External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boomerang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boomerang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first paragraph says it's a hunting weapon, the the Hunting section says there's no evidence for this. Which is it? Vinsomnia (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Jim CReply[reply]

FAA Regulations -- Possible Vandalism?[edit]

The current version of the article has a section claiming a recent law requires boomerangs over a certain size to be registered with the FAA, and for commercial users to have their pilot's license. The sources actually point to some recent FAA regulations that require registration of drones over a certain size, with no specific mention of boomerangs. Maybe it's possible that the definitions used in the text of the law are broad enough that boomerangs were accidentally included, but wouldn't that fall under original research if it did? There's a lot of citations on there, including several interpretations of the bill, but none of the interpretations mention boomerangs. Owyn Merrilin (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please assume good faith on the part of editors. This is a legitimate, well sourced contribution to WP. A few years ago in the US, the FAA instituted a policy that required people who fly model aircraft to register with the FAA if they fly devices outdoors that weigh more than .55 pounds. A flier took the FAA to court on the issue and the courts ruled that the FAA did not have the authority to require registration because congress had previously forbidden it from doing that.
On December 12, 2017, President Trump signed into law a rule that reinstated that registration requirement. (The rule was part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 -- Congress will often tack on unrelated stuff to large bills to hide them from the public.) Although the media like to focus on the registration of drones, the rule requires that any device weighing more than .55 pounds and flies through the air using aerodynamic lift is covered by the policy. This includes model aircraft, helicopters, boomerangs, frisbees, drones, gliders, or any other device that flies using aerodynamic lift. It doesn't include balloons or rockets, which are covered elsewhere in FAA regulations.
Also, semantical application is not O.R. The FAA rule doesn't mention the word "drone" anywhere. It says "device that uses areodymanic lift to fly". All of the WP articles about such devices should include a mention of this new FAA regulation. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone check...[edit]

Someone added text with a ref:

Despite is association with Australia, the earliest archaeologically attested boomerang weapon comes from Europe, c. 30, 000 cal YBP [1]

but I can't check that article.

Then an IP removed that text without any reasoning given. Could an editor with access via ResearchGate take a look and see what this is about? Shenme (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Populations headed south? The Gravettian from a palaeodemographic point of view. Andreas Maier & Andreas Zimmermann. Antiquity 2017

'Needs sources' template[edit]

I have added some citations to Throwing technique, which had none at all, with a view to removing the Citation Template. Please feel free to improve on the citations or make comment. If people are agreed, or there is no response, I shall remove the template within the next few days. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legibility of map wording[edit]

In this page's "History" section, the legend accompanying the map of Australia showing the precolonial distribution of boomerangs there can barely be made out even on a standard full-size desktop PC monitor. Could use enlargement. Mucketymuck (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories