years ago and Taeyeon's career and her page has evolved greatly, I'm not sure how editors assessing that version should be compared to this rather different version. If we're referencing previous discussions, I also direct you to this recent discussion to have BTS' Jungkook and Jimin keep their mononym as the page title over using their family names. Also, in terms of ambiguity, "Taeyeon" redirects here, and the page name is "Kim Tae-yeon" despite there being three other Kim Tae-yeons on the Tae-yeon page. So if you disagree with her being the primary topic and that the redirect "Taeyeon" is too ambiguous, "Kim Tae-yeon" does not fully disambiguate as well. "Taeyeon (singer)" is also an option that disambiguates. WP:SINGLENAME has this additional clause: "Only if the single name is used as a true artist's name (stage name, pseudonym, etc.) can the recommendations of Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens below be followed." Considered how rarely Kim Tae-yeon is used in comparison to "Taeyeon" I fail to see how she does not meet that requirement. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 15:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Analogous to Beyonce. Even searching news articles for her full name overwhelmingly turns up articles that use just "Taeyeon" in the headline and throughout most of the article, with a brief mention like "The singer, whose real name is Kim Tae-yeon" buried somewhere. Colin M (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.

Concerts and tours
A couple of months ago I reverted an edit made by Drmies that removed the list of concerts and tours but he reverted it back. Is there a reason why they should not be displayed? Other K-pop artists have at a minimum the names of the events and their year displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solemn Penance (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * if you scroll back through the history of the article and find the edits that you’re referring to you might also find an edit summary explaining the reason for their removal. If you question any edits in the future it may be useful for you to question it at the time of the edits instead of months later, it makes it easier to know exactly which edits you’re referring to. Alex (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The original edit is from 3 May 2019‎ and the reason for removing the standalone article and section of her tours is "no. tours aren't notable, and the sourcing is absolutely minimal (note that it includes SM Entertainment). this section, and its link to a stand-alone article, is from the revamped K-pop template, but is unjustified". This explanation doesn't make sense as most of the sources were not directly from SM Entertainment and alternative sources can be found easily for the existence of these concerts and tours. Furthermore, I don't understand how "no. of tours aren't notable" when she is one of the top touring female soloists in K-pop? Solemn Penance (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image
Is there a consensus that the infobox image should be the latest image? As far as I know the infobox image should be the most quality/best picture representing the subject of the article (even if the image is 2+ years old), and not the very latest image. This current image is crap in quality and kinda blurry, not surprising since its not even a real picture taken but a screenshot from the video. The previous one is better, "recency" is completely meaningless since a span between pictures is only 3 months, this is not a facebook and we dont need to upload a new image every week when she changes her hair or makeup or something. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking this, too. MOS:IMAGE even states “use the best quality images available”. So the editors reasoning of “Recency trumps minor improvement in quality” isn’t true at all. I’d support reverting their edit on this basis. Alex (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To add up, I think it's best to include an infobox picture which best depicts Taeyeon as a singer? HĐ (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just from my side; I've seen both arguments used but when quality is comparable between both photos the more recent one is preferred. And in my opinion the difference in quality between these two photos is negligible. The May photo is slightly sharper but not by much, but the higher quality is negated but the fact the May photo appears to have a watermark/tag in it. DragonFury (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The watermark shouldn't be a problem; it can be easily removed using available tools online or free software, HĐ (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring for a moment that removing the watermark would be a gross violation of the photographer's copyright, I took a moment to look into the contributor who originally uploaded the May 2019 photo; they've had four files removed on suspicion of copyright violation already. Additionally the author listed is Korea Dispatch and the source is a Youtube video, neither of which seem to related to the watermark which reads "Ineffable Moment", sure the photo and video cover the same event but that's where the similarities end. Nor does the contributor appear to be somehow related to whomever put that "Ineffable Moment" watermark on there. Personally I think the May 2019 photo was taken without permission and should be deleted as it violates the original authors (not Korea Dispatch) copyright. DragonFury (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment regarding the watermark removal is not specific to the May 2019 file alone, but to any file that is freely licensed on Wikimedia Commons (under appropriate CC license, editing the original is permitted. If a file is detected with copyvio, that should no longer be legit). What should be thoroughly considered here is the fact that WP:MOS indicates that pictures used, especially in the infobox, should: (1) be of the best quality possible, and (2) best represent the subject, HĐ (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead image (again)
I've just been reverted by, so bringing this for a discussion here. I changed the image from to  The original was from 2019, while the one I put in was from 2017. I did so in accordance to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY; my interpretation was that a better image, even if it was from a couple years prior, should be favoured over a more recent one. Thoughts? Sdrqaz (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support more recent  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is only two years' difference though, and the newer one seems... pretty terrible. (Don't know how to put it in a nicer way) Sdrqaz (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support the bottom image, the quality is better and it is a more flattering image than the oke above. Alex (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The description of quality the MOS gives (dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous) doesn't really deal with quality in terms of resolution or clarity beyond "is the subject shown clearly?". In my opinion once this basic premise is achieved (and both photos shown do so), the more recent photo should be used as it is the more accurate representation. As an aside; the photo that is being used as of about three hours ago is absolutely terrible. DragonFury (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Following a link here from WP:BLPN - what does the subject look like when she is most representative? Does she sing, or interview, or do whatever she does wearing glasses or not? How about a huge fur coat? That should be the deciding characteristic here. By the way, folks, having a plethora of acceptable images to choose from is known as a good problem to have. There are lots and lots of articles that would be thrilled to have multiple acceptable images for their subject. --GRuban (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Taeyeon have multiple looks over the years, blond hair, pink hair, brown hair, black hair, black with white subtle hair, etc. K-pop artist goes through multiple looks over the years to fix their concept hence there isn't really when she look the most representative as that's subjective and may differ. As mentioned, she is K-pop artist hence I'm going to assume you've heard before of the term. Just last November and December, she released her Japanese and Korean EP respectively hence she is active. The glasses she wearing is often either glassless or 0-degree glasses, although it is just occassionally (btw, this type of styling is common within K-pop industry). As mentioned above, I support using most recent image. My criteria for infobox images, is highest resolution, clear, not unglam or weird looking and not copyvio (btw, must meet all 4 criteria).  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  00:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding on as I missed out, she is currently casted in variety show Amazing Saturday which is filmed in days within Wednesday–Friday (not sure, what is the exact day however only 1 filming day) per week hence she is active in the industry.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  00:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the new image
I understand that using an image from 2019 isn't ideal in portraying the subject matter, but why is there this horrendous insistence on using terrible quality screenshots of videos that have been edited to hell and back with the PS blur tool? DragonFury (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It really isn't ideal. I'm assuming people just wanted some type of new image, regardless of the quality. I can provide an actual image took from a camera of her. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 <b style="color:#9D9E9E">🖊️</b> 19:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That SBS Radio is certainly overly edited, even the metadata indicated Photoshop has been used in some capacities. While the current one isn't really the best, her image hasn't really change drastically over the years that would made her unrecognisable for the readers. If there are newer copyright-free image available that isn't watermarked and doesn't have awful accessories (excluding glasses) over her face then it would be great otherwise the current one works just fine for Wikipedia standards.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  00:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)