Talk:Leaf (game)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search


So who made up that name? --nYoo 17:22, 2 February 2006 (CST)

I want to know that too. Following the trend that the 1st and 2nd gen games set, her name should be Green, or Blue in the Japanese version. I'm guessing someone just chose one of the optional names from FRLG and gave it to her when they made the article. There's no real basis for her name being "Leaf", so shouldn't we go by precedence, as was done with Gold, Silver and Kris, and just call her Green?. -Shaddow Boy
For an English Language Version, Green is accurate, however Green (game) already directs to Blue, does it not?--PikamasterADV 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Internal game data. There is a trainer, presumably used for debugging, with the sprite of the male player, and another trainer with the sprite of the female player. The male one is named Red, but the female is named Leaf for some strange reason. - 振霖T 09:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
English version or Japanese? --WikidSmaht 08:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Both. --Maxim 10:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really a good habit to get into. If we start taking unused data as official canon, then Professor Oak started with Squirtle, the Safari Zone had no Pokemon in it 3 years after Red and Blue, and that the Lake of Rage is still a town. It just doesn't make sense. Fire Red and Leaf Green have officially fixed Green's (male rival's), name to that of the original, leaving lone Blue, the third version gal, without a truly official name. While logic would suggest we should call her Blue due to the Manga as well as Blue being the color generation's third game, we are stuck basing her name on what can only be called speculation. Unused Data =/= Fact. Fishman 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, no. When it comes to the games' canon, internal game data > manga name. Otherwise we should be calling Brendan "Ruby" and May "Sapphire".
And no offense, but your analogies are the ones that don't make sense to me. The prototypical Safari Zone in GSC doens't have wild Pokémon because the wild encounters data was never written, not because it was originally meant to not have Pokémon. And the finished versions of the games retconned Profesor Oak into not being a fight-able trainer, and the Lake of Rage into being just a lake are, not a town. But neither the finished games not Nintendo officially revealed a name for the FR/LG female protagonist, so if her name during the development stages was Leaf (which in-game data seems to prove it was), then it should still be, since there isn't evidence to make us believe that it was retconned into another name. Spideym 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well we can't call her Blue, because Blue (game) is the rival. Zurqoxn 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If only GSDS would become reality, we'd know for sure, since then we'd have to find out what happened to her as well as Red. TTEchidna 09:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't need another sequel. Besides her name, the answers are right here in front of us. The Blue (game) has officially been renamed as Green. All we have to do with the old article is point out that his English name used to be Blue, and was later changed back into Green. Fishman 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it has not been officially renamed. The rival's first default name for the Red version does not qualify as the character's official name. For all we know, his name could still be "Blue," just because it's not a default name doesn't mean it's been officially changed. Taking evidence from all the games supports that the rival is Blue and the girl is unnamed (leaving us with Green), but the idea that Blue has become Green is just fan speculation. I also agree that we can't go taking in-game data as official, and believe the name of the girl should be Green until Nintendo proves otherwise.--Mezase Master
No to you, Mezase Master. First of all, you'll give the reason to most of us when we claim that Blue, this is, Japanese Green, is now Green outside of Japan as well since FRLG. Why do I say this? Because of HGSS and in-game data. And if internal game data says that her name is Leaf in both Japanese and English versions, then we have to assume it is as such. It's like you're claiming that Nintendo, specially the American and European divisions, don't screw up on the manuals and stuff. Even if such material is official, it doesn't mean it's correct and in-game data is the superior form of canon in the Pokémon franchise, so I say you're wrong. Pokemon lover 11:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I e-mailed Nintendo of America back in late 2008 and asked them what was the official name of the female player character in FRLG. They told me that there isn't any and that players can name characters as they pretend (we all know that happens in every game except the rival in RSE), so we only have in-game data left. And if in-game data says that the name is Leaf, it's because it is. Pokemon lover 12:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Her name can't be "Green" because is the rival's name in the games already Haruka uzumaki 16:06, 24 September 2007

Her name isn't "Green". It's "Blue". Fishman 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Leaf and Green were separated just now so suddenly?


Okay, that manga information should definitely be in a separate article. But what series is it referring to? --Pie ~ 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RBG picture

So, supposedly she's based off of a picture from an old guidebook. Does anybody have an copy of this picture? I'm curious to see it. - unsigned comment from Morgil27 (talkcontribs)

Blue artwork?

I found an image that appears to be the artwork described in the article. Is this it? [1]

It doesn't show her face, unfortunately. GigaMetroid99 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not sure it's her but she does resemble Blue (Green in the U.S)--Coolピカチュウ! 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if that was the picture that the article described with:

Leaf was supposed to be in the original Red and Green versions, due to the fact that on Nintendo's Official guidebook, it depicted a female trainer with long brown hair, a black dress, white gloves and short black boots, alongside the male protagonist and the rival. It is believed she was supposed to be in the game, but was left out for some reason.

If that's the right image, it should be added to the article to show viewers how she would have looked.GigaMetroid99 01:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused I thought the picture already was in the article.... I made a copy of it from somewhere...--Marhawkman 02:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I remember reading in one of the articles something about how there are bits of code in red and green that treat the gender of the player character as a variable. wouldn't this be additional confirmation?--Marhawkman 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Her back sprite

It may be me but her back sprite,and Red's,makes it look like she has brown eyes,despite what the trainer card shows. Lovely Rose 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rival = Blue? or Green? HGSS

Well, being that the rival's name also complicates things, as TTEchidna said, if the Viridian City gym leader in Pokemon HeartGold & SoulSilver is Leader (or Gym Leader) Blue, then it's back to the drawing board, but if he's Leader (or Gym Leader) Green, the name of the female player character of FireRed & LeafGreen may very well be Blue then. - unsigned comment from Team Snagem Jarrod (talkcontribs)

Her name will be Leaf regardless. TTEchidna 02:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the situation change if she appears in HG/SS under a different name? Tsum 04:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It might but I think if the English translation calls the Viridian Leader "Green" to go with FireRed and LeafGreen, and has Red still in Mt. Silver, then this girl being Blue would confuse people due to Green being Blue in Gen II because before it was Red and Blue. Leaf fits her best of all, unless they were to go a completely odd route and go with actual given names, in which case I'd bet that Red would be Satoshi in Japan and Ash here, Green is Shigeru/Gary, and Leafy-poo is Ashley. TTEchidna 22:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The only one not to appear in the anime?

Wouldn't Soul count? Also,what about Mark,Mint,Wes,Michael,Lucy,Kate, and Lunick? Or do it just refer to the main games. Even so,what about Soul? Or is it still up for grabs that she is just a redesign of Kris,and not a seperate character? Lovely Rose 03:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Soul's game hasn't even been released. Of course she hasn't appeared in the anime yet. If she appears, she will probably show up during the 13th or 14th seasons, late 12th at the earliest, assuming they return to Johto after the Sinnoh League and the Sinnoh GF. --ルレ 04:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apperence in HGSS?

If she's not, so should that be mentioned if she is not? Just saying b/c of the games comming out today.--Midnight Blue 02:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so. Just Red. --ケンジガール 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright was that added to article?--Midnight Blue 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone finished the game with Kotone to confirm? All the places I've seen were finishing with Hibiki. Maybe Leaf takes place of Red when you play with Kotone. -- RikkiKitsune 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well many have confirmed her not to be in HGSS, should I undo the trivia just in case? She might be in beta?--Midnight Blue 03:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it is too early to say it, it's better to undo it until someone who has finished with Kotone to confirm. -- RikkiKitsune 03:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll do unless you already did.--Midnight Blue 03:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

HGSS (again)

Is it really confirmed that she is not in HGSS? Has anyone finished the game with Soul Kotone to see if she is not in the place of Red? If not, the right thing to do is to remove this trivia. -- RikkiKitsune 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, anyone answered, and people keep insisting on putting that freaking piece of trivia. It would be excellent if someone say where it is confirmed. I'm really sorry for bothering, but I just want to know -- RikkiKitsune 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you please stop asking already? I'm sure they are working on it. Be patient. I would do it myself but my rom always messes up by the time I reach Violet City. I have to wait a few weeks until I get the real game. We are not saying that she's in the game and we are not saying that she isn't. --ケンジガール 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
People have ripped all of the trainer sprites (including the event-only Giovanni... at least, I believe he's event-only) from the game. Leaf is not included in them. I don't have the game or ROM to go through the game with Kotone just to double-check, though... Tina 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it, it will take time, but I am also working on it. But people are insisting to put that trivia "[...] she does not appear in the games.", and we do not have clear confirmation yet. I'll hide it, okay? Sorry again for bothering. -- RikkiKitsune 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Leave it hidden. Although, Tina's comment gives great weight to Red staying there. Not to mention that there are a billion and one Red references. —darklordtrom 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Made it to Pallet. The mailbox says "Red's house". So yeah. I don't think she's here. However, there is a slim possiblity of her name being changed to Red in this game. But I highly doubt it. --ケンジガール 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's already been proven that Leaf isn't in HG/SS from what I know after watching the HG video with Kotone in it. I think it might be possible that the designers may have planned her to be in HG/SS. I don't know about you guys but do you think she could be in beta?- unsigned comment from LeafGreen (talkcontribs)
Yeah, I actually found her hidden in the game. 梅子 05:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well today, I made it to the top of Mt Silver as Kotone. Guess who was there? Give you a hint, it wasn't Leaf :D --ケンジガール 07:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Absence in other canons?

From what I've seen, she only appears in Special, as Blue, and in Firered/Leafgreen. Not in the anime, not in any other manga, not in any cards, not any figurines, etc.. I've only ever seen two official arts for her, the regular one and one with her and a Combusken. Does she appear in any other media? Lovely Rose 21:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a shot of the one with the Combusken? Or a link?--Midnight Blue 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This. I think that's from the Game Freak website, they have had tons of official art there. Well, she did appear in that "Pocket Monsters" manga, so that counts..But, only two manga counterparts, and her one game appearence? She still seems pretty absent. Lovely Rose 00:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

She appears in Pokemon Colosseum too or is that just a cameo or beta thing because Red, May, and Brendon have are there Pika Blue 7:29, 3 November 2009

Does she appear in a playable way, or is it just a background thing?--Champion Victoria 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That i really don't know all i know is that her image is there somewhere i haven't played the game myself i think its part of some marketing ploy at the time to get people to buy LeafGreen and FireRed along with Sapphire, Ruby, and Emerald.Because like I said before May, Red, and Brendon are there too. Pika Blue 12:20, 22 December 2009

Can I add this?

That leaf's clothes are opposites to Red's. As in Red's pants are the same color as her shirt and her red's shirt is the same color as her skirt. Same as for his and hers hats. Basically its showing they are counterparts.--Midnight Blue 02:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems notable enough to add, no other characters share that yet. Lovely Rose 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, lets see what happens.--Midnight Blue 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a ridiculously convoluted way of saying it. Considering that all of the other game characters who are male/female counterparts wear similar clothes... TTEchidna 06:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this Leaf?

Where did this image come from? It seems to have something to do with this one. Those are the only two non-main official Leaf artwork I know of, they're all by Sugimori too. Lovely Rose 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow neat find, I'm not sure, it looks like leaf, umm is it just random artwork or like the TCG?--Midnight Blue 04:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The first one I think doesn't have enough color to distinguish much--take off the brim of the hat and it would probably more resemble Dawn. The second one, however, as far as I can tell, is definitely based off this design (nevermind the fact that she's near a Pokémon heavily associated with May). --Shiningpikablu252 04:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blue eyes?

