Talk:Paintball/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I just modified a link description that seemed to be rather advertisement-ish... I just toned it down without removing the content. If this modification was poorly done, please revert it.
Speedball Article
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)
Ramping Modes
There are several types of ramping.
- The most common ramping is when you pull the trigger it will add a certain percentage of shots. For example if you pull the trigger 10 times a second and it is set to ramp 50%, the gun will fire 15 BPS (Balls Per Second).
- Certain rules allow other types of ramping, another type is after you fire a certain amount of times per second, it will fire at a set speed. With this mode lets say it is programed to fire 15 BPS after you pull the trigger at least 5 times per second, until you fire 5 times per second the gun will shoot like it is in a normal semi-automatic mode, but after you pull the trigger over 5 times per second or more, it will shot only 15 BPS.
- Some markers refer to automatic or burst modes as ramping.
- Some markers, when it is put into burst ramp mode, for every trigger pull it will fire 3 times.
- While some automatic modes will fire in full automatic by just holding the trigger most automatic ramping modes used in tournaments, require a set number of trigger pulls per second before it will stay in an automatic mode. For example some tournament rules require that the shooter must pull the trigger at least 3 times in a second then, when the trigger is held down the gun will fire in automatic mode. If you release the trigger for more then one second, it will come out of automatic mode, and you must shot another 3 shots in semi-automatic to re-enable it.
Editing Guidelines
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)
Woodsball vs Speedball and tournament
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)
Common Misconceptions Section
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)
Being a paintball veteran, with about 4 years experience, in woodsball specifically(just getting into speedball) I don't understand how you can say that woodsball is, almost in no way, a war game. Yet when you actually play a woodsball game you keep the war-like mentality for the hours of gameplay it lasts. Minus of course the heavy tramatic fear of killing and dying. You keep constant look out of cover and employ nearly exact re-creations of war like strategies. I won't say this is mistaken for being a violent game considering is such a safe game. But it's not any less war like then say a WWII video game. This of course doesn't/shouldn't add any negetive opinion, or even encourage any actual "homocidal" actions to take place. You usually play the game with friends or others you know and by the end are riddled with "war" like paintball stories. But with my personal experience, I can't read your input and totally agree with it. Of course this can be looked at either way but this is my -personal- opinion.
I finally was able to take the time to pretty much can this section. I collated all of the (often redundant) safety information into the safety rules section. I deleted the 'equipment' misconception entirely - true ornot, not really informative about paintball as it's a common issue in all sports and if people are feeling like they're losing because their oppponentshave more expensive stuff, well, this probably isn't the place to fix that. Finally, rewrote the 'war' thing ot be more related to public perception, a bit about the probable cause of that perception, and as opposed to trying to blanket refute it, covered the paintball player's 'desire' to fight that perception. --Raehl 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Negative Aspects of Paintball
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)
---
Uh, kirby...
You incorrectly listed your personal article as being a "group". That is wrong for so many reasons.
First off, it's inappropriate to list something so specifically and definitively biased in an encyclopedia article.
Second, it's grossly inappropriate to advertise your own personal works in a public article. Wikipedia wasn't created to be your personal source of free advertising.
And thirdly, incorrectly labelling an article as a group is inherently deceptive.
That said, I don't understand your criticisms in terms of democracy. First off, 'democracy' describes a method of governance. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an institution for legislation and distribution of public funds. Besides that, you're saying that democracy is impossible because the will of the majority of the public is what rules? Perhaps you should look up the etymology of "democracy", because you essentially just said that democracy is impossible... because it ends up being democratic.
Perhaps you meant to say 'free speech'? Except, you're more than entitled to say whatever you like about paintball. You are simply expected to separate opinion from encyclopedic reference. So, what precisely is your actual concern about how articles are being handled? Bladestorm
--- First of all, there's nothing remotely "encyclopedic" about wikipedia. It is not an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination. If the rule is "say what you will, but be prepared to be mercilessly edited" then an "encyclopedia" is impossible.
Second, everything in wikipedia is someone's "personal works" and there was nothing "advertising" about my contribution. Someone said thus-n-such, I refuted with that-n-such. Say to yourself "you can't say that here", and then think about "wikipedia is an encyclopedia." If you think about it long enough, it will come to you.
Thirdly, "deception" would require "intention." But, I originally placed a link there (Groups) because it was directly associated with "Christian Paintballers." If I'm building on a part of the article that has to do with "a", then it doesn't make any sense to add that material in "b", (or x, y or z either). If it's related to "a", it should go where "a" is being discussed. But, because it was a section for links to other GROUPS, I did move it to the "News And Info" section (where it was subsequently, and in a completely democratic fashion, again deleted). As for whether or not I qualify for "Major Site" or not, I dunno. But if you google "Christian Paintball" you will find that out of however many thousand hits, that article is number 6 usually, but almost always in the top ten. Make of it what you will. I'm not copying the text of that article into the wiki article, I'm just making an external link to it. So it ought to go in the links section *somewhere*. I can't see where there's any conflict with some perceived non-partisan or religious neutrality rule - after all, my "anti" position is no different than the "pro" contribution already there. There's nothing deceptive about it. A says B, I say C.
That said, on to democracy. What I actually said is that democracy is an undesirable failure. And my comments about it being impossible are related to that. A TRUE democracy (one that actually is desirable) is impossible. As I stated it, I left it by implication - perhaps I should have been explicit. Aside from that, everything that involves the activity of more than one person is going to involve governance of some sort unless anarchy is the objective. So, in fact, there is a government in place at wiki, and it claims to be deomcratic.
You mention that I am "simply expected to separate opinion from encyclopedic reference." What I posted is not opinion. I am presenting it as fact. Nobody reading it would think "this is ambiguous." Yet a certain amount of ambiguity is required for there to be any opinion. There's nothing ambiguous about the content I submitted. Nor is there anything "biased" about it. I have described what I have seen and heard, not what I think I might have seen or heard. It's not my opinion, is my observation.
"some members of the general public believe paintball simulates war and encourages violence... the mechanics of paintball are extremely different from actual combat." That's opinion. And if it is opinion, am I not entitled to produce evidence that this claim is false? The artilce I linked deals extensively with the claim that "paintball is not wargames." That get's "mercilessly edited" while at the same time "One of the largest annual scenario games may be 'Oklahoma D-Day' is given tacit approval. Now tool on over to "www.oklahomadday.com (via the link included in the article), and, while watching that, try to say to yourself with a straight face, "Paintball isn't wargames." And while you're at it, explain to me again how that isn't advertising, or how that is "encyclopedic?"
If a "encyclopedic reference format" is a requirement, the "anybody says anything" democracy is a smoke and mirrors trick much like communism. "Yeah, you are free to say whatever you like, as long as the Kremlin also likes it." Either anyone can edit any article or they cannot. Making it physically possible to edit without any restriction, and then taking exception at something (whatever it is) that gets posted is a kind of hypocrisy.
"Say what you like. But not THAT! Oh, not that either, sorry... and most definately not THAT! Yeah, you can say that, just not here. Or there either. In fact, why don't you just get lost..."
The only hard, non-negotiable rule that I've seen is that if you do not want your stuff mercilessly edited, then don't post it. And you will notice that I haven't complained about my link getting removed.
Is it a free democratic participation? Or does someone, ultimately, rule? If the former, then where is my contribution. If the latter, well, fine - I have no qualm. Just quit calling it "democratic."
A good case in point is this litte episode we are having right now. Despite the "spirit of the law" being that anyone can contribute, the fact of the matter is quite the opposite. Masquerading as democracy, there is in fact a sort of oligarchy, or fascist rule going on here. You (collectively, not personally) do not like what I've posted and you have removed it. But that's not censorship, that's democracy? Harumph! For my part, I wasn't removing anything, or even editing anything. I was merely adding more information.
Like I said, true democratic rule is impossible. There's nothing "democratic" about how wiki works because no one votes (don't start up with "we vote with our editing pens" nonsense), and a few people in power, or a few people with "bots" can overrule the masses and do whatever the hell they please. That's NOT democracy. If it were, then my 89 year old grandma could come in here and say "paintball sucks eggs" and it would remain on the record. (In fact, as soon as I finish this diatribe of mine, I'm gonna test, and, I bet, PROVE that.) BTW - "Paintball Sucks" *is* a perfect example of an opinion.
It may not be stated anywhere to be the official policy, but anyone you ask would almost certainly describe wiki as a "democracy." I'm simply point out that it's not, that it's far more in line with a fascist government than a democratic one. That far from "anyone can contribute", the truth is that some people's contrutions are protected above others. If it were described as "anyone can contribute and it will stick around for about three minutes and then be thrown away and reverted to the previous condition" - I think that might be a more valid description.
