Talk:Woodsball

Speedball in woodaball
I've remove this part since it doesn't brieng anything intesresting nor important to the article, and like everithyng else, it as no source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Level of plays
The part about the level of play is mostly opinion based and without sources, sayin that "advance woodball player are KNOWN to play better" is first incorrect, and second not based on anything. Advance player are not always parts of teams, some very experience player will play by themselve in Big game and exel. The biggest problem with this whole article is the idea of "advance woodsball" that doesn't mean anything, that's what doesn't have any source to sustain the information given, all the position are personal invention by certain players and nothing define, everything on woodballs tactic and position are POV
 * Agreed, I have changed it to what it should be - recreational play vs tournament play Jwoodger (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Marker section
I remove the small paragraph talking about the internal function and made a link to the paintball marker article, i modified the milsim part because it was base mostly on RAP marker and not milsim marker in general —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture description
The first picture at the top says that paintball markmen are "icon" to woodsball and scenario ball, i've never even heard of that before, i will remove it, it should be called a woodsball player and not a marksmen since there is notjing indicating is a markemen except the scope, that any player could put on a paintball marker, this feels like personal promotion off the way the person on the picture play, wich is only know by him if you look at the picture, i won't remove it now i'll give you time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The one with the woodsball player (nothing on the picture says its a riflemen) talking about is Co2 is too long and should be link to the paintball equipement page instead off talking about frost, I will remove that part

s

Perspective
I think there is an ugly bias in this article insinuating that woodsball players are new to the game and if they continue, they will switch to speedball. This seems very biased and condescending. Not everybody wants to play 5 minute rounds using 500 rounds of paint every minute. Woodsball is a more tactical approach moving at a slower pace- this doesn't mean that it is for newbies. "newbies" go rent and play at speedball parks, why is this any different?

I would like to see the article beginning rewritten so that it doesn't imply a paintball hierarchy with speedball at the top.
 * I haven't really found this in the article. Could you give specific examples?  J- stan  Talk 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes about a couple edit trends
This article has several issues that I've noticed. First of all, one issue that arose a while ago - camouflage and its usage. People who don't know how to use it properly or to its full potential often play down its usefulness, saying stuff like, "Well, if you move, then your camouflage won't help you at all". This is far from correct. I myself am a paintball marksman and use camouflage a lot. In fact, it is the single most important thing which keeps me from being spotted and eliminated. I admit, the finer points of camouflage are numerous and can be confusing, and it does take a long time to be able to master it, but I don't think that is any reason why we should say that it is essentially useless unless you're holding still. Saying that betrays one's own ignorance of the technology and the ideas behind it.

Second, we've had numerous problems with people talking in a POV way about Special Ops Paintball. This can't happen. An accurate description of something, like this article on Woodsball, will only work if we maintain absolute neutrality in the text. Otherwise facts get warped, the wrong conclusions are drawn, et cetera - basically, it's a mess. Not only is it important to maintain neutrality, but this happens to be a commercial company, and this acts like advertisement for them. The Wikipedia that I believe in is far from a billboard. So let's try to maintain a more neutral standpoint when discussing Special Ops Paintball. (By the way, I happen to have purchased virtually all of my equipment from SpecOPS Paintball, so has most of the rest of my team, and we all are members of the Brigade, Forum and all sorts of stuff, so don't go thinking I have a grudge against SpecOPS.) ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've modified greatly the camouflage part because most off it is opinion on its efficiency or a list of camouflage. The most popular is an opinion since its depend wich country your from, (in Canada CADPAT is far more poupular than woodland) Camouflage in paintball is use the exact same way as military camouflage and that is why a linked it. Camouflage is not essentiel nor the "backbone of woodsball", it just give who an advantage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More Images
It'd be great if we could have some more images. I'd like to see some of general woodsball combat, for the main sections. My images at the top of the page are not only small, but they're poor quality. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

