Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paintball

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.

Peer Review
If we're pushing Towards FA status for Paintball and Woodsball, Maybe we should start requesting peer reviews. I actually posted one on the woodsball talk page, but I removed it since I should have gotten approval from the community. Community, your response please.  J- stan  Talk 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Info Request - Marker Specific Barrel Bore Info
I've edited the infobox template Paintball-gun and added a "Bore" section. As of right now any article that uses the infobox but fails to specify bore information will simply read "Not Specified" on the "Bore" section. If you know bore information regarding a marker please specify it in the infobox of the article to reflect the standard/stock bore size. Also, many paintball marker articles are missing this infobox please help standardize these articles by adding them. Pmicka 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Paintball stub proposal
Hey guys. I think it's about time we got a stub template setup for paintball related stubs. Since there isn't already a stub, the first step is to gather as many article as we can within the scope of paintball that qualify as stubs.

WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals

Any suggestions? --Pmicka 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a simple stub image I just created that we could use for the template.



It's a good idea, but isn't it kinda within the grasp of the rateing commitee mentioned below?!? The rateing commitee should be up soon hopfully. I think?!?. maybe we should talk about it down there. - Three ways  round  01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

ps. if you interested in joining the rating commitee just say so in the section

It is within the grasp of anyone who has time to help compile a list a short paintball related articles that can be classified as stubs, regardless of the article quality. It will make it a lot easier to keep track of articles that need work and will make them a little less diffuse. Pmicka 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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)

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? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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"? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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 WikiProject Paintball template to look like WP:MILHIST's, which you can see here. What are your ideas? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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)

I could also help out with rating articles, if you need. Just tell me what to do.  J- stan  Talk 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 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.

Jdash here. Looking at the variants page (the synchronization of which is current priority), and it seems that that goal is completed. any thoughts? J-stan 03:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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 paintball category 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

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- Three ways  round  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- Three ways  round  19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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- Three ways  round  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 - Three ways  round  01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Player positions
Hey, is everyone cool with the changes I made to the woodsball rifleman and scout pages? I tried to bring them towards the depth of the marksman page. I will be focusing on those pages for now. Please post suggestions on their respective talk pages. J-stan 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ghillie suit
Hello everyone! Just joined this group and was wondering if anyone thinks there should be an article about paintball sniper ghillies. If so, should this be part of woodsball marksman or just be an independent article. I was in the middle of making this article, when somethin happened and I lost it all. I had been going to make it and propose it be merged to see who thinks what, but I will just ask here. Deflagro 00:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that the topic warrants its own article. Wouldn't it be more effective to expand the woodsball or woodsball marksman article to reference the use of ghillie suits and link to the wiki article that deals with that topic: Ghillie suit If the style of play in relation to woodsball players who used them were dramatically unlike other forms of woodsball then the situation would be different. Pmicka 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Marker" or "gun"?
Hey everyone. After moving "Electropneumatic paintball gun" to Electropneumatic paintball marker, it was brought to my attention by another user that it may have been better for me to have opened a discussion on the gun --> marker change either on Requested moves or on the article's Talk page before doing so unilaterally. The argument was that since it was not official WP:PAINTBALL policy to refer to "paintball guns" as "markers," I was inviting an edit war.