The point I am trying to make, ultimately, is that wikipedia is NOT democratic, and in fact cannot be with the structure that is has now. And the second point is that wikipedia is not even close to being an encyclopedia, or even encyclopedic in nature.
--KirbyWallace 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And hey, while we are on the subject, let me add this: What I would like to see, and what I am actually in the process of developing, as a discussion forum for my own websites, is this:
A forum where anyone can contribute, anything. And it sticks. Then, editing or removing it is not a matter of just anyone who wants to do so doing so, but rather a preponderance of consensus must be built to remove or change anything. Thus, if there are fifteen people contributing to a conversation, and one person says something that someone else wants removed, they must get a "simple majority" to agree, and THEN it can be removed. By doing so, nothing is ever removed by just one person. It would work something like this: one person nominates an entry to be removed. If there are fifteen contributors, then SEVEN other contributors must also agree. If that becomes unmanageable (in the case, where say two hundred people have contributed), then another way might be to get a "10 percent Plus 1" rule That is, in the case where 100 people have contributed, it would take at least ten percent of the contributors (plus the ONE, original, instigator) to get it removed. I'm currently writing a web-based "forum" that will do just this. The only "undemocratic" aspect of it is that I must reserve the right to unilaterally remove stuff in the case of really offensive or obvious spam-type replies. (that is, in a discussion of nuclear physics, a contribution of "free nude hot chicks" has obviously gotta go.) But then again, just as I finish saying that, I think the rules I've already set out might be enough. Because surely the "nude chicks" reference will have no problem getting the "preponderance of consensus" necessary to take care of itself, and ergo, it will.
I originally did something like this in a blog in response to an experience in another blog. Some person claimed that they were being "flamed" and "slandered" and deleted the contribution of the other person. I simply asked "what do you mean by 'flamed?'" In response *I* got flamed. "How DARE you defend them!" All I wanted was to know what they had said - what was the other side of the story. Technically, whether or not you are being slandered is never really up to YOU to determine. "Slander" by nature requires a judge to rule on it. So I created my own blog where I laid out all that had transpired by both me and that person, and without any censorship. The rule was, you can say what you like here even if I disagree with it, and I will not censor you." That led to the idea of a web-forum software that would let others do the same if they desired.
--KirbyWallace 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow... That is sooo too long to read in its entirety...
So let me see what I can do here.
- First off, the fact that, instead of simply trying to discuss things, you opted for instead vandalizing the page ("Paintball sucks") really says a lot about your desire to improve the article.
- Second, it's grossly inappropriate to add your own site. If it's noteworthy, then somebody else will add it. If you're the only person willing to add it, then it isn't worth adding.
- Third, while although there are numerous contributions made by countless 'editors' here, the goal is actually not to make the articles places for "original research". Your page was original research. You wanted to discuss your own views on paintball and such.
- Fourth, have I mentioned this? Advertising your own page? I mentioned this? Good.
- Fifth, just because you think that an article is related to a group, that doesn't make it a group in and of itself. Labelling it as a group is either deceptive (which would merit its removal), or simply an outright error (and flagrant inaccuracy also warrants removal). As such, no matter what the reason, it still needed to be removed. So, pick your reason yourself. It was removed for being deceptively labelled, or it was removed for being inaccurately labelled. Pick either you like.
- Sixth, I don't care about your blog. It has nothing to do with the article.
- Seventh, I don't care about your forum either. Nor do I care about your ludicrous suggestion that you could create a community where it was entirely democratic, except for your own right to invoke tyranny unilaterally. However, if by 'writing' you meant it literally, then you should perhaps investigate 'vBulletin' instead. It'll allow you to have a great deal of control over your forum. Just don't try advertising it here.
- Eighth, again, you try to say that the only democratic way to run wikipedia would be if, in an article that was created and improved by numerous contributers, the edits made by your grandmother would reign supreme. But just for ha-ha's, tell me how that'd work. Tell me how you could ever possibly have a single article if nobody was allowed to edit anyone else's contributions? Do you really want three dozen versions of a single topic for each article? Raehl's version of Paintball, and KirbyWallace's version of Paintball, and KirbyWallace's Grandmother's version of Paintball? It would never possibly work.
- And, ninth, have I mentioned that you shouldn't be advertising your own article? I did? Good.
- Oh, and tenth, there's a difference between what wikipedia is, and what it strives to be. Is it a true encyclopedia? Irrelevent. It strives to be an encyclopedic reference, where people from around the globe can all contribute their own knowledge and backgrounds for the sake of producing better articles. Does it always reach that goal? Nah. But is that a reason to stop trying? Of course not. And if that is what you believe, then I honestly don't know why you bother doing edits at all. (other than, of course, to advertise your own sites. Which, seriously, you shouldn't be doing) Bladestorm
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
- 1. Didn't I TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY that I was gonna do that. And didn't I tell you specifically that it was a test. And didn't I tell you specifically that I fully expected it to be removed immediately? What I DIDN'T tell you was that if it lasted for even half an hour I was gonna remove it myself. It was a test of a hypothesis, and it worked perfectly. Lasted about 14 minutes.
- 2. Wow, what if every great thinker was subject to that rule? (I'm not suggesting that I'm a great thinker. Just making a point here.) "That's really something Albert. But I removed it. If any other atomic physicist thinks it's worth posting, THEY will post it." So George posts it. "Wow George, that's really something... but I removed it..." Next, Frank, Next Abdul, next Sven... Eventually SOMEBODY's gotta say it first. If something's worth saying, someone ELSE will say it? What?
- 3. Agreed. I plead nolo conendre.
- 4. I was not "advertising". But nonetheless, Agreed.
- 5. OK. Agreed. I pick "Removed for not conforming to the populist view."
- 6. Agreed. No complaint.
- 7. Also agreed. No complaint. (And no offense taken either - legitimate points both)
- 8. No, I didn't say any such thing. An encylopedic approach would be to FIRST determine who are and who are not authorities on the subject, and determine who and who is not fit to write the article in point, and then to have them, and only them write the article. And then be changed only after review by the writer's PEERS (who also must be regarded as authorities on the subject matter), and then by consensus of the authorities. THAT is how an encyclopedia works. A democratic approach is very similar, except we elect morons to write the articles and they call anyone a racist or a bigot who disagrees with them. (That's intended as humour - not my real opinion of anyone here). But the principle is true.
- 9. No, I don't think you mentioned that, but I'll jot it down. And it wasn't advertising (dig dig ;-)
- 10. Agreed, observed, not contested. 'And it wasn't advertising.' (furious dig, dig, dig ;-)
So far, I think the most appropriate place to add my input has been to this TALK section. And I'm content with that. In retrospect, my honest, PERSONAL (emphasis on PERSONAL) opinion is that I don't really care what "paintballers" think of my thoughts. They are intended only for people who (erroneously) consider themselves "Christian paintballers," and that alone is sufficient to disqualify it from being included in this article as far as I am concerned. The article is about "Paintball" - not "Christian Paintball." If it were the other way around, I would fight you tooth and nail. But it's not.
--KirbyWallace 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. And...
- 11. As far as me "reserving" totalitarian, unilateral, absolute, power (in developing a discussion forum software product), I specifically mentioned that it was for obvious spam. My example was a posting of "Free hot nude chicks" in a discussion of nuclear physics. And, while it may be viewed as "totalitarian" or "unilateral", there are cases where that is necessary, and no one would take exception. Like in the case of "free hot nude chicks" in a discussion of nuclear physics. And also, apparently, as in when someone says "Paintball Sucks". I think that demonstrated my point perfectly.
--KirbyWallace 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Paintball in Other Countries
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)~!!!!!!
Hmmm.. a shameless plug for external sitelinks: http://www.pbheadlines.com/ - Paintball related headlines syndicated - provides RSS-feeds for free. Check it out.
Excellent link for RSS feeds Nik Doof 00:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
paintball in the US
In the US, paintball is a big thing. Fields range from indoor warehouses to huge fields. paintball has obviously expanded over the years and is due for some major expansion.
I know it's great....I have already afflicted one with the addiction hehehe :)
Superstitions
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)
If someone provides examples of how it either is or is not true, then it's not "superstition." That's proof or at least evidence. Generally, people are gonna say it's true or false, but they are going to offer something in support of their statement. There's nothing superstitious about this. It should stand.
Just put in a few notices on superstitions, and I intend to perhaps post a list of paintball superstitions shortly, as there are a lot out there.
That would be great. If you do, however, be sure to back it up with results from an experiment. A link to the webpage with the experiment would be great. Compulsion 15:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The superstition that close bolt is more accurate is due to the removal of blow back, front blow, that is basically recoil, which can knock off the accuracy of your marker. The actually marker doesn't shoot more accurate, but it can make the operator have more consistancy in shot accuracy.