-In a few days I'll upload some images of woodsball games and I'll see if I can write up some more on Player Positions, etc." -Steven
 * Excellent! It's good to hear that another person is taking some serious interest in this article. I was starting to wonder whether there were any other woodsballer Wikipedians... ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Player Positions
And could we have some more work done on the player positions? I am a marksman, so I've done work to that section. I don't maintain any illusions - I only know the common knowledge basics about the others. I'd rather not step out of my territory and simply write what I've seen, 'cause there are philosophies and ideals that are often not on the surface. The other woodsball experience I have is of basic infantry, but it's been a while, and besides, I can't think of much to write about basic infantry anyway. They're basic infantry. That just about says it to me. Others probably (and hopefully) have a more extensive opinion of the grunts. This can turn into a great article, people, so keep up work on it! ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we split the Marksman section into a new article?
There's a lot of information in this section, and it's rather obviously different from the other sections in the Specialists section. We have several times the amount of information for marksmen than we do for riflemen, for example. Thoughts? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

p.s. If I don't get any comments within a week, I'm just going to go ahead and do it myself. I haven't experienced anyone else showing any kind of interest in the article, so unfortunately it seems as if it's up to me to maintain the article and perform the split myself. If you are interested, please comment so we can work together on this. This is, after all, a public article, and I don't feel that I should be making decisions so unilaterally.

I'd agree that it should probably be split, with a small summary remaining, as it is much more thorough than any of the other positions. Robogymnast 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, a brief summary of marksmen should be left while the bulk of the information is moved to a new article. I'd suggest we could wait another day, and if no one posts anything against separating the articles, then we should go ahead and do it. I'll go out and have one of the guys take some pics of me in my gear, so we'll have a bunch of new marksman pics and the page won't look bare. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 15:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

maybe there no one else interested in the article because its quite irrelevant, as said it before and i'll say it again, the way you play is only your concerns, and of no interest this encyclopedia, my space and face book are great for talking about your very interesting life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, who keeps changing the marksmen section? For the last time, a "marksman" is NOT the same as a "sniper". Sniper= concealed position shooting and camouflage/ emphasis on stealth Marksmen= long range shooting That's how the military does it, and that's what the definitions of marksmen and snipers are. And really, I personally play sniper, and have played it for 4 years. Those who claim that they are the same class have obviously not played paintball as either class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiffel56 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Positions layout?
If any of you have been watching this article, you'll know that the current player positions layout is different from the older layout. The primary reason why I did this was that marksman links had to go direct to the Specialists section, and so I changed the layout to make the link more direct. Now that this is no longer an issue with the Paintball marksman article, I'm wondering whether we should change the layout back. In other words, are there any obvious pros and cons of each that stand out to any of you? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Scout image
Maximilli, why not just crop the scout picture, that way it won't take up so much space but you can still have the zoomed in view? Robogymnast 22:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Robogymnast - thanks. Now, I just have to find the original image. It's buried somewhere in My Pictures...dang.... ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 00:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Page layout
This page's layout (i.e. the images and text being in the positions they are) is deliberate. The reasons for this is that having images which 'speak' to each other (graphic artists' term, meaning their positions relate) makes a page much more interesting in a visual sense. Having all of the images on the right side is boring in a graphic sense, no matter what individual users' opinions are. The result of having the page look graphically interesting like this is that it looks more professional, which is, of course, what we're going for in Wikipedia. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Scenario/MilSim Paintball is not woodsball
The definition of 'woodsball' contained in the beginning of this article is any paintball played in a natural setting. This is true. The rest of this article then proceeds to present a SUBSECTION of woodsball as ALL of woodsball. The vast majority of woodsball is played by people who play once or twice per year at commercial paintball fields who rent their equipment.

I really think some effort needs to be made here to distinguish that playing in the woods is not the same as paying any attention to things such as 'riflemen', 'anti-armor', or whatever. I also think that this whole article treads dangerously close to a personal narrative of a particular person's impression of how THEY play paintball, as opposed to a researched presentation of information about paintball from other sources.

