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)