Marker Operation
I was reading the article and think that the areas on "electro-pneumatic" and "electro-mechanical" should be changed. While many folks refer to all "electronic" markers as "electro-pneumatic" as far as I am aware the only design that truly is electro-pneumatic is the design of the Shockers by Smart Parts (there are two different designs). The other electronic markers are generally just the same mechanical designs converted to be actuated by a solenoid rather than a mechanical trigger/sear.
The best way I could demonstrate the differences would be to refer to exploded or cut-away diagrams. Perhaps they could be pulled out of owners' manuals with manuf. permission for use in Wikipedia?
I would also suggest rather than putting Flatlines into "speciality" category, putting them into a separate section on rifling and paintballs, as there is a (relatively) new product, Hammerhead Barrels, that use a rifling method combined with barrel back which provides more accuracy and slightly longer range. I suppose a separate article on paintball "ballistics" might be in order.
It might also be useful to create stubs for paintball equipment nodes (loader/hopper, pods/guppies, etc.) so as to create articles for them. Another thing that might be references is the ASTM docs for paintball from section 15 on sporting goods.
And, lastly, "Sup'Air", is the trademark of the French company, Adrenaline Games; there are other manufacturers of inflatable bunkers, so a more generic term is probably more appropriate.
--Rat Thing 22:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, most electronic designs really are electro-pneumatic. All the Angels, Bushies, Impulses, etc. have a solenoid that directs pressure to the front and back of a ram, hence being "electro-pneumatic". I think that the article does mention electro-mechanical markers in its discussion and does essentially explain them as being, "generally just the same mechanical designs converted to be actuated by a solenoid rather than a mechanical trigger/sear." Kobold 00:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Actuation of the ram in an Intimidator, BKO, E-frame Autococker, etc. are for all intents and purposes exactly the same as what you would see in a mechanical equivalent. Take apart a Spyder, take apart an Intimidator, and look at the parts. The only difference is that the missing spring for blow-back to re-cock the ram. Ditto for the Autococker, with the exception of the ram closing the bolt at the end of the firing cycle rather than opening it. As I said, the only electro-pneumatic is the Shocker, as it has *valves* actuated by the solenoids. Widespread misusage of the terms does not imply correctness.
One might argue that since the Intimidator and Angel do not have purely mechanical equivalents that they are therefore cannot be classified as electro-mechanical. I disagree, particularly in the case of the Intimidator, as it is simply a stacked blow-back design in high-end dress up clothes. Mind you, I own two, and would rather not play than play without them (ok, I'll suffer through a Tippman, but forget the rest). Ditto for the Angel, though they certain felt compelled to complicate matters with that ridiculous ram design aka the "14-way spool valve".
I have not looked at an E-frame for an AutoMag, so I cannot comment on the actuation method, but given there is no change to the body of the marker to convert it to "electro", I would presume it is also electro-mechanical.
And basically that's what I consider to be the difference between the two types. By your logic, the Autococker without an electronic frame would be considered 100% pneumatic, since the ram in the front block which cocks the bolt is driven by pneumatics. --Rat Thing 21:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Erm, yes, most electronic markers do use the exact same designs as mechanical ones. I agree that an electro-pneumatic marker, "has *valves* actuated by the solenoids." The devil is in the details. Intimdators, Angels, and BKOs are all similar designs, and the solenoid actuates a valve that switches gas back and forth between the front and back of a ram, making them electro-pneumatic. They work in exactly the same way as a blow back, except that the ram moves the hammer/bolt forward and backward instead of relying on a spring to move it forward and blowback gasses to move it backward.
- Spyders are weird cases. They can be either electro-mechanical or electro-pneumatic. If they have their mainspring replaced with a ram and the solenoid handles switching gasses for that, then they are electro-pneumatic and function exactly like the Angel, Intimdator, and BKO. The early Tippmann electro conversion kits did this actually, although I don't know about more recent ones. Most spyder electros though are electro-mechanical. Instead of the trigger dropping the sear, the trigger tells the solenoid to drop the sear. All the electro-mag conversion kits are electro-mechanical as well. The solenoid simply pretends to be the trigger.
- The autococker is a really weird case. It has two separate systems, the firing system and the re-cocking system. In a non-electronic setup, the firing system is entirely mechanical, and the recocking system is pneumatic, but set off by pulling the trigger, so I supposed it'd be "mechano-pneumatic". In the electro-cocker case, most e-frames (and I'm not familiar with really new stuff, again, but for stuff like the racegun, this is true) are electro-mechanical in terms of the firing system. The solenoid in the grip frame imitates dropping the sear. But, the re-cocking setup is electro-pneumatic because the solenoid on the front actuates a valve like the 4-way on a standard 'cocker. In fact, they use exactly the same kind of gas-actuating solenoids for this as they do in the angels and timmys. I don't know most people classify this, but I'd say e-'cockers are electro-mechanical just because the re-cocking system is collary to the whole thing. Early electro-cockers (like the sandridge) were entirely electro-pneumatic though. Hope this clears things up. Kobold 06:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somebody ought to write an article about autocockers and tippmanns, they're beauties, but I own neither of them, so i don't really know what to say.
- I have both--what aspects of these do you think would be of interest to cover? --Rat Thing 21:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Check out Autococker, at the very least. Kobold 06:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Iunno, what to write about, probably about tippmann's popularity as a 'really hard to break' gun and maybe it's history. And autococker's uniqueness as a closed bolt system, without the blowback.
I think that several things about the Tippman should be mentioned, such as the reliabilty, amount of mods possible, main uses (scenario/woodsball vs speedsball), etc. I own a Tippman A-5, which is awesome, but all the technical stuff still escapes me, although I am trying to learn it (I'm only 15). I don't have an autococker, but I know thay are alsovery popular. Two more things about the Tippmans, the cyclone feed for the A-5 should be thoroughly explained, and their simplicity and ease of maintenance should be mentioned. Webster 2
I didn't know if this is where you wanted to put it or not but here it goes. The cyclone feed is a spin feed type system that comes stock to Tippmann A-5 markers but also a purchase-able upgrade for the 98 custom. The balls are gravity fed into a large 5 point star like bolt(looks like each end of the star is curved into a part of a sphere) that cradles each ball which is then spun into the marker chamber horizontally. The feed system runs off "excess" propellant and can run up to 17 Bps (according to Tippmann) Tippmann markers themselves are nearly renouned for their reliability and are the first choice for many players (new and old) for woodsball and scenarioball. Virtually the entire marker is made out of metal and -=NUMEROUS=- upgrades can be made to their newer markers. Also they have developed the new propane run marker called the C-3. A pump marker that is fed off propane increasing shots per cubic inch and decreasing cost(compared to C02). Tippmanns can fair decent in the world of speedball depending on your preference. You cannot walk a tippmann gun and there are no frames currently out(that I know of) that can be put onto a tippmann to make it walk able. You can on the other hand purchase and electronic trigger or grip that can be put on different ramping speeds. Many tourny's and all offical tournaments will not allow firing speeds other than semi automatic. So tippmanns are not recomended by speedball only players. They are, on the other hand, very good for players that like both speeball and woods/scenario ball. They have a low price and are very dependable with little maintanence. The only problem out the box(for non stock players) would be the short barrels. 8.5 inches for 98C,98,A-5 and most of their more popular markers.
"Industry conflicts" section
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)
- 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)
Types of Players
"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)
I believe that the phrase "..Many times without the owner's knowledge.." is assumptive. There are far more "Renegade" fields than there are regulated fields. Most rural areas have a few fields that are played on. I have a hard time believing that groups of players are invading unknown property and playing. Most of this comes down to the responsibility of the playing group. Asking permission to paintball, hunt, mushroom hunt, etc. is always the responsibility of the individual or group.
In some states playing in state land such as some land that is going to lumbered and such is legal. Most land(woods) where you can ATV on trails are usually legal to play paintball in. He might not be specifically refering to playing right next to someone's house or on hunting or farming land.
Merge:Tournament paintball
Tournament paintball should be merged into here. Comments? --Banana04131 03:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
No Problem With that... User:Topstar
No, tourney paintball is only one aspect of the sport. Merging will only make people think there is only one type of paintball game. Scenario Paintball has its own section because its vastly different than tourney paintball.
I think tournament paintball should have its own section. There is a lot that could be written about tournament paintball (there are magazines out there that are dedicated solely to tournament paintball) and it is as different as scenario paintball (if not more so) from paintball in someone's backyard. The format and rules are setup like a sport rather than paintball as a hobby. I recommend that it should be split back into it's own page.
Split: Paintball Marker
"Paintball Markers" deserves its own article. A responsible handling of the various configurations and mechanisms for paintball markers and their accompanying descriptions would overwhelm the article as it now stands. I propose that the current section on the markers be split into it's own article. A short description of the marker would remain here with a link to the main article. --Compulsion
Split article
I took all the stuff about equipment and maintenance and put it in a new article called Paintball equipment. Same for strategy.
