Discussion Characters / PokemonProtagonistsAndRivals

It is possible, but the leader of the Fighting Dojo has two different names in Japanese(one to the Gold/Silver games and another to the Red/Blue remakes) and the protagonists in the demos has different names than their official names. And the "Leaf" name was canonized by a promotional statuette, not by the games.

there's more that points to them being the same character than being different characters.

Based on how she’s written in Masters, I’m fairly sure Leaf is an entirely different character from what we saw of Green in Let’s Go. Leaf seems more protective and childish (into flower crowns and enjoys smelling things). To me, what defines Green is her hint of a vindictive streak. Not really seeing that from Leaf. Plus, if Bulbapedia saw fit to make separate articles for them, I’d say that’s the clearest indicator for now barring Word of God on the matter.

@Mag Bas (I don’t know how to reply to a reply. Help for future reference?)

Considering Let’s Go never made the correction, I’d say that Kiyo went into self-imposed exile after losing to Sabrina and named Koichi his successor as the Karate King. The dojo never quite rallied around Koichi’s leadership, so the Black Belts all left until Koichi was the last one left by the time of GSCHGSS. Even in Japan, there’s two different names for the character, so make of that what you will.

Bulbapedia isn't more definitive on this particular subject than any other source. They can rule one way if we rule another.

There's enough on the page under Composite Character and Decomposite Character that the very few traits they have are not mutually exclusive.

Yeek, so many pages, some of whom only have 3 characters...Perhaps a “protagonists”/“rivals” split might have been better, but the deed is done.

whoa maybe better to lump some together.

Like Gens I-IV. Gens V-VII?

There's too many pages for small amount of content (especially the protags who don't have much trope entries), better to split it to protagonists and rivals like Synchronicity suggested.

We have a thread discussing this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=12911386090A37310100&page=1

posted my reasoning in the discussion thread

I'll at least move them to pages like Characters.PokemonProtagonistsAndRivalsKanto instead of Characters.PokemonProtagonistsAndRivalsGenerationI, seeing as human characters seem to be recognised more by region than by generation, it would be consistent with the way I've split Gym Leaders earlier, and because Let's Go characters belong more on the Kanto page as they interact with the original Kanto characters, making it more fitting.

^Agreed

There is no "consensus", and there is hard physical evidence that Leaf is not Green.

I thought the consensus was they were the same.

what is the hard evidence... there's a lot of evidence that they are the same.

Heck just look at green in adventures, it’s literally Leaf.

^^ My evidence is the Japanese figurine that calls her Leaf. What's your evidence, by the way?

^ Your argument runs into the Kris/Lyra problem, in that two game characters have the same manga counterpart. Adventures Green is likely in the same situation.

Did some more looking around and best I can tell they are the same character. The other wiki has them as such and even lists word of god in reference for character design. So until they both appear as different people, we can leave them as the same.

Also I’m not sure I’d call a toy hard evidence for future reference.

Yeah if your only evidence is a toy developed by a third party...that's pretty weak. It's literally the only thing that points to them being different. Every other bit of evidence makes them the same.

Even the folks at bulbapedia who are much stricter split the difference by using both names on their page. Game canon takes precedence for game characters. Just call her Green and be done with it.

To avoid going in circles like Bulbapedia did, we should try to find non-wiki evidence, because using WP/BP as sources is just going to lead to citogenesis.

• Wikipedia's page doesn't mention Let's Go Green at all, nor has there been any attempts on the talk page to discuss the matter. Additionally, the Gen III character's name has been reverted back to "Leaf" on WP since this discussion started, so we'd run the risk of copying off an ongoing edit war.
• The Bulbapedia discussion, which both I and LavaringX played a major part in, was resolved by calling the Gen III character Leaf but covering her on Green's page. For comparison, the GSC male player character is referred to as Ethan, and the FRLG rival is referred to as Blue, even though they had different default names in those games.

We also have to address ambiguity, because only one character is named Green within FRLG, and it isn't her.

Bulbapedia does have references however and most of those seem legitimate.