Doesn't Red's sprite show him with blue eyes too? Plus, her pre-game sprite shows her with brown eyes, doesn't it? Her back sprite seems to show her with brown eyes too. Lovely Rose 01:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Could someone upload Leaf's Title sprite from FRLG? Red has his, but Leaf doesn't. --Never Give Up Pika 13:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


The article says her name was in the games. Does that mean she was supposed to be in it, or is her name just there for another reason? Lovely Rose 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean about the name "Leaf" is alternates for Dawn and Kotone? That just means they just share name. Or where soy talking about something out. Or do you mean about the dummied-out character? That was for FRLG.--Midnight Blue 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It should say FRLG then, because in that context it makes it sound like they're talking about HGSS. Lovely Rose 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"Leaf's name was found in HeartGold and SoulSilver's data as a dummied-out opponent Trainer, alongside Red (whose name is Red as it was before)." Seems like they're talking about HGSS. Is this information correct anyway? >_> -- Zedd 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It IS true. But that's in FRLG, not HGSS. That's where her name comes from also. --Maxim 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Credits sprite

It's a little bit botched. Can someone make a new animation?—Loveはドコ? (talk contribs) 23:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Both, Leaf and Red artoworks are holding pokeball and VS-seeker. This could be nice trivia? - unsigned comment from Banetoid (talkcontribs)

No. There's nothing trivia worthy about that. Jello 06:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


First, sorry for my english I haven`t played this game but I know that Drill Dozer was made by Gamefreak and I found this I looks like one of Jill costumes is the same as Leaf. This could be a trivia. - unsigned comment from Virus bass (talkcontribs)

Neat find. I think so.--Midnight Blue 21:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this looking too much into it?

Leaf and Kris are the first female players of their regions and are not reused again?--Midnight Blue 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. —darklordtrom 08:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Leaf and not Green?

Okay, honestly, this makes no sense. I understand that you're taking the internal data as evidence, but internal data shouldn't always be taken as canon. If we named every character based on the internal data, then Blue would be called Terry, and Barry would be called Cedric, among others. Their internal files are called that for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that it should be their official name. I understand that your reasoning for using the internal data to support the name "Leaf" is because she's never officially named in game, unlike Red, Blue, Ethan, Lyra, Brendan, May, Lucas, Dawn, etc., but there [i]is[/i] evidence outside of game canon that supports the name "Green". Yes, most of the time you shouldn't take media outside of game canon as evidence, but that's exactly what you did when you decided to name the DPPt Rival "Barry", isn't it? And why did you do that? Because it was the most logical choice. The name "Barry" is present in the games as one of the preset names, and it's also supported in other media, media which also uses the canon name of Dawn, so it can be assumed that the name they're using for Barry is the intended canon name for him. Leaf's situation is no different. She's already been named "Green" in the manga (that is, in the English version, since the names of Blue and Green are swapped in Japan, but since this is an English wiki we use the English names), and it fits the Red/Blue/Green naming pattern, so why should we completely ignore those facts and instead go with "Leaf"?! It's just not logical. Whatever the verdict is, she'll always be Green to me, and she should be to everyone else, too. —Tyeforce 08:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

She's Leaf. Period and end of story. TTEchidna 08:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Why? Because you say so? Did you even read everything I wrote? You guys did this with Barry, so what's stopping you from doing it with Leaf/Green? —Tyeforce 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, and there was a perfectly good reason for naming her Leaf. It probably says it in official guidebooks or something. Blake Talk·Edits 18:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware that it has been discussed before, but to my knowledge, the only solid evidence to support the name "Leaf" is from internal data. And like I said in my first post, there are so many things wrong with taking the internal data as an official name, especially when there's a much more logical name. —Tyeforce 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This is like saying Brendan should be named Ruby. Leaf is what she's known as, that's the end of it. Nothing is stopping you from calling her Green, but that doesn't make it her real name. Reign 19:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not at all like calling Brendan Ruby. Brendan has been officially named in the games, Leaf/Green hasn't. Since we don't have an official name to go by in the games, we should name her based on logic and evidence in other media. Green makes the most sense, and it's backed up by the manga. Leaf doesn't make sense at all. We know that she was planned to be in the Generation I games but never made the cut, so why would we call her Leaf, when the Fire/Leaf thing didn't come until Generation III? And Red isn't called Fire, is he? No, he's called Red, just like Blue is called Blue, and just like how "Leaf" should be called Green. —Tyeforce 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Red isn't called Fire because he's been named in GSCHGSS. Leaf and the Green from Adventures are different characters, just like Red and Ash are. One's name should not affect the other. Reign 20:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a different situation, though. And although Leaf/Green from FireRed/LeafGreen is a different character from the Adventures Green, they're clearly based on each other. Red and Blue have their canon names in Adventures, so why should we assume that Green's name isn't the canon one used? Yes, later characters are named after their versions in the manga, but those are different generations, where the naming scheme has been changed in the games. In Generation one, their names were all colors, so why should Red's female counterpart be any different? Also, you guys are contradicting yourselves. You used the anime's name for Barry because he didn't have an official name in the games, and that's A-OK to you, but when we're talking about Leaf/Green it's wrong? Why is that? You went with Barry because it was the most logical choice, that's why. It's supported by both the games (as one of the random preset names) and the anime, and the same anime also uses the official name for the character Dawn, so there's really no reason not to trust it. It was the best choice there was, so you used it. And Green is the best choice for the name of the female protagonist of FireRed/LeafGreen, and planned female protagonist of Generation I, so why aren't we using it? —Tyeforce 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you realize, Tyeforce, that when an admin (TTE no less...) says that it's the end of the convo, then stop. R.A. Hunter Blade 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd just like to know why he's so set on the name Leaf when Green is the more logical choice. If he's the admin, then he must have approved the change from Pearl to Barry, so why is he sticking with Leaf instead of Green? And if I can't voice my opinion here anymore, can I take it to the forums, or will my thread just be locked and I'll be told to shut up with no reason given like what's happening here?—Tyeforce 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
As much as I'm inclined to disagree with his choice in naming, I believe he is acting in his rights to call the name into question. No one likes to edit a wiki that has draconian admins, after all. However, I believe he's failed to produce the evidence that's required: What is there, ingame, that says her name should be Green? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Barry at least had it as a default name in two games (Barry [the name] was in Platinum, right?). Leaf's absence from Pokémon Canon makes Leaf her only logical name.--Purimpopoie 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You talk as if Leaf/Green didn't have "Green" as an option for her name in her games, either. She did, just as is the case with Barry. But Barry's not the only default name he's given. It's just one among many. So what made Bulbapedia decide to call him Barry? The fact that the anime also calls him that. And the same exact situation can apply to Leaf/Green. Like Barry, she's never officially named in game, except for the list of default names, of which includes the name "Green". But she's also named Green outside of game canon, just like Barry was named for that exact same reason, so that's what we should call her. If somebody didn't decide to give her the name Leaf (yes, I know that it was based on internal data, but I've already given reasons as to why that can't be taken as an official name) and name this article so, then people would be calling her Green, the most logical choice. It's Bulbapedia's fault that her name is widely accepted as "Leaf" now, just like it was Bulbapedia's fault that so many people started calling the DPPt Rival "Pearl". You have to understand that what you say here greatly affects the entire Pokémon community, so it's very easy for false information to be taken as fact. Now, I'm not saying that it's a fact that Red's female counterpart is named Green, but there's much more evidence that supports it as opposed to calling her Leaf, and it's just more logical. —Tyeforce 21:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(Gogo Indent Reset) Responding to each claim in order: But you see, it doesn't matter that Green is also an option because we could just as easily substitute in any of her other default names and argue it on that case. Green is only a default if you're playing LeafGreen; for FireRed, she'd just as well be called Fire. As far as Barry is concerned, the name is not only in Diamond, but also Platinum, which gives that name the ingame edge it needs over Clint, the top default name from Pearl. Your arguments that she is Green outside the game canon are pointless because she doesn't exist in any other canon; "Green" from Pokemon Adventures was established long before FireRed and LeafGreen were announced, and is thus an entirely separate character (if the separate wiki articles didn't already clue you in). Barry is named such because it is his default name in Platinum, giving Barry a 2-to-1 bias over Clint, and a 2-0 over Pearl. Leaf has no such out; in FR, she can be called Red or Fire, and in LG she can be called Leaf or Green. Any name is just as likely as the others (except Red, obviously). The ingame data in this case acts as final arbiter: it could have been literally any name and it would have won out (due to being present in both FireRed AND LeafGreen). I still don't see how Green is any more likely than Leaf; Leaf has a spot on the default names list AND the ingame data, where Green only has the default names list. You aren't providing the evidence you need. Probably because it doesn't exist.--Purimpopoie 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You're completely ignoring the fact that the character Leaf/Green has existed since Generation I. Not as a playable character, but in official artwork, and we know she was intended to be in the games, but just never made the cut. With that in mind, why would you go with the name "Leaf", which makes no sense, considering that the terms Fire and Leaf hadn't been introduced until Generation III? And I know that she's not the same exact character as the Green in the manga canon-wise, but it's clear as day that the two are the same character, just in different canon. Since her counterpart and rival have kept their color names throughout the generations, why should her name be an element and not a color? You can through game data at me all you want (by the way, where is your proof that the name "Green" only appears in LeafGreen, but "Leaf" appears in both?), but it just doesn't make sense. Since we no official name for her, have to think about what the developers' intent is. Do you think that they would call her Leaf, or the more logical choice, Green? It would appear that "Green" is the intended name, since it's used in the Adventures manga (which is the closest media to the game canon other than the games themselves), and it fits the color naming scheme. —Tyeforce 21:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The flaw with your first point is if we go by that logic Shellos would be a Generation III Pokémon. If the character wasn't present in the games, no amount of intention is going to put them there. That puts your question to rest as well; Leaf because the Character didn't exist in Generation I. Saying it's clear as day means nothing; you're talking about 'the manga' like it's somehow more infallible than the games themselves (I must have skipped over the part of the game where my PC was kidnapped by Ho-Oh and spent several years in Johto). As for proof that Leaf is in both games, Leaf is the dummied out name for the character in both games (similar that Red is the default in both games for the dummied out character that had his face, as well as whatever the weird name that Blue had in FRLG). In the naming screen, the opposite game's name is never an option; You don't start up Red and see Blue as the default name for your character. So it would be reasonable to assume that neither Leaf nor Green are options for the default names in FireRed. Thus there are two separate instances of Leaf (ingame default name and the dummied out trainer with her sprite) and only one instance of Green (the ingame default name). Finally, you have yet to show any proof that Green is more suited than Leaf. Manga-based arguments are irrelevant, as they aren't the same character (even if their bases are the same).--Purimpopoie 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Just stop arguing pointlessly. People all over call her Leaf. Leaf is the generally excepted name. As for the reason, I don't know. You can wait for TTEchidna to explain why, but don't argue with yourselves, when you don't know all the facts. Blake Talk·Edits 00:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not claiming that Japanese fandom is the be-all end-all by any stretch of the imagination, but I just want to point out that I have never seen any Japanese fans call Leaf "Blue." They usually call her, indeed, "Leaf" (リーフ). Other names I've seen from J-fandom have been "Fuguri" (フグリ) and "main character♀" (主♀)... never "Blue." Just thought I'd point that out. :3 梅子 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What's "Fuguri" mean? Sorry if that's obvious...--Purimpopoie 01:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Fuguri" comes from "Riifu guriin" (or rather, LeafGreen). :3 梅子 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(resetting indent)
梅子 01:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it wouldn't let me post for some reason earlier today, I didn't get to post my reply to Purimpopoie. I'll go ahead and post what I tried to post earlier today but couldn't.
Even if she wasn't physically present in the Generation I games, if she was, she would've been named Green, not Leaf. Since Red isn't renamed Fire and Blue isn't renamed Water in Generation III, why should we call her Leaf, instead of sticking with colors? And you're confusing me about the default name Leaf's presence in the games. At first you said that Green is only present in LeafGreen, but Leaf is present in both versions. Now you turn around and say that both Green and Leaf are only present in LeafGreen. Which is it? If the latter is true, then Green has just as much in game support as Leaf does, excluding unseen dummy files in the game data. You even brought up the fact that Blue's name in the game data is strange, not being Green like it should be (since that's his Japanese name). If we can't trust the internal data for Blue's name, then why should we trust it for Leaf/Green's name? With that said, if you exclude the internal data that can't be taken as fact and media outside of the games, then both names, Green and Leaf, have the same amount of supporting evidence for them (that is, assuming your first comment about the name Leaf being present in FireRed wasn't true, as you later suggested). They're tied, 1-1. So you have a choice to make. Should you go with the name that's present in placeholder data in the game (which can't be trusted, as shown by Blue's placeholder data), or should you go with the name that's also used in other media, and is more logical, fitting the color naming scheme? I think the choice is pretty obvious. Green is the name to go with. —Tyeforce 06:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Because she wasn't officially /in/ Gen I can she be inclusive to it. She existed as art and an idea that wouldn't come to fruition until Kris: a heroine choice. She may have "exist", but she is not a canon character until Gen III. This being her official debut, she has nothing to go on but these two games. She cannot be called Green, since FireRed is the Alpha game, making the "Green" character the rival (in essence). But seeing as there is no third game to possibly pawn her off on, the last bit is to chop the title in half, one name for the rival, and one name for the girl. Because the rival isn't officially 'Blue' by Gen III standards, since no Blue game exists in Gen III. Yes, he is Blue, in every English Gen that isn't the third. And since he's not Blue, but "Green," she, as a Gen III character, cannot be "Green". Hence. As she is a Gen III character only (so far), she cannot be named by the standards of Gen IV, only her own generation. If she had made an appearance in Gen IV...only then could her name be argued beyond the scope of her limited exposure. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 15:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now that makes sense. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you for actually providing logical evidence besides placeholder data that can't be trusted or fandom nonsense. If someone would have pointed that out a long time ago, I would've never argued over her name. So, again, I thank you for being the one to provide real, logical, valid evidence as to why she should be called Leaf. No longer will I call her Green. —Tyeforce 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with just saying this: Okay, so there's a "trio" from each Generation, correct? And each trio is named either with real names, or with version names. From Hoenn, we have Brendan, May, and Wally. From Sinnoh, we have Lucas, Dawn, and Barry. From Johto, we have Ethan, Lyra, and Emoguy. Anyways, since each "trio" follows a theme, meaning that the names have to be consistent with one another. Emoguy was given no clear name in HG/SS, so I can understand why we still call him Silver, since Ethan was previously known as Gold, but ANYWAYS, each name in the trio has to be consistent. Logically, what makes more sense: Red, Leaf, and Blue? Or Red, Green, and Blue? If it's that hard to notice people, the Kanto trio are named after colors Notice how "Leaf" is not a color. Just saying. EDIT: bah, screw it, who cares, it's just a name, afterall, Kris wasn't named Crystal. Leaf ftw! Chaos Rush 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Do you know that it means "testicles" in Japanese? Whoever calls her that, he's probably NOT serious about this name. And this makes this not trivia-worthy. --Maxim 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I do know that it means that, but fans do seriously call her by that name, and in a perfectly well-meaning manner. 梅子 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Kay, so some kind anons on 2ch were able to clear up for me the true origins behind the name "Fuguri." Here's the answer that I ultimately received.
The very first FireRed/LeafGreen thread was titled "FireRed LeafGreen" (ファイアレッドリーフグリーン) without the &.
Because of that, people responded with, "FireRedLee & Fugurin (ファイアレッドリー&フグリーン)? What an obscene title!"
I have a feeling that's how the "Fuguri" thing started.
Incidentally, the male protagonist was also called "Red Lee." Though now the names "Remake Red" and "Leaf" have permeated [the fandom].
So yes, while it started out as a joke because of the word "scrotum," it turned into a legitimate fandom name for her, and people do call her that in all seriousness, without any obscene intentions behind it. 梅子 00:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's somewhat like the fail pronunciation of Lyra's name as "Coat Own". They see "ko" and know "co", but "tone" doesn't read to them as two syllables, since it's an English word. And no one cares to read up on kana. You'd know someone meant Lyra if they called her Coat Own in a video. TTEchidna 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


