Talk:Paintball

Discussion Archive 1 (Oct. 10, 2006)

Rifleman and Other Content

Paintball is a sport played by 10 million people in the US every year. It is played in many different forms. It is extremely important when you edit an article that you understand that the way YOU play paintball is not the same as the way paintball is played. I play mostly speedball, but I am aware of the fact that a minority of paintball players actually play paintball. I am seeing a lot of cases in the articles where, while people are certainly enthusiastic about adding content, they are actually really just adding descriptions of their personal experiences in paintball, and creating the impression that their personal experiences are representative. An example of this was the caption in the first paragraph of this article to a picture of a woodsball player in camouflage behind a bunker in a gun-up position. The caption labelled the player a 'rifleman' and linked to the woodsball article. There is nothing, outside of the vocabulary of the person who wrote the caption, that made the player in the picture a 'rifleman'. It was a guy playing paintball, just like millions of other guys playing paintball, a paintball PLAYER. While the word 'rifleman' may mean something specific to some people who play paintball, the wikipedia audience is general, and the word 'rifleman' means something to them that obviously didn't fit with the picture.

I also think the vast majority of the woodsball article needs to be qualified. I appreciate Maximilli's enthusiasm in adding content, but while Maximilli may play woodsball, the way Maximilli plays paintball is not the definition of what woodsball is, any more than the way I play speedball is the definition of what speedball is. Raehl 18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Raehl, I've talked about this with you elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here to make sure you hear it. The term 'rifleman' does have important connotations that are relevant to the concept of the position. Most woodsballers, and this is based on the thousands of guys I've played with, call the guys who do everything and don't have a specially-defined position either 'rifleman' or 'basic infantry'. Why? No clue. Toastydeath refers to woodsball as a bunch of guys running around in the woods playing G.I. Joe, so maybe that's where it comes from. (By the way, Toasty, I laughed out loud when I read that.) Point is, if most woodsballers start calling those basic infantry guys 'little Susies' or whatever, they're still going to do the same things, and more importantly, that's what we'd have to start calling them here, because paintball is a sport of the people, and its lingo was created by the people. Our own personal feelings don't count a whit. ~ Maximilli, 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying that I'm writing about my personal experiences. It's rather insulting. I'm writing about my own field of expertise, which is advanced woodsball. Nothing more. If I ever start telling stories about specific games or whatever, THEN you can frag me, and you'll be justified. 'Til then, please give me a little benefit of the doubt?

By the way, if it seems unbalanced, write about 'basic woodsball' to balance it out. 'Kay? ~ Maximilli, 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Professional teams

The section as it stands right now seems to be an arbitrary list of teams that doesn't really serve any purpose that I can see other than to continuously grow as more and more people add their teams to it. I recommend that we remove it, unless it can be worked into a more useful format. Robogymnast 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Scenario paintball has the same problem. I was thinking that we could just have five or so teams, but then everyone would be clamoring because we arbitrarily picked the teams. However, we can't just remove it, either, 'cause professional teams like XSV and Dynasty and the Russian Legion - they're all important, and they should at least be mentioned in a list. Know what I'm saying?

I honestly can't think of a way to solve the problem. Ideas? ~ Maximilli, 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. See the Paintball league article. Man I'm good at this :P --Ravenstorm 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Health and Safety Article

I oppose merging in the "Health and Safety" "article". It's really just a rant. We have the factual data already in our article; the other article should just be deleted.

Raehl 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, all of the information here is already in the main article. It should be deleted unless it is seriously improved upon to the extent that it merits its own article. Robogymnast 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It definitely reads like a rant without contributing anything new. -Donutmonger 22:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. So somebody decided to grab the facts and beat the air, doesn't mean it's worthy of Wikipedia. --Ravenstorm 23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I already nominated the other article for deletion, so it should take care of itself.

Removing the merge suggestion from our article.

Raehl 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

I personally would like to see this become a featured article. To cite Wikipedia's Featured Article Criteria, such an article requires that:

1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
   • (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
   • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
   • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
   • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
   • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
   • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
   • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I've been sticking with this article for a while now seeing how it's evolving, but it seems to be rife with recurring problems. From what I see, this article suffers from:

• NPOV tangents about the safety, equipment, player positions.
• Constant vandalism
• The cycle of users putting up paintball links and others deleting them for being "advertising" or irrelevant to the article

There's definately more problems with this, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. My suggestion is to get a list of specifics to work on in the article to improve it. Our goal should be to get this "Featured" (or at least good). The perfect article and the writing better articles guides should be useful. Please chime in with any suggestions or if you think I'm way off the mark. VegitaU 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the first things we should do is get rid of most or all of the lists. Those appear to be the targets of the frequent advertising/deadvertising spam. Things like the tournament leagues list should be put into a paragraph form or even a separate article entirely. Things like the online community list should probably be deleted entirely.