Raehl 18:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am slightly bothered by this and some other items as well, and voiced some of my concerns in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paintball. However, I'm not looking to start any WikiFights over the subject. I'm happy as long as the speedball articles don't start getting all weird on me. I've played a ton of woodsball, I've played a ton of speedball, and I've played in tournements. The woodsball-related articles DO sound like scenereo/milsim players in the woods, as opposed to woods players in the woods. There are some emphasized strategies that are simply not as common or as useful in woodsball as the article makes them out to be, along with other items in that vein. - Toastydeath 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, everyone, I must say I'm disappointed to see that woodsball is so poorly known - especially with Toastydeath, of whom I had the initial impressions that he/she knew what it was about a bit. I have played a lot of paintball, and most of it has been woodsball. This has been played across the 'States and Canada, especially in the Midwest, Colorado, and my home, British Columbia. As one might imagine, this has suppkied a lot of very diverse experiences, and so by no means can my experience be just of a single region.

I'm not going to go into it very deeply right now, because I'm probably not going to have a chance to get on here again for about a week, but I want to say one more thing. A good three quarters of my paintball experience, possibly more, has been strategic paintball. There was strategy involved, and one will take this moment to note the difference between strategy and tactics. One may be interested to know that of this experience in strategic woodsball, I have only commanded perhaps a third of the time if not less, as I play a lot of paintball without my team. I've noticed that there's always one or two guys on the field, normally more, who just take charge of those around them. I've had the opportunity of being one of those guys on a number of occasion. If nothing else, squads and team elements are formed this way - most of the time, it's totally unofficial, too.

Woodsball is not scenario paintball, but it isn't a bunch of guys running around in the woods without any cohesion at all. Not any more. Woodsball at its peak is a very complicated sport, and those who utilize these nuances of strategy and play are more successful - so says my own personal experience. I don't know how many times (I literally can't count them) when I've seen a coordinated squad obliterate hordes of guys who haven't so much as pointed to each other. That's first hand experience - not read on the internet or in a book or anything. I can't cite it. However, it is true. You're just going to have to take my word for it.

I can't talk any more right now - I'll give you guys an idea of what I'm talking about next week. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've thrown another two cents of mine up on the project talk page, since I think this is a bigger issue than just woodsball. - Toastydeath 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote you maximilli "That's first hand experience - not read on the internet or in a book or anything." and i should link you to this No original research and i'll quote this from this page "All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable using a reliable, published source. " Most off your article doesn't have any source and is the way you see woodsball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about bias in this article
I have noticed that this article, and the marksman article that has spun off, are largely filled with inaccuracies and rely heavily on the commercial product of Special Ops Paintball. While Spec Ops has done a phenomenal job of marketing their Woodsball (note the capital W) product, this specific style is but a small part of woodsball. Since the majority of people do not play in this fashion, and many of the tactics and position concepts are a product owned by a commercial entity, it is not appropriate for them to be so heavily covered in what should be a neutral source of factual information. I'm afraid that these entries read much like a marketing release promoting a product. For example, the statement "a telescopic sight, stock, and more accurate barrel can be added to the marker, and that player can then play as a marksman." is complete nonsense. Purchasing these extra gadgets (some of which are not very affective) does not qualify a player for any title, nor does lack of them exclude someone. So, you can see why this article does not seem credible. I suggest that this either be moved under its own heading related specifically to Spec Ops Woodsball and be more clearly described as a commercial play style, or the Spec Ops terminology and concepts be scaled back heavily. WilDAmerican 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posing your concerns. However, I must confess disagreement. I am a semi-pro woodsball commander, and I've played a lot of 'ball across the NA continent. (See this page before reading on.) While the article does concentrate upon 'advanced woodsball', it isn't accurate to accuse it of being the creation of SpecOPS. It may interest you (probably not, but I'm writing it anyway) that I came up with the idea of a woodsball team organized with positions and everything, before I knew SpecOPS existed. It might not have existed in the first place at that time, I dunno. I based my ideas off the military.


 * About Rhael's concerns...instead of criticizing how the article is written, perhaps you should write a section entitled 'Mainstream Woodsball'? Then I get to go and find some way of being politically correct while saying 'advanced woodsball'. Seriously, though, I don't think it's much of an issue. Once somebody writes what basic woodsball is like in a new section or something, then the problem will be solved. One doesn't discount the article on mathematics just because more people add and subtract, or whatever, than they use algebra. By the way, I have no proof that that is true, or even if the mathematics article has that issue (although I have suspicions for both). It's simply an example.


 * As to the issue of the player position names...they really don't matter. We could call them whatever we wanted to, and they would still be the same positions. I used those terms because that's what I've heard most often during my travels. I've had the opportunity to see how people play paintball across the NA continent, and these terms are the most consistent amongst woodsballers today. I have noticed some shift from militaristic terms to more neutral terms in the last couple of years, but really, most people are still using them. No citations for any of this - you'll just have to take the information at face value. And I'll ignore the implication that I'm writing about my personal experiences, because I'm assuming you aren't insulting my work. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Again this whole article is way too detailed for the lack of reference, this article and the one on paintball marksmen should be deleted or a lest heavely modified. Those article where written by one happy paintball player who wanted to share is experience. that person should read the rule of editing and mainly this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, read carefully, there is a lot of thing here your doing. You need reliable sources, saying yourself that we have to take your "word for it" just show us how unreliable your article is, who are you, the holder of universal truth and knowledge, i don't think so. Its not because this is an open encyclopedia that you can write everithing you know to share with other, quoting from the rule page "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars.". More info is always good, why do you think the article failed miserably its good article nomination, because its bad. I'Ll give a bit of time to defend this article and the one on paintball markmen, but i don't see good argument or sources, then i'll delete both —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag
Per my explanation in...a number of places, namely on this page and here, I'm removing the dispute tag, since all the issues have been explained. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 19:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What Happened?
What happened to the dangers section?! I think this was very useful! People need to know that this is a safe sport but you have to be careful. What Happened?
 * I believe that having a section titled "Dangers" implies that paintball is an unsafe sport, which is simply untrue. Safe play is somewhat covered in Paintball, however I think that an expansion of it with an emphasis on safe play might be a good idea, so that it can be linked from any of the other paintball articles. - Robogymnast 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Rifleman/Light Gunner
I would like to get an opinion on adding a Heavy Rifleman section to the basic infantry. This may fall more into the gunner category than basic infantry, so as an option I have also called it Light Gunner. This Heavy Rifleman/Light Gunner position would fall into the Broadsword Heavy Rifleman category on SpecOps. J-stan 01:21 31 December, 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey. Thanks for taking an interest in the article; we really could use more people who are actively contributing here.


 * I am myself familiar with SpecOPS Paintball and its concept of strategy and tactics; however, I personally don't like SpecOPS' way of doing things, especially their strategy and team organization. Their strategy is very...basic. They rely almost exclusively upon flanking maneuvers to actually get anything done. I have wished frequently that I might have a chance to bring my team against theirs on the field and see whether the individual skill of their players is what has given them such a reputation, for surely their strategy is too simple for that.


 * Their team organization is another sore point for me. They have, what, six player positions? Dagger/Light Rifleman, Sabre/Medium Rifleman, Broadsword/Heavy Rifleman, Hammer/Heavy Mobile Gunner, Ambush Sniper, and Squad Commander. How many are actually necessary in real paintball? Scouts (Daggers), riflemen (Sabres and Broadswords), and specialists: gunners (Hammers), marksmen (Ambush Snipers), and, I guess, commanders. But have Commander as a position? This is particularly odd. A commander can have any position, so long as he's in contact with his team and knows where the enemy is. Why have the commander be a designated position? Especially if the commander and sub-commander are eliminated - then who commands the team? There's no sub-sub-commander. The vast majority of team commanders are elected more or less officially by the team based on command ability, strategic ability, and overall experience. The command chain is then established down the line: team commander, then the next most experienced guy, then the next, and the next, et cetera. It only makes sense.


