Talk:Boomerang

Gale Boomerang Jump
There is a glitch involving the Gale Boomerang of TP where you can cross long gaps: Heres a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByM-TF9x9pc&feature=related Should it be mentioned here? 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The glitch pages would be more appropriate. 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization
I believe this page would function better as a summarization-type page, considering many of the incarnations of the Boomerang serve similar purposes. the overal boomerang purpose would be addressed, as well as different funcitonalities present in different games. However, for special boomerangs, like the Gale Boomerang and the "Magical Boomerangs" of the series, they could have their own special section under "Unique Boomerangs" or the like. It would not involve a rewrite, as I made the mistake of doing with the Shield page, just a reorganization. Opinions? 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I say it's worth a shot, if you want to. You guys need all the practice you can get before going up against that Potions page. It was organized by game which blew, then by color which blew worse, and is now by function which still blows but much less so...My personal opinion is that organizing by game release is the least clever layout, some pages work that way, but some don't :p I mean the series flips from 2D to 3D too much for it to be practical to maintain. The AoL section here is nothing more than Trivia imo. But then again almost all of the sections are just blurbs of text. I can so see the benefit of a reorganization. 04:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's way to much blowing going on lol. Yea I agree, the laziest and least interesting form of organization is by game, however, it does work when it comes down to articles like Rupees which change in value dependent on each game. I'll see if I can get around to it sometime this weekend, if not this week, but yea like the Potions article, I foresee an organizational revolution approaching from the west. 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good man. You should go for it. Like I said before, let's just see what happens. My suggestion would be to make it something like Boomerang, Magic Boomerang, and Gale Boomerang with a list within a list, like the type of boomerang to a bullet list of the games. Maybe you can cluster the games together. Most incarnations of the boomerang are different from game to game, but some are the same. I'm sure you have it all figured out this way, but I want you to know I would agree with it. Noble Wrot 05:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I have completed the reorganization-ish. What do you think? 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Table format
Some articles, like the Magic Rings article, are meant to be put in table format since not much can be said about each ring. However, I don't think that style fits this article. I can only imagine just how long it took you to make all the cells and everything, K2L, but some sections, such as the LA one and TP one, are just too long to be put in a cell. I noticed you added some new information to some of the sections, so perhaps those could be placed in the old format? What do you guys think? Dany36 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, which is really too bad since it looks awesome otherwise. Perhaps the tables could stay, with just a brief overview of each boomerang (Where/How you get it, little things like that), and then regular paragraphs (with headings by game, perhaps) could include "supplementary" information about the boomerangs to be extracted from the table cells? 03:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yess, I also prefer the the old format. Jeangabin 11:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the diffs of both pages, I definitely oppose the tables. I feel that table-izing articles works for articles such as Treasure Chart where the article is pretty much a numbered list, but for this, it's a spread of the different appearances of the boomerangs between games, not exactly a comparable list. Using full on tables like this kills the article-ness of the article, as well, especially after looking at the length of some of the content sections. It's a good idea, but I just don't think it has place here... Perhaps before this was done, it should've been discussed, as I bet it took a good amount of time to format all of those tables... 19:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)