Talk:Paintball/Archive 1

message: Hey guys - we have a Scenarioball article, a Woodsball article, but no Speedball article. I think this should be changed. There's a lot of information on each of these game styles, and since each can be so different from the others, it's right that we have different articles for each. Now, I'd write the article, but I'm not a speedballer by any stretch of the imagination, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea. So could we get an experienced speedballer who's familiar with speedball philosophy and tactics to at least start and lay down the basics for a Speedball article? Thanks everybody. 
Maximilli 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedball Article 

message: I see a lot of people making changes that are, perhaps, unencyclopedic.  Specifically referring to specific markers and current prices.  In my opinion, this is not the place for such things.  This page is for the sport of paintball, mentioning the equipment only in general terms.  I know that our sport is (overly?) fixated on the equipment, but that shouldn't necessarily be reflected in this article.  Please see the Paintball marker article for specifics of markers.  Should you have a marker of choice, and feel that you are qualified to do it justice, I welcome you to create an article for your marker.  Indeed, Autococker fans have done just that.
References to current prices should be limited.  Firstly, Wikipedia and paintball are both international entities.  I see no particular reason to list information in the main article that, without a doubt, vary widely by location.  While one could use rates of exchange to determine an approximate value, the local market/tarrifs may (and most likely does) make the actual price much different.  In addition, in time any prices listed will change.  A large number of prices makes this article more difficult to maintain without adding much usefulness to the picture.
Compulsion 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Guidelines

message: The portayal of Woodsball and Speedball/Tournament playing styles varies within this article, depending on who is doing the editing.  If you're considering contributing, please strive to maintain a neutral point of view, despite any preference you may have. Compulsion 15:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodsball vs Speedball and tournament

message: All sports are tempered mock combat ... "battle simulation" if you will.  The thrill of victory without the disrespect of death to your adversary.  I think to be a bit more fair it should be pointed out that although many sports such as football, chess, soccer etc. are also highly evolved simulated combat it may be the superficial resemblance to actual war, especially with woodsball equipment, that may cause some people to associate it with a "war game" while overlooking the more positive aspects of playing any sports ... engendering fair play for example.
:Well said. I've been listening to other people talk about paintball, and have been mentioning the sport to non-players more than usual.  A surprising number don't understand the sport.  Some do think it's a war simulation.  Quite a few want to be a sniper :)
I recognise what you say that a paintball sniper is an ozymoron, but think about it, a player in paintball with an accurate paintgun can utalize every skill of the military sniper, except for long range shooting.  They can provide murderously accurate suppresive firs, stake out an extremely effective ambush, etc.  If you want more proof, go to specialopspaintball.com, there are several articles on precisely this topic.          Webster2
I'm not sure that people mistaking paintball for a war simulation is accurate.  I'm not in a position to say for sure, however, being actively involved in the sport.  However, I do know that events like Oklahoma D-Day are not aimed towards reenactment, but rather use military campaigns to add flavor to the event.  Believe me, the reenactment scene is completely different from paintball.
The "Injury and Danger" section merely reiterates parts of the safety section.
The necessity of the "Quality of Equipment" section is debatable.  A similar effect takes place in many sports/games/activities.  The person with better gear is often assumed to be a better player.  This is, of course, not true.  Some great futbol players started without even a real ball; they just used whatever was around.  I'm not sure the phenomenon needs to be reiterated.  Once someone starts playing it won't take long for him or her to figure this out on their own.  I don't think that a small section here would make any difference.
Compulsion 15:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Misconceptions Section