Stock Class - Moving
I'm moving the Stock Class section to Paintball marker. It should fit better there.
Zack Green 21:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Spelling change
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)
Woodsball is the correct spelling Compulsion 15:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, gladly I must say that I agree with Compulsion woodsball is the correct spelling. Caleb09 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
How to Get into Paintball Section needs a rewrite
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)
-- I've commented that section out. Personally, I don't think the section is required at all. There are plenty of articles on this at paintball related websites. An external link to an existing guide would be sufficient. Compulsion 15:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Agreed. You don't see a "So, do you want to be a doctor?"... -lem
Quality of equipment debate?
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)
--
The conclusion presented here seems good on its face, but isn't really valid. Newbie goes to paintball field, newbie gets schooled by people with fast-shooting markers, newbie believes they lost because other team's markers are more accurate. This is rubish. A paintball marker pushes a paintball down a hollow cynlinder. No amount of technology behind that hollow cylinder is going to change the fact that you've got expanding air pushing a paintball down a hollow cylinder. Paintball guns are more accurate because the people holding them are better at accurately pointing them at what they want to shoot. It makes sense that people who spend thousands of dollars on equipment will generally be more proficient at something that someone who is playing for their first time.
This isn't to say there arn't advantages to good equipment - you can shoot more paintballs faster, and it does tend to be more reliable. But would you expect, say, to rent skis a the ski resort, and have them perform as well as skis you spend significant money on and took care of yourself? Of course not.
There's also some misunderstanding of what's going on with the equipment on the part of this participant - for example, when the paintball marker makes that rapid-fire noise that the player believes is their air being wasted, it's because their air tank is nearly empty and there isn't enough pressure to recock the gun, or as may be likely given the time of year, they were using a Co2 tank in cold wheather and the Co2 wasn't evaporating fast enough to keep the gun pressure up.
I've been playing for over 10 years. I have equipment worth thousands of dollars. I often play with coworkers who are paintball newbies, first or third time players. If I play with my equipment, I win. If I give them my equipment and play with a rental, I still win. So we put more people on the other team and I make an effort at not playing at 100% so everyone can have a good time.
The problem with this person's experience isn't the difference in equipment, it's the difference in skill level between the players. New players shouldn't be pushed to play with experienced players. It won't be fun, and it wouldn't be fun in any other sport either. You don't take soemone playing basketball for the first time and have them play against the high school basketball team and expect they're going to have a good time.
--Raehl 09:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Nicely said, and I fully agree. Webster2 15:48 6/15/06
Added some slang terms
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)
Standard Mark Size
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)raehl
-- Personally I don't think we need to make any reference to the US quarter or nickel or whatever; couldn't we just say that the player needs to get hit by a paintball for him to be considered out? Because if a paintball explodes right next to me and splatters me in a concentrated area the size of a US quarter (unlikely, but still possible), that has nothing to do with me being hit. This section should simply state that if the paintball explodes on a player, he is out. If it explodes anywhere else but splatters on him, he is still in the game (the section will then go on explaining the paint check rules). I submit this to be the most accurate way to write this section. Ravenstorm 20:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-- I rewrote this to better reflect the variance on mark-size requirements. It isn't really correct to say the hit must be a quarter-size - that's merely one of several different and common rules about mark size. I left reference to the US quarter as a 'common' requirement, but also added that there are other standards used. --Raehl 23:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Styles of Play - Format section. A couple of thoughts
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)
-Recbal is different from Woodsball in that recball is when a group of friends get together and go out paintballing for some fun. They could do this on a speedsball course, indoors, or in the woods. Woodsball is when anyone plays in the woods, wheteher a tournament or a group of your high-school buddies in your backyard. Webster2 15:51 6/15/06 (USA)
2nd Person
This article has too much second person in it (i.e. saying the word "you") EdGl 04:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, and I'm at fault for some of it. It's hard to keep saying "the player" when talking about movement, strategy, and other topics. Paintball doesn't have specific positions like "Batter" or "2nd Baseman" so it makes it tough to describe some things.VegitaU 06:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- EDIT: I made the revision on the main page to a more 3rd person POV.
- No I understand that it's hard to do, I'm just pointing it out. It's ok, just change it that's all. EdGl 15:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Description at the top
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)
We need more information
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)
Slingshot
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)
I have to agree, there is no reason for slingshot paintball to be in this article. I have never heard of it played in any serious context and the safety issues it brings up are a cause for concern.(137.90.133.90 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
I also have to agree that it shouldn't have its own dedicated entry in the article. However, it would be appropriate to include in a listing of 'alternative' gear, including paintball pistols, grenades, and mines. (pistols seem to be getting slightly more popular as a backup these days)
Pistols are usaully common only in Scenario and Woodsball type games. Caleb09 22:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Walking the trigger? Oliver Lang?
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)
Oliver Lang is a proffesional paintball player, and walking the trigger is simply moving your index and middle fingers extremely quickly over a response trigger or E-trigger (the ones with two loops). I think he was just stating that in general for the intro, like say in a Chess article "the main goal in Chess is to get the other player's king in checkmate".
Ollie Lang is a NPPL player for the team Dynasty. Walking the trigger is, again, moving your index and middle finger extremely quick over a DOUBLE TRIGGER. RT's are not walkable, and there are many types of E-triggers, some are not walkable. This is basically used to meet the standards of many tournament regulations against ramping fire modes. It's so the marker can shoot as fast as say a fully automatic marker while still remaining semi-automatic.
Ollie Lang is my homeboy! Caleb09 22:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Team Listings
So exactly how many "notable" teams are we limiting this listing to? --UNHchabo 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Good question. "Notable" is way too subjective. What about changing it to a list of series champion teams, so as to make it a record of fact rather than a bone for every "notable" team and their supporters to fight over? Spinolio 04:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a great way to list it Spinolio, that way people can't debate or argue about why their 5 man high school team that only plays once a year isn't listed. (I'm on an unoffical team that plays maybe 3 times a year - I wouldn't expect that to be listed - hence my agreement with you.) PirateGent 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) I believe that notable historic teams should be included as well (Navarone, for example) (71.32.154.130 01:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
Barrel Plugs
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)
War Misconception
"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)
Your comment on apparent deficiencies in NPOV are hardly NPOV. Paintball does not simulate warefare. If it did, people with military training wouldn't be so bad at paintball. (Ok, that's not NPOV either, but it's good personal experience.)
WOW...Most S.W.A.T. teams train with paintball as well as some countries's armies. It is a fact that it replicates war like situations. Well put Bladestorm.
-- This is not accurate. Many groups use special paintball pistols to simulate CLOSE-QUARTERS combat. These particular guns are made very specifically to resemble and act like real firearms and are effective at this task in a close-quarters environment only. No paintball player would use these same guns in a paintball game because they simply would not be effective, and no serious military or police group uses paintball for training outside of a close-quarters (indoor) environment because, again, it is simply not effective. Outside of 20-30 yards or so, paintballs do a horrible job of simulating bullets, and for that reason combat training is done using essentially glorified BB guns.
So, is some speciall modified paintball equipment used in close-quarters combat training? Yes. Is standard paintball equipment used? No. Is the specially-modified equipment used in regular paintball? No. Would paintball players use paintball equipment in a close-combat environment the same way firearms or the specially-modified paintball equipment is used? No. And would paintball equipment be used to simulate combat in anything other than a close-quarters environment? NO!
Paintball does not simulate war. Period. --Raehl 23:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Part of your problem appears to be the inability to recognize the differene between SIMULATE And RE-ENACT. They are not the same thing. When you SIMULATE something, your goal is to be as close to reality as possible. That's why extensive effort is put into making close-to-reality flight simulators, or why infantry training involves live fire excercises. RE-ENACTMENT is different - I'll use civil war re-enactment as an example. Civil war re-enactments don't use real projectiles.
It is entirely possible to re-enact a military situation without SIMULATING combat. To use a converse example, are people who play a Knights of the Round Table paintball scenario game SIMULAING mideaval warefare? With paintball guns? Of couse not. And paintball guns don't simulate firearm behavior anymore than they simulate archery. Actually, paintballs behave a lot more like arrows than they do bullets - very limitted range, very much of an arced flight path, and even less penatrative ability than an arrow.
Anyway, it's hard to give your critique much credit when you say things like "It's an absoulte fact that paintball frequently simulaes war". Got a reference for that? An argument even? Are there paintball bombers I'm not aware of? Satalites? I didn't think so. raehl
Ooookay... First off, a paintball marker is FAR closer to a real firearm than it is to a bow and arrow. A firearm works off the principle of expanding gases propelling a small projectile through a barrel. A paintball marker works off the principle of expanding gases propelling a small projectile through a barrel.