 * Now, don't get me wrong, here. I don't have anything against SpecOPS (except perhaps their high prices); in fact, in the early days of my team, almost all the members were outfitted from SpecOPS. However, the issue is that SpecOPS is still a commercial company, and its goal in all that it does is to gain publicity or promote its products. Half the Positions pages at SpecOPS are all about what equipment each player of that position should ideally have, and I have come across a great deal of players who are walking images of that 'ideal Sabre' or 'ideal Ambush Sniper' or whatever. SpecOPS has sold a lot of goods from having those extra positions, and I say, hey, good for you. But, it doesn't quite make sense to me when those positions (such as the Hammer gunner, which is the exact same thing as a Broadsword when you think about it) start making inroads in places like advanced woodsball tourneys, where I'd least expect them, and here, in Wikipedia. So, rather than just say, 'Hey, the Hammer or the Broadsword is a stupid idea, so we shouldn't have it here', I'd like to ask everyone to just stop and think for a moment. What really DO the two positions do? Is a Light Gunner actually any different from the gunner specified in the 'Specialists' section? And no, I don't mean tiny little details like, 'Well, light gunners move more', because that changes not only region to region, but person to person. You could have a scout, as I do, who doesn't like to sprint around the woods, but rather likes to sneak and get me intel simply from watching the enemy pass by him. My point is, what is the difference between what a light gunner does, and what a gunner or rifleman does? Is such a difference strong enough to merit a class distinction? Gunners fire a lot more, while riflemen fire a lot less; that's pretty much the distinction between riflemen and gunners right there. They do much the same things, but that is enough of a class distinction that it won't vary from person to person. Similarly, if you have a rifleman who doesn't stick with other riflemen when he plays, but goes off solo, then you probably have a combat scout or something. Whatever he is, he is, by the loose working definition, not a rifleman. See what I mean?


 * Anyway, this post is long and largely disjointed, so don't hesitate to say 'Max, you're confusing me, so just slow down and say that again' or something like that. At any rate, as I said above, thanks for taking interest here. Feel free to join the Paintball WikiProject if you're interested. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would like to join Wikiproject:Paintball, so do i just add my name to the list, or what? J-stan 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, hey, it was worth a shot. Thanks for being cool about this.

Sure! I'm of the opinion that nobody should ever lose their cool here, 'cause everyone's just trying to make the encyclopedia better and that makes us all on the same side. That's what I think.

Anyway, enough of that. Go right ahead and sign up there, and then you'll officially be a member! Someone will be along to give you a welcome message when you do. If no one else, then you'll get a message from my smiling...um, fingers. :) ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I propose we nominate for Good article, i could go on and on with why's and hows, but i just want to know if you agree or disagree and why.

peace - Three  ways  round  21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

well i waited for a while i'm nominating- Three ways  round  19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

GA failure
I'm sorry, but per the Good Article criteria, this article needs some heavy work before it can be considered a GA. First, and most importantly, is that there are only two references, which, as far as GA candidacy is concerned, is insufficient for an article of any size, much less an article of this length. In addition, both footnotes are placed incorrectly (one is before punctuation, and there is a space between the period and the footnote for the other one), the references are from an unreliable source (a site selling paintball equipment), and the first link has absolutely nothing to do with what it is supposedly referencing. In addition, per WP:LEAD, the lead is far too short and does not adequately summarize the article. The writing is certainly not bad, but also not great (for example, using contractions is always a no-no). I do like the structure of the article, though I definitely do not approve of the links to SpecialOpsPaintball in the first section, which basically constitutes an advertisement. I must commend whoever contributed the images, as they are all excellent (and they're all fair use with accompanying fair use rationale), but I feel as if there actually may be too many images that pretty much have the same purpose. (Let it be known that this is separate from the GA failure, as images alone will not gain nor lose an article GA status.) Overall, this is, in my opinion, a good article. However, it is not a Good Article. Feel free to resubmit it to WP:GAC if/when the above issues are addressed. Cheers. -- Kicking222 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To do list
Here are a couple things that need to be improved, according to our good article review.