You know, I've wondered this for a while. Red and Leaf appeared in the prerelease trailers for PBR; is it possible for players to assemble their outfits in PBR through the accessories, or not? TTEchidna 18:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Leaf is her most common name?

The last trivia states this. However until recently she was mostly known as "Blue" in the fandom, due to Blue from Special. Even now she's still well-known as Blue. On a different note..Is a screenshot of her BR beta appearence article-worthy? Does anyone even have a somewhat high quality screen-shot? Lovely Rose 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know(which isn't much, as I came into the fandom during DP), she is known as Leaf. Her manga counterpart is the one most commonly known as Blue(for silly reasons). Blake Talk·Edits 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Leaf's Special counterparts name is Blue though..Anyway, Leaf up until recently has been synonymous with "Blue" or "Green" up until recently. Even now, a lot of people call her "Blue" on both sides of the fandom. Lovely Rose 22:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since The rival is known both as Blue and Green, It is safer to call her leaf. And The PBR pic,the trailer Even on better sites like IGN, Is pretty low quality. Unless someone has a better vid, we can't get a better picture. - unsigned comment from Kanto Girl (talkcontribs)

Early Design

I was looking on the internet, and found an image that looks like it could have been Leaf's original design. I cant upload the image, but I can give a link:

Go down to "What could have been" and click on female protagonist and you will see a pre design of Leaf. Iml908 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We already have that Ataro 20:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't this article be tagged with {{Unknown name}}? LurKasumi 04:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In the internal game data of FRLG, her sprite is associated with the name "Leaf", just like the male character is named "Red", so it's valid. |) u |( e ® 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


I remember that a few years back, this page had an interesting point of trivia. "If Leaf had been included in Red and Green with her original design, she would have been the only playable character to date without headwear." Well, that was the gist of it, but I'm sure it was worded better. Even now, 20 years after the original games, this is still true. Well, in the Playable Characters' default forms at least. Sun and Moon's protags are apparently able to remove their hats through customization. Could that be re-added? Or is it too random a trivia point to put down, especially since it's about an "if" rather than something that actually happened? --BlackButterfree (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say not to re-add it. It's a pretty convoluted point, and like you said it never happened. Litwick96 02:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


What exactly are these comics? Some early comic book? - unsigned comment from RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talkcontribs)

It looks like it was from some sort of craft (like origami) book. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Leaf now called Green in Pokémon Let's Go?

Just read this now:

It looks like Leaf, who was just announced on the newslink above as making a guest appearance on Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!, won't be officially named Leaf but Green instead! But if Green was the Japanese name for Blue, then how will she be named in Japanese if "Leaf" is dropped for "Green"? (Also posted this on Talk:Player character.) SilSinn (Pokémon Sun Trainer ID: 768426) (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

So far the only official news release by and their social media sites make no verbal mention of Red, Blue, and Leaf/Green. They don't even provide official clean renders of the artwork of the later four Gym Leaders, which the English trailer showed. Until we get clarification from Pokémon itself, or the game releases, we can only consider this idle speculation by Polygon.
That said, if her name DOES indeed turn out to be Green, it will contradict what we considered to be the official source for Leaf's name after years of silence: her Kotobukiya ArtFx J concept art. - Chosen of Mana 14:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Whatever she will be called (probably Leaf) we should consider that the Let's Go games might take place in their own separate canon from the other core games (I don't deny they're main series, I question if they're a separate branch in the main series) since the new protagonists seem to replace the classic ones in Pallet Town while the classic ones are still existing and out and about.
(and I don't mean a different timeline, but actually a completely different continuity like the anime and manga that does it's own thing different from the games)
So perhaps in that case a separate page, for example Red(Let's Go) and the Red(game) page we have, coexisting as counterparts would be in place.
It's still just speculation at this point of course, we'll have to wait and see...--DanyyelTR (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Just wait until the games are released before you start suggesting all of this, please. We'll have the answers soon enough. Then we'll decide what to do. Ataro (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Well yes of course but I see no harm in brainstorming potential scenarios to be at least a bit more prepared at release for what may come.--DanyyelTR (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless we see official confirmation that the LGPE character is the same character we currently call Leaf (alternate timelines nonwithstanding), LGPE is unlikely to affect this page's name. I doubt being "the female Gen I trainer" is enough to count as Leaf, because it would be similar to the Kris/Lyra situation. bwburke94 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, she is confirmed to be called Green in-game as seen in this video: Sucoleo (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't be funny. The game literally slaps us in the face that she's one and the same, by giving her an intermediate design between her Gen I and Gen III self. Don't grasp at straws. --Maxim (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this is definitely meant to be the same character. Her top is clearly just inverted colours of her FRLG design, she's wearing shorts instead of a skirt and not wearing a hat. This change in design seems to be more of a difference like May between her RSE and ORAS design than a Kris/Lyra difference. Tarawl (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether Blue/Leaf is the same character or not, this does not affect Leaf as the official name of FRLG female protagonist. Yea, this is like Kris/Lyra case. Some people think that they are the same character, and Some people don’t. And Red(original/remake), Gold/Ethan, Elio(SM/USUM) and Selene(SM/USUM) are the same case also, although Bulbapedia has different treatments for them each. E9310103838 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's some pomfed logic to me. If it wasn't for the Kotobukiya figure, this issue would be non-existant. Different names for nameable characters exist, like they always did. There's absolutely no reason to split articles. --Maxim (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Darn... had she be named Leaf like the figurine, that would have been more wise of Pokémon as to alleviate a bit the whole Blue/Green shenanigans that the fandom has been stuck with for years. I guess game-npc name takes preference over a figurine assigned name in this case I suppose...--DanyyelTR (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It all comes down to Japanese names here. If (and only if) the LGPE character's Japanese name is リーフ, the two characters are one and the same. If the characters do not share a Japanese name, then there is nothing connecting the two, aside from both being derived from the unused Gen 1 girl. bwburke94 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
If you plan to maintain only one page, then hope that you use the corresponding official artwork, instead of using Leaf’s artwork and call this page Green. E9310103838 (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
If they're two separate characters, a new page for Green (game) would need to be created. (It's currently a redirect to Blue (game), because of the localization name switch.) bwburke94 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Even if Green goes by Blue in Japanese instead of Leaf, everything else about the two still connects them together. she is design-wise obviously not a different character, Red and Blue aren't different characters either and neither would she be, unused Gen 1 girl, Leaf and Green are all the same girl and have always been the same girl. Arguing otherwise is really unnecessarily grasping at straws. Unless Let's Go is of a different separate canon, then perhaps would it be in place for most characters to have a (Let's Go)version page, like how the anime versions of characters often have their own (anime)version page, (manga), Ash(M20) etc.--DanyyelTR (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. It's clear that they're one and the same. This page itself already considers Leaf to be the same as the "unused Gen 1 girl" -- which is Green/Blue in Let's Go. Design-wise, this case is much different from the Kris/Lyra situation. Leaf and Green share the exact same design (brown hair, brown eyes, same hair, same shirt). It's just that the clothes are a little different. They're based on the same "unused Gen 1 girl". It's very obvious they're the same character. Kris and Lyra were different enough to warrant the split, but the same can not be said for Leaf and Green. The page should be renamed to Green. If anyone is still wondering, her Japanese name is indeed Blue (ブルー) in-game as seen here: Sucoleo (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically this. It's so obvious that it's meant to be the same character, the only way it could be more conclusive is if Masuda or someone else outright states it. This is more like the Gold/Ethan situation over the Kris/Lyra situation where the new name just replaces the old one in canon (If Leaf could have even been considered canon) rather than a whole new character replacing in canon. It also makes the most sense as the canon name (Red, Blue, Green vs. Red, Blue, Leaf). Tarawl (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Look at my side of the argument again. There is no official source indicating Green is derived from Leaf, and visually she's the unused Gen 1 girl with a few elements taken from Leaf. And on top of that, she has a different Japanese name despite Leaf being officially named in Japanese during the development of Let's Go. Given what I've just said, any claim that Leaf and Green are the same character is pure speculation, and we don't deal in speculation. We waited for over three years for a source to say Zygarde was part of a trio despite it being "obvious", so there's no reason for us to claim Green is Leaf without a source. bwburke94 (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bwburke94. I propose that we create a new page for the unused female character from Generation I and include information about Green from Pokémon Let's Go on that page. Leaf and Green seem to be strongly indicated to be separate characters; although Leaf is partially based on the unused character from Generation I, there is no evidence at the moment to suggest that they are one and the same. --LavaringX (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Let's split it into three - "the unnamed Gen I girl", "Leaf the FRLG character" and "Green the NPC". I also recommend making a separate article for the Kotobukiya figure, just in case. Or... I know, maybe let's telephone Junichi Masuda on the matter? Is John Gamefreak's nephew in da house?! *A Poké Ball came flying at you* --Maxim (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Dude, don't be like that. You make yourself look dumber than you make us look. We're trying to have a civil discussion about an issue on a Pokémon fan wiki. Being sarcastic like that helps nobody. --LavaringX (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the one who started talking insane. Really, the game slaps you in the face with obvious evidence, yet you people say "hurr speculation durr unconfirmed". If you need an official statement like "She is/isn't the same character", then in all seriousness, the only way is to contact someone from Game Freak, because official materials will most likely never give you that. --Maxim (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
If you have evidence, then by all means provide it. Keep in mind it needs to prove that Green is Leaf, but not necessarily that Green and/or Leaf is the Gen 1 trainer. bwburke94 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
For the love of Arceus...--YoHaNe (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you understood what I meant. The evidence needs to prove that Green is Leaf. Not that Green might be Leaf, or that Green and Leaf share a character pose. bwburke94 (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Is LGPE Green the same person as Leaf?

