Talk:Mewtwo

Categories

Presently, there are one too many unsourced categories here. "Pokémon anime characters", "Fictional clones", and "Super Smash Bros. fighters" are fine because the article does reference these bits. The rest seem to be here for the sake of it. Thoughts before I act? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, going one by one:

• Fictional monsters: it isn't one? Pokemon anime characters does cover human characters in the category as well, so that cat can't be included into the monster one.
• Fictional characters who can fly, Fictional telepaths, Fictional characters with accelerated healing: covered in text body under characteristics.
• Fictional hypnotists: not mentioned yet, but mind control is a theme applied to him in manga and anime versions of the character readily, so it seemed a good fit.
• Fictional mutants: Getting rid of this one. Fictional genetically engineered characters works better, as it is genetically engineered (and oddly Fictional clones is not under it for some reason...)
• Video game bosses: not referenced yet, but appears as an optional boss in several related titles, and the final boss in others.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Did a few changes [1]. Kung Fu Man, the article refers to him as a psychic, so why was he placed in Category:Fictional telepaths? See, Category:Fictional psychics would have been more appropriate. And the boss one was somewhat referenced so I left it. Everything else is fine now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mewtwo is also the final boss in Pokemon Stadium (1, dunno about the PS2) - should this be noted somewhere? (i have the game, i cant cite any references right now but can upload pic's of the N64/fully cleared stadium&castle and a mewtwo who wants to fight.. later) (Divinity76 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

Article's infobox

There's something wrong here. Why is Koji Yusa listed for voicing Charizard and not Mewtwo? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's that idiot that keeps adding fake references to Charizard films that don't exist. Looks like it wasn't caught till now and just almost got snowballed in instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Made some adjustments [2]. I take it that 90.209.160.253's contributions are all vandalism edits? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I rollbacked one, but couldn't make out if this and this was vandalism. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

They're fake as well. The guy that's been doing this has been for some time, with the edit summaries saying things like "Trey Parker" or "Matt Stone". None of the stuff he's adding exists.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nailed it, thanks ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mewtwos katakana spelling

I saw the katakana spelling of mewtwos name and Im pretty sure it's not spelled right. Instead of a tsu theres a shi. Should I go ahead and fix it or just leave it as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.150.113 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, those two look very similar. I'll go see. ^Tezkag₇₂ 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh whoops your right. My bad I've only just gotten into katakana recently. Sorry for the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.150.113 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed

You know, now I don't quite understand why Category:Fictional characters with accelerated healing was taken off of here. When User:Jc37 removed it in November, he hinted that the character had to have been "human". How come? Godzilla, Ryoko and Hellboy aren't human, yet they're in the category. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit confusing to me as well. I'd be up for adding it back if there aren't any objections, since the category shows to have the capacity for it (over a third of the characters aren't human).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And another thing, I've been trying to find a reliable reference to support an inclusion of Category:Fictional telepaths but can't seem to find one. I can't even decipher what technique he used to manipulate Nurse Joy in the first Pokémon movie. Was it hypnosis or mind control or something else? It's probably akin to what he did near the end of the movie. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the difference between the movies may be the problem there, they changed a *lot* in the US film. Brock's reaction in the US film to Mewtwo talking is "It's psychic!" while in Japanese he shouts "Telepathy!" As for Nurse Joy he simply states after freeing her he took her to take care of him, but that she wouldn't remember anything, then adding "Humans can be manipulated in any way with my power." So it seems to imply mind control over hypnosis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find. Do you think you can cite that information in? This way, the telepath category may also be included. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, added the citation for telepathy in with the original Japanese (a prior stink over using translations had been raised by User:A Man In Black, so trying to avoid that again).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Hope we can make this a GA sometime in the near future ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Mewtwo in SSB

There's not really anything about his role in SSBM, and only one mention of "we wish he was in SSBB". There's probably reception of his role in it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There'll be reception sections in the main SSBM and SSBB articles, and one review somewhere is bound to comment on it. ^Tezkag₇₂ 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I found several comments on Lucas' role in SSBB (which helped me build up Characters in Mother 3), so I reckon I can find something on Mewtwo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I sort of hate how they removed him from the game too, I guess it was to try and get in more recent pokemon like Lucario. (Who I use as a main.)--'''Blake''' (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

