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

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Name of band

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress