Talk:Mawile

Usefulness?

It looks like Mawile isn't quite as useless as some people are making it out to be. I've seen it used several times on Pokémon Battle Revolution, in which it can hold its own. It's one of the Pokémon to have benefited the most from the 4th-generation benefits: It's acquired the Iron Head and Sucker Punch attacks, both of which do considerable damage. It has a Base of 85 in both Attack and Defense, which means it becomes a physical barrier with just a single Iron Defense. (Sableye...not so much.)

I can look for YouTube videos with Mawile if someone wants me to. Ron Stoppable 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and update the game info if necessary, but don't go into specifics. By the by, how's Rufus? ;D -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

once again, like i say, wikipedia is not a game guide Sir de wario 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration from redirect

This should almost certainly be returned to a redirect. I understand that it was restored to assist a WikiEdu student, but WP:GNG is unlikely to be met. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring to redirect as there's been no opposition for a week. -- ferret (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 06:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Another Pokémon species article to review!

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. Most information is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses two fair use images with proper rationale.

Lead

-" First introduced in the video games Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, the development team wanted to push the concept of what a Pokémon could look like compared to previous installments, while the design was finalized by Ken Sugimori." These two points (The dev team versus Sugimori's finalization) seem rather disconnected and should probably be split into different sentences.

• Fixed.

-What changes occurred in X and Y? These should have a bit more specification.

• Fixed.

Conception and development

-Looks good

Appearances

-The statement that Mawile has appeared in most installments since is not stated in the Game Revolution source. This claim should be verified.

I alleviated it by removing the statement and just discussing the games it was verified as being in.

-Mega Evolution isn't really the same as "evolving" as in the game mechanic, and is more akin to a temporary form change than a proper evolution. I'd change the definition used for it in this section to avoid confusion.

I changed instances of 'evolved' to 'transformed' to avoid confusion

Critical reception

-I feel each source having its own paragraph is really fluffing the Reception to appear much larger than it actually is. That's not to say this subject fails notability, but I do feel it should be pared down by having multiple paragraphs in one paragraph instead of multiple (For example, the IGN and Kotaku sources can probably be fused together into one, likewise with the US Gamer and USAToday sources).

• Combined the IGN and Kotaku one, but the USgamer and USA Today refs are pulling in very different directions, one talking about the improvements in X & Y and how they saw them, while the other discussing the character's design not matching its typing.
  • While true, the USA Today refs directly discuss the improvements described by USGamer and then discuss how even with the improvements Mawile is still forgettable, before going into further analysis. To me, these both seem to be highly connected points, because even if they aren't saying the exact same thing, they're still part of one connected discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Overhauled reception to make this work smoother, moved some of Maher's reception up to the first paragraph.

-The futakachi-ona image should probably be moved closer to the paragraph discussing that correlation so as to act as a better comparison for readers.

• Got it as close as I could.

Overall

@Cukie Gherkin: Article looks pretty solid. Patch up the above and this should be good to go. Let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the spotcheck btw - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: and @Cukie Gherkin: Apologies about not pinging Kung Fu Man the first time. He either wasn't on the nom page or I missed that he was when I did my initial ping. Regardless, just one point above that still needs to be addressed. Aside from that, source spotcheck. I did a random selection of seven sources (About a fourth of the article's sources) for this.

4: While I can't verify this book's contents myself, the book seems reliable and does seem to cover basics such as this at a glance, so I'll assume with good faith that this source is verifying what it says it is.

5: This source doesn't verify that Kucheat is the original Japanese name. While it uses the name in the text body (It translates as Kuchito for me, though I assume that's a translation error on my end) that doesn't verify that it was originally called as such in the Japanese releases of the games before it was ported to the West. I'd get a more specific source on this to properly verify the text contents.

• The kanji is sadly the closest I can get to this, short of finding some way to cite the trademark itself. Most original Pokemon names just aren't cited past the original 151.

8: While it states it's a Pure Steel type, it doesn't verify that this was before XY, and the podcast doesn't mention XY at all. I assume this was a pre-XY podcast given they don't mention the type change at all, but please try and find something that specifically verifies what the text body is saying.

• Replaced with IGN ref that states it's from Ruby and Sapphire, should suffice the "originally" statement.

11: Again, I don't own this guide, but the book itself seems to be a guidebook with in-depth summary of the Pokémon's stats and such, so I trust in good faith the reliability of this one.

15: Verifies Mawile's version exclusivity in Brilliant Diamond.

