Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Coup d'états
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't thinking about the French meaning of the words when I created this category... - BanyanTree 00:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- rename to correct french (and English) spelling. Grutness|hello?
23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT shouldn't this be Category:Coups des états or Category:Coups d'états? 132.205.15.43 14:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wondered about that... it may be one of those weird plurals like fish and fishes - if the coups are all in one state they're coups d'état, if they're coups in more than one state they're coups des états. I don't know. Anyone? Grutness|hello?
- Rename to Category:Coups d'etat; this is a word which has been assimilated into English without the diacritical marks. Webster's Third New International lists the plural as "coups d'etat also coup d'etats" so keeping it as is is better than using the French spelling, which would be proper in the French Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 15:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I checked it up - the correct plural is coups d'état in International English; in the US, however, it can be coups d'état, coup d'états, or either of those without the accent. For the sake of simplicity, I suggest the only one which is correct in both US and international English (i.e., Category:Coups d'état). Grutness|hello? 11:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So just who are the language police of this International English? Where have they published their standards? Gene Nygaard 04:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh! I didn't know that there was another meaning of International English that is different from (or if you prefer, different than) that best known in this part of the world! The term is used in many countries to mean standard English as it is used outside the United States (which tends to be far more homogeneous than it is when you include US English). Certainly the only use I've ever heard for it is English as it is used in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and the other English speaking parts of the world excluding the United States. And those parts of the world tend to use the Complete Oxford English Dictionary as the standard. (Actually, looking more closely, I see this is covered on that page, at International_English#Non-U.S._English). As for "the language police", there are none needed. If you check several different dictionaries and they all give you the same result, then chances are it is the correct one. Grutness|hello? 05:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So, in other words, that "I checked it up" is what we in western North America would call "bullshitting." If that isn't an International English term, it should be. Gene Nygaard 13:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Google
- "coup d'etats" site:bbc.co.uk 24 hits
- Gene Nygaard 13:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Google
- Comment. Ok, folks, let's all take a breather. So far, discounting the anon vote, it looks like it's going to be Category:Coups d'etat or Category:Coups d'état. Personally I could care less if it has the diacritical marks or not. Strike that, it's easier to type without it, because my keyboard doesn't have that key, and I'm too lazy to copy and paste it from somewhere. Then again, the proposal is just to move the "s", so bottom line, I don't care either way. But this page is getting quite large. Can we agree on something so I can archive this? (also, shouldn't we all be discussing something more important, like, oh, say, mainland china?) -Kbdank71 14:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't vote, I made a comment. But you shouldn't automatically discount it if it makes sense, either. That would violate the policy of impartiality that Wikipedia has. 132.205.15.43 03:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Fine. I have no objection. I do object to Gene's unwarranted insult, since "I checked it up" means I did exactly what I said. I looked it up in a number of different, reputable dictionaries; each one gave me the same result - the one that I mentioned. But, hey, he's entitled to his opinion, and if he thinks that I'm bullshitting, then that's his prerogative. Grutness|hello? 06:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The point is that if you did so, you did not cite any of them. Nor did you explain what you meant by International English nor who you think sets the standards for it--and you still haven't done so. You were quite obviously trying to pull the wool over our eyes--and you still are. Even more irritating was the gratuitous America-bashing. It was only in a followup to the "checked it up" one that you alluded to only one source, the OED, as if that were your only source. You still have not actually cited a single source. Furthermore, while the OED is an interesting archive of trivia related to the actual usage of words throughout history, it is of little use in determining best current usage from among the variants in use, and I'd be very much surprised if the quoted excerpts exemplifying published usage were totally uniform in their spellings.
- In all fairness, the BBC online is about equally divided between "coup d'etats" and "coups d'etat" but only has 4 hits in 2 articles for "coups d'etats" (none with diacriticals) and 5 hits (but only shows 4) all to the same article for "coups d'état" with the é. Similarly, in its usage of the singular form "coup d'etat" greatly outnumbers "coup d'état", likely by more than 30:1. Gene Nygaard 10:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The point is that you decide to go straight ahead and attack me, rather than arguing the points I had raised. I explained quite thoroughly what I meant by International English, even pointing out a section of a Wikipedia article where it is listed. I also pointed out that no one person or organisation sets the standards, rather a good judgement of it can be obtained by looking at a wide cross section or reputable dictionaries. Even more irritating is your somewhat ludicrous suggestion that I am America-bashing. I am not, and I demand that you show at least one place anywhere where I have America-bashed in this argument, or elsewhere. Perhaps my suggestion that more people outside the United States use English than within it is in some way a pernicious attack on the country to your mind? As for BBC online, as you are no doubt aware, their policy is to deliberately eschew all diacriticals for the sake of their online editors and the browsers which their readers use. Wikipedia does not. As it happens, Cassell, Collins, Penguin, and Reader's Digest were the other dictionary publishers I checked - i.e., with the Oxford, a total of four British publishers and one American publisher. Actually I checked two American publishers, but my very old copy of Websters must be out of date and/or wrong, since it listed coups d'état as a valid alternative plural. Oh, and launching an ad hominem attack on me and on the OED doesn't really help your argument. Grutness|hello? 12:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sigh. I guess nobody took my suggestion about taking a breather. Ok, how about this, can we drop the personal stuff and concentrate on the issue at hand? Or if you must, take it to a talk page somewhere. (hmm, anyone know if there's an opening on the mediation committee? :) -Kbdank71 16:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT If we use the singular form Category:Coup d'état that would deal with it, can it be considered the infinitive form? 132.205.15.43 03:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Um. Infinitive form of a noun??? Wiki standard is plurals.
- Isn't it a verb too? It's an action... Argh, not enough sleep. 132.205.15.43 20:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And the most common English plural is coups. Period. Gene Nygaard 04:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- True. And surely unambiguous enough that that is all that is needed for a title. Saves the problem with the diacritical (or lack of). Agree with Gene - just Coups. Full stop ;) Grutness|hello? 06:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good, "coups" 132.205.15.43 20:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good, "coups" it is. Archiving. -Kbdank71 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)