Starting a new section because the last one got a bit out of hand.

My argument is as follows: Green shares more visual similarities with her Gen 1 design than she does with Leaf, and shares her Japanese name with her Gen 1 design but not with Leaf. Because Leaf's Japanese name was given to her during the development of LGPE, she would have been named as "Blue" (ENG Green) on that figure if she were the same character as Green. Also, there are no official sources that state that Leaf is the same character as either version of Green.

This means that the following course of events is very possible: Nintendo/Game Freak decided to put Red/Blue/Green in LGPE. Because Red and Blue are based on their Gen 1 designs, they chose to use Green from Gen 1 instead of Leaf from Gen 3, despite the fact Green didn't make it into the finished version of Gen 1. Green did take some traits from Leaf, but is still a distinct character of her own.

If any of you can refute that statement, feel free to respond. bwburke94 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My argument is that the Green we see in LGPE shares all physical features with Leaf and wears a hybrid outfit of hers and Leaf(these similarities were not the case with Kris and Lyra) and are both associated as part of the Kanto trio.
Back when FRLG came out they updated the original trio, Red got a new outfit, Blue got a new outfit and unused gen 1 girl got a new outfit, she so happened to be named Leaf in the data so that is the name she got stuck with on here, but that holds no merit, Blue was named Terry in the data, so should there be a Terry(game) page? No, of course not. Had she be named Green back then, I'd highly doubt we would be having this discussion and everyone would easily accept that it is the same character just like everyone accepts that fact for Red and Blue.
We never needed official sources that confirmed that Red and Blue from FRLG were the same characters from RGB, but we need one now for Green? I'm sorry but I'm genuinely baffled.--DanyyelTR (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Your argument relies on the assumption that Leaf is directly based on the protagonist from the unused Pokémon art. The creators never confirmed this, only that she drew inspiration from that character. This new Green is inspired by both the unused character and Leaf, that part is true, but "inspired by" is not the same as "is the same character". There is overwhelming evidence to support that Red and Blue are the same characters as the original, especially because they have appeared in multiple games before this. I would also like to add that Leaf's FR/LG appearance is drastically different from the unused character than Red and Blue's appearances compared to their Gen I counterparts, so it seems to me that Game Freak decided to recycle some old concepts while creating Leaf and then return to their original plan for Pokémon Let's Go. --LavaringX (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You people really overestimate Kotobukiya's value. It's not a Game Freak source (and we don't know their philosophy of naming player characters - for example, if they made a GSC male character figure and named it "Gold", would you split Ethan's article into two? Or if they made an USUM-based "Ailey" figure?) and the FR/LG data name is just unused beta content. The pose and design of her LGPE appearance makes it blindingly clear that they meant Green to represent both the FR/LG girl character and the unused Gen I girl. Of course they wouldn't make her appear in her full FR/LG attire, because that'd be inconsistent with Red and Green's designs in these games. But they gave her some FR/LG elements in order to make her recognizable (not that it was ever a problem to recognize her - to me, Red's Gen I and Gen III designs are way more apart than Green's, but that's of course an opinion). How is it speculation? It's simply logic. I know that Bulbapedia loves denying things until an unambiguous answer is shoved into our faces. But treating the two as separate is just as speculative than treating them as one (I'd say way more speculative, considering that GF is obviously trying to bring their appearances together). They are different characters, but only because of multiverse and in this logic, we would have to split literally everyone. --Maxim (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I propose a compromise because this argument is getting to be ridiculous. We rename this page to Green, but restructure the entire page, starting from the unused character art from Generation I, include a section about Leaf, and finally get to Pokémon Let's Go. In the page itself we should address the character's complicated history. --LavaringX (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
That I find better than splitting into separate pages--DanyyelTR (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I never imagined that a small inquiry I made a few days ago would lead to a bigger argument than the Elio/Selene vs Ray/Ailey debate that started one year ago and lasted until about a month ago. Welcome to Bulbapedia again! SilSinn (Pokémon Sun Trainer ID: 768426) (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC) (P.S. Splitting this thread into two sections was a wise idea, bwburke94.)
There would also be the header at the top of the page about it having been proposed to split the page into separate pages with the Shedinja.--LavaringX (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
IMO, “Leaf” and “Green” are clearly the same character. Green’s design is a hybrid of the designs of the female player character from FRLG and the beta character from Red and Blue. (Her dress is black like in RB, and it has the same ring as the top as it does in FRLG. Additionally, the yellow bag and the hairstyle (without the hat) is the same from FRLG.) She was revealed alongside Red and Blue and she plays a similar role in game to both of them. Heck, her new name even is parallel to Red and Blue’s. It makes sense that the female player character, the male player character, and the rival would be highly connected. I think that just because her new name doesn’t match with a fan name that was given to her long ago and picked up by a non-GAMEFREAK source should not dictate that two characters who, by examining the designs and the roles they play, are the same character, are NOT the same character. But that’s just my opinion. --Celadonkey 16:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I had just resolved the argument with a compromise and you come in to initiate it again. *sighs* --LavaringX (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to provide my input :/ --Celadonkey 16:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad at least that you did so in a reasoned, professional manner, I would honestly have rather had the original discussion with you involved. --LavaringX (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you :) --Celadonkey 16:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd accept the compromise of covering them both on one page, as long as we continue to call the FRLG character "Leaf". Within the context of FRLG, only one character can reasonably be called "Green" and it isn't her. bwburke94 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree... If a canon name is brought in for an official character where there was none before, I don't see the point in continuing to refer to the character as an older fan name for the older games. (For reference, there was a similar discussion at Talk:Ethan (game) where there was a discussion over the names Gold vs. Ethan.) Besides, there really isn't any other character who can reasonably be called Green in FRLG— we refer to the rival character in FRLG as Blue even though the games are FireRed and LeafGreen. --Celadonkey 18:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
In that case, it's not a compromise at all, is it? bwburke94 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
To Bwburke94: Yes, that is true. I see the point of compromises, but I think it might be better to have more accurate information in this scenario. --Celadonkey 19:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with renaming because it seems to be her new official name. Along with an edit to the name origin section that would explain the naming confusion. Tarawl (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
What was the reason why we called the character "Leaf" in the first place, anyway? All I know is that it comes from the female name list of LG, which contains both "Leaf" and "Green" just like the male name list. Isn't "Leaf" just something fans generally agreed upon in the absence of a single, official name? If that's the case, I see no problem renaming the page "Green". Immblueversion (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It was a placeholder in the data of FRLG. It's addressed on her page.--DanyyelTR (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Nintendo never officially referred to her as that; we only used the placeholder name because we didn't have a more "official" name. Now that she has finally been given a proper name by the games, I see no reason to keep the current name. Golden Trainer (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason she is called Leaf is because it makes more sense within the context of FireRed and LeafGreen. Red and Green in those games are the protagonist and the rival, and since there is no WaterBlue, it makes sense to call the female protagonist option "Leaf" because that way it still parallels the rival's name "Green". And once again, as Bwburke94 and I have said numerous times, we don't HAVE accurate information for this topic. The indication, from our perspective, is strong that there isn't proof Leaf is the same character as Green, but we are willing to come halfway.--LavaringX (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I am wrong, but I thought that the Rivals (from Gen. 3 onwards, including FRLG and HGSS) were all the same character as the player character (in, for instance, HGSS, if you chose Ethan, your rival would be Lyra; if you chose Lyra, your rival would be Ethan). CherubAgent1440 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In FRLG, the rival's name is "Blue" in the west and "Green" in Japan. This is reversed for the female protag where she is now confirmed to be "Green" in the west and "Blue" in Japan. It makes 100% sense for the female protagonist to be called Green (ブルー in Japanese). In fact, the name "Leaf" doesn't make sense in a naming standpoint due to them being named after the 3 colours of the games. 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Depends on what you consider proof, I think there is an abundance of proof.--DanyyelTR (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
What proof do you need to accept that they're the same character? Just look at them! Their faces, hair, eye color and bags are identical or close to it, and the top of Green's dress is clearly designed to look reminiscent of Leaf's shirt, except color-flipped.[2][3] Red had more changes between his original design and his FR/LG redesign. Do we also need proof that "Gold" and Ethan are the same character? Golden Trainer (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid this is getting out of hand again… All the debate and contention generated by the Elio/Selene-vs-Ray/Ailey controversy in one year is now being surpassed by this discussion in less than a month. Time to close this section and start a new one below… SilSinn (Pokémon Sun Trainer ID: 768426) (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)…which I just did right now. The previous thread became just as long as the first one (roughly four 768px-tall browser screens long). And since I was the one who initiated the conversation in the first place, I decided not to take an official stance in this debate — I’ll let you duke it out while I watch the ongoing events. Welcome to Bulbapedia again! SilSinn (Pokémon Sun Trainer ID: 768426) (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to create a new section when a discussion gets too long for your liking. Just leave it be. If the chain of comments is getting to confusing, just reset the indents (it's what {{indent}} is for).--ForceFire 04:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
My comment above was deleted, so I am re-posting it here to continue the above discussion. It makes sense in the context of the series as a whole, but for FR/LG Leaf makes more sense as a counterpart to Green, since a "WaterBlue" doesn't exist in either Japan or America. --LavaringX (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