And, incidentally, if that isn't close enough, some markers now work by, instead of releasing CO2 or HPA, actually burning propane; which, technically, means that some markers ARE firearms, even if they aren't treated as such under the law.
However, I wasn't talking about the mechanism being similar to firearms anyways. Frankly, I don't care if it behaves like a real gun, so much as whether or not it LOOKS like a real gun. Apparently, you've never been inside one of the shops. You should go. It's really cool in there. However, if you go into any decent shop, you'll see at least one gun on the wall that's specifically designed to replicate a real-life weapon. Furthermore, it's a very popular industry these days wherein people modify their guns to resemble real-life weapons. I meant it, go look up some of the mods available for Tippman A5's. You'll see how to make it look like an AK-47, for example. Tell me, would intentionally making your marker resemble an AK-47 count as 'resembling' a firearm? Exactly. (incidentally, it isn't just ak-47's, of course. they can also be made to resemble tommyguns, and numerous other rifles. this isn't an exception; it's very much a part of contemporary paintball gear)
Your well put on the A-5 gun resembelance. And there are mods to make it look like an AK-47, M-16 and many other guns. But the A-5 is ACTUALLY MADE TO LOOK LIKE THE Heckler and Koch Machine Pistol ver. 5, or the MP5. That's how it's actually created to look like. No random coincidences here, it's made by tippmann to look that way down to the sights of the gun/marker. I would put up a picture showing the comparison but I don't know how.
As for simulating warfare, YOU tell ME what this sounds like: A large-scale form of combat, wherein people intentionally choose to use markers that look as much like real rifles as possible... They dress up in tiger-stripe or other camo. They organize into their own military teams, and do their very best to increase the authenticity and resemblance to a team of commandos. They either use visual cues to eachother, or go so far as to radio eachother, to coordinate assaults and defenses. In some cases, they even employ grenades, grenade-launchers, mortars, and landmines. (not to mention the occasional TANK) It's called 'Tactical'. It's actually really fun.
But only an idiot would say that it doesn't bear any resemblance to warfare.
The fact is, paintball frequently resembles warfare. The fact that you're out of the loop doesn't change that. The fact is, paintball markers bear more than a passing resemblance to firearms, and many people try their best to increase that resemblance. I don't get what it is with some people... how they can supposedly be a fan of a sport, and yet do their best to lie about what it is. I don't like killing. But I do like paintball. There's nothing contradictory there. But I'm honest enough to admit that there is a strong resemblance to warfare. And the markers sure as heck frequently bear a strong resemblance to firearms. (and if you still doubt that, look up the RAP4) Bladestorm 14:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
A paintball gun is obviously more similar to gun than a bow and arrow, and some people do like to customize there markers to look more like guns, but as for people saying that people who wear camo to be more like soldiers does not make any sense. You wear camo to blend in better and be better at the sport. Its like saying a fisher who buys a better fishing poll is only buying it to be more like a proffesianol fisher who uses proffesianol equitement.218.130.176.14 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't the assertion you made - you made the assertion that paintball SIMULATES war, which it does not. Yes, the equipment resembles real guns (well, anything that shoots something resembles a gun - if that's the criteria for war simulation, I was simulating war when I used a nozzle to water my garden this morning), and yes, there are teams of people who run around in the woods with things that resemble guns. But that does not equate to simulating war anymore than boyscouts running around the woods playing hide and seek or tag simulates war, or kids playing cowboys and indians in the backyard with water pistols does.
There are certainly paintball activities that draw from military conflict, but that's just one small piece of the entire phenomenon. There are also paintball activities that draw from the Alien/PRedator movie franchises or Arthurian/greek mythology.
Despite a passing resemblence to war to the casual observer, paintball is a game, no more, no less. The mechanics of the game of paintball are no more like the mechanics of war than the mechanics of biathalon (ski and shoot) are.
--Raehl 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so seriously, do you intentionally misread what I say? Or is it just an accident?
What I directly stated (and it's in the first line of this section, so it boggles the mind that you could have missed this) is that paintball frequently simulates war.
Your arguments that anything that lacks bombers and satellites isn't war are just downright laughable.
I mean, seriously, don't you realize that you just directly stated that every single war prior to the invention of planes weren't wars at all. And, if that's your opinion, well, then there's really no way to participate in intelligent debate with you.
However, I'm going to assume that you were just a bit rash there.
The fact is, the primary point of 'tactical' play is to simulate warfare. It seems to most closely resemble guerilla combat, though I've never heard any tactical players use the word 'guerilla' in specific.
However, I want you to tell me what this sounds like.
And please, actually discuss this before you make changes again:
A group of people form a team.
They all wear matching camouflage.
They all either set up visual commands for communicating with eachother, or use FRS radios to coordinate attacks and defense.
They modify their markers to resemble real-life assault rifles as closely as possible.
Some will use grenades.
Some will set landmines.
They work together, providing cover fire, flanking, and setting up ambushes.
In some cases, you may see a tank. (sometimes an atv designed to vaguely resemble a tank, sometimes an actual replica of a real tank)
(Incidentally, your insistence that bombers mean war, but tanks don't is rather confusing)
Should I continue? Or are you going to acknowledge that, in some situations, the game can very much resemble warfare?
Again, saying that it's just a game is immaterial. Of course it's just a game. I don't think for a second that paintball ever truly glorifies killing. However, it does frequently glorify combat.
For many people, it is a way to safely test their skills in largescale combat, without the ethical dillemmas associated with actually hurting eachother.
The "misconceptions" section states that it is a misconception that paintball simulates war.
Well, I think that I've fairly conclusively illustrated that there are numerous instances in which it directly simulates war.
And the statements that tournaments are televised certainly does nothing to change the fact that sometimes it simulates war.
The fact is, sometimes paintball simulates war. Does it always? Nah. But sometimes? Yup.
And, frankly, why is there a "misconceptions" section at all?
There are three "misconceptions" listed in that section.
The first isn't even true. It's just what some people would prefer to believe.
The second one is redundant with other statements of paintball's safety. And, besides that, the most common assumption isn't that you'll be seriously injured playing paintball; it's the common question, "Doesn't that hurt?" And, yes, it often does hurt. To be honest, whenever I've tried to get people to go out and play paintball, they've always been worried about whether it hurt, and never once said, "but I'm going to break bones!"
The third one is technically true, but not even remotely limited to paintball at all.
Does having a full-auto marker help? In some games, yes. Is it the whole story? Not by a long shot. So yeah, it's true... But that's also true of golf. Better clubs can give many players a better chance, but trust me: Put the best golfclub ever made into my hands, and I'll still suck. Also true in Tennis, and probably just about any other game that requires equipment. So, why is it specifically listed in paintball?
A "misconceptions" section is clearly the result of some people wanting to spread their personal views.
It's a way of getting the effect of weasel words without using them directly. Instead of saying, "some people believe that the best equipment makes the best player", they change it to effectively, "it is a misconception that the best equipment makes the best player."
As it stands, I don't see the need for any of the three "misconceptions". The notion of a "misconceptions" section reeks of propaganda. One third of the section is false. One third is redundant with what was already said. And one third isn't specifically tied to paintball itself.
And, sorry to make all of this so long, but there's yet another issue that you never properly addressed.
When this started, it was also because you'd removed references to a 'paintball sniper', wherein you deleted the section, and added the explanation that there's no such thing.
So I quoted the dictionary to directly and conclusively prove that there, in fact, are. At least, if you accept the basic definition of what a 'sniper' is. I still challenge you to find any (legitimate) definition of a sniper that doesn't resemble "a marksman who shoots from a concealed place". Because that's precisely what a paintball sniper does. So, if you want to say that there's no such thing as a paintball sniper, then you are obligated to find a different definition of 'sniper'. Bladestorm 03:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Players develop silent signs to communicate with each other? Let's take the third base coach and send 'em to Iraq! Many sports have skills that overlap with combat - which is not surprising, because combat, like many other things in life, is a team effort. Basketball and football are sports that HEAVILY involve tactics. Are those war simulation? No. Why is it obvious that they are not? Because the tactics are totally different, even if there are some similarities (like blitzing or trying to flank in football). The fact is, good paintball tactics are BAD war tactics, and vice versa. I know from years of experience that paintball doesn't simulate war because people who try and play paintball like they were in actual combat (I've payed with many, many military folk) are HORRIBLE at paintball. And I'm sure that anyone attempting to fight a war the way you successfully play paintball would get decimated.
You are confusing the PROPS of war with SIMULATING war. It's an easy point of confusion, which is why someone put it in the common misconceptions section. Saying paintball simulates war is like saying model Lionel trains simulate railroads. They're based on real trains, they look like real trains, but they don't simulate real trains.
SOME people who play paintball a PARTICULAR way try and make their equipment look like military equipment. Some people who play paintball in another way dress up as rabbits! Since some people dress up like rabbits, does that mean paintball also simulates woodland wildlife?