message: Anyone care to put up the negative aspects of paintball, because I for one know there are plenty of critics. Ranging from Cost, its defination as a "sport or just a hobby," and even the stupidity of the game itself - Sepht
:Erm... sure, you can write a section if you like. Chances are high that it'll get torn to bits.
:Yes, it's expensive. It's gradually getting cheaper, thank God. Wether it is a sport or hobby? It honestly depends on the person, doesn't it. Tell a NPPL player that it is just a hobby, and they probably won't agree with that at all. On the other hand, it really is just a hobby for me. The same thing is true in other places too. I have friends who autocross their cars on the weekend. They tell me that it's their hobby. Does that make car racing not a sport? They aren't mutually exclusive, and you don't have to be derogatory to hobbyists by calling it "just a hobby". Finally, calling the game stupid with no justification at all is likely to get you written off as a flamer. Is it a particular aspect of paintball, or is it just games in general? I, for example, see paintball as being less stupid than basketball. Getting a bunch of people together to throw a ball through a hoop is pretty stupid, right? Kobold 6 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)
You got it right on, Kobold, paintball is just like any other sport, it can be a pastime or a living.  Many critics of paintball think that it is a wargame, as many have said, and that only war junkies or crazy teens play it.  This is very untrue.  While you can replicate battles in paintball, and that can be very fun, everybody can play paintball.  For example, I know an 11 year old girl who plays.  Another thing is many of the critics you mentioned dislike paintball for the reson I just said, they think its only for adreneline high teens.  Paintball is a family sport, and this is what most people don't get.  Oh, Kobold, I agree with you that basketball is much stupider than paintball.    Webster 2
:That sounds like encyclopedia material Sepht, how objective of you. :P ~ GardenStater
If you don't like paintball, don't visit the page. If you do, but you want to post negative aspects (why?) just don't. It helps the hobby/sport grow, and not look like a wargame where you injure each other
---
It would seem unlikely that anything negative posted would actually survive without being deleted by proponents, simply because the proponents outnumber the detractors.  Let's face it, Wiki is the ultimate demonstration of how true democracy is impossible, unachievable, and frankly an undesirable failure.  Without any controls, it will inevitably degrade into either chaos and anarchy or mob-rule.  And with controls will come egos, power-plays, politics and censorship.  And now, I'm gonna click the "sign your name" link, without actually being signed in... I wonder.....  In any case, I am User KirbyWallace.  Hope I did this "talk" thing correctly.    --68.99.76.43 00:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Aspects of Paintball

message: In Germany, this is also called Gotcha. How about other countries? --zeno 06:58 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
Also called Gotcha in Colombia and Mexico. Plainly paintball in spain.
Bambi Hunt is a hoax... Bugmuncher 08:40, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Paintball in Other Countries

message: People need to be on the lookout for the sort of superstition that tends to pervade in paintball, for example that closed bolt is more accurate, and actively try to keep that out of the article. I'm going to go through the article and clean up the stuff I can see.
Kobold 06:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Superstitions

message: I moved this from the Paintball article. There may be a theme worth exploring here, but as it stands, this is hardly NPOV. 
:Recently, the paintball industry has experienced the effects of a few companies who feel they own everything. Action Markers is one of the most recent companies that has closed due to legal threats from larger companies. Smart Parts is regarded by many as the first to start this trend. For this reason, Smart Parts has gained a very negative reputation by many.
Does someone want to take a crack at improving it? Bbpen 02:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, as the paintball industry has consolidated with large sporting goods companies buying up maker manufactures, there has been an increase in Patent claims, to protect their newly purchased  investment. The effect has been to close the open sharing attitudes amonst top marker manufacturers and has resulted in numerous patent claims, demands for royalties, and cease and desist orders. Action Markers is one of the most recent loosers in these disputes.  Smart Parts is regarded by many as the first to start this trend. For this reason, they have gained a very negative reputation by many.
other than that sounds about right
--SunyJim 05:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Industry conflicts" section 

message: "Renegade" players use unregulated fields often in wooded areas, many times without the owner's knowledge. It shouldn't be thought that these "Renegade" players are unsafe or breaking any laws...
Wouldn't that be trespassing? I think that the author was trying to say that the use of markers is not usually against the law (as opposed to actual firearms, which are much more regulated), but this section makes it sound like running around on someone's lot without thier permission is OK.
--Alanhaley01 17:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Players 

message: Tournament paintball should be merged into here. Comments? --Banana04131 03:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge:Tournament paintball

