Talk:Mew (Pokémon)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Does anyone have any citations for this?

"Mew (then spelled ミュー, not ミュウ) was the first Pokémon trademark ever registered (granted on March 31, 1994, registration number 2636685 part 12), before even Pocket Monsters (ポケットモンスター), which was granted on December 26, 1997. ミュウ was registered on August 6, 1999, registration number 4302090. Mew is also the first Pokémon trademark ever applied for; the application was submitted on May 9, 1990, application number 平2-51989; before even Pocket Monsters, which was submitted September 11, 1995. ミュウ was submitted on June 17, 1997, application number 平9-128909."

It's from Bulbapedia and the Talk page doesn't show any controversy over it, but I can't find a citation so I can add it to this Article.--Occono (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no controversy here because as far as I know it was only added once, albeit sourceless, so I removed it. There's probably a source out there that supports it, but I don't think Bulbapedia even uses sources. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The information had to have come from somewhere though. I'll hit up the video game project's talk page, see if anyone knows how to check trademark records and cite the results.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's a website out there that keeps a record of trademarks registered. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant there was no controversy on the Bulbapedia talk page about it being true or not, just to clarify.--Occono (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Bulbapedia even uses sources. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't, though occassionally they may link to an EL such as Team Rocket's Rockin. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Emerald

Mew's role in Pokémon Emerald needs to be mentioned in the video games section. I found two references that we might be able to use: [1] (I don't know if it's considered reliable, but it's "owned" by IGN) and [2]. TheLeftorium 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew about Psypokes (and Serebii.net) already; the reason I didn't already add it was because it is essentially a fan site and wouldn't be judged reliable. (This came up in a somewhat recent FAC of mine.) The second one is basically a cheat codes site, so I can't use it either. The reliable sourcing rule is a bitch; if it was a bit more lenient, I would be able to beef up this article a lot more. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Italics vs. no italics

Okay, lets stop the dispute and arguing through the edit summaries. If you have any problems with any reversions or edits that have been made, the talk page is the way to go. I'm opening this up so that a clear discussion that is not being held through edit summaries can be made. State your opinions, rant, or just ignore this, do whatever you want to do, and lets try and clear the air through a rational and organized discussion so that confusion can be cleared up and editing ties can be (re)built. Any more reversions by either side and I'll report myself. Edit-warring is not the solution, but discussion is. Go. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I shall simply repeat my wording as I stated on Sesshomaru's talk page before he removed it, as I believe I adequately and accurately explained the situation there: "Okay, firstly I don't appreciate it when you template the regulars; in fact I find that quite offensive and it only serves to escalate a situation. Please next time you issue me a warning, take the time to personalize the message. I don't want you to slap some template on my talk page; that is not a welcome notion. Secondly you're making me quite incredulous with your terse edit summary on this revert. In fact it only serves to prove my point. You state (after your threat to report me) "Wal-Mart & Google don't use italics". I 100% agree with you; in fact, that is what I have been saying the entire time. Have you even been reading my edit summaries? (like this one, this one, or this one) If you have, it should be quite clear that I agree that Walmart and Google are not italicized. Anyways, since it seems you had a hard time understanding, I shall explain it for the fifth time: Pokémon when referring to the franchise is not italicized, and I use the examples of Wal-mart and Google (also franchises) to extend my point. You seem to agree that those two are not italicized, and so in the same vein, Pokémon, when referring to the franchise should not be capitalized. This makes clear sense. User:Tezkag72 seemed to realize my point, so I don't understand why you don't either. Now please stop this, and kindly revert your misguided edit immediately. If you further disagree with me please explain why. Oh and I have watched some of your editing activity: don't even try slapping on a "personal attack" warning on my talkpage, as I have done no such thing. Have an understanding day," Artichoker^[talk] 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping discussion on this issue together, let's continue this at WT:PCP#Dispute at Mew (Pokémon). -sesuPRIME 03:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While I feel that an issue involving an article should be discussed on that article's talk page, Sesshomaru has indicated an unwillingness to continue the matter and so it would seem that this issue is now moot. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mew (Pokémon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I'm going to review the article for Good Article status. I'll probably make some minor changes to it as I read it, but feel free to let me know I make any mistake. Laurent (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Overall, the article is well written and comprehensive and I didn't notice any major issue. I've noticed that the second paragraph of "Design and characteristics" was not written under a real-world perspective, so I've slighlty rewritten it and I think it's fine now. Before passing the article, I would ask you to clarify what the "TM" and "HM" acronyms stand for, or perhaps they could be replaced by the actual words, as I don't think most people know what they mean (personally, I don't!).