You also say things like "Paintball guns are often made to look like real guns." Do you hunt? Have you ever been hunting? Because hunters have a lot of guns that look like real guns! And they wear a lot of camoflage! Surely they're not simulating warfare, right?
What if the players are just wearing jeans and a tshirt? I know lots of people who play paintball, especially new players, who wear just that. And they have rental paintball guns that don't look anything like real guns. And the don't have any silent communication codes or radios. And they don't plan ambushes or try and flank people. So are they still simulating war?
Paintball simply does not simulate war. At best, you might be able to say SOME people TRY to use paintball to simulate war, but you can't say that all paintball simulates war - that is just obviously factually not correct, an your insistence on keeping things that are obviously not factually correct in the article so they can be 'discussed' is just mindbogglingly silly.
As for safety, maybe the people you play with are worried about if it hurts, but I frequently encounter parents, school administrators, insurance folks, and others who are much more concerned about injury. They often have the assumption that paintball is physically dangerous, and that assumption couldn't be further from the truth, and such a common misconception about paintball deserves attention in the article.
--Raehl 05:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
After reading the entire argument a number of times I've come to the conclusion that it simulating war depends on THE MENTALITY OF THE PLAYER. Yes it's true from particular situations it certainly looks like it simulates war, but then again it could also just be re-inacting (which is basicaly the same to me.) BUT, we'll split this up and generalize the players into two sections.(considering this is scenario/woodsball alone)
1. The player that begins to take the game very seriously and almost mentally puts himself in a war like situation.
2. The down to the core recreational player that keeps in mind the entire time that it is only a game.
Now then to 1 it can very well be a war like simulation, but you tell that two 2 and no they won't believe it, they haven't mentally indulged themselves into the game quite so much as 1. But you can also look at this at a movie point of view. Does World War movies simulate war? Or only Re-inact it? If the actor gets so into his character that his adrenaline rushes when the fake bullets fly and set up bombs explode that he (while in character) loses sight of the true reality around him and almost begins to have the sinking feeling in his stomach that comes from fearing for your life? He would probley tell you that it's was very war simulating for him, and would also probley make him a good actor as well.
If your mentality is begins becoming extremely similar to an actual soldier in a war, then yes I would say it simulates war for him. But if all his teammates are getting eliminated and all he's thinking is "Darn now we're gunna lose" or "How am I going to pull off a win without getting out?" then he probley isn't a player that thinks it's a war simulator. But to be so absolute that it HAS to be one way or the other, i don't think you can ever be completely right. This in an abstract view can also be split on how different players describe things in paintball. Guns/Markers, Outs/Kills, etc. This but I wouldn't say that it's a misconception that it simulates war, in fact I would leave that out entirely because it's all dependent on the player and all a matter of opinion
Right, so I'm a bit late to put in my opinion on this matter, but I feel as though you guys are fighting over definitions of certain words and, in general, being foolish. I myself play paintball (for recreation), and I also know a lot about war and combat.
Raehl, I find your arguments to be completely irrelevant. In general your comparisons to other sports/activities in life to paintball concerning the "simulation" of warfare just don't make any sense. Bladestorm says: "They use hand signals to coordinate attacks" and you say: "But so do people in baseball!" That's ridiculous and you should know it. The thing about paintball is, it ACTIVELY seeks to simulate warfare; other sports don't. Face it, two teams facing off against each other, both trying to ELIMINATE each other (that's Combat Resemblance #1) or fighting for an OBJECTIVE (Combat Resemblance #2). If somebody gets shot by somebody's gun, he is OUT (Combat Resemblance #3), and usually the teams use TACTICS (Combat Resemblance #4) to try and keep as many of their men alive and win.
Just because some of those above resemblances also apply to other sports and activities out there, that doesn't mean anything. It's as if you think we're trying to say: "War simulation is paintball", to which you say: "Not true, if so then so is -other sport/activity-" when in reality we are trying to say: "Paintball is war simulation." And for goodness sake, it is blatently obvious that it is.
--Ravenstorm 11:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't we all just get along? ;) I mean, hell, Bladestorm and I already worked this out...
I don't disagree that there are superficial resemblences between paintball and 'war'. My point is that those resemblences are SUPERFICIAL. I don't think you can distibguish between kids shooting each other with water guns and paintballs. I don't think you can distinguish between playing capture the flag elementry school playground style and with paintball markers. You are getting entirely caught up with paintball's game mechanic including shooting paintballs. There are many, many other games that share every aspect of paintball EXCEPT there arn't paintballs.
The number of ways that paintball is different from war so greatly outnumbers the ways in which it is similar as to not even be worth considering.
Here's the other thing - if paintball simulated war, people with military training wouldn't be so bad at it.
--Raehl 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What that one guy said about there being no paintball "bombers"...i've got news for you. At the last Oklahoma D-Day ultralight aircraft were used to drop paintball grenades and buckets of paintballs to "bomb" the enemy. Personally I think that's awesome....I want a paintball bomber! =D Caleb09 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Butchering
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)
Ugh, so ridiculous.
First off, paintball players do not shoot eachother, they mark other players with MARKERS, not GUNS, MARKERS. Your definition of a sniper is blatently linear and that is obviously why it is the secondary definition, by that definition and your sense of interpreting words a cameraman "shooting" someone from a bush is a "sniper"
Oh yeesh, are you serious? Please tell me you aren't serious. Players DO shoot eachother! Guess what, if I decide to shoot you with a squirtgun, I'M STILL SHOOTING YOU! I mean, holy crap... To even suggest that firing a projectile from a muzzle, directed at another person, in a combat-resembling situation... to try to suggest that it doesn't qualify as shooting... it defies belief! Look. I've been patient. I've been very clear. Guys, fix this article, or I'm going to fix it. That simple. And none of this garbage like, "you aren't shooting people!" is going to fly. That's beyond narrow-minded. That's outright self-delusion. If you hate paintball so much that you can't stand taking it for what it is, then why in the world do you care about the paintball article? Bladestorm 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Bladestorm, I support you 100%. I can only assume that many posters are not actual woodsball players or not veteran players to say the least. I also assume(because it's implied constantly) that we are talking about scenario/woodsball, NOT SPEEDBALL, NOT TOURNAMENT PAINTBALL. And paintball markers are constantly refered to by guns by other players, It is originally called marker because it "marks" another opponant, and to avoid the use of the word GUN, because it is not considered a GUN by law.
I am responsible for deleting slingshot paintball It has no place in this article at all - just like every other paintball-one-off played by a handful of people somewhere. To top it off, the whole section was basically a set of subjective assertions. Anyimte you see something that claims "growing popularity" without an actual piece of data to back that claim up you're looking at a publicity campaign, not an article.
There are 10 million people who play paintball every year. 99.99% of them do not shoot paintballs with slingshots. If you want a slingshot paintball article, make a separate slingshot paintball article and link it in in the links section. Having a slingshot paintball section makes about as much sense as having an airsoft section.
--Raehl 05:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Was it really right for you to delete that because you don't use slingshots? I mean solely using slingshots in a very rare thing to see, yes. But I and most of my team carry wrist rockets around between games when we're really low on C02 because it's better to be in game as eyes then out of the game not doing anything, and it's even better if you can make your chance from 0% of getting someone out to .01% with a slingshot. And heck i've gotten two ppl out with them before. It deserves a small section merely stating they've been used before.
Blowguns
I think that the article should have some mention of blowguns, because they are in-fact used by some players, just like markers & slingshots. Also, I have heard that some people use paint grenades, smoke bombs & paint land mines.
- You are right that blowguns, grenades, and paint mines should be mentioned somewhere. The reason I haven't added them myself is that I don't know if they belong in the main paintball article, or if they should be in the paintball equipment article. (Or in one of the other similar articles)Bladestorm 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- You should probably simply mention them in the main article, with most of the info. on another article.
Common Courtesy
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)
Bladestorm, you are missing the point. Singlehandedly adding irrelevant information that happens to be your pet subject is vandalism. This is an encyclopdic article about paintball. The items I have removed are NOT under discussion (EVERYONE who has added to the 'slingshot' section of the discussion page UNIVERSALLY AGREES that slingshot paintball doesn't belong in the article), and adding them yourself and then claiming yourself that they are 'under discussion' doesn't change that they are not paintball and not part of paintball and NOT under discussion and the RESULT of the discussion about it was consensus that it didn't belong in the article. If you want an article on slighnshot paintball, write a separeate article about slingshot paintball and link it in under the same section with airsoft. The same goes for 'just plain crazy'. While it may be a variation that is very familiar and iomportant TO YOU, it doesn't belong in the article any more than the other 200 different variations of paintball games that are important to someone else. Like slingshot paintball, 'just plain crazy' is not common, and despite how familiar or connected you may personally be to those subjects, they don't belong here.