... So what if there is no WaterBlue. An identical looking girl exists in association with Red and Blue, it makes sense for the franchise if that girl is the same girl like the other two boys are the same boys.--DanyyelTR (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to contest a common point being brought up here: Kotobukiya is not a "Game Freak" source, but this does not make it unofficial. Someone at The Pokemon Company obviously had to take a look at the product before deciding that it was an accurate representation of the franchise and gave it the official seal of approval. TPC has a storied history of strictness and standards in interacting with these affiliates. Despite Let's Go already being in development at the time of the figure's conception, they clearly had no issue with Leaf as the character's name. Unless the staff is interested in introducing a magical "degrees of canonicity" system, I don't see why it should be discredited. There are a wellspring of things on the wiki considered canonical by current standards that haven't been directly echoed by Game Freak gospel, but have been run by TPC/TPCI and are considered fine--ThePacisBack (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC).
Kotobukiya is definitely an official source— we used it for the names of Elio and Selene— but information in the games themselves that would contradict what something like Kotobukiya says would definitely override it. --Celadonkey 13:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Problem is, there is no "information in the games themselves" to state that Leaf and Green are the same person. bwburke94 (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
What would be information in the games that states that Red in LGPE is the same one as the one from RGB or FRLG?--DanyyelTR (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
His name, for one. bwburke94 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Leaf indeed as an official name now. Not only the names of all Kotobukiya collections are taken from the official name. (Even the official names of several characters are used for publicity for the first time. Before that, they were only called male and female protagonists in publicity.) They even invited Ken Sugimori to draw the model of Red's figure of Pokemon Center Original. Prove that the name they adopted is recognized by GF. Regardless of whether Blue(Green) and Leaf are in the same character or how to deal with this page, I Just want to defend the name "Leaf" XD. Unlike Fire(FRLG Red) as an fan name and Ray/Ailey as half official names (They have never been officially confirmed). By the way, Gold(Jimmy) and Ethan obviously in the anime as different characters XD E9310103838 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The gen 1 protagonist was named Satoshi and the rival was named Shigeru, then the rival in FRLG was named Terry, seems like if Leaf should be a separate character than so should good ol' Terry, Satoshi and Shigeru--DanyyelTR (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Danyyel, I feel like a more accurate comparison would be the male player character in GSC vs HGSS: How do we know that "Gold" and Ethan are one and the same? The answer, at least to someone around the time that HGSS came out, is common sense. Very similar design, same role in-game, etc. Similar case with Elio vs. "Ray", or "Leaf" vs. the scrapped character from Red and Blue, for that matter. --Celadonkey 16:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
(responding to Bwburke94) Sure there is; their designs. PLG Green is literally Leaf with different clothes and an extra fringe on her forehead. Can you name two player characters who look identical like Green and Leaf do yet are considered separate characters? Golden Trainer (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent) At the moment, we're keeping it on one page. However, in contexts referring to the FRLG protagonist, she should be referred to as "Leaf", and in contexts referring to the LGPE NPC, she should be referred to as "Green" (in the same manner as we treat items and moves that have been renamed). If/when the Kotobukiya figurine gets released by TPCi in English, this decision will be reevaluated. --Abcboy (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I Also think we should have the article separation header with the Shedinja ("this article has been suggested to be split into Green (game) and Leaf (game). Please talk about it on the discussion page..."). It HAS been suggested and it's only fair we give notice so the choice can be re-evaluated when there's more information in the future. --LavaringX (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I added the page splitting header for pages that have been suggested to be split into multiple articles. As it HAS been suggested, it's only fair; this does not mean the page will actually be split yet. --LavaringX (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think they should be split, and should be just simply referred to as Green. Leaf and Green have similar facial structures, hairstyles, hair color, eye color, and even the same bag. Heck, both her and Red's VS models in Pikachu & Eevee are both nods to their sprites in FRLG. As for her outfit, in the context of Pikachu & Eevee both Red and Blue both use their Gen I designs, so it does make sense that Green's outfit is designed similarly to the prototype female character. As for her name, it's most likely a simple establishment that her name is Green. Similar to Ethan in GSC, it was never established in the games her name was Leaf. Leaf only came from internal game data, which referred to her as such. Granted Kotobukiya did announce a figurine of her under Leaf, but that's all it is, an announcement. For all we know the name could be changed when her figurine is officially released. Sinjoh (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only argument that people have in favor of them being separate characters is their different names. Which, if you ask me, is a pretty weak argument, seeing how she was never called Leaf in the games. PLG was the first time the games gave her a canon name; Leaf can be seen as more of a placeholder name in lieu of a real name, like Gold. Everything else about Leaf and Green supports them being the same character, with their nigh identical designs, and the fact that Green is paired with Red and Blue in PLG. I agree that she should only be referred to as Green by the article. Moreover, while PLG Green's look is clearly based on the design of the unused female player character from Gen I, they altered it to make her look more like Leaf. If Game Freak had intended for her to be seen as a separate character, you would expect them to make her look less like Leaf, not the other way around. Golden Trainer (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as Game Freak is concerned, they seem to be treated as separate characters, although Leaf is based on Green. Even in materials published since the release of Let's Go, merchandise and references that allude to the character from FR/LG are referred to under the name "Leaf" (or are otherwise not named at all, like in SSBU) while materials referring to the character from Let's Go Pikachu and Let's Go Eevee refer to her as Green (or Blue, in Japanese). The blue on Green's clothing is a reference to her Japanese name, it's not intended to make her look more like Leaf. Even discounting these facts, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests they are not meant to be the same character, such as the fact that Leaf is used in media as interchangeable with Red (e.g. Super Smash Brothers Ultimate) and does not have much of a personality, while Green is given her own, more mischievous personality and does not merely function as a mirror to Red (if Green and Leaf were indeed interchangeable, either the FR/LG character would be more fleshed out in her appearances or Green would only repeat "..." in Pokémon Let's Go). If nothing else, separating the pages into Leaf and Green would make it easier for casual Bulbapedia users to follow the content; especially if the Green page incorporated information about the unused player character that we currently have under the unused character designs page. --LavaringX (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Even if they are the "same character", there is enough variation in the portrayals of her between games that it could warrant two separate articles. It's similar to how there's separate pages for Ash from the main show and Ash from the I Choose You universe. The FR/LG portrayal of this character is different enough from the Let's Go portrayal of the character that it's easier to follow if there are two separate articles. --LavaringX (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So then by that, then should the player characters that act as NPCs, such as Ethan, Lyra, Dawn, Lucas, etc. deserve their own articles as NPCs since they exude a personality other than silent protagonist and aren't mirrors to the player character when so. Green can be easily seen in a similar vein to the aforementioned player characters when they're NPCs, since Red has already been long established to be the canon player character of the Gen I games and their remakes. Also why are you using a game that isn't even developed by Game Freak as proof that Leaf and Green aren't the same? Smash Bros. Ultimate is developed by Sora, Ltd. and Namco Bandai, not Game Freak. Lastly, the only thing that refers to Green as "Leaf" is the internal data (which isn't very consistent, and isn't used as a basis for naming characters, ala Barry, Elio, and Selene), and the Kotobukiya figurine announcement, as in the figurine hasn't been officially released, and the name could potentially change once it's released. Sinjoh (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
"The blue on Green's clothing is a reference to her Japanese name, it's not intended to make her look more like Leaf." < The blue sections on PLG Green's clothes reflect the pattern on Leaf's shirt. Their chest areas look really similar, except color-flipped. You think this is a coincidence? There's also the fact that PLG Green was given the same face and eyes as Leaf, despite her original design having a different face.[4][5] You could argue that her face was redesign to match Sugimori's modern style, but that alone wouldn't explain why her face is a copypaste of Leaf's when other female characters drawn by Sugimori have different faces and eye colors. Golden Trainer (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Given the unusual nature of this article post-move, would it make sense to use LGPE Green's model for the infobox picture? Having a picture of "Leaf" directly below the name "Green" is a bit weird, but LGPE Green doesn't have any official art that I know of... bwburke94 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There's concept art and she'll most likely have official art down the road whenever they decide to use that. The concept art will most likely be used in the infobox until the official art releases, while the FRLG art would be sent to the "other art" infobox near the bottom of the page. I'd be completely fine if all characters had main series designs carried on the main info box though like how Pokemon show their forms, with the current design being the biggest image on it. TrainerSplash (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is this settei art... But in the art-book there are more proper individual artworks more befitting for the infobox, there are ones for Red and Blue and I would assume then also for Green. I suppose we wait for the art-book.--DanyyelTR (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of the "proper" (i.e. non-settei) arts may also be in the Strategy Guide (English and/or Japanese), in the main walkthrough part. A good quality scan would be much appreciated. --Maxim (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The "Green/Leaf" title is REALLY necessary?

I don't understand why there's a whole bureaucracy with her name compared to all the other characters.

Honestly... she was NEVER called "Leaf" in any official media. This name was taken from the internal files of the games, which is understandable to use this name until the present time, because it was the closest of a name that we had for her.

But it was never completely introduced into the canon of story, it was always a conjecture that the fandom settled over time. But now that she's finally got her name formally introduced as "Green/Blue" in the games, it seems that this commodity is hindering leaving the name "Leaf" aside.

The same applies to the character "Silver" as we believe it to be his name on bases that are just conjecture. If he has an official name one day, chances are it will be something different. Will we simply put on his page: "Canon name/Silver"? Doesn't sound professional to me.

