Talk:M.I.A. (American band)

Note the article has been improved since its submission to AFD. Even in its original form, it met the criteria for notability (#10: compilation appearances, and #5: two albums on a major indie label, though the label wasn't mentioned). As those who were around at the time remember, this was a significant band in the West Coast punk scene. They recorded on several labels, including Alternative Tentacles, a very well-known indie label started by Dead Kennedys lead singer Jello Biafra. I'm pretty sure they have other compilations, and I'm willing to research that, but only if I feel I'm going to get a fair hearing. Gaohoyt (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn the AfD in light of the new information that you provided. Thanks for your hard work on this article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all who reviewed this. Gaohoyt (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for deletion, because it's sourced almost entirely with primary, non-notable sources and doesn't meet enough criteria to establish notability/ be kept per WP:Band. ShimShem (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• and I've removed it. You don't speedy an article that's recently survived an AFD. Also, I've added some sources and tidied up the article. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of band

M.I.A. or MIA? The band's own website uses "M.I.A." at the top of the page, then uses a combination of the two. It tends to be the same with many bands using acronyms as their names - note that, for example R.E.M. uses the periods. Where the acronym actually stands for something (in this case Missing In Action), the periods should probably remain (compare ABC (band). Also, changing to MIA may cause confusion with German band MIA. as well. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the label being used to establish their notability here credits them as MIA, which is what their recordings say, so I think it should be moved. It will end confusion with all other articles I think. People can differentiate between MIA. and MIA (band). ShimShem (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the article could possibly be confused with M.I.A. (artist) but moving it will merely confuse it with another article (and to be honest, the UK M.I.A. is quite often referred to without the periods as well, so I don't think it'd help anyway). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and thankfully most people on wiki do not subscribe to your view that titles should be chosen purely based on what editors feel is and isn't confusing. I am positive the word band, and MIA without the end period is a more than adequate qualifying term for this band's article because that's what their label lists them as. This is not only about what you and I feel will be confusing, but how we reflect something as accurately as possible with sources provided that are what's keeping this article 'notable' i.e. the fact they're on the label AT. ShimShem (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, you've changed a long-standing name of an article because you think it should be changed, and nothing else? Well done, I hope you're proud of yourself.Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And your creation of M I A and it's redirection to M.I.A. (artist) has shown your true colours. I am going to move this back, as you are clearly disruptive. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

M I A is what that artist is also credited as on her albums released on notable labels. My question is, what's this band? ShimShem (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not rename the article to "MIA" without obtaining a clear consensus. It will create red links in the 35 other articles that link here. I don't know which is better, but if you look at their original albums and compilations it's usually "M.I.A." I suspect a lot of people who write it without the periods are just being lazy. Gaohoyt (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No it will not create red links in the "35 articles" that link here, (most of which are deletion reviews). It will link straight to the new article. R.E.M. are credited as such on the albums they release, which is backed by the refs that make the article notable. Same with ABC. Same with all the others. This band has released one LP on the label used to assert its notablity at its second Afd, as MIA. What is this act credited as on its LP on the label you claim makes it notable? MIA. What does the label call the band? MIA. What does this recently added popmatters review of its one album call it? The same. I don't think it is laziness on their part. Read WP:Naming conventions and WP:Assume good faith. For now, I hope you understand that or we might need a more neutral administrator's view on this. ShimShem (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I've just found that even the label at the bottom of this page differentiates between its band (as MIA) and the artist (as M.I.A.). That in itself warrants a name change. I propose MIA (band). ShimShem (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I did a search for images of the band's releases and found three that used MIA without the periods: [1] [2] [3]; and two that used M.I.A with two periods but not a final one: [4] [5]. None of them seem to use M.I.A. with all three periods. --Stormie (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think we should be careful not to use blogs/images as sources to establish notability on this and stick more to reliable third party published sources that verify the releases. The label page provided, popmatters review and this article you've just included all refer to the band as MIA without any periods. The last one seems to concern the band, although I don't know whether it constitutes a third party. I've given my proposition for the title above - what do you propose? ShimShem (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is that I really don't care. It makes absolutely no difference to anyone whether the article is called M.I.A. (band) or MIA (band). --Stormie (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it makes a big difference to the nominator of the AfD, though! Since all the backlinks go to the current name, and there isn't any overriding reason to change it, it should stay. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation on article name M.I.A. (band)

Keep at current name. Summary of situation - User:ShimShem has taken a dislike to this article, and has tried numerous methods to either get it deleted or its name changed.