message: I'm moving the Stock Class section to Paintball marker. It should fit better there.
Zack Green 21:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock Class - Moving 

message: Someone changed the spelling from "woodsball" to "woodballs" in only two places in the "woodsball" section. I changed it back for the sake of consistency; if "woodballs" is the correct term, please change it throughout and post the reason, for our edification. : ) Her Pegship 15:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling change

message: This section is in desperate need of a rewrite, and whoever wrote it is in dire need of being reminded that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia NOT and advertising medium to attract new players to the sport. While the basic concept of a section with such a title is warrented, the very first line: "So you want to be a part of a great sport.", gives a flavour of just how un-encyclopedic this section is.
I did a small amount of rewriting, 1) to remove blatent POV phrases (such as the example listed) and to 2) remove the boxed layout format which had been inappropriatly applied to the entire section. However a complete rewrite of the section by someone with more knowledge of the sport than I is really required to totally remove POV opinions, minimise brand-name referencing and generally bring the section upto suitable Wikipedia quality. - Canderra 21:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Get into Paintball Section needs a rewrite 

message: I've played paintball once, but I already knew the tactics presented on the Special Ops site (cited in article, www.specialopspaintball.com), though I had come up with them as a result of my own research.  That information is just to clarify the position I come from with this comment.
Towards the end of the article, there is an argument (NOT objective fact, let's note) that it is skill that determines success in paintball, not equipment.  Good equipment is simply admitted as something that "doesn't hurt".  On my SINGLE DAY of paintball, we managed to beat some teams that obviously invested significantly in the game both in terms of their weapons and time, as we could see from their equipment and uniforms.  We scored victories when we had someone on our side with a rapid-firing gun, and when we didn't, we got somewhat cremated.
Consider this:
"When men of equal worth fight on unequal terms, the side with the better weapons wins."
John Keegan, A History of Warfare (Reading: Pimlico Press, 1994) p38.
This section of the article seems more like prideful posturing than an objective analysis of the situation.  I'm not going to pretend for a moment that we didn't make newbie mistakes, but we all came away with the lasting impression that the most destructive thing had been the rapid-firing ultra-accurate weapons as opposed to our semi-automatic inaccurate rentals which had a tendency to either jam or expend all of their air in a loud rumbling sound.
This ties in with the fact that a section suggested elsewhere on this talk page, the problems with paintball, doesn't exist.  This article reads more like a cheering section than as part of an encyclopaedia.
--
Firstly, let me say that I agree that parts of this article are not encyclopedia material.  I am for the removal/editing of certain sections as well, but have refrained from overhaul out of respect to their authors.  I've posted what I think are some reasonable guidelines in response to these edits.  It's looking as though some major edits will be necessary, however.  
Having said that, perhaps there needs to be some clarification regarding what classes of weapons are being compared.  Certainly someone using rental gear is at a significant disadvantage compared to those using a modern electronic marker.  However, you'll find that in the hands of a novice there is little difference between a $300 and $1300 marker.  With time they'll be able to appreciate the difference and, perhaps, reap the benefits.
Compulsion 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of equipment debate?

message: I just added a couple of slang terms while they were on the top of my head. I hope they are agreeable.
Tarentinos 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some slang terms 

message: Someone keeps changing the standard mark size from Quarter to Nickel.  The standard has always been a US Quarter size mark or bigger to determine if you are emlimated or not.
-- Why not specify this in cm or inches? Saying "a round, solid spot of 1.5 cm or more in diameter" ... is much more palatable for international readers who may not grasp what a US quarter is
-- This is probably a result of the required size being a nickel at the particular person's prefered playing location.  The reality is that the size shouldn't be specified at all - it varies tremendously from location to location, and is more of a house rule than a paintball standard.  Beware anyone who claim something along the lines of "The standard has always been".  In this case in particular, the "quarter" rule isn't a rule as much as it is a guideline to new players to help them differentiate hits from splatter.  In most settings, especially tournaments, a hit is a hit, regardless of size.  Raehl 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Mark Size 

