This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to
alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
According to "OOR's Eerste Nederlandse Pop-encyclopedie 2000" (OOR's first Dutch pop-encyclopedia, 12th edition), the group was founded in 1991 by Tom Barman, not in the late 80's. Altough it might have formed some roots earlier I can't find any source mentioning this.
Mpe19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't have a written source, but i remember Tom Barman saying it to an MTV Europe interview in 1995 (or 96), in an afternoon show called "Hanging Out". --
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk)
20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)reply
according to
this reliable secondary source "For those who do have a strong preference—bell hooks is a well-known example—you will want to respect it."
consistent usage of the n.s.r.o.c. name indicates the band DOES have a strong preference for it, hence the guideline DOES NOT apply. --
L!nus10:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The style guide that is relevant for Wikipedia is Wikipedia's, not CMS. There is no exception in our guideline for bands that have a strong preference. --
PEJL11:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
In what way am I mistaken? In that we should follow our own style guideline rather than CMS, or in that there is no exception in our guideline for bands that have a strong preference? Note firstly that
bell hooks is not a band (so irrelevant to this topic), and secondly that there is nothing in that discussion that contradicts either of my claims. Also, do you really think it is useful to duplicate this discussion in three places (
Talk:Amiina,
Talk:Deus (band),
User talk:Elice)? I suggest this discussion be moved to a central location, such as
WT:MUSTARD. --
PEJL11:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
it has been pointed out in the general discussion on WP:Mustard that the same rules on capitalisation should apply to all artists names, not just band names. that makes the
bell hooks case rather relevant. if you don't see a contradiction in how the issue was settled there you didn't read it carefully, after all they settled on bell hooks rather than Bell Hooks because of the CMS link!.
as for having it in several places: two issues are at stake here
1. a general discussion on capitalisation and
2. should exception to the current guideline be allowed
my comments on these talk pages are relevant to the second issue. --
L!nus12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Just because someone mentioned CMS in an article talk page doesn't mean that CMS has precedent over Wikipedia's guidelines. I am going to leave this discussion now, because I find the duplication of this discussion inappropriate. Good luck with your efforts to change the guideline. --
PEJL12:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
perhaps you should read the argument on the bell hooks talk page better and see what the outcome of the discussion there actually was (i.e. it's bell hooks, not Bell Hooks). --
L!nus17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
So what? CMS doesn't apply just because someone mentioned it in an article talk page. (The outcome in question is fishy, because it is based on a claim that it is in line with
WP:CL, which doesn't seem to be a shortcut that would be relevant,
now or then. Regardless, the outcome of the discussion at that article is entirely irrelevant to this article.) --
PEJL17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
it's an n.s.r.o.c. artist name that is allowed to stand as such based on a good secondary source. i think that is rather relevant. --
L!nus19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
As I've told you before, the fact that all articles on Wikipedia don't currently adhere to certain guidelines is not reason enough to stop applying the guidelines. Remember for example that this article didn't apply the guideline when we were discussing
Amiina. Also, as has been noted before, the
bell hooks article is irrelevant to the guideline on capitalization of bands, as
bell hooks is not a band. Please try to understand that the guideline is in effect, even though you dislike it. --
PEJL20:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
1. both Cyrus XIII and Xtifr have made the point in the general discussion at WP:MUSTARD that this is not just a issue about band names but about any artist name, i agree with that (in fact i made the same point (implicit) before they did. bell hooks is an artist name, hence is relevant.
2. the point is that in the case of bell hooks people agreed after a discussion to decline the guideline in favour of the artist's intended spelling. thus the article doesn't merely not follow the guideline, it does so explicitly (and in that it differs from the state of this article when this whole thing started). what goes for bell hooks can go for any similar case. hence the guideline does not need to apply here (as it implicitly didn't before your disruptive editing). --
L!nus20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Your first point only applies to the discussion of what the guideline should be, not to what it is. At
bell hooks the editor that argued that the name should not be capitalized was arguing not as you suggest that the guideline in effect (which is a different guideline than the one that applies to band names, I'll note again) didn't apply, but rather that it did. Their claim was that some guideline at
WP:CL (which is the iffy part, as that shortcut has no relevant guideline) mandated that the name should not be capitalized. So this example that you keep harping on is not an example of an exception from the guideline, it is an example of an adherence to a guideline (in this case one that appears to not exist, or at least was misidentified). But again, that example is irrelevant, because the guideline that is in effect for band names is the guideline at
WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization, and that guideline does not apply to
bell hooks, because bell hooks is not a band. --
PEJL20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)reply
They call themself dEUS.. so they should be listed as dEUS in the article, i know the namespace is a bit harder. I see you all would rather discuss how in general guidelines should or should not apply to some or not all or maybe even a couple of articles or hopefully once all articles. but cant you just humor the band and use the name as they name themself ? i mean .. i thought wikipedia was about facts and not guidelines --
User:cantbebotheredmakingaaccount18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)reply
it's inaccurate and uninformed. there is no or, their name is dEUS. nor is it a typeset, it's how their name is written. --
L!nus (
talk)
11:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The band is called dEUS, I believe and I am sure the band and all the fans would want at least the "infobox" be labeled as 'dEUS' what exactly is so hard about having the information about the band being correct? as stated by "cantbebotheredmakingaaccount" wikipedia is about facts not guidlines.