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written and didn't see any MoS issues

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well referenced and sources are reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very comprehensive article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems neutral to me

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No license issue and good choice of images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The TM/HM issue has been fixed now (hopefully). Theleftorium 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be mentioned in the video game section rather than there though (the fact Mew can use any TM/HM I mean).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the "Technical or Hidden Machine" could indeed be mentioned in the video game section, or perhaps in the "Design and characteristics" one. The "Critical reception" section could then simply start with "Due to its balanced statistics and ability to learn any move, Mew is regarded..." Laurent (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely honest here, but reading the article again I don't feel it's ready for GA. It's written well for the most part, but some information could be placed better and some feels missing (manga appearances for example). It's definitely getting there though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How would I be expected to fix that? I don't own or have access to (nor have I even read) any issues of the manga. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was featured in two volumes of Pokemon Special: [3]. This really ought to be mentioned, although the only source will probably be the manga itself. Most featured articles use actual, storebought books as sources, so having to buy some obscure comic books is unfortunate but it's part of the process if you're going to write an article about this kind of thing.

Actually, looking at that site I just linked, there's a lot of other things that should be in this article. The fact that it's the boss in Pokemon Snap is definitely worth mentioning, for example. I know this is just going for GA, but the character's had so few appearances I would expect to have them all at least mentioned. I'm also pretty underwhelmed with the "In the anime" section: "The backstory of Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew revolves around Mew's mysterious history and how it came to be so powerful." So, what is its mysterious history, and how did it come to be so powerful? —Noisalt (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If the character only appears in two volumes, I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it (at least it's not required for GA status). We don't need to mention every single appearance in games either. This is only a GA review so the article doesn't have to be as comprehensive as if it was an FA review. In my opinion, the article is very close to GA status - it covers the subject in sufficient details, it is well written and well referenced. Laurent (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in, but here is a sample of what could be added in a "In other media" section. Needs a few references, but its a rough draft for you to improve on. --Blake (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

After transferring 1,000 Pokémon onto the WiiWare game My Pokémon Ranch, Mew can be traded for any Egg. It can then be transferred to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. In the non-Pokémon-exclusive video games Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee, there is a small chance that a Poké Ball item contains Mew. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it may leave the player with a CD, a rare item that unlocks additional music in the game. In the Pokémon Adventures manga, Mew debuted where Red and Blue see one in Pallet Town and try to catch it, but fail, and the "phantom Pokémon" was chased by Team Rocket. It later appeared in the FireRed and LeafGreen saga, where it saved Red and the people of Vermilion City from the impending crash of a Team Rocket helicopter.