message: While quite well written in general, I find certain aspects of the "Styles of Play" section and in particular the "Formats" sub-section of the article confusing. Is the "Formats" list a sub-sub-section of the "Tournament" sub-section (i.e. listing the types of tournament games played) or does it describe additional general formats for playing paintball? It also states "Popular non-Xball center-flag formats include:" even though Xball is not yet introduced and it is not made obvious (at least to me) as to why XBall is singled out (i.e. why not "Popular non-woodsball center-flag formats..." etc). Also, why is Reball listed as a style of play? surely it is a technical detail about equipment sometimes used while playing another style of play rather than a style of play itself.
Finally, I'm pretty sure Recball (short for 'recreational paintball') is the most common name for non-tournament paintball (Woodsball?) style of play here in the UK (not sure about other countries) but  it is not mentioned under the Styles of Play section, the word appears only in the "Types of Players" section, however I think most people (at least here in the UK) would define Recball as the name of a style of play rather than the name of a type of paintballer. Rather than brashly altering the article myself I thought I'd first allow other to comment on these points here. Canderra 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles of Play - Format section. A couple of thoughts 

message: The guy's opinion at the top about how to be in a team and how to buy stuff.  What does anyone want to do with that?  It's misspelled, and doesn't seem very encyclopedic... -Paul
: I got rid of that garbage. Most of what is said is discussed NPOV in the article and there is already a hidden, embedded section on buying paintball guns and how to set up a match. That doesn't belong here. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a blog. The links on the bottom to reference material is where opinions and such should go. This is an encyclopedic article on the sport of paintball, the major ways the sport can be played, and the different, objective features of the game, not a "So You Wanna Play a Little Paintball?" How-To Guide.VegitaU 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description at the top 

message: I'm going to gradually add things to this article. Eventually, I'd like to have in depth descriptions of all the different types of marker (spool valve, blowback and et cetera) along with more complete lists of manufacturers with their histories, lists of teams and much more.
I'm still fairly new to the wikipedia game, so any assists with editing would be appreciated.
mattdenn
I added a few photographs of the general layout of tournament fields, snap shooting examples under the strategy section, and a tournament photo.  Please align these pictures as they are spilling over their appropriate sections.
I think the list of teams is getting a little out of hand; people are adding any pro team that's out there. This list could go on for quite some time. If it belongs anywhere, it's probably a separate article. --UNHchabo 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need more information 

message: My main concern with Slingshot paintball is velocity limits. There's no way to verify that people are shooting at safe speeds, since all you need to do to increase velocity is pull back farther. Can this be put in the article somewhere? Besides, how big is slingshot paintball anyway? I've only seen it in non-paintball catalogs and other places like that, next to the blowgun-style equipment. --UNHchabo 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slingshot 

message: What the heck does this mean?  "The most efficient way of shooting the other player out is by walking the trigger like Oliver Lang."
In any case, tips on efficent playing probably don't belong in the intro paragraph.
:Done. :) --UNHchabo 06:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walking the trigger?  Oliver Lang? 

message: So exactly how many "notable" teams are we limiting this listing to? --UNHchabo 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Listings 

message: The 'Safety rules' section states that "barrel plugs must be in at all times when not in the playing area."
Technically, that isn't entirely accurate. Granted, all (reputable) fields require that some method of rendering the markers safe must be employed, but some fields don't use barrel plugs (whether because they tend to fall out, or some people can't get them out, or can't get them in, or whatever the reason), and instead use 'condoms'. (a little cloth baggie attached to an elastic cord that stretches over the barrel.)
Thing is, I have no clue how to correct the safety entry to make it more accurate, but not confusing.
Any volunteers?
--Edit: Sorry, my bad. They're mentioned elsewhere.
The real issue is that safety has at least four entries in the article. How in the world is this necessary?
It smacks of propaganda. I like paintball, but I'd never misrepresent it at all.
(To that end, removing the line "As long as the players follow the rules, paintball is an entirely safe sport." Trust me, if you get hit close-range right in the testicles, which isn't technically prohibited by the rules in most fields, there's a very real chance of significant injury. "Entirely safe" is an outright fabrication and lie. It may be safer than many other sports, but it is not entirely safe. And statements to the contrary have no place here.)
:Well a Paintball Paradise in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, they have changed from barrel plugs to barrel condoms.  But now Paintball Paradise makes you buy them because they don't rent out barrel condoms anymore.  Mr. C.C. 14:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrel Plugs 

