Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paintball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome! Please feel free to leave a comment, or if you have a question about paintball, leave a question in the appropriate section below and you'll usually get an answer within about a day.

WikiProject Paintball News edit

It has been strongly suggested by fellow member Three ways round that we add references and sources to our articles and make this our priority for now, as expansion and addition of articles has been slow of late. Go find an unsourced article and get some good references! Together we can make the WikiProject Paintball more authentic and encyclopedic. RavenStorm, Lead Coordinator Greetings all! It has been proposed on the Paintball WikiProject talk page that a quality rating system be created for articles within the Paintball Category. Please read the short discussion there and leave your opinion; also, if you are interested in joining the ad hoc 'rating committee', feel free to say so. Thanks! ~ Maximilli, Assistant Coordinator

Archived discussions - 1

Archived discussions - 2

Contents 1 Paintball as an FA article 2 Woodsball strategy as the next flagship article; article quality ratings 3 Priority Tasks 4 Inactivity 5 GA & FA articles 6 Wikiproject Sports 7 sources

[edit] Paintball as an FA article

Hello everyone! Please note that the last item on the FA To-Do list for the Paintball article has been completed today. The article is pretty much everything that a featured article should be, so I say it should be nominated. Thoughts? Suggestions? ~ Maximilli, 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, everyone, I think it should undergo a Peer Review first. Forgot to mention that last night. Again, any comments before we do anything? ~ Maximilli, 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just wondering: Once an article has been nominated, can it never be nominated again? (in case it fails to be made one) The Editor 2 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it can be nominated again, which is a good thing, since I can still find one big error with it (the graphics are terrible). However, it can be undesirable for an article to be nominated, but fail the nomination. The nomination's failure is recorded, you see. For some editors, that's a black mark against the article. But the good thing is that after an article fails the nomination, it can be completely revamped by the article's proponents and re-nominated. ~ Maximilli, 06:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That article is very short on references, as are many of the paintball articles. Many sections are without wikilinks or inline refs at all, such as the entire "Playing locations" section, which reads like someone's opinion. Assertions of specific fact could really use them. The equipment section needs a brief summary and rundown of equipment, not just a link to another article. The price of paintball really isn't important enough to go in the lead, and like a lot of other pieces of information sounds like original research/opinion instead of a sourced conclusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your thoughts. One recurrent problem we have is finding references. Paintball isn't a sport in which any one body has much authority, unfortunately. Magazines are hard to find good information in, and there are few books indeed that are modern and have anything actually significant to say other than newbie nonsense. Not that there's anything wrong with newbies. ;)

At any rate, people complain about the lack of sources, but there's nothing really that we can do. Sometimes we get lucky. Someone worked hard with the Paintball article to find sources for it, and I'm afraid one day we might have to resort to using SpecOPS for woodsball and scenario references. But hey, if it comes to it, we can just go over to About.com. Most of their paintball articles were ripped off from our work anyway. :D If anyone has ideas, do share. They'll be most welcome. ~ Maximilli, 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

this really doesn't help much about the paintball article but for some of the paintball markers and other equipment, we could site the company that makes the equpment's pages. Other than that i'm fresh out of ideas, sorry. I'll keep my eye open for anything we can use.

Three ways round 23 december 19:39 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll keep it in mind; hopefully everyone else will too. ~ Maximilli, 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey it was brought ot my attention on the paintball talk page that there hasn't been much discussion on paintball being re-nominated for a FA position, so maybe we should at least start talking aobut it, and pushing for it to get better. I think this would be a good time to concentrate on it, especially with the article rating system about to be started, it would be sweet if we could have a FA article in our category. I think i'll start concentrateing on this page a bit more (i was previously focusing on the Tippmann page), just makeing it more smooth, and seeing if i can somehow find some refrences. anyway let me know what you think

peace- Three ways round 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodsball strategy as the next flagship article; article quality ratings

Hello everyone! An important member of the project recently suggested to me that we should have Woodsball strategy be labelled a Flagship article of the project. This reminded me of the whole issue of quality ratings in the articles, much after the way of Good Articles and FAs. WikiProject Military History has a quality rating scale that we could model ours after, albeit modified for our substantially smaller subject. My first thought is, we create a project sub-page where we can discuss each article, perhaps in alphabetical order, and assign it a quality rating, perhaps from a scale something like this....