Look at the end of the day here are the facts.

1) they apear to fill the same role as the third Kano trainer in every appearance they make, with only the name changing to green(I’m not sure Leaf was Officially called such until toy reveal) . Their character designs are also usually similar, if not exactly the same. The first difference comes with Let’s Go, with Green using early design for Leaf (possibly to show age difference).

2) There is no evidence to dispute they are not the same person.

Now the reason for the name change, probably comes from the adventures manga popularity (or just to keep color scheme, because Leaf was kinda dumb paired with Red and Blue ). Like I said, until they appear as two separate characters or Word of God steps in, there is no reason reason to make changes.

> or Word of God steps in

I believe that Ken Sugimori has stated that the character's name is Leaf in the context of FRLG, but wasn't 100% sure on the matter. That complicates things a bit.

And from my perspective, we should be looking for evidence to prove they are the same person, not just evidence they aren't.

...except the overwhelming evidence is they are the same person...as noted above... The only evidence you claim there to be is a toy, which is

A) Not hard evidence B) A toy based off that version of the same character, while not proving anything.

Word of God seems to be saying the same thing we are: different names but same character.

"Overwhelming evidence" they are the same person? You haven't provided any valid evidence at all!

• Leaf in FRLG doesn't fill the third-trainer role, as there is no third trainer at all in those games. The player character is the first, and the rival is the second.
• The "similar character design" is because of their mutual divergence from the scrapped Gen I trainer.

made a chart here: imgur.com/a/dANXQ65 - if you don't believe they're the same, you pretty much ignore the long arrow tail that loops back around.

but even so, the characters diverge from the scrapped Gen I trainer, and then merge again in LGPE.

Even if Blue (Green) and Leaf were different before LGPE, they're def the same now.

Your assertion that the characters "merge again" is speculation. TV Tropes does not deal with speculation.

How is it more speculative than considering them separate characters? $0.02: Considering there are only three tropes in Leaf’s folder, just merging them seems to be the most efficient option considering the lack of Kris/Lyra hard evidence

bwburke94 your argument is based off a toy, so you have no room to accuse anyone of of speculation. The only other bit of evidence you gave is a Word of God, that argues against your case.

As it is, the evidence points to them being the same with no evidence to argue against it. You seem to in the very minority that disputes this. You forever whatever reason, seem to want to make a argument, where there is none to be had.

My concern isn't necessarily whether they're two separate characters or not.

My concern is that people will attempt to abuse the translation policy to call her Green in the context of FRLG, despite her name in FRLG provably not being Green because that was the rival's name at the time. Keep in mind that this policy abuse has already happened, and my edits served to revert this madness.

The only name the FRLG female player character has received, in the context of FRLG, is Leaf.

thats just the Green/Blue confusion thats inherent in the characters swapping names in the international versions. but thats a design of the franchise, not of Tv tropes.

There will always be problems that the rival is JP!Green|INTL!Blue, and the heroine is JP!Blue|INTL!Green. But that's what their names are. Using Leaf, a fan name that's only been used once in any material, isn't the fix for that. Especially because JP!Blue has been used in more material for both her Gen I and Gen III designs as the chart i made shows.

You have yet to prove that they're the same character.

We’ve given you evidence you just refuse to listen.

(Never mind you being the one who has given zero evidence)

??? i made a chart dude.

Your chart doesn't prove they're the same. Only that Green took part of Leaf's character design.

And I have provided evidence. Namely, that they have different Japanese names. (You did make a reasonable counter to that evidence, but it should still be taken into account.)

The names does nothing to support your argument in anyway. The only thing it does is show oddities in name translation, which is the case for Blue as well.

Yes, I did mention you had a counter to my "evidence". But that's not my question.

Can it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two characters are one and the same? I don't think so.

Except most evidence points to yes they are. You are ignoring the facts.

1) They use the same design.

2) there was never a “official” name in game, with unofficial using Leaf and Green for various other things. The first time she’s named in game is Green.