18: The source does not directly state that Gym Leaders are boss opponents. While it can likely be inferred, for the sake of verification, this needs to be stated literally in the text body.

• Replaced with a Game Rant source that states "Gym Leaders have been a core part of Pokemon’s DNA since day one. In every single mainline game, they serve as the main boss fights, gating a trainer’s progress."

27: Was able to find this one. Verifies that Mawile is based on the futakuchi-onna and that it's a modern day example of such.

Will need you two to patch up a few of the spotchecked sources above. Let me know if you need any clarification on any of these. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man @Cukie Gherkin should be good to go! Happy to pass. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove general information about the pokemon series history and game mechanics

The information describing the Pokemon series in general should be removed from this page on Mawile.

"Developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo, the Japanese franchise began in 1996 with the video games Pokémon Red and Green for the Game Boy, which were later released in North America as Pokémon Red and Blue in 1998."

(Information about this history of the Pokemon franchise, as it existed before Mawile was introduced)

"In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture and use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon. Some Pokémon can transform into stronger species through a process called evolution via various means, such as exposure to specific items."

"Each Pokémon have one or two elemental types, which define its advantages and disadvantages when battling other Pokémon."

"A major goal in each game is to complete the Pokédex, a comprehensive Pokémon encyclopedia, by capturing, evolving, and trading with other Trainers to obtain individuals from all Pokémon species."

(The mechanics of the Pokemon video game)

The point of the Mawile article is not to give a history on the Pokemon game series, it's to explain what Mawile is. None of this information is specific to Mawile. If this information deserves to be here, it deserves to be repeated across all 500 something pokemon articles on Wikipedia with an equal amount of justification. And it shouldn't be. This doesn't deserve to be repeated 500 times on every Pokemon's page and they don't have any reason to be here more.

I think WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK justify their removal and WP:SUMMARY suggests that it be replaced with:

“Mawile is a Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire (2002) by Game Freak. For the series overview, see Pokémon”

But it's already at the top of the page.

These also probably shouldn't be under "concept and development" because it's one bit about the development of the Pokemon franchise (not mawile) and then 3 about the series story and mechanics. If they were put under an appropriately labeled category (the history of the pokemon franchise, pokemon game mechanics) it would be much more clear that the information shouldn't be on this page. 2605:B100:140:337E:A7A7:AA39:FD37:15D7 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not undue because it's explaining terms and relevant information in regards to the franchise i.e. evolution. It's not coatrack because it's not trying to force that information in here to create a joint article for notability. There's significant consensus to include that section on these articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem to me to match with how things are done on very popular Wikipedia articles. Just gives me the impression that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, in a way that other popular articles don't struggle with.

Like "Each Pokémon has one or two elemental types, which define its advantages and disadvantages when battling other Pokémon." Seems insane to include on an article where it's not even worth it to mention it's type advantages/disadvantages. If Pokemon is general have type advantages disadvantages, does that need to be included in this article about Mawile? Why does this general fact about pokemon need to be known? If I want to know in general about what Pokemon are like I'll read the article on Pokemon.

In an article like Poison dart frog, they obviously share the majority of their traits with frogs. But the article still discusses the animal without making statements about how frogs in general are. Because it's understood if I want to know about frogs in general are I'll read the wikipedia page on frogs.

I also haven't seen this "4 sentences copied across all the articles within a certain category" done before. Like if you go to the articles of the episodes that make up a tv show like Breaking Bad. Ozymandias (Breaking Bad), Granite State (Breaking Bad), they don't do that. They don't talk about how breaking bad is, or how breaking bad episodes in general are (unless to make a point about how this specific one is different). They literally don't even state that the show is produced by Vince Gillian, on an episode of a show that he's producing.

But I can't ignore the precedent about this being on every Pokemon's page, although that also seems insane to me. So I guess if this is how things are being done. Maybe someone with a lot of pull can question this standard more. 2605:B100:140:337E:A7A7:AA39:FD37:15D7 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean you can check the discussions on WT:VGCHAR's archives about this. But also stuff like Raichu went to FA because of such. These sections are important because the reader is not going to understand what things like evolve, trainer and so forth mean. It gives the barest bones introduction so someone that doesn't know Pokemon doesn't feel like they have to look up a complete separate article to grasp it, as these elements (unlike say a FPS character) is integral to the Pokemon themselves. Overwatch character articles for the most part do similar, discussing the gameplay and explaining terms so the reader can grasp what they're looking at when stuff like "Ultimate" is mentioned.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It's present on every species article. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)