• 1) Completely invalid speedy deletion request
• 2) Invalid DRV request
• 3) Nominated for deletion via AfD, despite the fact that it had passed an AfD this year - in fact the AfD was withdrawn at 6-0 for Keep
• 4) The current AFD here stands at 9-0 for Keep, but despite that, ShimShem has wikilawyered all the way through it - once it became clear that it was going to be kept, they decided a name change would be better...
• 5) Changed the name of the band in the article, and was told to take it to talk
• 6) After a brief non-discussion on talk, moved the article anyway, and was reverted

I was originally unsure of the motives of this editor - why they were completely desperate to delete or move this article - until I noted they were interested in Tamil subjects, one of which is M.I.A. (artist), and guessed that they believed that the two could be confused. Their subsequent creation of the article M I A as a redirect to M.I.A. (artist) proved this, as far as I am concerned.

As to whether the band is actually called MIA or M.I.A., it differs. The band itself uses M.I.A. as the heading on their own website, but then uses a combination of both elsewhere. Since in the case of most sources, this is only likely to be laziness (much as R.E.M. are regularly referred to as REM), and since the article has existed here for a while, and that all the backlinks go to this version, and most of all because we shouldn't let disruptive users get their way, the article should stay here. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore Wheelchairepidemics blatant attempts at provocation, and just say this. We tend to stick to reliable cited facts on wikipedia as oppose to original research conducted by fanboys/girls. Said user has repeatedly ignored my requests to assume good faith,[6] called me an idiot,[7] and by the looks of things, have a very wild imagination. What I've tried to do is establish accuracy on this article, which it clearly is lacking, but this exercise seems pointless considering nothing about this band has been put foward that meets notability guidelines. But until that debate is resolved, this name, as has been established above by another user, is wrong and needs to be changed. And yes, the repercussions of doing so would have the brilliant benefit of preventing confusion with other artists/bands. Not that that's particularly relevant considering M.I.A. is not even this band's name. It is quite clear it is laziness that has led to this band being referred to as M.I.A. Their label says they are MIA. The album says they're MIA. They are not credited as M.I.A. on any of their recordings (unlike R.E.M. AND M.I.A. the artist etc. who are credited as such), this is backed by the sources provided on an album of MIA's and Mike Conley, which more than warrants a move for now. ShimShem (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply, there isn't enough evidence to move it to anywhere else. The band's website header (and much of the rest of the site) says "M.I.A." [8], and this copy of Ink Disease (from when the band was actually still together) says the same. Meanwhile, their LP release on Alternative Tentacles [9] has only two periods "M.I.A". Meanwhile, even R.E.M. aren't always credited as such (see latest album [10]).

I did try to assume good faith to begin with here, but the users history of wikilawyering (as listed above), culminating with the proof - in the creation of M I A - that their desperation to delete/rename this album is purely rooted in the fact that the article could possibly be confused with an article they have an interest in, caused me to lose it.

Ironically, changing the title of this article to MIA will immediately cause separate confusion - with another band, called MIA.. For anyone else coming to this RFM, please read the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.I.A. (band) (2nd nomination) - it will tell you all you need to know. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep as "M.I.A. (band)". At least for now, until the Afd is settled. Emotions are just to high. The Afd seems to be a one-person crusade. The vote at this moment is about 10-1 for keep. An earlier Afd (in January) ended 6-0 for keep--even the nominator was convinced. The lone dissenter on the Afd is the one pushing for the name change. He made some misrepresentations on the Afd page regarding the outcome of the earlier Afd, and has said some strange things regarding the reliability of the print and internet media outlets referenced in the article, as well as the notability of the Alternative Tentacles label. It smells a little fishy, if I may opine.

