User talk:Cbing01/Archive1

Other IP addresses

Formerly 205.161.132.191 that had editted for the most part the Timeline of Star Trek and the USS Defiant.

Used 129.118.120.128 to edit Air and Starship Yorktown. PlasticBeat 21:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Used IP address 65.182.76.130 to make 10 edits on a variety of articles dating from January 21 to March 29 including all 3 Coldplay studio albums. PlasticBeat 17:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

categories for Oasis album covers

Hi - I'm cleaning up categories listed in category:orphaned categories and I've run across category:Oasis album covers. The {{albumcover}} template adds the image to category:album covers. Since the albums are in category:Oasis albums I don't see a particular need for a separate category for the covers. Would it be OK with you if I remove the covers from the separate covers category? -- Rick Block 17:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Licensing question

I'd recommend that you do some reading up on the issue. I've tried to make it as simple as possible, but it is a complicated issue. Take your time and get back to me when you know more. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Album infoboxes

Can't you shrink the width of those album infoboxes a bit? Especially the one on COM LAG (2plus2isfive); on my computer the infobox is taking up nearly the entire screen. Everyking 23:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's helpful when it takes up the entire screen. And even the others take up a little more than half the screen. That's just too much space. Everyking 23:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully the current version of that template will avoid any more of this silliness. If any changes I make are for the worse, complaints are more than welcome! iMeowbot~Mw 01:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Radiohead albums

I was looking at the history for Radiohead albums I editted yesterday, are those 4th, 5th, 6th really needed? Most other artists' albums do not have those. And also the before the album numbers are easier to read than just continuously writing it... At least I thought so. thanks, -- WB 23:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Coldplay albums

Thanks for fixing the Coldplay X&Y infobox. I made a mistake. Irdepesca572 02:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gorillaz albums infoboxes

I am beginning to agree with you that overfilling the Infoboxes with Catalog numbers and release dates is perhaps overwhelming to the casual reader. I realize this is a complete reversal of what my position was. In any case, perhaps we can come to an agreement as which release date to consider as first. As for the catalog numbers, I don't know what to do in that regard. It's obvious there needs to be some heavy trimming, but I am unclear how to proceed. My first thought is to simply include the British release dates and catalog numbers for the albums since the primary members are British. Let me know what you think and we can work from there. Thanks, Cbing01 1 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

I think using the UK Label for the infobox is a good idea. This is their home label (The Parlophone logo even appears on the Japanese release) and the UK release date was also the international release date. As for the catalog numbers, I proposed a table in a seperate section at the bottom of the article on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums. This would have the advantage that we could include a lot of different catalog numbers (thus not being favorable towards one label) while keeping the infobox itself clean and simple. Maybe something like this:

Location	Label	Format	Catalog number
Japan	Toshiba-EMI	CD	TOCP 66380
UK	Parlophone	LP	8738381
UK	Parlophone	CD	8738382
...

--Fritz S. July 2, 2005 09:19 (UTC)

Just saw the release box you did on Let It Be... Naked and yours looks way better than mine. Good work! --Fritz S. July 2, 2005 09:27 (UTC)

I'm also glad we could settle this and I think you're really doing a great job on all the Gorillaz pages! And it's great you created all the seperate articles for all the singles, well done. There were some very minor things I'd change (I did so in the article for "19/2000", let me know if they're okay... then I'll change them for all the articles) for example, I moved the catalog numbers from the infobox to the track listing. And All Music Guide is written without italics in it's article, so I think we shouldn't put it in italics in the review sections. Again, thanks for your cooperation and your great work on these articles! --Fritz S. July 3, 2005 11:12 (UTC)

U2allthatyoucantleavebehindcover.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, U2allthatyoucantleavebehindcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESB DVD image

It's a good picture, but why don't you wait untill the merge controversy is finished. Ace-o-aces 19:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay

Thanks for all the work on Coldplay, whether it's the infoboxes, or CD numbers, or the new Coldplay box... Did you do the Radiohead one as well, cuz it has the same template...

How do you edit/create the Coldplay box at the bottom of the page? I want to edit one of those boxes for another series of pages for The Amazing Race....

--Madchester 05:55, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Mesmerize

Sorry about the block - that revert war was out of control. I don't like blocking the page - I am hoping that Mike and the anon can at least start talking. Guettarda 00:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - it's my first page protection, so I'm rather insecure about it. Guettarda 00:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stars?

A bit OTT, perhaps? Are they even being used for any non-Coldplay band articles? --Madchester June 30, 2005 06:01 (UTC)

If there's a precedent of them being used elsewhere with no problem, then I guess it's cool. :-) --Madchester June 30, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

Track listing lines

I don't know if it's you, but by reformating "track listing" and adding == == on either side, we're having lines crossing through the info boxes and album artwork. Putting three === on either side seems to rectify this. Thanks. PetSounds 30 June 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Hey again... I just realized it's not any of us. This is happening all over the place on this site. Must have something to do with the re-load/update a few days ago. Hopefully it gets sorted out soon. PetSounds 30 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)

Single Info Boxes

I'm somewhat (well, relatively) new to Wikipedia and it seems to me that one of its virtues is that nobody's preference as to the content of an article stands higher than anyone else's. (From a statistical standpoint, I guess it adds to the accuracy of the information.) That said, who arbitrates which style single infobox is "standard"? Would it be the writer of the article, or... just you? I'd be very grateful if you could shed any light on this matter! 24.163.126.109 4 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Please, feel free to view this page for information regarding Single infoboxes. If this does not prove to be enough information for you, please view this template as well. Thanks, and happy editing. Cbing01 4 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)

John Lennon Discography

I've noticed that someone has recently made a drastic change to the layout of the John Lennon discography page. What are your opinions on this? Personally I think it looks crap but I'd like to know what you think before I go and revert the changes. --DaveGorman 12:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I posted a comment on the talk page and I'm awaiting any replies before I decide whether or not to revert. --DaveGorman 20:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo Starr albums

Well done with the Ringo Starr albums which you've written articles for. I was going to start on them after I'd finished off the John Lennon albums but for some reason I never got round to it. I might still have a go at finishing off the remaining Paul McCartney catalogue though. --DaveGorman 17:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]