message: "One common misconception is that paintball simulates war..."
That isn't a misconception. It's an absolute fact that it frequently does.
Has nobody ever heard of 'tactical' play? Using markers that are either produced or modified to more closely resemble actual assault rifles/sniper rifles/etc... Dressing up in camo like real soldiers... and playing in teams, specifically to play the role of commandos?
And that's ignoring the significance of paint claymores, grenades, etc...
As it stands, it's patently false. It needs to be either corrected or removed.
For those wishing to correct it, it would be a simple task to alter it to state that players aren't typically associated with death or killing. That would certainly be an accurate observation.
Also:
"...and the small, but noticeable resemblance of markers to firearms..."
The resemblance isn't small. In fact, kits designed to modify the markers to more closely real-life firearms proves this.
Go ahead and look up some of the kits for Tippman A5's. The resemblance isn't small. Many (not all, but certainly not only a handful) players actively seek to increase this resemblance, and even pay money to that effect.
Furthermore, paintball pistols are getting closer and closer to the appearance of real pistols.
(right down to paintball clips, complete with shell casings to be ejected from the side of the pistol. Heck, you can even get them with METAL casings to make it sound more authentic!)
Any suggestion that the resemblance to firearms is small is inherently false.
Thirdly:
"One common misconception is that paintball simulates war..."
"And "scenario" paintball games seek to re-enact historic wars..."
So... some of the games 're-enact' then, but don't 'simulate' them? This needs to be either fixed or removed.
And, finally:
"...thanks largely to vandalism (most often by non-players)..."
That's extremely POV. And even hostile.
To put it simply, the entire entry ranges from outright lies to POV.
The reason I mention it here, instead of fixing it myself, is because, when seeing a fundamentally false entry, my first instinct is simply to delete the entire entry. So, I'll let you guys fix it.
I should like to point out that I am not an opponent of paintball. Quite the contrary, I enjoy playing, and do whenever I can. However, I greatly despise misrepresentation. And, besides that, I don't think you can truely be a fan of something if you are incapable of addressing it openly and honestly.
Bladestorm 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Misconception 

message: Okay, we need some fixing done here, and I haven't been doing edits long enough to find the 'revert' button.
(yeah, I know, I suck)
However, numerous changes have been made that I'd say border on vandalism.
While although slingshots may not deserve their own separate entry, they are still worth mentioning. Deleting their existence entirely is grossly inappropriate. The fact is, some people do use slingshots.
Second, references to 'paintball snipers' has been removed, justified by the statement, "there is no such thing as a paintball sniper."
I would challenge anyone who believes that to find a definition of 'sniper' that fits then.
"snip·er 
   1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
   2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place."
"sniper   n : a marksman who shoots at people from a concealed place"
Could someone please explain to me how a person who dresses up in a ghillie, finds a single location to wait, and then picks off targets while remaining entirely concealed... how does that not fit the definition of a "sniper"?
Marksman? Yup.
Shooting? Yup.
From a concealed place? Yup.
(one of the tactical players was set up so well-concealed that another player actually hid behind him... then, when going after someone else, got shot in the back. And couldn't figure out where it came from. Somehow, I think that counts as "concealed".)
So, deleting that section can only be justified if you choose to arbitrarily redefine the word "sniper".
It needs to be reverted. Bladestorm 14:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butchering 

