Talk:Deus (band)

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

Date founded[edit]

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. Mpe 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of band name[edit]

Is it true that the band is named after The Sugarcubes' song "Deus"? If so (and a reliable reference can be found for this), this should be mentioned. --David Edgar 15:41, 11 October 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]

The above regarding the name dEUS is verified in the recent DVD that came with the 2009 re-issue of Worst Case Scenario. Markthompson77 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First gig[edit]

http://pocketrevolution.blogspot.com/search?q=1989 their first 'gig' was the 20th of November 1989 ~~vincent~~

dEUS vs. Deus[edit]

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!nus 10:56, 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. --PEJL 11:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it appears that you are mistaken, see Talk:bell hooks#Capitalization. --L!nus 11:24, 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. --PEJL 11:35, 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!nus 12:18, 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. --PEJL 12:32, 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!nus 17:26, 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.) --PEJL 17:37, 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!nus 19:13, 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. --PEJL 20:16, 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!nus 20:47, 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. --PEJL 20:58, 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:cantbebotheredmakingaaccount 18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a descriptive footnote on the matter, would that be factual enough? - Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:12, 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]

What is so hard about accepting that Wikipedia just isn't anyone's billboard and strives for a professional, consistent presentation? Really, in the light of glaring verifiability issues, such ongoing bickering about stylistic eccentricities borders on the absurd. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that counts for anything, but see de:dEUS, fr:dEUS, nl:dEUS, it:dEUS, gl:dEUS -- 87.188.71.206 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 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]
But just as with any other trademark, there is already a consensus on this: WP:MOSTM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. Take the argument to the talk page there, if you want to change this! Oli Filth(talk) 21:14, 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]
There are many examples of newspapers rendering the band's name as Deus. A few recent examples: The Lowestoft Journal Ipswich Evening Star East Anglian Daily Times Billboard magazine Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, there is no company called Adidas, either. What's your point? Oli Filth(talk) 18:22, 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]
What about muMATH, iiyama (company), maNga, meebo (mitigated), digiKam, musikCube, mIRC, phpBB, mozdev.org et al. ? Where are the rules ? Couldn't they be simplified to one : try to reproduce as exactly as possible the real name ? Wikipedia is not l'Académie française. The RedBurn (ϕ) 16:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant rule is at WP:MOSTM, as has been pointed out many times. Yes, they could be simplified as you propose, but there are some good reasons why they haven't been, see the proposal at Wikipedia:official names for some of them. Andrewa (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Flupper (talk) 23:17, 12 November 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]
You're right. My argument is invalid. I still prefer dEUS though :-P Band B (talk) 22:28, 1 March 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[edit]

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source?[edit]

This mentions the band, might have something useful:

  • "Battle of the bands: Belgian music industry fights linguistic loyalties". Deutsche Welle. 30 September 2009. Retrieved 6 October 2009.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deus_(band)&oldid=1195540297"