User:someonewithnoaccount —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.171.61.171 (
talk)
14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
@cyrus: what's absurd is that it is you who is using wikip as a your billboard. the simple and verifiable fact is that it is dEUS, usage of that form would be professional and consistent.--
L!nus (
talk)
22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I only just saw this discussion, as I just landed on the article and found the spelling really remarkable. On the Dutch-language Wikipedia we honour the so-called 'donor principle', which means that the name of a band, artist, organisation or any other human-created instance is a given. This means that we accept this name, even if it is has uncommon capitalisation, is offensive, or has a spelling mistake or outdated spelling, to name a few examples. The band called itself ‘dEUS’, and therefore should be referred to as ‘dEUS’. Calling this band ‘Deus’ is about just as inaccurate as calling them ‘The Beatles’. It's simply not their name.
212.123.191.99 (
talk)
11:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Totally agree with you. In Belgium everyone uses the name 'dEUS', just because they *are* dEUS. Just check the official band site; it also exclusively uses 'dEUS'. Please change this! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.28.86.60 (
talk)
18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)reply
On that page there is only consensus about names that start with a lower case pronounced as a separate letter, if the second letter is capitalized. It doesn't say anything about (one syllable-)names that start with a lower case that is followed by capitalized letters. There is no rule that covers this case - so let's keep it the way it should be: 'dEUS'. I changed it in the correct manner.--
GraafGeorge (
talk)
10:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Please don't bend the rules to suit your own purposes; the spirit of this guideline is quite clear! Combined with
WP:MUSTARD, it's even clearer, and this has been discussed at great length before on this talk page, therefore I am changing it back. The talk page of
WP:MUSTARD would be the appropriate place to continue any further discussion on this disagreement. An edit war here will not solve any problems.
Oli Filth(
talk)10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I would have to delete the whole article then, because there is no Belgian band named 'Deus'. Everyone (including themselves, all official sources,...) uses 'dEUS', only Wikipedia does not. Is that what Wiki wants to be?--
GraafGeorge (
talk)
16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Indeed, there seem to be some newspapers and magazines that spell their name wrong. And there is a difference with Adidas: their name with a capital is as recognisable as without one. When I see 'Deus', I don't think about the band - but about
all other meanings, and every fan/music-lover does the same. This isn't just a gimmick like
Korn,
Kiss or any other band that varies the typeset of their name. It is their name. I don't presume Wikipedia wants to change their name?--
GraafGeorge (
talk)
23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You're confusing
spelling with
capitalization there. We usually do not alter the spelling of a subject's name but normalizing its capitalization has become very common, see the lead paragraph of
WP:MOSTM for a respective rationale. Also, calling the official typesetting choices of other bands a "gimmick" while insisting on "dEUS" being all special and worth preserving is hardly
a neutral approach. –
Cyrus XIII(
talk)07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
And you are confusing
capitalization with
art in my opinion. It's the artist's name, and it should be respected however it's spelled. And if iPod and eBay escapes these silly rules, why would dEUS not? --
Flupper (
talk)
23:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)reply
If you really don't want to change; I would suggest changing the article itself; instead of "Deus (or dEUS)", write something like "Deus, officially and generally named dEUS,". Why have rules if the rules themselves disrespect someone's or something's name.. Also; if you are so stubborn about it; why is it that in the discography it is written "dEUS"? That is sooo inconsistent..--
Jandemessemaeker (
talk)
12:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion is completely ridiculous. The band is called dEUS, period. First letter small, the rest capital.
That's how it appears on their records and in AllMusic.
I rarely use such harsh wording, but saying that
dEUS shouldn't be written properly because it's not a trademark is anal legalism which contradicts the basics of common sense. --
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk)
13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
The current guideline says we should consider band names as trademarkes. The trademarke guideline says:
"Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules". So it should be dEus... So since we're not following the guideline, couldn't we just use dEUS?
Band B (
talk)
17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)reply
That clearly doesn't apply in this case, as the first letter is neither a prefix, nor is it not pronounced as a separate letter. (eg. in both 'eBay' and 'iPod' the first letter is explicitly pronunced as a separate syllable. This is not the case here.) --
David Edgar (
talk)
18:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Can I call in the argument of
a-ha? Clearly a case in which the band (and fans) chose the capitalization, and where the Wikipedia community has accepted this spelling. Why can't we do this for dEUS? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.242.242.183 (
talk)
23:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you Wikipedia, for being a grammar Nazi magnet. At least now we have dEUS spelled correctly in every sane part of the internet. --
87.64.241.14 (
talk)
09:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Fair use rationale for Image:Deusband.jpg
Image:Deusband.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Deus (band). 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.