message: Guys, I know there are some disagreements on how to handle some of these issues...
But, is there any chance of being just a bit more mature about it?
When we were discussing slingshots and other equipment, trying to decide how and where to include them, outright deleting the section completely is downright rude. Gutting the woodsball section without even giving notice of the need for a rewrite was less than considerate.
When one section is gutted, and another one is deleted entirely while people are still discussing it, well, to be honest, I think it borders on vandalism. I can see the desire to contribute, but I still think it shows a lack of respect for the other people who are actively trying to contribute as well. We'll make a lot more progress if we cooperate, rather than bouncing back and forth between deletions and reverts.
Well, since I forgot to sign my comment anyways, guess I may as well add one more thing.
As far as "just plain crazy" is concerned... while although I hadn't heard of it specifically being given that title before reading it in the article, it nevertheless remains a well-established tradition, whatever you call it. Deleting its entry entirely is a disservice to one of the most fun parts of paintball: Going nuts, without holding back at all, before going home. Is it something you do more than once a day? Nope. Just a way of finishing a day of "real" paintball. But deleting it is akin to saying it doesn't exist, or isn't remotely noteworthy. But it does, and it is.Bladestorm 10:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Courtesy 

message: Per your suggestion, I've reverted those two sections. I see that one part is commented out, and the other is moved. (Also, I appreciate you adding the paint grenade and mine entries yourself.)
I still have a few issues, including some of the edits you were reverting:
*I think too much information was taken out of the speedball section. The general guideline is that removing information should be avoided, and I actually found some of that info informative.
*For example, I found the role of WDP in hyperball interesting, and liked the comments on making it spectator-friendly. I'm not going to get pushy on this subject; merely offering my opinion that I liked that part.
*Also, the little blurb on how airball's technology has evolved was rather interesting as well. If there were a separate airball article, then obviously its history would belong there. But, since it isn't sufficiently significant to warrant a total article, that pretty much leaves just this article. Could I get some opinions on this?
*Since snipers get some mention in the woodsball article, I can live with them not being mentioned here. However, as a matter of dictionary definition, paintball snipers do exist, and can play a very significant role in very large scenario and tactical games. So, the question is, should the term be re-introduced to this article? Or should we assume that it's covered well enough in the woodsball article?
*The "Common Misconceptions" section. Is there really a need for this at all? I can sympathize with players who get tired of stereotypes. However, the entire section seems very much geared to provide a defense. And that really amounts to a point of view.
**I'm not saying that all paintball simulates war. To be honest, I really don't associate speedball with anything "real". However, scenario games, and especially tactical games do a decent job of simulating many aspects of war. And, perhaps more importantly, one of the goals of tactical play is to increase that similarity. That is, increasing the similarity to real combat is the entire point. :)
**The "injury and danger" section really does need to go. It's not that it's false; it's that it's already all been said. Safety already has numerous mentions throughout the article. Another one is simply unnecessary. Furthermore, the general assumption that most people seem to make isn't that they'll actually be seriously injured, it's that getting hit "will hurt". And, that's actually typically true. It frequently does hurt if you get hit in a bad spot. I really don't see why it should be listed.
**The "Quality of Equipment" section is also true... but not specific to paintball. It applies to golf, tennis, and probably just about any other sport where you can choose your own equipment. Its inclusion here seems to be more a matter of people wanting to criticize those really annoying players (everybody knows at least one) that go on and on and on about their new ultra-souped up marker that fires (yadda yadda yadda) a second... But, anyways. Like I said... It's true, but not specific to paintball, and it's not really all that neutral.
*So, in short, two of the three "misconceptions" would really have to go either way. The other one isn't even all that factual. And the general notion of a "common misconceptions" section is hardly neutral.
*I do have a suggestion, though I lack the editorial prowess to implement it myself.
**I think we need something similar to a "paintball philosophy" section. (except, not so... uh... crappy) Basically, some area to present key points in a more objective (and accurate) light.
**For example, paintball sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't simulate war. But, almost universally, paintball doesn't glorify killing.
**There seems to be a general desire for 'fair play'. I can't think of any other sport where the experienced players are so willing to team up with newbies to balance things out.
**The all-inclusive factor. I can't think of any other sport where kids can compete against adults and the kids aren't talked down to, or sent off to the corner, or told to play some imaginary position.
*I may be wrong; and that sort of a section may also lack neutrality. But, as it is, I think the misconceptions section really needs to go.
BTW, is there a way to move some of the older discussions to some sort of an archive page?
--------
The whole article needs a rewrite, or at least a reorganization.  Too much information is repeated, and the whole thing lacks order.  I think that would take care of most of the things you are concerned about, especially if sections like 'common misconceptions' were more innocuously integrated into the rest of the content.  But, until someone has the time to do that...
--Raehl 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Status 