References are the only reason that that info, along with the stuff about the manga, isn't already in the article. I have found manga and video games that feature Mew on Amazon, but since that isn't a reliable source, I couldn't add it. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove stuff just because it isnt referenced. There are plenty of articles with stuff not referenced. Also, like I said, I diddnt expect you to put that whole paragraph in as it is. It was just a rough example of what you were missing. --Blake (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The manga (and the video games as well) can be cited as sources on themselves for basic information (plot synopses, etc.) as long there's no interpretation (WP:PRIMARY). For the more obscure details ("in Brawl there is a small chance that...") I would try the Prima game guides (wouldn't expect it for GA, just something to think about in the future). —Noisalt (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a second opinion regarding the GA review. In my opinion, the article meets the criteria but, since there are objections, I prefer to wait a bit. Laurent (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Tez is absolutely right in witholding the info. Primary sources are good for basic info like plot, but for the text described above by Bws, it would be utterly unacceptable. A point, unrelated to the second opinion but that I should bring up, is that I'm not sure how File:PokemonYellowMew.JPG and File:Mewcertificate.jpg meet WP:NFCC. The only aspect of the character that is significantly commented on is the difference in character design and its "cute" appearance, which is satisfied by the infobox image. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first point is absolutely right. With regard to the images, I think the Game Boy image is critical, since it's not there to show the character's appearance but to show the existence of the glitch (as its existence was rumored for years before it was discovered, long after most people stopped playing the game, a picture adds a lot). I don't have an opinion about the certificate image. —Noisalt (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It should still have some mentioned though. Here's a ref for the Pokemon Adventures comic: "Kusaka, Hidenori (1999). Mysterious Mew. Pokémon Adventures. illustrated by Mato. VIZ Media. ISBN 1569313873. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" I've got nothing for the FireRed/LeafGreen manga after a quick search though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What can I source to that? Tezkag72 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? You describe things that Mew was involved with in the manga and then use the reference. I just updated WikiProject Pokémon's style page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Style#In other Pokémon media for how to reference the manga. --Blake (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I know what kind of things I can source to the manga reference, but I don't know what information specifically, since I don't really own the manga. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I already said what to source up above. Here is the link to the Bulbapedia article about the first appearance of Mew. I am trying to find somewhere that tells about the FRLG event. Bulbapedia hardly has any FRLG articles. I suppose you could check seribii. --Blake (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Pokémon Adventures manga, Mew debuted where Red and Blue see one in Pallet Town and try to catch it, but fail, and the "phantom Pokémon" was chased by Team Rocket. It later appeared in the FireRed and LeafGreen saga, where it saved Red and the people of Vermilion City from the impending crash of a Team Rocket helicopter.

Since no one here owns the manga let's not worry about it. Info on the manga should only be added by someone who's actually read it. Getting a plot summary from Bulbapedia and citing it to the manga isn't going to work (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Tezkag72's done a great job with sourcing in this article, and Laurent's right, the article's comprehensive enough for a GA. Right now I'm satisfied with the article and I retract my earlier objections. —Noisalt (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I myself have read the manga. I just havent read anywhere after the Ruby and Sapphire chapters. I was pointing out the link to Bulbapedia so Tezkag could read the summary. --Blake (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I too will retract my objections then, though will suggest the information be added by an editor at a later time once properly located.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in any case, the information will not be added untill it has been properly sourced and is ready to be put in. I might play around with it in Mew's section of the list before putting it in. --Blake (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like everyone's happy with this article so I'll pass it. Good job to the editors who worked on it. —Noisalt (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial Design

The article, under Design and characteristics, suggests that Mew was not designed by Ken Sugimori but by Shigeki Morimoto. I'm inclined to believe this, but two of the references are in Japanese so I cannot read it and my browser doesn't support the language, and the third reference says it was Satoshi Tajiri that designed it. So any idea what information we're to believe? Jackal Killer (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tajiri is generally credited by default for the creation of all Pokemon, but the Japanese article (which is both an interview with GameFreak and hosted on Nintendo's own website) states Morimoto was the creator and was surprised it was publicly distributed. The Japanese statement takes precedence over the English one, due to its publisher and source. A very rough and incomplete translation can be found here through Google Translate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Finding Mew glitch discovery

A few notes on this.. The article says that the glitch was discovered in 2003, but the cited article even shows that it was discovered some time before then. In fact, I distinctly remember playing that game way back in 1999 or 2000 and both my brother and I had found mew by then. Definitely wasn't in 2003 because I was already in University and out of the gameboy phase of my life. Now we had definitely read it somewhere online at the time, but it was A LOT earlier than 2003.. 3 or 4 years or so earlier. --Poet  Talk  22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Mastermind of Mirage Pokémon

The Mirage Mew that appears in The Mastermind of Mirage Pokémon plays a major role. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention it somewhere on Mew's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.4.48 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Pokemon: The Mastermind of Mirage Pokémon to Mew's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.152.221 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)