It's been revealed that her name is Green/Blue, so be it... Just put in the trivias that her files on FireRed/LeafGreen is named "Leaf", which may be just a "provisional name" which is perfectly common in games archives. SuzukiTenma (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the announcement of her Kotobukiya ArtFx J figurine, which refers to her as "Leaf", rather than "Green". Granted it's only an announcement and the name of the figurine could change once released, however the games should definitely take precedence for names of characters. Sinjoh (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
My argument does revolve around the figurine, but also around the fact that there's no evidence of the two being the same character. My view on this has always been that Leaf and Green are two separate characters derived from the unused Gen I trainer. bwburke94 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
If "Leaf" and Green were intended to be separate, then their designs should reflect that, similar to Kris and Lyra, yet they don't. If a simple outfit change is enough to make a whole new character, then, for example, May from RS is not the same from E, and neither are the same from ORAS. Sinjoh (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
See my response to the Gold/Ethan query below. bwburke94 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree there isn't much sense in keeping "Leaf" in the infobox and opening paragraph. Even with the Kotobukiya figure being named that, it was never used in the games, so it should be irrelevant. As said, it's just a placeholder name. I recall Red being officially called "Ash" ages ago in a poll asking about what Nintendo characters players would like to see Smash, yet we're not calling him "Red/Ash" in his infobox, are we? Ericss (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
And Ethan was called Gold until HeartGold/SoulSilver came out but there's no references to his old name. There's no Ethan/Gold in his infobox, and the article consistently called him Ethan, even in places talking about GSC. And the Pokémon Gold manual has called him Gold, not just in screenshots but also in the story page. I don't know if the Pokémon Silver manual called him Silver in the story summary, but Leaf/Green is a similar situation to Gold/Ethan. Ethan was Gold for a decade. Green was Leaf for fourteen years. And they got renamed by their appearance as an NPC. People are arguing that the Green from Let's Go is a different person from Leaf, but if that's the case, could Ethan be a different person from Gold? SeanWheeler (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll respond to both Sean and Sinjoh here. Gold/Ethan have a different name but basically the same design, while May has the same name and a very similar design across all three of her appearances. In fact, Emerald May is a direct palette swap of RS May. Meanwhile, Leaf/Green have both different names and different designs. bwburke94 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean they have different designs? As I and others said, PLG Green is identical to Leaf besides the clothing. Red and Brendan's redesigns had more changes than her. Golden Trainer (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I strongly agree... Just look at Elio, his redesign in Ultra is very different than his original design in SM, yet we are still considering him the same character, as we should continue to. I don't see why we have to apply a different set of logic to this character just because a placeholder name has been replaced with an official one. --Celadonkey 18:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The difference with Elio/Selene is that we have an official source to state they are the same characters. bwburke94 (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Wrong, Selene and Elio are only referred to as such in their SM designs, not their USUM designs. All the evidence people brought regarding their names comes from material that refers to material involving SM, not USUM. Also, you have yet to answer how "Leaf" and Green have different designs past their outfits, as they look very similar to one another. Sinjoh (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yep, AFAIK the SM designs are the only ones that have been referred to as Elio and Selene. The names Ray and Ailey have been used in prerelease media for USUM. So the case is the same here; why do we need to use different logic for Green? --Celadonkey 13:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if i'm getting the whole context wrong, but going by that whole rationale, shouldn't we also apply "Brendan/Landon" to Brendan (game), since we have the Landon figure from the TFG? (which is clearly intended to be based off the 'playable' Brendan from Ruby)

Personally, I'm opposed to this whole "Green/Leaf" and "Brendan/Landon" thing.

IMO, Green should be her main designation for most uses to avoid unneeded convolution.

I don't think insisting on using "Leaf" within the context of FireRed/LeafGreen holds much ground any longer. If we use the internal data to justify that, we'd have to use Terry as Blue's name within the context of FR/LG too. Otherwise "Leaf" is just one of her many default names (as valid as "Fire", "Green", "Red", "Hillary", "June", "Rey", etc)

While figures ARE official and directly based on the games, they're just interpretations, supplementary (and not integral) in nature.

Thus, I think we should only use "Leaf" in sections referring to the Kotobukiya figure, for now. -- Yagamitaichi (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason I believe that this should be split into separate pages is because I feel it would make it easier for users of Bulbapedia to follow, especially given the elaborate and complex history of this character. We can retitle the page to just "Green" if you want, but too many articles on this very wiki refer to this character as "Leaf" to simply change the name. Nobody calls Brandon "Landon". I insist that we continue to refer to the character from FR/LG as just "Leaf" on the page. I also think it is very important to start this article with information on the unused character from R/B/G/Y because this page is a mess at the moment. --LavaringX (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Yagamitaichi, I like your solution: refer to her as Green within contexts of LGPE and FRLG, and as Leaf for the figure for now.
I don't really see the point in making a page split for two iterations of the same character IMO. It's much simpler and easier to follow to keep all the information on her on one page. Let's just change everything to Green apart from references to the figure. --Celadonkey 02:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
We do not have PROOF that they are the same character, but even that's besides the point. You are also ignoring that we resolved this issue with an earlier compromise (make one page but refer to her as "Leaf" in the context of FRLG) and people keep bringing the topic back up to try and push their view. The reason being that Green is clearly an attempt to revive the old unused character, while Leaf may or may not be a separate thing entirely. If it was "so obvious" they were the same character the whole time, why keep information about the unused character on a separate page until the release of LGPE, which doesn't prove anything other than to reintroduce the idea of the character of Green? --LavaringX (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW I think people should get to share their own opinions about the matter. If their opinions are, like mine, that we should be using one name for the two iterations of this character, then so be it.
I do remember that the unused character's information was, prior to this whole debate, on this page, and I believe that it still should be, as it is a clear predecessor Green, but I don't understand how that changes anything about Green or "Leaf". If anything, IMO, it only serves to cement that Green from LGPE and Green from FRLG are one and the same.
I'd like to go back to your first sentence though. I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but how is Green vs Leaf any different from any redesign for a main character in the past, many of which are even more drastic than this? --Celadonkey 04:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Although I still stand by my opinion, I am grateful to you for being civil and courteous on the matter and for discussing this in a rational way. Of course people should be allowed to share their opinion; however, I think we should stick with the compromise for now. To answer your question, the difference is in the complicated history of the character. The original unused character was never given a name or even made canon, and so everything that has come after, be it Green or Leaf, can only be seen as interpretations of the character. The Gold/Ethan thing doesn't count because "Gold" was an established character from the beginning, and the Brandon/Landon thing doesn't count because Brandon was an official name and an established character by the time of that figure's release. The LGPE Green was given her name as a reference to Pokémon Adventures and to canonize the unused character, which suggests, at least to me, that they intended for Leaf to be a separate character. Since we've been treating Leaf as a separate character from the unused character from the time of FRLG's release to the time of LGPE's release, I think we should stick with treating them as separate characters for consistency. --LavaringX (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I think I understand your position a little bit more. However, up until November 16 of this year, information on the unused female protagonist was on this page-- we had been treating them as the same up until then, as I also believe we should continue to in the future. Additionally, I think that "Gold" from GSC was just as much of an established character as "Leaf" from FRLG. I don't really think that LGPE Green was given the name "Green" to canonize the unused character and to reference Pokémon Adventures, as she didn't really have a canon name prior to LGPE, just a placeholder name that was widely adopted by the community.
Basically, at least from how I see it, she didn't have a canon name before, and now she has one which is more in line with her two counterparts, and she also has a design which merges aspects of her two older designs.--Celadonkey 15:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I second this. Naming her after Pokémon Green/Blue is only natural, after they named the male protagonist and rival after the other versions. The naming scheme isn't exclusive to Pokémon Adventures, so I don't see it as a reference to it. In fact, that wasn't even the only manga to name her that. Her counterpart in Pokémon Pocket Monsters[6] is called Blue too, despite being clearly based on Leaf from the remakes. Golden Trainer (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Obviously they can be the same people. The USUM artbook even has a picture of Elio and Selene (SM style) direct replacement for new clothing. E9310103838 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)So the way the article is currently written, it seems to be treating Green’s iterations from FRLG and LGPE as the same character. Putting my personal opinions on whether they’re the same character or not aside, this still to me seems super confusing. I know I’m beating a dead horse but honestly it’s ridiculous to have two names for (what we are treating as) one character. Assuming that they’re the same character, why does her being explicitly given a name in LGPE not override whatever Kotobukiya decides to name their figure, especially before it’s even officially released? Using two names for one character is honestly just confusing as hell to read, and the fact that one is from the games explicitly and the other is not just adds to that.

We should use one name universally if we’re going to treat Green as one character, which seems to be what BP is wanting to do. --Celadonkey (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

To be or not to be that's the question. (Or why is that even a question in the first place?)

So, let's have one final discussion regarding any controversies on "Leaf" and "Green" being the same person or not (let's not confuse with this with the Green/Leaf naming controversy, which is a different, albeit closely related issue). The older ones seems to have become overlong and riddled with personal opinions without much regard to actual evidence on both sides. Things just got harder and harder to follow as time went on.


  • Same hairstyle as seen on FRLG and Gen I artwork.
  • Obvious FRLG influences on her attire (backpack is exactly the same from FRLG, and that little pattern on the collar is now blue)
  • Red and Blue are 'slightly updated' Gen I-like designs, so Green was changed accordingly to fit the theme (Remember Sugimori said he just updated the Gen I girl for the female FRLG protagonist, rather than creating a new character from scratch).
  • "Leaf" trademark pose from the FRLG Trainer Card is the same as Green's challenging pose from LGPE, hair flip and all.


  • Someone asked Ken Sugimori on Twitter about her default FRLG name, and he responded "Leaf... Maybe?"
    • However, 'default name' in a broader sense, 'may' not necessarily mean the same thing as the "canon name" to be used throughout the game series. The Generation I Rival's canon name is "Blue" for example, despite that not being a default name for him in Pokémon Blue or the remakes.

It's extremely unlikely anyone from The Pokémon Company or Game Freak will ever issue a formal, definite statement on such a simplistic matter. So I think the best solution would be a voting session once we compile a few more Pros and Cons. -- Yagamitaichi (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The figure outright calls her Leaf, which I suppose is a "con" for those who think they're one and the same. bwburke94 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The announcement. Why do people forget that? The figure hasn't been released yet, and could easily change upon release. Sinjoh (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
An additional pro on the deisgn front could be the wrist bands. They're black in the FrLg design and white in the LGP!E! design, but that could be because the Gen 1 design had white gloves, which makes the wrists bands an interesting fusion of the two accessories from those two previous designs. Nikkie2571 (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)May I remind everyone what abcboy said in his comment: "If/when the Kotobukiya figurine gets released by TPCi in English, this decision will be reevaluated." Any sort of poll or discussion is moot. Until the figure gets released and we know what its name is (whether it'll be leaf or green), then something will be done. All this back and forth is just a pointless waste of time and effort for something that isn't going to happen until the figure gets released.--ForceFire 03:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with having the discussion anyways... --Celadonkey 03:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion about what? As far as I'm aware, the discussion of what to name this page was already resolved and ended with abcboy's comment. Any other discussion should be left to the forums.--ForceFire 03:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I just don't really like the idea of restricting discussion. I personally find it interesting to participate in discussions and read what others have to say. After all, that is what the talk pages are for. I don't think it would be suited towards the forums because it is about this Bulbapedia page at its core. --Celadonkey 04:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@ForceFire, discussion about whether Leaf and Green are the same person, since someone decided to add a "The contents of this article have been suggested to be split into Green (game) and Leaf (game)" banner at the top of Green's page after abcboy's comment. And to be honest, my major problem with the Leaf/Green thing is why a figurine is being used for her official name, when the games should be taking precedence over supplementary materials. Back when HGSS released, it was pretty much determined that Gold would be henceforth known as Ethan, regardless of the supplementary materials, such as the game guides or instruction booklets bundled with GSC, referring to him as Gold. Similarly with Brendan, he was referred to as "Orlando" in the ORAS demo, but the name Brendan was still kept when ORAS officially released. With Selene/Elio, since neither were given names outside of internal data, which is typically inconsistent for many PCs, it was decided to use supplementary materials for the basis of both of their names. Administration more or less set a precedent that the games come first before supplementary materials, and I don't understand why this precedent isn't being followed upon with Green. Sinjoh (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this is not difficult to understand XD. In remake line, she was named Leaf (Gen 2 girl named Lyra in this line), and in original line, she was named Blue/Green (Gen 2 girl named Crys in this line).

She can be the same character or a different character. In some respects, the judgment of Pokemon Adventures manga is justified. Although I know that some people don’t think so.

This page does not need to be split in my opinion. Crys/Lyra, Gold/Ethan, Elio, and Selene things already confused enough. I only want to change infobox picture to LGPE instead of continuing to use Leaf's picture.