3) They fill the same role as the third Kanto Trainer(or representing the female selectable character). They also never appear as separate characters.

4) the Word of God you provided even seems to support the fact they are the same.

All the above combined leaves us with the pretty safe conclusion they are the same. If it looks like a Pikachu, acts like a Pikachu, sounds like a Pikachu, then it’s probably not a Squirtle.

Now at this point weather you agree with the established facts or not, is irrelevant at this point. You are kinda outvoted in the matter anyway and have no evidence to back you up.

This isn't about votes. This is about speculation.

Why is the toy more 'canon' than any other licensed piece of content? Why is the toy more canon than the games?

The green box in the chart i made shows that the three special trainers in Let's Go are all based on FRLG sprites, but wearing Gen I inspired costumes. thats the most conclusive piece of evidence there is one way or the other in my opinion.

That and that every version of this third kanto trainer have Hairstyle Inertia with each other. and combined Costume Inertia as of Let's Go.

It becomes about votes when you are the only one who believes it it speculation. Three separate editors agree they are the same (four of you count the one who made edits while we are arguing).

The fact is we have given a ton of evidence, while the only things you have provided mean nothing or argue against your own case.

If we can't come to any reasonable conclusion, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

The majority is of the conclusion they are the same already.

Fulfilling the same role != Same person

Agreed. Until they have real names lest just stick to Version Names.

Which kind of falls flat on its face when you consider Red and Blue ARE the canon names for the Kanto protagonist and rival. And the closest thing to a canon name either of them has is Selene, and that's only because it's being used for a figurine of the girl. By that logic, we should be using the boy's equivalent name, which is Elio.

The way I see it, if the one bit of media directly related to the games (Which would be the figurine) calls them Selene, then that's the name we should use on the page.

This discussion was started before the Selene figurine was announced (in late October, 2017), and people were edit-warring over Elio/Ray/Sun/Selene/Ailey/Moon. I've since had no qualms about leaving Selene on the page.

My mistake, didn't see the date.

Me neither. My bad.

Late, but I agree with this.

any more support?

I'd be fine with it in the short term... my only qualm is the fact that if we were to split this page eventually, we'd probably move the rivals to another page and it would create more work down the line.

But for now, I think it's more valuable to have the rivals and protags of the same generation together.

We could just do Main Characters 1, and Main Characters 2. Probably split between the Japan regions (Gens I-IV) and the international regionals (V-VII for now)

1. No, shirtlessness in the ocean isn't necessarily fanservice. Think something more along the lines of justified Walking Swimsuit Scene.

2. The character in question is explicitly around eleven. No way would the developers explicitly sexualize (which is what fanservice is) a kid especially not to an all-ages game franchise like Pokemon.

That implies they don't do that in the Pokemon anime (They do by the way) which is even more kid friendly than the games. I do understand the justified swimsuit scene part though.

Supposedly Sun and Moon takes place about a decade after the Hoenn and Kanto games, but there is no specific source for that, just extrapolations based on several sources that no one bothered to cite.

I think that reasoning's that:

• Anabel mentions that she was found by the International Police 10 years ago, only remembering her name, home region, and that she was guarding the Battle Town.
• The concept art for Grimsley mentions that he's two years older than he was in BW2, which means SM take place two years after Gen VI since it's concurrent with BW2.
• If you assume that Anabel was first found roughly around the same time ORAS takes place, and that it shares the same place in the timeline as Emerald in the pre-Gen VI verse, then indeed SM takes place around a decade following the Kanto and Hoenn games. (Coincidentally, that assumption also means there's a roughly three year gap between Gen IV and BW1.)

So, this means that the returning characters have no confirmed age?

^Yup.

Works for me.

Should we remove the voice actors from Pokemon Origins or not? It's not like the B 2 W 2 anime game trailer since Origins actually has a story and made certain liberties with the Gen I plot.

For the protagonists of Sun and Moon, should we dub them Elio and Selene as a temporary placeholder?

EDIT: Ignore this, adding this to the thread was a mistake

Compelling argument.