1. Flagship article. (Best work of the project - our version of the FA.) Examples: Paintball, Woodsball 2. Good article. (Pages that are good, but not quite as comprehensive or professional as the Flagships.) Examples: Speedball, Scenario paintball 3. Working article. (Pages that are in need of substantial work.) Examples: Paintball strategy, Paintball tank 4. Stub. (Pages that aren't comprehensive at all, or recently begun.) Examples: Oliver Lang, Woodsball rifleman

Keep in mind, this is a very basic idea. It's got a lot of wrinkles to smooth out, especially the method by which we determine article quality. My thought is, we discuss it on the sub-page mentioned above, and when we have a general consensus for one rating or another, then that's what we rate it as. Ideas? Thoughts? Comments? ~ Maximilli, 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

i think the sub-page rateing thing is a good idea. i also think that the woodsball strategy being a flagship article is a good idea just for everybody to hear.

peace-Three ways round 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the feedback. Nobody else from the Project seems to be very active right now, except I think I saw Robogymnast doing something the other day. Oh, and VegitaU is seen from time to time reverting vandalism to the Paintball article. But on the whole, I'm starting to fear that except for you and I, we're the only two who are still working for the Project. Oh well! :D I think we should just carry out this idea and any others we have, and if anyone else comes along and doesn't like it, they can say so.

When I have a moment, I'll create that project sub-page so we can start rating articles. Any volunteers for the "rating committee"? ~ Maximilli, 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

i volenteer, and ya we are the only two people real active right now, but it also means that we can get stuff without waiting for a lot of people to agree, it just speeds things up a bit. but ya.... i just compeltely forgot what i was about to say so i'll just go

peace-Three ways round 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can whip up a few templates for those... might take a few days if I make it fancy. RavenStorm 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I guess it's official, then - Three ways round and I are now the official article quality rating committee, which we can abbreviate to AQR Committee. Bring out the champagne! I'll start work on the project pages, and I'll put a link up on the main project page so everyone can see what's going on.

Thanks for the template idea, RavenStorm; perhaps you could modify the WikiPB template to look like WP:MILHIST's, which you can see here. What are your ideas? ~ Maximilli, 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea Max, I'll get to work on it right away... for real this time... right after I get a snack. RavenStorm 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see a million possibilities for this. First off, what kind of rating system do you want? A-B-C-D-E or 1-5 stars? Try and base yourself on the Military History project's system right here. And do you want to categorize paintball articles (markers, strategies, positions, rules, etc...) or should I just set up a system myself? RavenStorm 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... wow. This is really complicated stuff. You're gonna have to give me a whole lotta time to work on this, but I think I'll be able to figure it out in the end. You come up with a categorisation and rating system, I'll get the tech work done. RavenStorm 02:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

well if we are going to model ours after the military history, they do the whole FA,A,GA,B,Start, and Stub rateing system. It's a pretty common rateing system, i no a couple other wikiprojects who use it. so i'm not exactly sure what Max had in mind but that one seems to work pretty good. comments?

peace-Three ways round 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

hey i just thought about a problem with that system this morning, with that we will have no way to include the Flagship article (i'm pretty sure there are already templates or something for that rateing system), and i'm not sure if we can rate something FA, unless it is an actual FA no matter what we think it should be. let me know if i'm wrong or anything.

peace-Three ways round 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The FA rating would be reserved for actual Featured Articles, and I'm going to make our own template and include Flagship... RavenStorm 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

sounds like a plan to me Three ways round 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priority Tasks

hey i was reading the priority tasks, and about the list of professional teams being cleaned up, it was said that the deadline was the 31 of December. that stuff was put in motion before i joined so i don't want to touch it without talking to people bout it first. if you want to extend the deadline or just delete all the non-confirmed ones i don't know, it just looks a bit weird like it is.

peace-Three ways round 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too sure about that article. RavenStorm pretty much runs that article; he created it and has been looking after it since. I guess it's his project - maybe you should ask him whether he's doing anything with it? ~ Maximilli, 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, forgot to remove that. A lot of stuff has happened since I passed that "decree" so I guess nothing more needs to be done. *removes* RavenStorm 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am new to this group, I am going to put up a page about a field or two. Let me know of anything that needs done.

