Talk:AIM (album)

Credits

Just had my copy of the album in the post (because I am old fashioned and still buy my music on CD) and I notice that it has no songwriting credits at all and no production credits other than for the two versions of "Bird Song". Are the credits available with any other format of the album. If not, where does the info in the article come from.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Found a list of production credits on Universal Music's French website. Still no sign of any writer credits though...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Sorry, only just saw this. The songwriting credits are available via the Tidal streaming service if you right click a song and click 'Track info'. I have added it as a source now. Thanks, TheKaphox (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

---

AIM (album) → Aim (album) – Per MOS:TM. No evidence the album title is an acronym. SSTflyer 13:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, COMMONAME. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, Yeah, all the sources refer to it as AIM and M.I.A. even refers to it as AIM on her Twitter. Esmost ^πк 16:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. News sources refer to it as AIM, as well as all services and stores that stream and/or sell the album. TheKaphox T 16:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and the fact that AIM is supposed to be M.I.A. backwards per various news sources [1], [2]. Of course, Aim might not necessarily lose that meaning, but for some semblance of consistency it should stay as is. Sure, the article could have just as easily been at A.I.M too, but it's not spelt with periods between letters here, in news sources, on online stores, on the cover art, or how the artist refers to it. Ss112 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Singles from AIM

"The New International Sound Pt. 2" was never a single (only a video from an EP of the same title) and "Bird Song" counts only as 1 song/single in 2 versions. That makes it 5 singles released from AIM then. 1000MHz (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on "The New International Sound Pt. 2". I believe that "Bird Song" was released as a single that happened to have two versions, and shouldn't be considred as two different singles (as in the current infobox). I understand this could probably be contested, though. TheKaphox T 23:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Bird Song" situation reminds me of how a lot of singles were released in the early to mid 1990s (certainly in the UK) - two CD singles with different bonus tracks, released a week apart. This was only ever counted as one single and I agree the same should apply here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

On a more general note, as a decripit old 40-something I really don't understand how it is decided what is and what isn't a single in the "digital age". Life was so much easier when singles 7" lumps of black vinyl. And got me started on "buzz singles", I really don't have a clue exactly what they are.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we at least acknowledge "Bird Song"'s different release dates if we're not going to treat it as two singles?

They were indeed released at different times, but if the remixes are considered part of the single, can we acknowledge, in the infobox, that there were two versions released on different days? Aleccat (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:AIM (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi ChrisTheDude. I'll be reviewing this article. I've just had a quick peruse so far, and it looks like a quality article. Expect my initial thoughts in a couple of hours. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry Chris. I'd hoped to get the lion's share of the work on this article done tonight, but my kids have just spent the past 2 hours running amok, so this had to go on the back-burner. Of the work I've done tonight:

The prose is well-written, grammatically-sound, and with no fancruft.

The prose is well sourced. There were some issues regarding dead links and refs with access dates but no URLs, but I've been WP:BOLD and fixed those myself. One issue I've found so far that I haven't been able to rectify is in the Music and lyrics section: ie, the paragraph regarding "Freedun" and the use of the word "rate"/"rape". Maybe I've been blind, but I don't believe the cited source clarifies that M.I.A. uses the word "rate" instead of "rape" - it just seems to reference the actual controversy. If so, then her use of "rate" needs an additional source.

The source contains the sentence "However, MIA has stated the word is clearly "rate", going as far as to publish the full lyric sheet online." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. I guess I was blind. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The image of Diplo is from creative commons, and its usage is justified by both captions and contextual significance.

Otherwise, this seems like a good article to me. I'll look at this more tomorrow, and let you know if there's anything else. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• So I've just spent the past 4 hours on my phone going through this article, and I'm satisfied it meets the GA criteria. Although it's shorter than other articles I've reviewed, there is no specific guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles which states an article needs to be of a certain length to meet the criteria. Of the prose that is there, it's all of a high-quality, and is fully referenced using reliable, notable sources.

Closing

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

Congratulations, Chris. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CAPS

The title of the album is "Aim". It is pronounced "Aim" in YouTube videos. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Visa

Is it credited anywhere that "Visa" samples M.I.A.'s own song "Galang"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arekuba (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)