I am the originator of the M.I.A. article, and I really thought I had spelled it right. I am holding in my hand a CD that spells it that way. Like a lot of bands, they probably didn't much care as long as they got gigs and records. It may take time to figure out which spelling is right. Gaohoyt (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I added this section really for editors outside of the dispute who are less likely to have an agenda with the said band. Thanks for your input all the same. Your points don't really seem to be geared at forming consensus, but rather making sure your personal vendettas against me for questioning this article remain. Thus the WP:Personal attacks against me, bringing in irrelavancies etc. My points are clear above as to why this should be moved. Rather than using primary sources like an official website that can't work out what a band's name is, and a photo of something printed released on god knows what and when, we should stick to RS of their recordings on what you claim makes them notable - the label AT - with the name MIA ShimShem (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand that you wanted some outside opinions, and I think that's an excellent idea, but I'll just take this opportunity to summarize my thoughts on the matter. Entirely focused on the name, not the deletion debate or anything else.

The reason I stated above that I didn't care which name the article under is that I think it is simply not possible to establish one name as "correct" and another as "incorrect". As I stated above, the album covers use a mix of M.I.A and MIA (you can see this illustrated at [11]). The band's website uses M.I.A. and MIA interchangably ([12]) - obviously they don't care that much. The Alternative Tentacles bio ([13]) uses MIA but elsewhere they use M.I.A. (see text of [14]). AllMusic Guide uses M.I.A. exclusively ([15]). One of the newspaper obituaries uses M.I.A. ([16]) while the other uses MIA ([17]). Flex even uses mia ([18]) but they seem to be allergic to capital letters entirely.

So, given that MIA is a disambiguation page and M.I.A. is a redirect to that page, and I'm not seeing any suggestion that that should not be the case, I have to ask: what on earth does it matter? The band's article has to be dabbed with "(band)" anyway. It's not ambiguous with the German band because they use the distinctive punctuation "MIA.". What is to be achieved by picking one of these punctuations over the other, given that it appears impossible to establish that one is more correct than the other? --Stormie (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"What is to be achieved by picking one of these punctuations over the other, given that it appears impossible to establish that one is more correct than the other?" An attempt at accuracy. The artist M.I.A. is credited as M.I.A., M.I.A, M I A and other things on her recordings, on the record spines, sleeves etc.. Often described as M.I.A. and other variations. Obviously, she doesn't give a hoot, but that's not the point. MIA. are credited/described as such on their recordings. Noone's asking the disambig page to be redirected anywhere else, although come to think of it, maybe M.I.A. should be redirected back to the artist's page seeing as all its backlinks refer to M.I.A. (artist). "Confusion" with other artists is a straw man argument and something not worth bothering with. Apart from articles with this template and deletion reviews, nothing links to this article M.I.A. (band). Not even their label page. Most of the sources provided that were claimed reliable and cited as what made this article worth staying referred to the band as MIA. Maybe that's what they were. Who knows. I couldn't give a monkeys about fanboy/girl theories behind a move, it was to establish some form of accuracy while the afd was taking place. ShimShem (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems simply solved by disambiguation. Redirect M.I.A to MIA, as with many initialisms with variable punctuation. then anyone searching for either spelling can choose from the list. what is the problem here? (Is this already the situation? If so, this article needs a "This article is about xxx, for other uses see yyy" type hotnote.)Yobmod (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously neither M.I.A. nor MIA can link directly to a band, as their most common usage is the "Missiing in Action" military designation. They must link to a disambiguation page. So whatever spellings are deemed right, the article titles are going to end with band or artist or UK band or U.S. band or German band.

Adding a hotnote to this article directing the user to the disambig page sounds like a good idea. Gaohoyt (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M.I.A. (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203220202/http://www.ocweekly.com/music/music/sprawl-of-sound-mike-conley-1959-2008/28557/ to http://www.ocweekly.com/music/music/sprawl-of-sound-mike-conley-1959-2008/28557/

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) 14:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MIA. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)