B-Article

When did this happen? Mewtwo is defineatly not one of the best Pokémon articles. It is also missing alot of information, such as its big roles in the movies it stared in. Mewtwo still needs alot of work before it goes anywhere. --Blake (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask the editor that did it. Also I undid your edits for a reason: still working on the article, just need it as it is to expand with minimal hassle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I did it. I think the article seems reasonably complete. More info is necessary for its roles in the films in "In other media", but otherwise, I don't really see why it shouldn't be listed as B-class. And it is definitely not in need of "urgent attention". Tezkag72 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mewtwo is definitely the best Pokémon species article we have (even better than Pikachu). The appearances section does need to be expanded, but the article easily passes the B-class criteria and is close to GA status. Nice work (to whoever worked on it)! :) TheLeftorium 13:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

neutrality of the article

When Evaluating Mewtwo's deeds, you should not forget what happened in Mewtwo’s Origin and what he did in Mewtwo Returns. Right now most of the description of Mewtwo's character is based on Pokémon: The First Movie where he was highly coined by either what Giovanni taught him and his indeed immature desire to test out his powers. I think the article puts him in a worse light than justified. His role as some sort of nightly guardian of this unknown city that is hinted at at the end of Mewtwo Returns and the opening sequence of Jirachi Wishmaker should be considered as well. --78.52.139.128 (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're...arguing the neutrality because I'm not doing original research?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I think he is just saying it is only saying his role in one movie instead of all 3. --Blake (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also consider the differences between the Japanese version and the English dub:
The plot in the dubbed English version contains a "fighting is wrong" moral and portrays Mewtwo as a cold heartless villain who just wants to take over Earth. It also contains anti-racism material. Meowth, agreeing with his clone, says, "Maybe if we started looking at what's the same instead of always looking at what's different, well who knows?"
The Japanese version instead portrays Mewtwo as a confused being who cannot place himself among other living beings, so his stress of not being able to figure any of that out leads to his destruction of the labratory on New Island, Team Rocket's new base, and eventually, his plan to get revenge on the world to prove he should be alive. - bulbapedia
--Mewtu (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Bulbapedia is not a reliable source. Theleftorium 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That can be verified by sources, including one of the people behind the movie's translation stating they purposefully made Mewtwo more of a villain so he'd be recognized as such by kids in the US.

The anime and manga section is going to get a major overhaul, I've just been wanting to tackle the other articles on my list before coming back to this one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon Live

Do we have any reliable sources to cover that event in any degree related to this article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. Verifiability

(a) lacks reliable sources

(b) improperly cited references

2. NPOV

(a) not biases to one side

3. Cleanup banners/tags

(a) no cleanup banners

(b) no {citation needed} links

(c) similar tags to the aboce

4. Stability

(a) no ongoing edit wars

(b) no massive changes which alter important content

5. Current Event

(a) doesn't describe a current, ongoing events

Passed quick-fail. Will start thorough review Ajpralston1 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ajpralston1 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit reverting happens in every article. Noobs come and try and add silly things. That shouldn't halt the review. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not halting the review, but this article has been reassessed and delisted for no stability before. Its needs to be stable to get GA. I don't want to pass it for it to get delisted again. I'm waiting to see if it does change daily with reverts. I understand that noobs add silly things but it doesn't matter. No stability, No GA. Ajpralston1 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The stability should be fine for GA (and even FA) standards to be completely honest. "Stability" refers more readily to ongoing edit wars over existing content, not the typical vandals. It's more a case where content drastically shifts (not to mention I don't think I've seen any GAR's over the past two years on the grounds of instability).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria says "no ongoing edit wars". None of the sort is going on. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Relax! I passed the quick fail. I agree that the content only really changes due to mindless vandalism, not so much over content or edit disagreement. Ajpralston1 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Articel Review

1. It is Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

(c) it contains no original research.

3. It is very Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

4. Written in a Neutral POV

(a) it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. It is Stable with no ongoing edit wars

(a) it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No edit wars at all. Any edit disputes are usually down to vandalism!

6. It is Illustrated by images if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I will put the review on hold until the few problems are addressed, once they are then it should pass. As you previously told me that you can't get to the internet regularly, I will leave it on hold for 10 days. If you need help with anything or don't agree with something I have wrote, please leave a message on my talk page. Ajpralston1 (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As for 2a, all those sentences are cited in the main body of the article. If you referenced everything in the lead, it would be messy to look at, as well as to edit. This is why on many articles we have not referenced most of the lead. As for the images, people are funny about those. Some say they help demonstrate the topic, while others say they are unnecessary. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The statements in the lead are actually sourced further in the article: WP:LEAD actually pushes against redundant sourcing in a case like this in the lead. As for the image, there wasn't much I could add that would be fair-use compliant, and the only one that featured Dr. Fuji alongside Mewtwo was very poor quality. I've run into issues before where images in character articles don't really add anything to the article in Necrid's FAC's, and a push that if none do to just use the infobox. Is this sufficient?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will pass the article. Just one small tip: - Try and add another image if possible. It will make the article look better. Overall though it is a well written article with no grammar or spelling errors. It read well and the layout is good. The sourced information from the lead which is further along in the article is fine. Nice one! Ajpralston1 (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images should not be added to articles just because it will make them look better. Please take a look at the non-free content criteria. Theleftorium 15:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Frankenstein's monster (Boris Karloff).jpg could perhaps be added, though. It's free. Theleftorium 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm. It was just a suggestion. Images DO make articles look better and more appealing, thus are more likely to be read thoroughly. Ajpralston1 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't using sarcasm, so sorry if it came across like I did. What I said was correct, though. Non-free images should never be used to make an article look more appealing. Theleftorium 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No more fair-use images