By the way, Kotobukiya has not changed her name and continues to use it now. Leaf does exist as an official name. E9310103838 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Kris and Lyra have been confirmed to be separate characters, unlike Ethan, Elio, and Selene. Also except for the figurine, Leaf was never officially used as a name for the character. In addition, as far as I'm aware and can find, the figurine was announced as Leaf, and has yet to actually be released. Something that is announced can easily change once it's released, and also, let's not forget that the announcement came out shortly before Pikachu & Eevee, and at that point we had no confirmation that even Red or Blue were going to appear. She may've initially intended to be named "Leaf" in Pikachu & Eevee, but changed late in development, or the artist who designed the artwork for the figurine, Hitoshi Ariga, was unaware that she was going to be called Green in Pikachu & Eevee (he didn't work on Pikachu & Eevee, so this is possible), calling her Leaf, since that was the fan consensus name for her at that point. Fact of the matter, we don't know who exactly coined her Leaf, whether it was someone at Game Freak or Kotobukiya.

Even so, the staff on Bulbapedia have already made precedence that the games come before any sort of supplementary material, as is the case of Ethan upon release of HGSS, and if there is nothing in the games that indicates a name, excluding internal data, as this varies for some PCs, then supplementary material should be used, as was the case with Elio and Selene. I would expect staff to be consistent on matters like this, as it reflects poorly on them, as they're backtracking on a convention they had already established. If a staff member went, "Much like Ethan in HGSS, Pikachu & Eevee establish that Leaf's official name is Green" there would probably be some people who would disagree with this, much like Ethan, but most of the people here would not be vocal about this as they are now. Sinjoh (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
For real, somebody's going to have to ask one of the Game Freak higher-ups like Junichi Masuda if they intended for Green from Let's Go Pikachu Eevee and the player character from FRLG to be the same person. At this point, that's the only way we're going to resolve this. --LavaringX (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(resetting indent)To continue to beat a dead horse, I still, after this time, think we should remove all references to the character being called "Leaf".

We know a couple of things:

  • We are currently treating Green from FRLG and Green from LGPE as the same character, as we should continue to do, since we have in the past with character differences between generations with much bigger design changes and functional differences. See Elio, Selene, Blue, etc...
  • Green is the name used in LGPE. There is no official name used in FRLG.
    • "Leaf" was the name that Kotobukiya used prior to LGPE's release.
      • Kotobukiya figures are not the main games.
  • TPCI has changed character names before. The solution was to go with the most recent name. This name change applied retroactively to games before the name change, like this article is currently NOT doing.
  • In the past, Bulbapedia has prioritized information in the main games over secondary sources. Currently, this precedent is not being applied here.
  • Not that it matters, but this is one of the things that other Pokemon forums make fun of Bulbapedia for-- I've seen this exact debate being used as evidence of Bulbapedia's incompetency on more than one occasion.

The obvious solution is to call Green by her canonical name. Besides, as I mentioned above, the article is incredibly confusing as it stands. The whole Green/Leaf debacle turned what was previously a serviceable article into kind of a jumbled mess, and one of our poorer articles, just because of a difference in name and a minor change in design. --celadonk (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A new Leaf figure was made by Bandai, and it specifically states she is Leaf, the girl proatgonist of Fire Red and Leaf Green, without mentioning Blue from Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee. This is the same case as the Kotobukiya figure, in the description of the final product.--Mister Wu (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand how any figures are relevant at all. Games always, always, always take priority and I don't see why we should ignore a long-standing precedent for a single character. --celadonk (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Fire Red and Leaf Green actually had Leaf as internal name for her and did not give a direct name to the girl protagonist, so the figures using that name aren't against what the games state, since they specifically mention that they are representing the girl protagonist of Fire Red and Leaf Green.--Mister Wu (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
LGPE overrides that (or at least it should, considering previous actions and precedents here on Bulbapedia). LGPE came out in 2018. FRLG came out in 2004. Remember, Gamefreak has changed names in the past, and we've changed them to fit, even when referring to before the name change. --celadonk (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
My position has been consistent: they're two different people. The fact they have two different names is consistent with that position. bwburke94 (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Good to see that someone isn’t relying on non-canon material, i.e. figures, to support their claim. I have to ask, though: Are Ethan and Gold two separate people? After all, they had different names up until we realized that we should probably keep names consistent.
Besides, the way the article is formatted, it treats Green from FRLG and Green from LGPE as the same character, as we have done with two characters who we can reasonably assume are the same based on function and appearance. Using two different names but keeping them on the same page seems just like a really shitty compromise. Why not improve the article and fix that? --celadonk (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I want to ask about this Gold/Ethan thing. Can someone explain to me where both names are used officially? Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The name Ethan was first officially used during the release of HeartGold & SoulSilver. Before then, he had no official name as the Pokémon Gold instruction book called him Gold and the Pokémon Silver instruction manual referred to him as Silver, but he was referred to as Gold by fans as people had taken to calling his rival Silver. In all the mangas and most other side projects, the two were referred to as Gold and Silver respectively. Outside of the manga, until Generation IV, Ethan / Gold had no official name. Silver still has no official name himself but that is a different topic. Hope this was helpful. :) Frozen Fennec 18:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. Barring anything more, that means Ethan/Gold isn't comparable to Leaf/Green. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
For what is worth, I have the Italian Official Nintendo Player's Guide of Gold and Silver, the protagonist is referred to as the hero (L'eroe) and the rival is referred to as the rival (Il rivale), so it looks like the name of the protagonist was indeed added in HeartGold and SoulSilver.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright, my bad. I guess the two pages are not comparable. My point still stands that we should remove any reference to “Leaf”— it muddles the page and I do really think we should strive for name consistency even in the lack of a precedent. I can’t think of any other page that has had this issue but my strong opinion is that for this page and for future pages we should replace older names with newer ones, even when referring to before the name change. I think I’ve made my stance and my reasoning pretty clear. --celadonk (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is, the name "Leaf" has never been used in an official capacity by Game Freak, much like Gold. The only time "Leaf" has been used the franchise is non-canonical material, and figurines made by a different company. Even with the figurines, we don't know if Game Freak gave them the names for the characters or if they simply went with what the fans have been referring to her as over the years. Also, again, I have to ask, why the hell are figurines taking precedence over the games in the first place? Pokémon is a video game franchise, not a figurine collecting one. I get why Elio and Selene were named such after their merchandise, since it's the only names being used officially, and the placeholder names in the game data are unused since they can vary from game to game (such as Red), but why are people waiting for a figurine to be released, when the games have given her the name "Green"? Sinjoh (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding "why the hell are figurines taking precedence over the games"... They are not. FRLG did not give its female PC any name. So, this figure that is specifically referring to FRLG becomes that PC's most canon name.
Regarding "for future pages we should replace older names with newer ones, even when referring to before the name change"... That's not our policy. We still refer to the Dowsing Machine as the Itemfinder for the early games. We have, for both Dowsing Machine and Green, moved both pages to use the newer names, but those older names are still to be used for the games they belong to. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
No offense, but I find that policy silly and confusing. This article is already convoluted as it is with the whole Green/Leaf debacle, this potentially sets a very dangerous precedent for future articles. Besides, “Itemfinder” was an actual name used in a game. There are no scenarios in which a player will encounter the name “Leaf” in game without setting it for themselves. And that’s not even touching upon the dubious canonicity of the name “Leaf” in general. Green’s “most canon name” IS Green, FRLG or LGPE, because that’s the only name that’s ever been used in a game to describe her. That’s like saying that Red’s name in RBY isn’t Red because he wasn’t called that until GSC.
The figurines are just as relevant to FRLG as any manuals calling Ethan “Gold” are to GSC. --celadonk (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and just one little note: the Dowsing Machine page doesn't say "Dowsing Machine/Itemfinder" in the infobox. Not that the two are comparable. --celadonk (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As above, Ethan/Gold is not comparable to Green/Leaf here. Nor is Red. Red was established by clear story continuity in future games (and remained very consistent); Green does not have any line of story continuity back to FRLG. They are not the same. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As above, the manuals in Ethan/Gold are just as relevant to GSC than the figures for Green/Leaf are to FRLG. Actually, I take that back; they're MORE relevant-- the manuals are included with the games themselves, whereas the figures (in other words, not connected to the games) are made by another company. I guess you're right in that the two pages are not comparable, because this situation is somehow more nonsensical. I don't understand how figures being made by another company are pertinent at all to this discussion.
"Red was established by clear story continuity in future games (and remained very consistent); Green does not have any line of story continuity back to FRLG." This point makes the least sense. If, by some weird decision at Gamefreak, they decided to call Red "Ash" or "Frank" or something in SM, would we still use "Red" for pre-SM because there's "no continuity between the games"?
And again, unlike Red, the name "Leaf" has NEVER been used in the games, only in noncanon materials. How it is still relevant at all is beyond me. There is, however, a name that HAS been used in the games, and people keep coming up with ridiculous, half-assed loopholes to write it off. I'm sorry for being so passionate but it's incredibly frustrating to me that common sense is being thrown out the window for this. --celadonk (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
You agreed above that "the two pages are not comparable". I thought perhaps you had just forgotten but now you're doubling down on trying to wave Ethan/Gold around. I'm super confused by your flip-flopping.
Your "Frank" hypothetical, for all you may mean it to be absurd, has already been answered. Just as we use ItemFinder for the games that was used in, if GameFreak established a discontinuity and appeared to change "Red"'s name, we'd keep using Red for the games that was used in. Just as we still use Faint Attack and others. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(resetting indent)When I say “I guess you’re right in that the two pages are not comparable”, I was mostly using that for comedic effect, as indicated by the following words. I do think they are similar scenarios but the fact that people are still insisting on using “Green” I think is far more ridiculous, hence the comedic “not comparable.” Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I’m just not good at sarcasm. I’ll try to mark it clearly in the future.

I’ve already explained my counterpoint to that last part. Player character names are, by design, not set in stone. There will never be a player who encounters the name “Leaf” in normal gameplay without explicitly setting it for themselves. In contrast, a player would see the words Itemfinder and Faint Attack in game. I’ve explained this before and I shouldn’t need to again. The same logic can not be applied. I admit that I should not have picked Red for my example, as Red has appeared in a game before. Let’s try a different example— if Nate appeared in a future game with a different name, would we change prior names to fit? I’d hope so, personally.