Regardless, slingshot paintball DOES NOT MEET THE BASIC DEFINITION OF PAINTBALL, therefore, it does not belong in this article, and there is nothing to discuss. Again, if slingshot paintball is of pariticular importance to you, you have the alternative of creating a separate article for it. But please stop trying to hijack the paintball article to promote your pet formats.
Also, while I am at it, I did not gut the woodsball section. I deleted some information that was eitehr biased or false - mostly related to the bias that woodsballer markers are 'more accurate'. This is just a silly assertion - the only differences between markers that affect accuracy are shot-to-shot velocity variations, and to spend a whole paragraph talking about how rec players favor accuracy while speedball players don't care about accuracy is an excercise in anti-speedball bias.
I also then added other contect that better presents what DOES make woodsball different than speedball, like the availability of wide-area communication and strategies that are just not possible in speedball. This is certainly more accurate and more informative than two paragraphs about "woodsball accurate speedball shoot fast".
--Raehl 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay... where to start...
First, stop calling slingshot a pet game of mine.
I've never played it.
I wouldn't care to.
I simply know that it exists. I didn't add the original content on slingshot paintball. So don't say that I added it myself. I reverted it myself. Slight difference.
Similarly, while although I acknowledge that it's a well-established tradition in paintball, I also don't personally care for 'Just Plain Crazy' myself, because it bloody well HURTS. However, so many players I've known love it, and that's oftentimes the most memorable memory they talk about after a good day of playing. I didn't add that entry myself, but I agreed that it was noteworthy when it added, so I protected the contribution from arbitrary cutting.
Look, I'm not saying that the slingshot entry needs to be so big. I'm similarly not sure that it needs to be listed as an entire game. Much like blowguns, mines, grenades, and mortars, I'm thinking that it should probably be incorporated in some other way.
However, a separate article for slingshot paintball would be silly.
As it would be silly to create numerous articles for all of the alternative paint delivery devices.
Uh, try again. The page I referenced is official policy. The page you reverenced is aguideline, and specifically not official policy (read the big box right at the top of the page).
Regardless, I am going to once more revert back to my last page, as there are 7 edits of mine plus edits of other people in there that you are blanket reverting without ANY discussion or ANY reason. If you want to revert slingshot paintball and just plain crazy, then revert just that. I will then just comment those sections out so you can have a chance to rewrite the slingshot paintball stuff for inclusion in the equipment section and so someone else can come along later and delte teh Just Plain Crazy once proper 'consensus' (whatever that is) is obtained. --Raehl 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In short, I am more than happy to work with anyone on better integrating subsections. It certainly wouldn't matter to me if subjects like slingshots and such were considerably shrunk.
However, accusations that I singlehandedly added information about my pet subjects... when I'm not the original author of said content, and don't even care to play them myself... well, they're fabrications. They're simply things that you've decided to believe. But they aren't true. And that's counterproductive.
Ripping things to pieces when I'm trying to work with you is counterproductive.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to address your accusations in another section of the talk page. Bladestorm 02:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As an addendum, since I suppose I should try to make it easier to compromise:
I believe that slingshot paintball qualifies because, well, it's using paintballs to mark people in games that are otherwise similar to some paintball games. Does it closely resemble things like speedball? Nah. But there are far too many similarities in concept to games like stock play. (Again, beside the most obvious fact that you're marking people with paintballs)
Ironically, the key distinguishing difference between slingshot play and 'regular' play is the single fact that you seem to be unable to acknowledge: regular paintball uses guns. Slingshot paintball doesn't.
Still, I would consider it to be significant, yet still a fringe. I don't know if your 99.99% statistic is accurate, but I doubt it's too far from the truth. As such, I think that it should be included in a section along with other, far less common but still significant, paint delivery devices.
For example, paint grenades are getting more and more popular. (in spite of the numerous funny stories of people not using them right and getting them thrown back at the thrower) They should be mentioned.
Similarly, so should mines. (There are claymores and basically bouncing betties these days)
Blowguns, though I'd never use one myself, are still used.
Pistols should certainly be included. Some people have used just pistols, but they're especially more popular as a backup. (Issues like whether or not they're just an expensive way to carry a bit of extra paint is immaterial. People use'em, that's what matters)
What I would like to see done with paintball slingshots is to see them removed as a game, and added in a section with alternative gear. (It may also be reasonable to mention propane as another propellant for markers there)
The problem that I've encountered with trying to figure out how to integrate these things is that, while although these would almost fit under the 'paintball equipment' article, they also largely belong in the same article as things like woodsball and tactical. That is, it's hard to decide where to put them. But deleting any of them isn't helpful, because that's equivalent to saying they don't exist. But, anyways, on to your other accusations... Bladestorm 02:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleting them is NOT the equivalent of saying they don't exist. Deleting them is saying they are not important enough to be mentioned in encyclopdic content about paintball. "Slingshot Paintball" *IS NOT PAINTBALL*. There is no paintball gun. Whether 'some' people play it is irrelevant. There has been a discussion about slingshot paintball in this discussion page, everyone agreed it didn't belong in the article at all, it NEVER should have been added in the first place, and since it shouldn't have been added, there is no reason not to delete it. We simply can not have every item someone adds enter a perpetual state of "it's under discussion" where it can't be deleted. It was added, people agreed it didn't belong there, and I deleted it.
Similarly, "Just Plain Crazy" is also really not paintball - one of the fundamental parts of paintball (see the definition and the common rules) is that players who are hit are at least temporarily eliminated from the game. Playing until someone gets shot so much that it's too painful for them to continue is NOT paintball, and should not be included in a list of common formats, especially when there are MANY, MANY, MANY other paintball variations that are more common and NOT included.
I am not the problem here. I am deleting items that other people editing this article agree should be deleted. You keep undeleting items that nobody but you seems to want in the article. Things that are not paintball do not belong in the paintball article, even if they exist. --Raehl 04:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You want to stop doing that?
I'm pretty sure that's the very definition of a 'revert war'. Look, the fact is, I'm trying to give very detailed reasons for reverting. You aren't addressing the actual points.
For example, my point was that an entry for slingshot as a full game may not be necessary, but that mentioning slingshots as a method of slinging paint is. (along with grenades, mines, mortars, etc)
Deciding to just re-implement all of your changes, and not even acknowledge that I'm talking about different ways to integrate things is a direct sign of hostility and dismissal. I'm saying that rewrites and reorganizing priorities is more than fine. You're saying that it has to be exactly your way. How helpful do you think that is? Bladestorm 05:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying it has to be exactly my way. I've written about half of the content in this article at one point or another and virtually all of it has been subsequently editted and in most cases improved by others, and a lot of my stuff has been entirely deleted and replaced with something better, so I have no aversion whatsoever to not having it exactly my way.
But there are some basic, obvious editorial decisions, as agreed by OTHER EDSITORS, deleting slingshot paintball is one of those decisions. Let's just use a basic Wikipedia standard: Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Can you cite for me one appropriate outside source for the existence or rules of slingshot paintball, or that slingshot paintball is even considered a paintball format at all? Until you can do that, slingshot paintball doesn't meet even the most basic standard for inclusion.
You are also blanket-reverting a series of my other edits that have nothing to do with slingshot paintball just because I have also deleted slingshot paintball and 'crazy whatever', which also obviously does not belong in the article, again starting with the most basic criteria for inclusion.
My edits of the woodsball article fall under the same banner - the assertions about woodsball markers needing to be 'more accurate' are just player-bias driven hogwash. Suggesting that only woodsball players have accurate markers is a bias AND is contrary to the laws of physics. A paintball flying out of the tube doesn't get more accurate just because a woodsball player is holding it.
So please, before you get on an editorial high horse, please at least familiarize yourself with the BASIC STANDARDS of content for wikipedia.
--Raehl 05:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- sigh*
Did you even read my last set of comments?
You're talking about wikipeia standards? No problem. Two basic principles: Be bold. Be considerate.
You're certainly bold, and that isn't the problem.
But being considerate would require reading my reason for reverts.
So, I'll rephrase. It isn't that I'm saying that Slingshot Paintball, as a game, is mandatory. But Paintball Slingshots are.
Similarly, other forms of markers beyond the standard gun are also necessary. If you want to move paintball slingshots to the paintball equipment article, then I'm fine with that. Though, if so, I'd also appreciate a bit of help in writing those entries.
As for "just plain crazy", I'm sorry but I feel it needs to be included somewhere. Perhaps a rewrite is called for, but deletion isn't.