-- Raehl 16:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is a total of six lists in the entire article, counting all the leagues as a single list (they are a single list, in essence). These are unnecessary and aren't very comely at all. A skilled writer would be able to make these lists into proper text, and as Raehl noted, even made into new articles.

I give, for example, the game variations listed in the 'Types of games' section. This would arguably be the easiest one of all to just write out in paragraphs. I might actually do it myself. Come to think of it, perhaps I'll convert all these lists. I've already got an idea how to do it, so somebody else wouldn't have to fumble along until they come up with a way too.

Aside from the lists, I think we should consider seriously revising the image situation here. Being an article that covers such a diverse sport, images should be elemental. However, as of the 15th of October, this page's image count remains at a bare six - six! Now, you may look at some of the other articles I've worked on and call me an image whore 'cause of it, but that's not the case. If you have the patience, you'll note that almost all the other articles I've worked on extensively have not had especially large amounts of images, although it's true I worked the images for the Causes of World War II article. I simply feel that learning is too visual to not have images, especially on things so, well, active, as paintball.

The thing with images is deciding what to have here. As you might know, I've recently created the WikiProject Paintball, which I hope will be the cause of a new wave of activity in the Paintball category. As one would expect, I'm hoping for the Paintball article to be the flagship article of both the category and the project. Of course, this means that it should display our best work, right? What better way to do this than to have the flagship article be an FA?

So in other words, we'd need to have the very best paintball images we have on this page - FA images, FA layout. Now, for the most part, this article's images are good, but why is there an image of a Scenario team posing in camouflage at the intro? Sure, it's a good pic - illustrates the mainstream scenario team - but the article isn't about scenario teams, it's about paintball, right? So we should have a pic of a game in play: some punk getting bunkered, or a rifleman blasting away at a bunker across a field or something like that. The intro images should provide the best pics.

In short, what I've been ranting on about is, for this article to attain FA status, then in my opinion it needs to lose the abundant lists (at least most of them), and its images need to be culled and new images brought in that are much better than before. What does "better" mean? Excellent image quality, excellent subject material (punks getting bunkered and whatnot), and most importantly, a good illustration of the sport as a whole, whatever its particular game type, variation, player positions, et cetera.

Thoughts? ~ Maximilli, 02:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for those of you interested in this article and the category as a whole, please sign up for the Paintball WikiProject here. A number of users have expressed interest, but for some inexplicable reason, just haven't actually signed up yet. We can accomplish a lot more if we're all coming from the same direction, and this can best be achieved not only by talk page discussions, but from a unified approach which takes in the entire category as a whole. Thanks. ~ Maximilli

I believe the to-do list has been well filled out. I agree completely and would strongly recommend that this article becomes a WikiPedia featured article. --RavenStorm

Yes, I completely agree. I'm very happy with this article, and that's probably why it's seen so relatively little of my work. The only thing I might be a little worried about would be the quality of writing, but it's written decently and I wouldn't be able to do a better job. I say nominate.

I'll start this discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paintball page. That way we get everybody's thoughts on the issue. If nobody can think of anything else...bring on the nomination! ~ Maximilli, 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So what's the status on this? Does it need a peer review or something? How far along to at least a good article are we? I haven't heard anything substantial from this Talk Page for a while. VegitaU 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree we really havn't been talking about this at all. On the project talk page i said that we should start discussing the possiblity of renominating paintball again.

i think we are definatly at a good article at least. i actually think we should try to renominate us for featured article but that's just me. But about the actual rating issue we have a rating commitee (of about two or three members) that is about to start, we are just waiting for ravenstorm to create a template for us. your welcome to join, the more people the better (less bias). if you would like to just express your intrest on the project talk page.

anyway let me know what you think- peace out- Threewaysround 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

hey i just got an idea, maybe if we nominate, and get a good article thingy, we might have a better chance on getting a featured article thingy. I"m gonna say this on the project page as well.

-peace - Threewaysround 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Alright, I believe we come a good ways from when we first began discussing article nominations. I'm prepared to nominate this article as a Good Article under the sports section. There are two things I want to resolve before I do this.