I suggest ignoring the dubious advice from the GA reviewer, the current picture is illustration enough and a second fair-use image is hard to argue. Hekerui (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A-Class assessment

Wow. For someone who doesn't know a thing about Pokemon it was actually very informative. I was a bit leery of possible weasel words/phrases when I started reading, but thankfully a total Pokenoob like myself understood what I set out to understand. The article is well sourced, they're all reliable, and it's well written. If I had to pick two problems I'd say

• The lead technically doesn't need the first reference as it's cited elsewhere, but following the spirit of the rule it's perfectly fine there, as it supports ref #2.
• MewTwo's image could probably use alt text. If I recall that's required now.

Once the alt text is added I'll pledge a support vote. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text is in, sorry for the delay been busy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per Kung Fu Man's updates. --Teancum (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mewtwo's Appereance

I think something's missing here.. well, it may be that it was cut in the american show, however, in German TV, Mewtwo's Escape from Giovanni's lab was shown in the series (don't know if it was the first or the second time, Ash and Co. arrives in Vertania City). So even if it was not known at that point (long before the premier of the first movie), it IS the first appereance Mewtwo made. --78.94.227.91 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mewtwo plane image

File:ANA B767-381 JA8569 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg

Mewtwo on a Japanese Boeing 747, circa 1998.

I added the image at right to the article to support the cited text in the article about the plane: "Mewtwo also appears on the port side of All Nippon Airways's Pocket Monsters Boeing 747 jumbo jet, alongside Mew."

References

It was reverted as there was 'no need'. Per WP:BRD, I'm beginning a discussion. I feel that as this is not a fair use image, the non-free criterion of 'significant understanding' (which I interpret 'no need' as referring to) does not apply. I feel this free image supports the text in the article and should be included. --Malkinann (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article though, not to mention that Mewtwo is barely visible on it. What makes this bit of advertising any more significant than any other in that it requires it's own picture? Nothing at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It adds visual interest to the reception section and is an appropriate illustration of Mewtwo's reception, supporting the text in the article about the plane. Given that the plane has been noted by not only the airline but a third party source, it is more significant than other advertising of Mewtwo. Perhaps more direction is needed in the caption to point out Mewtwo, but that is not a reason to not include this image in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Guys! Mewtwo looks like Giygas!

Alright, so I was doing a Google search, and I realized that Giygas, as he appered in Mother, looks very much like Mewtwo. should I put this into the relevant articles? Bonelayer12864 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be original research. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. But you shuld try looking it up on google images yourself. Bonelayer12864 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That would not be enough since it would still be our own personal interpretation. The only way that could be added is if reliable sources have commented on the similarities between the two characters or the person who designed Mewtwo explicitly stated that he based the design on Giygas, in which case it would be added to the Design and characteristics section.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New look?

Just saw somewhere they'll be doing something with Mewtwo in the next gen of the series. Not sure how reliable it is but here's a link to a photo that I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt723star (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the official Pokémon website this doppelgänger of mewtwo isn't a new look, but an entirely new Pokémon and it is now 100% cannon. See: http://www.pokemon.co.jp/ex/xy/pokemon03/ Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Omg! So is this information relevant enough to be added somewhere on this page or do you think there should be a page separately created for the new Pokemon? --Matt723star (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait until more information comes to make an article for it. Its currently nameless and type-less so there is not enough information on it... Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Pokemon Origins

Doesn't Mewtwo also appear in Pokémon Origins, based on his character portrayal from the games? 152.27.20.9 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Added it. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. Though I think it was more based on Red and Green/Blue than FireRed and LeafGreen, but I guess it technically is both, seeing that they use the FR & LG design for Red and FR & LG is basically Red and Green version remakes anyway. Either way, thanks for adding it. Also, it seems Mewtwo's personality, as I said before, seems more like he was in the games, being savage and aggressive. 152.27.20.9 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because FRLG is a remake of RGBY, if you say "based off FRLG", you are basically saying "based off FRLG AND RGBY". However, saying both is sort of redundant :) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. Though I guess I only mentioned it for the sake of keeping some consistency with the Pokémon Origins page. That's all. Thanks. :) 152.27.20.9 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Mega Mewtwo X and Mega Mewtwo Y

In Pokémon X and Y, Mewtwo holding a Mewtwonite X or a Mewtwonite Y can have higher base stats total than Arceus. http://www.serebii.net/pokedex-xy/150.shtml#mega Would it not be important to mention it?

