Talk:PbNation

Clean Up
I am going to place a clean-up tag on this article tomorrow, a lot of the information is outdated and/or incorrect.Snake6 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make cleaning this article up a small project of mine over the next week or so. One of the things I am going to do tomorrow, if nobody objects is delete the individual forums from this article. No forum on the site is really notable, other than the small talk forum(maybe). We are also going to need some references for why the small talk forum is notable. Also I believe that this article should not be as much about the forums on pbnation and more about the company. As I stated earlier, the forums themselves are not notable but the company is. If anyone disagrees, please let me know.Snake6 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the forums, specifically the number and sheer size of them, and the users are more notable than the company itself. robinsucks —Preceding comment was added at 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The forums are just a means to an end. There are many larger forums out there that do not have a wikipedia article, and a large part of why the forums on PBN are one of the biggest in the world is because the databases have never been purged of old posts and inactive members. If anything the forums should be seperate article, apart from the company in a list form. What makes the company notable is its advertising revenue. Notice how the vast majority of the references cited are talking about the company, and not the forums. This leads me to believe that the best way to have this article remain in wikipedia is to have it talk about the company and its influence in the paintball industry first, and the forums second. When a company is making over a million dollars a year, the article should be about the company first and the services it provides second. The articles for any other paintball company do not focus on their products or services, they focus on the company itself. The products and services either have a seperate article or are meantioned in the article about the company. If the services were more inportant than the company, PBReview would have an article.Snake6 (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think most members would disagree that the forums are a means to an end. To most, the forums are all there is to PbNation. According to Bigboards there are only 14 larger forums at all. What constitutes an "inactive" member? I sign into a couple forums once every couple years as I have a pertaining project, but I've never had an account or old post deleted on me. As long as the information is still searchable, why would they delete old posts? Where did you get the "million dollars a year" number? - Robinsucks

Forbes?
You cite Forbes electing this the paintball site of the year. I see no trace of this at the link you provided and a google search yields no results; could you verify? --Itemirus (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok i found something here but in my opinion this is quite trivial in regards to WP:N; --Itemirus (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

pbnation friendly people
o yes pbnation is the most friendly place there is. we have people in small talk who make fun of you for any thing. if you have a idea we will say fail and give you epic pictures. if you are a noob we will make fun of you faster then deleteing your acount. if you want to buy something off somone it will probaly come in peices or destoryed. dont worry we are here to help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamdynasty8 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

^All you are missing is the dodgy. lol --N0tverycreative (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

techpb
Shouldn't there be a section going over pbnation's behavior towards techpb? Seems like that would be a very relevant topic of discussion given that there is a lot of criticism of pbnation as a whole. A wikipedia article should take take a fair, unbiased look at a topic without one-sidedness. --AhabAhab (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)