• First, we need to work on that worldwide view tag issue. Does everyone feel that the tag no longer applies and the changes that have been made since its placement no longer apply? Or, does anyone feel that there are still major issues to be resolved. I'm not going to nominate (and I would recommend against anyone else nominating this page) while that tag is still up.

• Second, we should discuss the article size. The recommended length for a Wikipedia article is 32KB. This page is already over 46KB. Although lengthy pages may be nominated, I believe this might hurt our review process. Does anyone feel that there is superfluous information that may be cut from the article? Or, does everyone believe that the present length is necessary and the nomination should continue?

I am planning on nominating the article on February 24 (giving us a week to discuss and implement any proposed changes). I hope to hear from you. -- VegitaU 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

hey, as for the worldveiw tag, i beleive we shoult take it down, i acctually started a section about it near the bottem but so far nobodies talked about it there. Also another near the bottem has is about a small citation need thingy, that should probibly have a look taken at (the details are in the section below)

as for the length, i'm pretty sure that just a guidline, as i've seen many featured and good articles that are much longer then this one. Also almost all of the information in the page is relevent and nessicary, so i don't beleive that should be a problem.

i also say go ahead and nominate, i feel that the article is ready.

peace-Threewaysround 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've nominated it as promised. We'll see what goes on from here. -- VegitaU 05:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

nice, now we can hope. I"m thinking of nominating the Woodsball strategy page for a good article, what do you think (we can discuss it on it's page)

-Threewaysround 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

hey we didn't get it, but i say we fix what the guy said at the bottem of the page, and renominate.

-Threewaysround 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. This is a tough article to work one seeing as how there aren't volumes on information related to it. Good work the past few months to all the people that helped improve this article. We definitely cleaned it up from where it used to be. Let's not let the failure discourage us from continuing to enhance this project. -- VegitaU 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

please correct me if i'm wrong, but i like to put things into simple terms just so i and other people understand them better.

Basicaly we have to

1. fix up the sturcture a bit
2. take out trival facts from lead/intro-Done please check my edits to make sure quality work
3. provide some more inline citations,
4. make it more reliable with less original research?!?
5. and make it a tad bit more NPOV.

With my understanding of the above critiques if we fix these problems we should be at good article quality. So lets get cracking.

i also wrote this below in the actual section with the critiques just so people will see it there when/if they look there.

peace-Threewaysround 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

For those of you that monitor this page regularly, does it seem that this page is being vandalized more than it's being substantively improved? Personally, I think it would be a good idea for the page to be locked. -Donutmonger 22:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If others do, you can submit this page for protection here. VegitaU 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think locking the article may be a bit extreme - we should try eliminating most of the lists from the article first, and see how far that gets us in eliminating a lot of the vandalism. Raehl 16:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that more of the vandalism is occuring in the first paragraph (a lot of people seem hellbent on establishing paintball as a non-sport) and the history section, though I'm open to getting rid of the lists first and seeing what happens. -Donutmonger 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We should probably get rid of the external links section altogether. Just limiting it to history isn't stopping people from linkspamming. I know we were keeping sites like Sunyjim's for integration with the article, but it might be better just let the WikiProject Paintball people add it in. I still think that page protection is a good idea too. --Donutmonger 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection ought to do the trick. --Ravenstorm 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there some sort of limit to the number of times we can apply for semi-protection? Vandalism resumed almost immediately after the last two-week time limit expired. --Donutmonger 05:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell is this page unprotected now? There's constant vandalism. Did someone think it was never going to happen again? This page needs semi protection. -- VegitaU 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ya this page definatly needs it. The only reason the page isn't completely trashed is because every few edits to the page are reverts. Thankfully we have some very persistent users combating vandalism, it's almost always reverted even before i could get there. But semi-protection is a must, i would put it on myself, but i'm not sure how.

peace-Threewaysround 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Paintball

The Paintball WikiProject has been created. Please take a moment to visit its page, and join if you are interested. Thanks! ~ Maximilli, 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourneyball—>Speedball

I've changed the name of this section to Speedball because while virtually all tourneyball is played speedball-style, not all speedball is played in tournaments. It's more accurate to call this 'Speedball' and include references to tourneyball, rather than the other way around. I'm posting this exact same argument inside the text itself, to make sure any potential editor reads it. Please feel free to write more in the section, because I don't want my woodsballer slant to creep in. okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

If there's any dispute on my rationale, please discuss it with me here or on my talk page. ~ Maximilli, 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -WhoIsJohnGalt?