So what does everyone think about making it official policy to refer to all "paintball guns" as markers? I am of the belief that paintball has and continues to hold a bad reputation as a "violent" sport, and that we should do anything we can to change that image. Given that we are aiming for Paintball to become a FA, I think that this is a minor policy change that can have a major effect. Is it possible for us to have a vote of some sort on it? --Donutmonger 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely agree with that, and have been changing "gun" to "marker" when I come across it. Paintball has enough of a bad rap already from people wrongly thinking that it glorifies violence, and all of the major paintball manufacturers that I know of refer to their products as markers. Simply put, guns are designed to injure or kill, while paintball markers are equipment for a sport. Robogymnast 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree I don't have a problem with it being called a gun, but I see where it would be better to call it a marker in an encyclopedia. Deflagro 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the Woodsball marksman page, I actually changed "Weaponry" to marker. I think that if we do this, it will create a less violent view of paintball. Right now there can be an infamous view of the sport.  J- stan  Talk 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very much agreed. The use of the term gun is not to be confounded with marker. Thank you Donutmonger, Robogymnast and J-stan for your bold contributions! RavenStorm 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, we're bold! :)  J- stan  Talk 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Extending on this, maybe we should change "kill" to "elimination".  J- stan  Talk 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Paintball strategy deletion review
I feel it is unacceptable to let the deletion of the Paintball strategy article to pass without comments from members of this wikiproject. The deletion passed with 2 votes, none of whom are members of this project. I propose a deletion review as soon as possible. Thoughts?  J- stan  Talk 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of this article. Unfortunately I have to update my watchlist (which normally should contain all paintball articles, but since the "List of paintball articles" category is in my watchlist I should be noticing new articles anyways) but the creators of the article as well our members should try their best to integrate these articles into our project. As for whether or not it should be deleted... well, I dunno. I never got a chance to see the article, but anything that sounds like "paintball strategy" just doesn't sound right to me. Strategy is an opinion, something an educated writer would publish, and usually unfit for the encyclopedic format of Wikipedia. Of course I would actually have to see the article to pass a judgement. Then we can decide if the project will back this article or approve of it's deletion. RavenStorm 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that the article, being part of this project, was deleted a) with two votes, which is too little to determine consensus and b) without the opinion expressed from any member of this wikiproject. It was suggested that it be transwikied to wikibooks, but half of the voters (mind you, one voter) informed me that it was outright deleted.  J- stan  Talk 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the reasons given by those involved with that article's deletion were valid and that the decision should stand. Pmicka 13:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it can be improved! Compare the Woodsball strategy article. Maybe what we should do is create a Speedball strategy article. That way we can have strategy articles for both games instead of just one.  J- stan  Talk 21:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we really aren't doing anything
We have been tagged as inactive. Let's get editing! J- ſtan TalkContribs 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Face it, most people who care about being paintball nerds are really on another site. *cough* *pbn* *cough* --N0tverycreative (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PB-familiar
Template:PB-familiar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. szyslak 09:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Paintball-gun
Just wondering what other people think about this, but since it the the WikiProject's policy to refer to paintball guns as markers instead of guns, should we move Template:Paintball-gun to Template:Paintball-Marker? Just wanted to get some other people's thoughts on this.  Def lag ro  C/T 01:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. J- ſtan TalkContribs 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone else?  Def lag ro   C/T 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No one else seems to be active. J- ſtan TalkContribs 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So should we move it? Because if we are the only two active, that would be a unanimous vote by the Project to move it. ;)  Def lag ro   C/T 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Silence implies conensus". Go right ahead. It makes more sense anyway. J- ſtan TalkContribs 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm active too! I concur with the move. Of course, seeing as how you've already started, my vote doesn't really mean much haha. Good job taking the initiative. --Donutmonger (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks. I moved it. Can you help me fix the links in what links here for Paintball-gun template? If so start from the bottom and we will meet in the middle.  Def lag ro  C/T 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I started, but all that was left was a few talk page comments and the like. Things merely informing others that the template was created. I didn't really see need to continue changing them. J- ſtan TalkContribs 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I thought you were online when I posted that. Then when I actually looked it turned out that only about 6 or 7 articles actually used the template...Last template I changed and had to edit every page had about 30 pages and this involved moving the template from the top to the bottom. That was horrible. Thanks anyway!  Def lag ro   C/T 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Better late than never, Donutmonger! Anyway, it wasn't the controversial a move seeing how only about 6 or 7 articles actually use that template.....  Def lag ro   C/T 17:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reinstating the Proto SLG article
Back on Nov. 17, I created an article for the new Proto SLG marker, mostly because there was Proto SLG content in the Dye Matrix article, and the two are completely different markers. Within a few hours, the article was marked for Speedy Deletion, and though I protested, it was deleted soon thereafter.

I exchanged messages on the talk page of the admin that deleted the page (see here), and his basic argument was that the article was not "notable" enough - i.e. there were no outside 3rd party sources that independently discussed the SLG. He was pretty nice about it though, and told me that the article could be reinstated as soon as I came back to him with outside proof that people other than me or the manufacturer was talking about it.

Unfortunately, since its such a new marker, I haven't been able to find anything about the SLG, outside of the usual places (paintball forums). So I'm putting out an open call for you guys to help out. If you come across anything that discusses the Proto SLG in-depth, can you let me know that way I can forward it to the admin? I think all of us know that the SLG is pretty unique (the first automag-type marker in along time), but we need outside independent proof. Thanks! --Donutmonger (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a blog but I don't think you can cite that. Here's a more profressional blog. Sorry. That's all I can find right now.  Def lag ro   C/T 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blogs won't work. I'll help out. J- ſtan TalkContribs 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I knew we couldn't, but that was all I could find with a quick search.  Def lag ro   C/T 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions guys. I guess just keep this in mind, and if you come across anything in your internet travels, post it here. It's just frustrating because so many articles for less-notable markers (Spyder Rodeo?!) have made it past the admins. --Donutmonger (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things
Greetings, paintballers. I'm dropping you a note to inform that I've put Tippinators up for deletion. It's not within the scope of Wikipedia to have amateur clubs like this, which haven't received any publicity. Please join the debate at Wikipedias:Article for deletion/Tippinators. --Montchav (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Paintball markers
I changed many of the paintball markers to be listed in categories the same way. Most of them were in just the "Paintball markers" so I kept it that way. Some of them also had "Paintball", this is not necessary since the "Paintball markers" category is part of the "Paintball" category. Do I have this correct? Thanks. AddZero (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New Articles
Hey, I just created some new articles located at Portland Naughty Dogs and Ryan Podesta, and was wondering that since I'm relatively new to paintball, if I missed anything.--  Iamawesome  800  23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

All the articles I created are at the bottom of the template.--  Iamawesome  800  23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of paintball?
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 23:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation
As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tippmann A-5 Stock Barrel
I bought a Tippmann A-5, and when my barrel screws into the gun it doesn't seem like it fits perfectly snug. The barrel, although not too much, can be wiggled a little bit. I was wondering if this was normal. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.16.71 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages bot
I have requested a Popular pages bot for this project, which should be generated shortly (within a month I think). So until then, please don't create a Popular Page which is currently redlinked in the tab at the top of several pages. Cheers! Jwoodger (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Article
Paintball has been granted Good Article status, congratulations to everyone involved! Let's not lose focus though - let's shoot for the loftier goal of featured article for paintball, and bring the other high importance articles up to Good status also. Jwoodger (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Paintball to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Paintball/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Paintball articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Paintball articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople
An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration
This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)