message: I know that you have the basic types of games like woodball, speedball, etc., but I was wondering if an article on games themselves would be good to have.  I know there is capture the flag and various others.  But a page on paintball games would be good to have in my opinion.  Mr. C.C. 14:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paintball games article 

message: The "Paintball lingo" section is getting very long and I know there are many more terms that can be added. I recommend that it get its own article. It would also allow the list to be subcategorized by letter, so that people get the idea that it needs to be alphabetized (I just cleaned it up). Donutmonger 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split: Paintball lingo, etc. 

message: Hey, why was the link to  www.bestpaintballsites.com  taken down? Is there a rule against sites like mine? Other ones seem similar. I'm new to this stuff.
---------
One of the primary determining factors in deciding whether a link is considered spam or not is whether the link is being added by the person operating the website being linked to.  The fact that YOU had to add the link generally means that the site is NOT notable.  If it were notable, someone else would have added it already.
In particular, your site appears to be new, and extremely link-farm advertising oriented.  Other sites that are in the link section are informational websites that have HUGE volumes of traffic and have been around for decades, or are of established paintball organizations.  While maybe someday your website will reach this level, when it does, someone else will add the link for you.
--Raehl 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites like yours 

message: Some sort of general action shot at the beginning of the article would be nice, as well as pictures to break up the huge blocks of text in the "safety rules" and "types of play" sections. Where would we be able to find such pictures that were also in the public domain? I know there are a lot on the paintball forums but are we allowed to use those? Also, I would like to add one of those nifty "This Article Needs Pictures" tags or something but I don't know the code for it. --Donutmonger 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures badly needed

message: I took the liberty of adding all Paintball Variations to a new article. I left in the three basic variations for this article and added a link to the new one. Hope nobody minds!
--Ravenstorm 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paintball Variations 

message: My intent is not to spam this fine medium for paintball information.  I'd like to request that PaintballGuns.net be added to the external links category.  The site is updated every three days with fresh reviews and articles regarding paintball guns.  I have a wide-range of knowledge when it comes to paintball, and I'd like to get the site out as much as I can to pass on what I know.  What do you think?
--------
I think you answered your own question with "I'd like to get the site out as much as I can to pass on what I know".  If you want to pass on what you know, the appropriate way to do that is to add the information to the article(s).  In your case, that would probably best be done in the Paintball Equipment article.  Putting the information on your own commercial (ad-supported) website and then putting a link in Wikipedia is using Wikipedia to direct traffic to your site without actually contributing anything to Wikipedia, which is a no-no.
Raehl 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link addition request 

message: Can we please agree that getting shot at close range is painful, and not "particularly uncomfortable"? I know that we try not to use words like this as to not steer people away from a great sport, but c'mon people, anyone who has had blood drawn from getting bunkered is not going to describe it as particularly uncomfortable. 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunkering 

message: Every once and a while I upload a set of new paintball images that I've taken with the rest of my team. Unfortunately, these are pretty much limited to woodsball, as I myself am not a speedballer and seldom accompany the speedball division of the team. If my plans for a WikiProject come through, then I'm planning on having a project page dedicated just to thumbnails of paintball images, so all the project members can see what images are available for use in whatever article they're working on. 
As it is, you can check in at the Woodsball article for a couple new images I've uploaded in the last couple of days. And again, I'd like everyone here to sign their name in support of WikiProject Paintball here. Thanks everyone. - Maximilli, 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: For those of you that check 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)
thread_title: Vandalism