Speedball Article

Since the speedball section on the main paintball page seems to be more informative than the main speedball article it links to, I think it might be appropriate to use the current section as the basis to expand the speedball article, and leave a shorter summary in the main paintball article. Robogymnast 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work on it next time I have ten minutes or so. ~ Maximilli, 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV section tag

I added the NPOV tag to the Public Perception section because of the the article takes the point of view that Paintballing is not a war simulation, when the neutral viewpoint would simply acknowledge the controversy, and maybe hilite a few key points on both sides of the issue. Additionally, quoting safety statistics has nothing to do with whether or not paintballing is warlike, and is a non-sequiter aimed at distracting the reader from the real controversy.

In the second paragraph, "competitive paintball bears virtually no resemblance to war at all" is an opinion. Then the paragraph again slips into a non-sequiter, referencing organizing bodies and ruling groups, which has little to nothing to do with the controversy. ~ Riobranden 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The title of the section is 'public perception', not 'Is paintball a warlike simulation?' I think you have to address the content in relation to the section. I agree that it isn't neutral point of view, however, the safety statistic is not referened in relation to the 'paintball is warlike' perception, it's referened in relation to the 'paintball is not safe' public perception. And while we can go on all day about whether paintball is a war-like simulation (it's not), paintball *IS* safe. That's a referenceable fact. Although, public perception that paintball isn't safe currently isn't a referenced fact, so if we're not adding a reference to that, maybe we should just delete the whole safety thing.

Also, NPOV doesn't say the article shouldn't give the reasons why paintball isn't a warlike simulation, just that it also should present reasons why it is.

Raehl 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the more useless information in this section. Whether or not it is still POV is for you guys to judge.

--RavenStorm 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Next time I have a few minutes, I'm going to take the section and completely rewrite it. That should remove the POV. If somebody still has an issue, then talk to me and I'll see what I can do. Okay? ~ Maximilli, 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody beat you to it. I propose we remove the Neutrality tag. This new edit is nothing short of excellent. --Ravenstorm 13:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that. Hey, now I get to spend more time on the Woodsball article, so it's all good. :) Anyway, I went through the section word-by-word and have embedded notes after sentences which make some potentially contestable claims. I backed up the reference to ice hockey fighting with a URL from USA Today, to avoid the possibility of some ice hockey proponent coming across the statement and indignantly flying his colors. After going through it a second time, I decided I agreed wholeheartedly with RavenStorm, and thus having achieved the concensus of about half the people involved with this issue of the section, I removed the POV tag. Congratulations everyone, especially the chap who re-wrote it - CyrusCoriogan, if I remember correctly. It's a pity he's a redlink. ~ Maximilli, 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, I think we need to not have the hockey thing in there. Personally, I think there are just as many fights following paintball games as there are following hockey games, and absent any actual statistics of the frequency of fights in paintball and hockey, we shouldn't be claming one has a greater frequency of fights than the other.Raehl 22:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's my opinion that we should have the hockey reference. I was going to do the same for soccer (anyone who kept up with this past World Cup would know why), but I simply could not find a citation.

Anyway, I think it's important because the author of that particular sentence intended it to show that violence in paintball is not as significant as it is in other sports. I myself have played a lot of paintball, and I've never seen players actually go to blows. It's true, most of my paintballing has been woodsball, but even with speedball everyone around here is relatively honorable and thus there's not much occasion for fighting. Otherwise, violence in paintball is pretty much nonexistent. It's as XSV's Ricky Cuba said: "Paintball's just a cooler game of tag." That's another thing I'd have put into the section, but refrained from doing so because I saw it during an ESPN presentation of the X-Ball championships and don't think it's on the 'Net anywhere. Anyway, d'ye see what I mean, Raehl? ~ Maximilli, 03:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the issue - I understand that you WANT to show that paintball is less violent than other sports, but YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW IF THAT IS TRUE! I've played lots of sports. I've played years of soccer, cross country, track, and paintball. The only sport I have EVER seen two athletes come to blows are paintball and hockey. The only sport I have ever seen two athletes come to blows OUTSIDE of the college/Pro level is paintball. (I've never seen people supposedly playing hockey for fun fight. I have seen many people playing paintball 'for fun' fight.) Your, or my, or anyone else's personal anecdotal perception of the level of violence in each sport is not sufficent for inclusion in the article. Raehl 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, cool down. Shouting is rude. And please take this constructively: you sound like you're ticked off.