And, finally, as for reverting all of your edits collectively, well, what do you expect? Your last revert was the sum total of differences. All or nothing. You kinda force it to be an all-or-nothing revert. Bladestorm 05:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did, and you are mistaken. Neither boldness nor consideration are Wikipedia policy. Please read ACTUAL wikipedia policy which deals directly with these issues:
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Specifically pay attention to this subsection:
Undue weight
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
Specifically, slingshot paintball is so tiny of a subsection of paintball, and one that can not be substantiated by outside sources, so as to demand, by wikipedia policy, that it not be included in the article. "Just Plain Crazy" must also be deleted for the same reason. If you disagree, please substantiate their inclusion by citing actual sources. IF you can not, please stop undoing edits that properly implement official Wikipedia policy.
To add, if you want Slingshots in the equipment section, then add it to the equipment section, don't revert edits that properly remove it from the formats section.
--Raehl 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't say they were policies set in stone... I was reading up on them just tonight. Still looking for the one that says you have to respect other contributors, but I've already found the entry that you seem to think doesn't even exist: wikipedia:be_bold_in_updating_pages
Furthermore, we aren't talking about a "viewpoint". It'd only be a viewpoint if we were debating whether or not it exists. That said, I never once even implied that it deserved a large entry. I've been pretty darn clear on that point. As such, I don't see how you think I'm violating policy. If I were to say that it needs to take up half an article, then sure. That'd be obvious.
And the point of reverting it is that it's far more appropriate to trim down, and possibly move... than to delete and maybe re-add later. Furthermore, all of these constant reverts are getting annoying. I suppose you don't check your talk pages, but it really must make it difficult for other contributers to follow real edits if they have to sift through a page of reverts. Bladestorm 05:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why you put your last comment in the middle of this section. But, anyways, if you want to "comment out" the sections in dispute so they can be improved without being outright deleted, then I suppose that's acceptable. However, and I do realize this doesn't sound very professional... I don't entirely trust myself to do a partial revert without goofing something out. So, I'm going to wait 10 or 20 minutes or so for you to restore (and then comment out) those sections yourself. Otherwise, I'll revert back to the previous version, and you can do the changes from that. Bladestorm 06:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
— I put it in the middle because I screwed up the edit. Looks like you figured out how to revert just the two sections; I commented out he 'crazy' one and moved the encyclopedic part of the slingshot section over to paintball equipment. It's pretty obvious that slingshot paintball was added by a slingshot paintball player, and a lot of the content was just never going to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. (Wikipedia is not a place to advertise.) --Raehl 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's your place to solely go through the entire article going "this isn't true" and "this is true" without discussion, and don't mud fling by saying(paraphrased) everyone wants it out except for you, everyone agreed to delete it so I deleted it.
Look at this from a POV from someone doing a report, which MANY PPL GO TO WIKIPEDIA to do, don't you think it's right for the person to know that slingshots have been used with association to paintball? Yes Don't you think it's a good idea to everyones point of view to be heard, seeing as a NPOV is seeming impossible to attain? Yes Don't you think slingshot paintball should be heard seeing as SO many paintball players if not all have heard of it? Yes Is it your place to eliminate these articles because you find it irrelavent to what defines paintball? No
Being put in a place of a person doing a report, particularly school because that's where many kids go to do their research, yeah I'd want to know they have used slingshots yeah I'd want to know that atleast from someones point of view there are paintball snipers and that some people think speedball needs less accuracy than woodsball. Because sometimes it does mean that, longer barrel up to a certain point (14" and 16") does increase accuracy but speedball guns try to be compact hindering longer barrels, so you can see where the misconception might take place. But it is definately not your place alone, without obvious visual consent, to go through the article deleting everything you see unfit and undeserving of it's place. Period.
Well, I'm going to address a few of the issues together here.
First, I think there's a basic consensus (though I could be wrong) that what really needs to be done is to rewrite and reorganize. Some of the 'misconceptions' are true, some aren't, but most are noteworthy subjects, and simply need to be differently integrated into the article.
Second, I thought it was significant to mention slingshots, but now they are (in the equipment article). Most of that material wouldn't be able to stay anyways, if the slingshot paintball game entry were kept... For example, the parts about using less ammo and everyone being on equal footing would have to go, since those are almost exactly equally true for stock/pump play. (and pump play, though still somewhat of a minority, is still more common than slingshot play)
Of the remaining information of the game, most of it is just simple information, like, 'you carry extra paint', and 'you wear goggles'. Saying that you tend to carry less paint is generally immaterial, since that's equally true of using a pistol marker. And, what's left? A statement saying that most fields don't let you use them; in effect making an argument against giving them equal time with the other games.
Again, you probably noticed that I was very adament that slingshots be mentioned, but I still have to agree with Raehl that there needs to be a cited example for giving it such a prominent listing as a full-fledged and recognized game.
Also, as a minor note... Yes, there is such a thing as a paintball sniper; not because of the amazing accuracy, but rather because of the concept of heavily concealing yourself. (you can be a sniper from 20 feet away if the target can't see you at all)
However, it is also fair to say that woodsball and scenario players don't necessarily tweak their equipment for accuracy. Some will actually use shorter barrels (it's debatable whether or not longer barrels help, but super-short barrels really do decrease accuracy), intentionally giving up some accuracy, just so they have a smaller profile, or, in the case of some scenario/bunker games, so they can more tightly hang around corners. While although it's true that speedballers do tend to go for the highest rate of fire, the only consistent truth I've noticed with woodsball equipment is that the modifications tend to be more diverse, and specialized for different tasks. (and I wouldn't really say that's terribly noteworthy anyways) :)
Will a longer barrel improve accuracy? meh... maybe a little bit... but not to a significant extent relative what the wind and gravity will do to the balls. And besides, you're far more likely to get better results from minimizing recoil, and using a sight that you're comfortable with. (though that may be neither here nor there.
For now, I'm going to revert that addition of slingshot paintball as a game, just until you provide specific citations that show it deserves equal time with scenario, woodsball, and speedball. :) Bladestorm 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Where it is isn't really a problem for me, as long as it's atleast mentioned well enough in the place it self. Yes, I wouldn't agree it deserves equal time with the most played versions of paintball, but where it is now is fine with me. Also longer barrels do have a tendency to seemingly increase accuracy, but more important is the barrel to ball compatibility. But I still remember the first time I switched my 8.5 stock barrel for a new 14" tippmann sniper barrel and going "Wow It shoots WAY more accurate" this could of been dependent on a number of things but it was still seemingly true, to me, in all of the aspects. But yes it's true that it's a debatable subject.
Current Status
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)
Adressing the issue of other paintball equipment (blowguns ,slingshots, grenades, mines, etc.), I suggest that they get their own article: Alternative Paintball. I also suggest that a link to such an article be provided in the main paintball page.
I don't agree with whoever said "Adressing the issue of other paintball equipment (blowguns, slingshots, grenads, mines, etc.), I suggest that they get their own article" the reason I say this is grenades, and mines are used in woodsball and scenario games many times. Plus slingshots are used in conjunction with pump paintball markers sometimes (for a cowboys versus Indians type game cowboys get pump guns Indians get slingshots). So that only leaves the blowgun uncategorized... Caleb09 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Paintball games article
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)
Split: Paintball lingo, etc.
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)
Agree, the paintball lingo section is getting a wee bit out of hand. --Raehl 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved the paintball lingo section to its own page. --Donutmonger 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The paintball lingo page is now getting massive! Maybe we should make a Woodsball/Scenario paintball lingo and speedball lingo in two diffrent pages? Caleb09 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Websites like yours
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)
I noticed a few specific mentions of Spec Ops paintball in the article. One being a paragraph about a game locator they host with two links and the other a link to their website for the SPPL league. In the SPPL case the league has their own website at http://www.scenariochallenge.com/ so the current link definitely looks like spam. At what point does a link in the article start/stop being spam and stop/start being useful? Is this Wikitizement?
--A random, non-registered browser
Pictures badly needed
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)
You can only use pictures which you have the copyright for (those you have taken usually), or which have been expressly released to the public domain by the copyright holder, or which are in the public domain by law (product of the federal government, for example). Best bet would probably be to get a photographer to release some of their photos to the public domain for use in the article, but that's been not-so-common.
Nice work on all the updates btw.
--192.48.179.18 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the props. I looked around wikipedia until I found a couple of pics. Then I added them. Now the article looks more respectable.
--Donutmonger 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Paintball Variations
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)
Link addition request
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)
I want to steer clear from inserting my articles into wikipedia because Google penalizes for duplicate content, which is a bigger "no-no" than what you're talking about.
WikiProject Paintball
I think we should create a Paintball Wikiproject! Wikipedia is lacking in paintball articles! There could be hundreds but there isn't even an article for Spyder yet! Caleb09 21:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've actually started creating a WikiProject Paintball, to improve the paintball articles currently in existence and create those that aren't. I haven't created a temporary WikiProject page yet, but I hope to do that shortly. All those interested should sign here, so I can gauge how well such a project would be received. Thanks. - Maximilli
Bunkering
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)Robogymnast 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Images
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)
Vandalism
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)
