# Talk:Pokémon video game series competitive play

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Granto47. Peer reviewers: DizzyLemur.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I recently made an edit where Pokémon in the article was changed to Pokémon. I also changed Pokémon in the article body to Pokémon, but now all the text in that paragraph is in italics. It may have to do with another game title in the body being italicized. I've tried to fix it in the visual and source editor to no avail. Either the whole paragraph is italicized except for the other game title, Pokémon Showdown!, or the first game title Pokémon is not italicized. How should I fix this? Let me know using replyto. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiebluejay (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC) 

@Newfiebluejay: I've fixed it for you. You were missing two apostrophies; that is, it should have been '''Competitive play in ''Pokémon'''''. 19:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It covers a whole unorganized jumble of things, of which some are too specific to be relevant. Some statements seem too opinion-y to be appropriate for wikipedia, although some of those are definitely accurate (such as ice being a good offensive type and steel being a good defensive type). The section definitely needs to be rewritten to keep only the most essential information like some of the stuff about EVs and Natures.
It may be nice to have the section explain some of the mechanics that are rarely seen in casual gameplay but very common competitively, such as entry hazards, but I'm not sure how like, within the scope of the article that would be 47.156.176.111 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

since july 19nd, jerick120 has been attempting to add information regarding pokécord++, which he's the developer of, but i won't comment on the coi, as prince ludwig beat me to it (thanks for that. by the way), and insisting that it stay there
however, i disagree (i said the gen 5 thing, laugh) with its inclusion as it is, as its only sources are bulbapedia articles on unrelated gameplay mechanics in base pokémon, a discord bot list, and discord itself, the latter of which is completely unusable as a source as it requires the reader to have a discord account
should clarify again that i'm not entirely opposed to its inclusion, but would prefer if reliable sources were found for it first
would appreciate more opinions on the matter cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

should also state that while i'm doing no favors on the edit war part, and could probably get blocked for it, i still believe that the info shouldn't be kept until consensus is achieved, so if someone else wants to revert it for the moment, i would appreciate it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The links to the discord app directlry do not require having a discord account. Discord app directory is a directory of officially verified applications by discord that can be installed and used on their platform. Jerick120 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I should also mention that, full disclosure, i am one of the developers of the application. The application is a result of community effort and multiple pokemon fans as credited. Jerick120 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand how you say the conflict of interest accusation is "false" in the edit history when you readily admit you're the developer of the application. You are listed as the creator of it. All of the information on this Discord bot is stuff you have submitted. There haven't been any independent, reliable sources about it. Stuff like articles about it from people who aren't you. The Discord app directory "officially verifying" the app doesn't make the app notable. The topbot list is presumably just you submitting it to there and having a few friends (or other developers?) review it. You made pokecord++ a month ago and you want to get the word out, understandable, but it's simply not encyclopedic at this time. The excessive amount of text dedicated to it right now in the article is basically giving pokecord++ undue weight acting like it's some behemoth on the Pokémon competitive play scene equal to Pokémon Showdown when we all know it is not so. Prince Ludwig (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Being associated with the development of a community project does not mean that its coi. Pokemon showdown is a community project and the page was literally created and edited by the contributors and developers of it.
We have different opinions on the notability of discord app directory verifying the app and topgg bot list does not work on a "friendship based" verification either.
Pokecord++ as been around since march 9, 2021 and the app creation date can be found on the app's profile.
The project is for sure not as popular as showdown and does not aim to compete in any way.
The page is titled "Pokémon competitive play" with more than 50% of it being a messy guide to smogon and pokemon showdown, which is an unofficial pokemon simulator, with no mentions of any of the official, actual pokemon games. Pokecord++ is based off of pokemon showdown and, in my opinion, should have a place in the article. Jerick120 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Being associated with the development of a project is, by definition, a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If Showdown contributors also edited this page as you claim, they would also have had a conflict of interest, and should have declared it.Either way, inclusion of Pokecord++ needs independent, reliable secondary sources discussing it. A verification by a Discord bot, however selective, is not considered an indicator of notability for Wikipedia purposes, let alone a reliable source from which to write about Pokecord++. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"The battle will now auto end at round 1000, a part of the Endless Battle Clause added due to a controversial battle that lasted about 1300 turns."
The 1000 turn limit is completely unrelated to the Endless Battle Clause, and even with Endless Battle Clause turned off, it will still activate. The wording makes it seem as though it is part of the Endless Battle Clause, which is incorrect.

Line 1667 of the battle script confirms that: https://github.com/smogon/pokemon-showdown/blob/master/sim/battle.ts PeterKart4444 (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to raise a concern about the prominence given to Smogon in this article. While it's true that Smogon is a long-standing fan community, it's important to note that it is neither affiliated with The Pokémon Company nor recognized in official tournament play (e.g., VGC). Its formats are self-defined and do not reflect the official competitive ecosystem.
Per Wikipedia’s guidelines on undue weight and reliable sourcing, I believe the article should avoid emphasizing Smogon unless clearly relevant to the section’s topic. Many newer or official platforms (like VGC, Battle Stadium, and regional events) have overtaken it in influence for casual and professional play.
Unless there’s reliable third-party coverage highlighting Smogon’s centrality, I suggest we either:
Refer to it only briefly among other fan-led efforts, 
or
Remove it from sections focused on official competitive development. 2409:40E2:16E:4E35:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Smogon is currently discussed in a section that is discussing how the scene initially developed through fan projects and the overall community. I'm not quite sure where the undue weight discussion is coming from, given Smogon is confined entirely to that section and takes up only a few sentences of it.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)