About the issue at hand, I really don't think that violence in paintball is very big. Sure, you see the odd fight, but if you watch enough or play enough of a sport, you'll eventually see fighting anyway. The reason why violence in paintball is enunciated by so many is that, stereotypically, paintball is an adrenaline junkie's sport, with highly competitive and hot-headed young male players shooting each other repeatedly. In short, it is stereotypically viewed as a violent sport. Because of it, fighting within paintball will be pointed out. That's just the nature of things.

I watch a lot of pro tourneyball on TV, right? I've seen eight or nine pro tourneys recently, and attended a couple local semi-pro/recreational tourneys, and during all those games, I've seen maybe two or three fights, and none of them actually fell to blows. Even in rec paintball, fights are few and far between. On the other hand, you go to a high school or college soccer match, and you see fights every other game. ~ Maximilli, 18:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw a game of Table Tennis degenerate into a fight once. I saw a game of chess end with one player being unceremoniously thrown down a flight of stairs. Competition brings people that take things too far, and often it's the people more than the sport that causes the conflict. I was in a paintball related fight once - I was reffing and I asked someone who was being dangerous to leave the field. It had nothing to do with paintball as much as it had to do with him being dangerous.202.161.30.153 12:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've played high-school lacrosse games that frequently come to blows, and not just with fists. Paintball is war simulation, it is not uncommon to be angry at one who has shot you. The portion of violence in professional paintball needs to be pointed out, but really is a much smaller, less intense situation than is presented; it certainly shouldn't warrent discussion. -WhoIsJohnGalt?

Overview update

I added a whole new paragraph to the overview, giving a brief yet detailed description of paintball. Yes, there are a few unsources statements in there, but please, do not delete the entire paragraph: simply removed what is no good. --Ravenstorm 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering about this section: "Paintball is a non-regulation sport in which participants use compressed air guns called markers to shoot paintballs at other players. It is in essence a complex form of tag, as players struck with paintballs during the game are eliminated."

1., The most common form of propulsion is Co2, not compressed air

2., Players struck with paintballs are not always removed right away (special rules, or the shooter may have violated one). I am of the mind that it should say, "[...]are eliminated, except under certain rules or circumstances."

For now, I have changed it (#2) to that. The Editor 2 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I live in Australia, and HPA is more common for privately owned markers over here than CO^2. Rental markers are a different story, however. 202.161.30.153 12:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing Locations

I think the picture in the "playing locations" section should be re-labeled "A typical speedball field", (currently it is "a typical tournement field") although I wouldn't know because I have never been to a speedball or tourneyball field, but it looks like plain speedball to me. Let me know if I'm being stupid. :) The Editor 2 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed it. Thanks for the heads-up. ~ Maximilli, 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists issue

Hey everyone. Just finished working on a few of the lists we have in this article. I've gotten the count down to four, of which only two are in the actual text of the article, with the remaining pair being at the end of the article where one would expect lists to be in the first place. ~ Maximilli, 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives similar to paintball

" Games must be played indoors under low-light conditions in order for the sensors to work properly." Not true, my old field runs lasertag outdoors during the day. I'm going to remove this. Hell Puppy 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Paintball Equipment

hey i have a question why is there a full section in the article about paintball equipment, when it's just a link. Seriously i don't see the point of having a level 2 headline and everything for just a link. Why not just put it as a link at the bottom. if theres a special reason or something let me know, but it just weird right now

User:Three ways round 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also as an extra note, instead of compeltely takeing the section out, Maybe we could just write a paragraph or too with the link there as well, in fact i'll probibly do that right now. i'd appreciate if somebody could check or edit it to make sure it's good.

peace-Three ways round 23 December, 19:06 (UTC)

Whoever fixed my version up-good job it's way better than mine.

peace-Three ways round 28 december 19:28

World View Tag

Hey i was wondering if anyone still feels that we need the Worldview tag. I feel that we've come a long way from when we put the tag up and i think we should consider takeing it down. Any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

insurance citation need in public acceptance

as the headline sugests there is a sitation needed thing in the public acceptance section, about a insurance study. I was wondering if this is the same insurance study that is talked about much above that at the start of the safety rules section. because on that one there is some notes at the bottem and a link. So if it is that one, we can remove the citation needed thing. Any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics Graph

Can someone please edit the graph. It should read "Number of Paintball Players" instead of "Amount". And it might be good to note which country the figures are from. At the moment the graph lacks context.--Fijiboy 05 02:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Have edited the caption, but if no one wants to re-do the graph, I think it should be removed.--Fijiboy 05 23:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in Spelling

I noticed an instance where the British spelling "favoured" was used and another where the American spelling "favored" was used. Should they both be the same to achieve consistency throughout the article or are the different spellings intentional? Dissentor 23:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

lets just use favoredDappled Sage 04:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

SoCalPaintballing.com?

