Talk:Boomerang

About the glitch, does anyone know if the hitbox is constant or is it just stuck there as a model and does nothing? ChocolatePie^{is tasty!} 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Split

Could go either way, honestly. Unlike Hammer and Hammer Flip, this move is shared across three different characters as "Boomerang," and Gale Boomerang has enough written about it that it can stand on its own. I'm leaning towards support. MuteSpittah (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2016 (EDT)

Weak support per MuteSpittah. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 11:25, 26 April 2016 (EDT)

Support. The Gale Boomerang does have a functional difference from the other characters' Boomerangs, so it should have its own separate article. CpnFlacon (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

I don't necessarily oppose, but I am a little iffy on this one. Serpent King 04:09, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Support. Like the Blaster and Reflector situations, this is an attack that is essentially similar but has enough special properties and a different name. I think that warrants a move. John PK SMAAAASH!! 14:21, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

After thinking it over, I oppose on grounds that I think this split will be a real mess. Let me lay it out: We have a move that has been used by a character (Link) for 2 games, plus a clone (YL) in one of those 2 games. Then, come Brawl, Link's 'rang gets replaced with the gale, and we get a new clone with the original move, which also caries over into 4. So essentially, we are dealing with 4 different moves here: Link's Boomerang (SSB, SSBM), Young Link's Boomerang (SSBM), Toon Link's Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4), and Link's Gale Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4). Where do we make the split and what goes where? I think we are honestly better off leaving it as is. Serpent King 23:46, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Oppose per Serpent. This would be an even messier job than the other splits we've done recently. Disaster Flare (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

The split would be obvious: Gale Boomerang from the rest of the Boomerangs. Idk I think they can both stand on their own, there's enough written about both. Any "messiness" would be because it's Link's special in two games, but that is easily remedied by "Boomerang is a special move used by Link in Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee, Young Link, and Toonk Link." MuteSpittah (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Per MuteSpittah. I could probably put together a draft for this today, if you'd like to see how it plays out. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 07:46, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Strong Support Poultry(talk) the God-Slayer 20:03, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Wait wait wait. So we are going to split this 1:3? That makes no sense. Also I argue that "Boomerang is a special move used by Link in Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee, Young Link, and Toonk Link." is, infact, messy as hell. Serpent King 20:15, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Oh and while I'm at it, the regular Boomerang is a custom for Link in 4, making the above statement inaccurate. Serpent King 20:21, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

It's 4:2 in favor of splitting. But I oppose per Mars and The D. Penro 20:23, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Nono 1:3 in terms of moves per page (Boomerang would have 3 different moves while Gale Boomerang has only 1). Serpent King 20:29, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Oh, oops. Penro (Talk) 20:37, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Lol, chill out Serpent. And how does that not make sense? What's this ratio you're throwing out here? We've got 3 versions of Boomerang, all incredibly similar, and then Gale Boomerang. The numbers matter not. And I guess we have different interpretations of messy. However, you bring up a good point with the Boomerang being a custom move. Idk, I'm just not really into this split as much as the others anyways. I get a strong sense that this was tagged for the hell of it/OCD/external pressure/just cause. I'm retracting my vote. Also, isn't kinda weird how the Gale Boomerang has more written about it than the standard Boomerang? MuteSpittah (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

How I see it, despite both the regular Boomerang and the Gale Boomerang both functioning the same, they have different properties. But then there are weirdness like having too many moves that would make this page messy or something. I honestly don't want to get this article too confusing, because it looks okay as is. Oppose. Dots (talk) The Starman 14:34, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

Agreed, I saw no problem in the first place. I don't see much of a point in a split with the messiness that would ensue. Three moves on one page isn't a problem, it's just that in this case it's best to leave as is for the sake of organization and not being confusing. Oppose as well. MuteSpittah (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

Split Version 2

I'm going with Slight Oppose. While the bow pages all have their own page, there are like 5 different bows. On the other hand, there's only 2 boomerangs, Gale and normal. There's no real need to separate this page imo. SugarCookie 420 12:41, 3 March 2019 (EST)

Oppose and only because its only real change is it has a windbox, and thus isn't really big enough when we can just redirect here Xtra3678 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Nah Too little content to justify two different articles. Serpent  King 12:44, 3 March 2019 (EST)

The bows are separated, despite essentially being the same move in essence. The Boomerang follows the same deal, though with the added effect of "in Brawl, it has a windbox that pulls opponents and items in". While I am neutral on a split, I do think that it should be both or none (as in, split the boomerang or merge the bow). Aidan, the Irish Rurouni 12:49, 3 March 2019 (EST)

Support, why is this not already a thing? We gave Remote Bomb its own page, there's really no reason not to do the same for this. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:53, 3 March 2019 (EST)

This is already being disused here. Wolff (talk) 16:53, March 16, 2019 (EDT)