[edit] Inactivity

Hello members of the Wikipedia Paintball Project!

Some of you may have noted that not much work in the area of large-scale improvements has been made in these past months. I myself have been busy, committing my time to the much more urgent needs and wants of my employers. However, despite my tight schedule, I still check my Watchlist, like most of you, and make sure our articles stay clean!

So I would like to ask you, fellow members, not to be discouraged by what may be called inactivity. As long as we continue to assure the quality and factual accuracy of every single Paintball article here, we are doing our job! Remember, if you care about paintball on Wikipedia, please go ahead and add every single paintball article to your watchlist. It's not that hard, just go to the and add the articles there to your watchlist. Don't worry, you won't be flooded with alerts on recent changes! Worst comes to worst, just add the articles that seem more important to you. The Paintball article itself must be watched by all of our members!

Nonetheless, a lot of good work could be done if members were to simply add pictures of paintball markers to Wikipedia's servers. I will personally see to the paintball marker's article creation.

Keep up the good work and God bless,

Ravenstorm 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Lead Coordinator

[edit] GA & FA articles

hey i'm pretty sure that we can nominate articles to a good article position. IF that true (which i think it is) then we have quite a few articles that would probibly get it. Namely Woodsball, Paintball, and Woodsball strategy, as well as a bunch of other ones. i think this will help with rateing, give our project a better image, and i think it will also help us in our trying to get FA's in our project. Any thoughts??

peace-Threewaysround 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

the Paintball, and Woodsball articles have both been nominated for good article. I am cuurently waiting for discussion on the Woodsball strategy page, but in about a week that will be nominated too (unless somebody comes up with some amasing argument against it). Comments??

peace-Threewaysround 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Sports

Hey i was wondering if we should be listed as a Decendant of the Wikiproject sports, as of right now we are not. We are a wikiproject that deals with paintball, and last i checked paintball was a sport. So shouldn't we be in there somewhere???? Any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had to put up with a lot of controversy as to whether or not paintball is a sport... it stands alone, in it's own category, I believe. So no, let's not do that. RavenStorm 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ok -Threewaysround 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

ok so throughout the good article nominations (which all failed for one specific reason which will be addressed), i have discovered one very important, and very significant problem that almost all of our articles face. We don't have sources/refrences. The article that had the most sources, refrences, and inline citations out of all our articles is the paintball article, and even that didn't have enough sources. i beleive that finding credible sources should be priority number one (aside from improving the articles in category:paintball but that goes without saying). But that's my opinion and being as i'm not in a position of autority in this project, i'm not going to do anything without some say from the members, and approval from ether RavenStorm, Maximilli or both. Anyway that's our situation and i would like to here your opinion(s) of it.

peace-Threewaysround 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, sources are an incredibly important part of Wikipedia. Original research is tough to prove and articles without citations don't last long. We are here, as members of the WikiProject Paintball, to accomplish one single goal: to improve, expand, correct and add unto Wikipedia's paintball-related articles. Make it your goal for the week to find sources for an article! I'm currently working on finding sources for another article I care about, Firearm errors in media, so I do admit paintball has been off my mind for a while. Nonetheless, that article is an excellent example of compromise and referencing... in a single month, we went from having 0 to 10 references and nearly half the article is sourced. We can do the same here. Thanks for bringing it up, Three ways round. Let's get to work on sources! RavenStorm 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

man i've been trying to find resources, but i havn't had any luck whatsoever. would you beleive that my entire school library doesn't have one book on paintballing. i'm gonna try some online databases my school has, and then i might pop into the public library if i can.

fighting the good fight, yours truly Threewaysround 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)