 * 1) Existing Refrences, they are placed incorrectly, and may not be appropriate.
 * 2) Refrences, we have 2 right now, we need a lot more. and we need to make them good ones too, in fact the entire paintball category needs refrences.
 * 3) The lead needs to be fixed up, and substantially enlarged
 * 4) Some small writing clean ups

That is pretty much what this article needs to become a good article. Let's get cracking.

peace- Three ways  round  20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerns on Focus, Syntax, and Non-neutral Prescriptive Statements
I contributed some copyediting to this article, which it seemed to be in serious need of. I found information that was often repeated, opinionated, or argumentative, and in multiple places, transitions between author POV and opinion were obvious and distracting. At the risk of sounding elitist, I wanted to point out a couple of the more common errors so that future editors may consider them when adding to this page. It seems many people want to get Woodsball Good Article status, and as I see it, these things are key... :) SPL Wolf 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

References to Speedball

In a number of places, characteristics of Woodsball seemed to be described only in the way that they differed from Speedball. Two troubling effects follow from this:


 * It seems to acknowledge speedball as the standard form of paintball, and relegate woodsball to the status of a variant or deviation of the speedball gametype (which simply isn't true).


 * It encourages the addition of non-neutral editorials about the pros and cons of the two gametypes, and fosters an in-article discussion on which variant is "better."

This article has a Speedball in Woodsball section; most references to Speedball should be confined to this area only...that's why it's there. People are obviously passionate about the type of game they favor, but wikipedia is not a forum to discuss these opinions. The woodsball entry must speak to woodsball on the basis of its own merits -- not its differences from speedball. In my edit, I attempted to remove these gratuitous comparisons, while preserving any neutral information they may have provided.


 * I second that opinion though it seems to me that the article is biased the other way round. Read this section carefully Where speedball can resemble a game that simply revolves around basic angles and fast-shooting markers, woodsball is intended to comprehensively simulate military combat tactics. Strategy is more important in woodsball than rate of fire (how fast the marker fires), and relies much more on maneuvering, group cohesion, and broader strategy. This is all about discriminating speedball in a clever and disguised manner (e.g. the expression "can resemble") and showing as if the main factors in winning a speedball match are getting the "basic" angles right and having a fast shooting marker without any strategy or team tactics at all which is totally untrue. Especially the myth about fast shooting markers where most fields limit the MROF to 15 bps or the firing mode to semi...

Focus and Redundancy

I urge editors to maintain focus with regard to the article topic, as well as Sections. Woodsball Strategy has its own article, and this page's description of it should by synoptic. Likewise, the recent edit by 76.178.13.98 regarding MARPAT mostly contains information that belongs (and exists) on the MARPAT article page, because it speaks to MARPAT in general, and not it's usage in paintball. When editing, ask, has this information been covered elsewhere in the article? Is it essential to the understanding of Woodsball?

Non-factual Information, Overgeneralizations, and Global Statements

Prior to my copyedit, there seemed to be a lot of "When you're playing woodsball, you should do this" statements. Or, "Experienced players always have this opinion," or worse, "People who do this have guts / people who do this are stupid."

Wikipedia is fact-based! All of the above examples share the opinion of their authors, but do not offer factual information about the sport of Woodsball. Comments like these belong in a paintball forum or message board. Point of View is an essential element of tone, and first- and second-person statements lend themselves to unprofessionalism. SPL Wolf 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one, this article does a lot off overgeneralisation, stating that "advance woodballs" should be played a certain way while there is no source to even talke about such a thing about "advance woodsball". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and I have also trimmed a lot of strategy and how to information. Jwoodger (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
I would like to put this article up for peer review, in the hopes that we can have a successful good article nomination. Thoughts?  J- stan  Talk 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Roles
It seems to me that the sections on the different classes or roles that a player can take is completely invented by either leagues, field operators, websites etc - and classes are defined differently depending on who you ask. I propose that the section is condensed into about a single paragraph AT MOST - detailing that woodsball players can take on different roles, differing equipment, strategies, etc. Any thoughts? Jwoodger (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, I have condensed this stuff into a sourced section ("strategic play") detailing class differences in teams that play woodsball. No need at all to list every different kind of class and their abilities (which will change from team to team, league to league, etc). Jwoodger (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyperball
What is Hyperball considered to be? I only recently became aware of this term as it was incorporated uncited into this article - and the few web results I got indicated to me that it was a kind of speedball / woodsball hybrid... Anybody? Jwoodger (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)