No. This is not a video game guide to say who has better stats than other Pokémon.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Forum posts as a source

What reasoning is there that nonphysical messages embedded in a forum post cannot be considered a source even when the material has clearly irrefutable information? How else can I provide this evidence, then? 68.198.70.54 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the fact that the source is unreliable trumps the accuracy of the content. Generally speaking, if it's irrefutable information, it's either covered in reliable sources or is gamecruft, which shouldn't be here even if it is correct. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 13:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mewtwo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620001743/http://newport.academia.edu/documents/0009/2577/MERGEDPOKEMON.pdf to http://newport.academia.edu/documents/0009/2577/MERGEDPOKEMON.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mewtwo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308163314/http://www.pokemon.com/us/ex/mewtwo to http://www.pokemon.com/us/ex/mewtwo
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130126002900/http://stars.ign.com/objects/142/14234083_biography.html to http://stars.ign.com/objects/142/14234083_biography.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113150542/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/473 to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/473

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mewtwo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508234951/http://www.cmdstore.com/pokemon-battle-frontier-action-figures-deluxe-electronic-series-2-mewtwo.html to http://www.cmdstore.com/pokemon-battle-frontier-action-figures-deluxe-electronic-series-2-mewtwo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mewtwo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604040336/http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/cl-movie000406-143,0,6593417.story to http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/cl-movie000406-143,0,6593417.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a improvement...

Hello. I read the following phrase: It was also said to be under a truck in one of the cities, though it had ended up as a trick.[25]

Apparently, someone just get a misconception of the reference. The link there (which actually doesn't give any explicit text about the phrase) just redirects to The Pokémon Company marketing site about a brief description of Mewtwo. Moreover, that reference points our to the suppoused glitch about Mew, a hoax that widespread during the localization of Red/Blue in America and Europe. So, I propose to remove that part and add it in Mew article instead. Thanks. --«[Gtr.]» Errol 06:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Only One Scientist

I made an edit regarding the fact that in the main series games, Mewtwo was created by a lone scientist and not a team of researchers, as evidenced by Pokédex entries from Red/Blue, LeafGreen, X, and Shield as well as the fact the Pokémon Mansion Journals use singular pronouns in Japanese with the plurals being added in localization. Someone has undone this edit. I feel that my edit should be restored as it shows in important difference in the canon of the games compared to the anime and similar adaptations which present Mewtwo as created by a team of researchers. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? MewtwoRBGY (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel the sentiments of the reverter are shared by me here. The information isn't really too relevant and a minor detail of Mewtwo's backstory overall, and the information itself needs a reliable source (Which Tumblr is not). Given the fact in-game sources have said multiple things, it might be a decent idea to say something along the lines of "a scientist or a group of scientists" but again, it needs a reliable source discussing this difference in scientist number. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have additional sources that confer with the fact that the original Japanese indicates only one scientist such as this, TheGamer, and Bulbapedia. It is a minor detail, but I feel like it is important to note if only for the fact to point out the differences between the games and anime, especially since the anime's backstory for Mewtwo seems to be the only one ever considered. I think the fact that Mewtwo was created by a rogue scientist instead of a group as most adaptations show is notable detail even if only for the fact to show the differences between the canons. MewtwoRBGY (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

TheGamer should suffice for this, though TCRF.net and Bulbapedia are not reliable. I believe an in-line note would likely be the best course for this to avoid bloating the text. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Added the note, please let me know if it is not up to standards. MewtwoRBGY (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I honestly still feel this is trivial information and best to Keep It Simple, sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I'd argue it's sensible to be factual about it, given the current description is inaccurate given what's been brought up. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Mega Evolution Pictures

I was thinking that it would be a good idea to put pictures of Mega Mewtwo X and Y in the Appearances section since they do appear somewhat frequently in various games and it would just be nice to show them in the article itself. I am wondering if anyone has any objections to this or if you also think it would be a good idea. MewtwoRBGY (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)