Can someone help justify the means of * SoCalPaintballing.com being added to the external links? I think that only resourceful and/or informational paintball websites should be included like www.paintballguns.net/paintball.php. SoCalPaintballing.com seems to be constantly added as I remove it - as I don't see it worthy enough to be displayed on such a general article (seeing how it only targets Southern California paintballers).

Agree or disagree? PoohBear88 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PoohBear88 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Agree Same reason as PoohBear88. Dissentor 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree The site is too localized as mentioned above. VegitaU 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a like to here: [1]?

Yeah, I'm sorry but that has to be the most non-encyclopedic article I've come across. It was tagged almost straight off the bat, but you blanked the apparent and justified criticism. You either need to completely rewrite that page in a proper format or delete it. VegitaU 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn this was an information site. The SoCal area is specific to socal with links to ALL places to play. I read the article, and I think that is a good start for the subject.

Whatever, it's gone now. VegitaU 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Generally fine. The lead could use more organization by putting the general information first and then the slightly more specific details. Eliminate trivial facts from the lead.

2. Factually accurate?: OK, but there some sections have no citations to prove their validity. Although inline citations are not absolutely required for GA, they are needed when the content may be questionable.

3. Broad in coverage?: Good coverage of the subject.

4. Neutral point of view?: There are a few problems. For example, it says "In the UK, more advanced and reliable marker brands..." in one place; this expresses an opinion. If it is a general assumption, then please provide an inline citation.

5. Article stability? No problems.

6. Images?: Enough.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

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

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

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

please correct me if i'm wrong, but i like to put things into simple terms just so i and other people understand them better.

Basicaly we have to

1. fix up the sturcture a bit
2. take out trival facts from lead/intro
3. provide some more inline citations,
4. make it more reliable with less original research?!?
5. and make it a tad bit more NPOV.

With my understanding of the above critiques if we fix these problems we should be at good article quality. So lets get cracking.

peace-Threewaysround 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A Sport?

My mom says Paintball is not a sport, and that Colleges wont care if Im good at it. Yet they will be ok with a sport that no one plays like...rugby...what? Can someone prove my mom wrong?--64.121.58.43 06:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well really it all depends on the definition of a sport. because Archery, and gaming (as in hunting) are both considered sports, so what makes a sport. Also cheerleading is actually considered a sport, as well as many other weird things. i'm not the most knowledgable about this kinda stuff, but i beleive that paintballing should be a sport, but it is a topic of great controversy.

if you measure sports by competitions, paintballing is a sport as well. you can compete in paintball tournaments and people are even getting sponsorships for paintballing, and there are many professional paintballers. See Oliver Lang as an example.

As to whether collages will care or not, if you find a collage that offers paintballing scholerships let me know, because i will definatly see if i can get in there. But just because you can't get a scholership doesn't mean it's not a sport. I don't know of many scholerships for archery, or hunting but does that make them any less a sport.

so hopefully somebody else will provide some insight as well, but do some research into the actually definition of a sport.

peace-Threewaysround 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Something to add

Paintballs hurt a lot more if they don't burst when they hit somebody, but usually the temperature is only low enoguh on very cold days, or in winter, for this to happen. How could this be added to the article? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 04:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Safety statistic

It says at one point that there are "0.2 injuries per 1,000 exposures". That's fine, but would anyone object to me (or anyone else who wants to) changing it to something that makes more sense, like "1 injury per 5000 exposures". This doesn't alter the actual statistic, but sounds much more sensible, as I can't conceive of how you could get 0.2 of an injury. Prophaniti 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

speedball picture at top

hey what happened to the speedball picture at the top of the page, that was used in conjunction with the woodsball image. it is now replaced with a picture of a MILSIM team. it kinda disappeared a while back. I thought it was good there, because it showed the two main streams of paintball side by side. if the image was deleted, maybe we could add another speedball image there?!? any thoughts?!?

peace -Threewaysround 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Playing Locations possable Vand

I have noticed that on this field where it says Game Locator it has a website for a team named Team inferno. this link is supposed to be a game locator right? instead its directing to the homepage of this team. can someone replace the link to the place its supposed to go or is this how this link is supposed to be? if this is the case then the link should be removed as it is advertising team infernos team. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

where exactly is it? it's a big article-Threewaysround 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)