Again... why is a figure relevant at all in the face of an official name? Perhaps if it were a manual it would be different. /s

By the way, I think I’m allowed to change my opinion on something, or “flip-flop” if you will, if someone brings up a point I didn’t think of, as Sinjoh has. But by now I’m pretty set that yeah, the scenarios on Ethan and Green are pretty damn comparable. --celadonk (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to pause for a moment after only understanding your first line, because I can only suppose that your fervor has made you completely forget something from under a day ago. I'll leave this (the thing I was referring to and the reason for me being "super confused") here and I'd like to know what your response is when we're hopefully both clear. Special:Diff/2996403
Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have now slept and my position is still exactly the same. Please reread my last line.
I thought they were similar initially, then Frozen Fennec pointed out something that I didn’t realize, so I changed my mind, then Sinjoh pointed out something I didn’t realize, so I changed my mind. I’m allowed to do that if somebody brings up a point that didn’t occur to me. Besides, it barely affected the content of my argument— my position was still the same. I fail to see why it was worth bringing up in the first place, let alone twice. I think my response was pretty clear about it the first time.
Now can we stop using ad hominems against my wishywashiness or anything else to tiptoe around the actual issue? --celadonk (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not attacking you for changing your mind. I'm only saying exactly what I incredibly confused me because you didn't acknowledge changing your position or give any reasons. You just looked inconsistent. (That said, I can't tell what you took from Frozen Fennec since they haven't commented since the response I linked from you.)
Perhaps I can approach this Ethan and Green thing a little differently. My position is, the FRLG female PC has an official name and so does the LGPE female PC...while the GSC male PC has no official name and the HGSS male PC does. I.e., FRLG/LGPE and GSC/HGSS are not the same. When you say that FRLG/LGPE (Leaf/Green) and GSC/HGSS (Gold/Ethan) are the same, I hear that you think the GSC male PC's official name was that correct? (At the risk of saying more than necessary, please answer that last question first and foremost. My position is very secondary, I'm trying to understand yours at the moment.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, the section has gotten much longer since I last responded. I do want to try adding in some more thoughts to the matter. Sinjoh noted that "Leaf" had never been used or acknowledged as a name but Sugimori teased on Twitter back in 2011 that it is maybe her official name despite the only other notable things giving her a name were the manga and even then, those were inconsistent as you had two characters based on her named Green and later, Blue. Green, Red, Fire, and Leaf were also all possible default names for her as well in Generation III. I imagine Sugimori stating it was maybe her name at the time did not help either. I think the ONLY thing that could really be seen as similar at the time is that Leaf / Green and Gold / Ethan both had manga counterparts and was most likely where a lot of people started to pick up calling those two Leaf and Gold respectively. Leaf can also be stated to be used in-game to some capacity if you count that Leaf is the default name given to her in the internal data of the game as has been stated numerous times earlier in the game. I imagine I am probably adding some confusion to this article's talk page and I do apoligize for that.
As for a page split which I cannot seem to find any discussion of, I would be ok leaving it as one page for now. If anything, roughly 90% of this page over the past 10 or so years has been nothing but a discussion over whether or not she should be called Leaf or Green. I would modify the header at the top of the page to note that Green / Leaf is called Leaf by default in the game's internal data to lessen confusion and possibly prevent creating a far longer discussion over her actual name in the long run. Frozen Fennec 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC
Tiddlywinks, thanks for clarifying. I don’t think that GSC Ethan’s official name is Gold and I definitely don’t think that page should be changed. I’m just extremely confused on how the Pokémon Gold manual isn’t relevant (which I agree with) and a figure is. If we’re applying a line of logic to Ethan we should apply the same logic to Green. I keep bringing up Gold because i think it’s a very good comparison to highlight the disparity of policies used, not to show my own opinions.
To answer your position as concisely as I can: I think that GSC Ethan being called Gold is as official as FRLG Green being called Leaf. Being not much. That’s my stance. --celadonk (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Then there's the other thing. We're not ignoring the manuals. But going off the details FrozenFennec gave, they gave him different names. If he was Gold (or Joe or whatever) in both, then yeah, we could take that as his name. But since that doesn't seem to be the case...well, we can't prefer one manual and just brush the other aside either. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel like this is getting into more of a difference of opinions on policies, which I don't really want to get into. I believe that if he was given a different but consistent name in the manuals, then we should still call him Ethan in GSC contexts. One character, one name. But if you really wanted to go that route, then the solution consistent to the Green page would be to use GoldG/SilverS in GSC contexts. (Which, for clarity, is absolutely not what I'm suggesting we do.)
I still feel like figures are not a reliable source to use for names in the face of an existing name in the games, regardless of which games each name replies to. Merch made by other companies, IMO, is scraping the bottom of the barrel for information, and should really only done if there's a lack of official name, like for Elio and Selene.
Speaking of Elio and Selene, don't those names only apply to Sun and Moon too, as per the statement for the Kotobukiya figure, and not USUM? Why do we refer to them as Elio and Selene for USUM contexts, but we don't refer to Green as...well, Green for FRLG contexts?
It seems to me that there are just so many loopholes required to justify not just calling the female player from FRLG by the canon name that they've given her. --celadonk (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Fact: we're not going to use a name from later for anything that has an official name in a previous generation. This is very simple. These things MUST be immediately recognizable to anyone playing those games. If a game calls a character Alice but in a remake 5 years later she was called Eve, if someone's playing the first game and they're trying to figure something out here, referring to Eve will just make them wonder, "Who the hell is Eve? This seems like where I am but I don't know her so when is this, then? And why isn't there anything about Alice?" That's not OK.
(If you want to explain something and then say you don't want that...then I think I'm just going to forego any comment on it. Separately: if you have an issue with Elio and Selene specifically, I suggest taking that to a different talk page.)
The lack of an official name in the specific context of FRLG makes the figure merch just as acceptable as for Elio and Selene. While you may think that this cannot hold a candle to a name in a remake later...the short version is that we simply do not agree with you. I have tried explaining the logic; you're denigrating the values. There's not really a lot of persuasion to exercise there. (If you want to seriously accept our values and explain how you think that we should do X for some page if we really want Green's page like this (and if we don't want that then we need to fix Green), we can explore that. But I think you've said it: there is a part of this about opinions that will simply bear no fruit.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I've been reluctant to take part in this discussion, but I think right now may be a good moment to add something. If I understood corectly, the lack of an in-game name and therefore usage of a merch name for Green/Leaf in FRLG is comparable to the situation of Elio and Selene in SM and USUM. Also, it appears to me that the names Elio and Selene were given in the context of Sun and Moon specifically and later extended to USUM. So, hypothetically, let's say that both Elio and Selene appeared in USUM as NPCs and were given different names in those games (say, Rick and Cindy). In this situation, how would we deal with the names of those characters? Would Rick and Cindy be used widely, since they had no in-game names before that (and considering that they are the same characters as in Sun and Moon), or would we still call them Elio and Selene when referring to Sun and Moon?
I'd like you people to try to picture this situation I described unbiased, so maybe we can extend whatever answer it receives to Green/Leaf as well. And if my logic has any flaws, please point them out, but still try to picure that scenario. Suic (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
To Suic: I would hope that Bulbapedia would only use Rick and Cindy, even when referring to Sun and Moon contexts. They'd never appeared as NPCs before, only as characters named by the player, and the names were essentially made "official" by the Kotobukiya figures. Which I believe is only valid here because there is an absense of anything better.
To Tiddlywinks:
Calling Kotobukiya calling her "Leaf" "official" is incredibly shaky. And I doubt the average user or FRLG player is going to see the name "Green" and think "well, who the hell is that?" anymore than they would with the name "Leaf". By trying to be "immediately recognizable" we are making this article more confusing, ironically.
I don't have an issue with Elio or Selene's pages. I have an issue with the fact that those pages are following one line of logic and this one isn't. I guess my examples are going over your head. If they're legitimately confusing to you, then I'll also "forego any comment on it".
If this is the policy for the future, that figures trump games as long as it's not the EXACT SAME game, then I will say that I strongly disagree, and that it goes against established Bulbapedia values, and is only going to lead to further confusion, but ultimately, since an average Bulbapedia user like myself has practically zero say over anything that happens, I'm not gonna continue to push to improve this article after now. In my experience, Bulbapedia, specifically the moderator team, has always been weird about things that should be common sense but this is definitely the worst of it-- we've made so many loopholes that we've tangled and knotted our reasoning. I'll say it as concisely as I can-- this policy and, as a result, this page, is ridiculous and shitty.
I do realize that my opinions "don't bear fruit", like you said, and I think that that's the most saddening part about this whole scenario. The fact that there's a policy that I feel is unfair and dangerous, and I have nothing that I, as a non-moderator, can do about it.
I have nothing more to say on the matter. --celadonk (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You're mixing issues when you propose that people wouldn't be confused by "Green" in the context of FRLG. You may think it's confusing but it's following strict policy (that I've explained more than once above) which we will not change. This may be an extreme case of that policy, but that itself is not enough reason to modify the policy or invalidate the name.
Regarding Elio/Selene, let me put it this way (again). If you want to explore how Leaf/Green means we should do something else with Elio/Selene, we can talk. Right now, all I hear is, "This is a problem for Elio/Selene--and you should be able to understand that--so you should invalidate Leaf/Green." Again: give details about what Leaf/Green should mean for other things. (As far as I'm concerned, this wouldn't need to be accompanied by "...So that means Leaf/Green sucks!" But I won't try to force that right now.)
Regarding the "Rick/Cindy" hypothetical... I think *I* would suggest handling it like Leaf/Green. (But...if you're trying to create a new situation, you should know that not everything in the real world has a ready answer. The final answer comes when it's needed.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

(resetting indent)What I was trying to do was to make sure we would have a consistent way to handle a situation of this kind. Of course I know there is not a ready answer, but still sometimes it's important to stop and think about how we are handling things.

Without placing my opinion, right now I guess what we have is something like "a character's name is only valid for the game(s) in which the name appears, and a different source should be used for the name in the game(s) in which said character is not named".

Now, let me point out I'm not saying that what I just wrote should be final. Instead, I think we should elaborate that statement (thinking of all implications, but without creating unnecessary exceptions) so we can use it as a standard for all situations.

So, Tiddlywinks, can we try to elaborate a statement like that as a guideline? It would simplify a lot the situation and avoid most debates about whether or not the rules or policies are being followed for one or another character. Of course I also understand that something like this would probably also need to be aproved by the rest of the staff. Suic (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like a policy like that is fine but I still strongly think that using figures as a source is dubious if there’s other things to go off of. We have no idea the level of communication that Kotobukiya has with Gamefreak. If “Leaf” ever appears in a game to describe her then sure. --celadonk (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I hate to continue to add on but this has been on my mind for the past couple of days... If Kotobukiya or Bandai or whoever were to release figures that said "Fire, the male player character from FRLG" or "Terry, the rival from FRLG," would we change those names on those pages for those games? --celadonk (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Your specific mention of "Fire" is interesting because, in addition to being the obvious game-name counterpart to "Leaf", it was a common Japanese fan name for remake Red. If a figure were to actually use "Fire" for remake Red, it would completely destroy my argument. bwburke94 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Needless to say, the Bandai figures use Red as name of Red and Green as name of Green (Blue in the West). Incidentally, both the Green and Prof. Oak's figures reconfirm that these Bandai figures are themed after Pokémon Fire Red and Leaf Green, again limiting the scope of what they are portraying. After all, this kind of licensed material needs approval from the owners of the Pokémon IP (typically, The Pokémon Company), it can be expected that they perform some checks on relevant details of IP such as name, basic bio and appearance. It's an official figure, not a fan-made one. In any case, the name Leaf being used in internal data to refer to the female protagonist of Fire Red and Leaf Green means that Game Freak named her Leaf internally, it has never been just a fan name or an arbitrary name to begin with.
Furthermore, we still don't know the full details of the connection between Green and Leaf. Considering how Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee are explicitly a remake of Yellow, they are not forced to connect with Fire Red and Leaf Green, not to say that they feature an alternate timeline, where especially Red has a different role. The design of Green is not just influenced by that of Leaf, she also resembles the female character on the cover of the Nintendo Official Guidebook of Red, Green and Blue. Regarding the latter character, Sugimori said that he was a little conscious of her when designing the female protagonist of Fire Red and Leaf Green, which again points out how the relationship between Green from Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee and Leaf from Fire Red and Leaf Green might be more complex than we think.
In any case, the descriptions of both the figures of Leaf explicitly mention how the character portrayed is the female protagonist of Fire Red and Leaf Green, Blue/Green from Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee is never called into question, therefore these figures strictly aren't against the games they are explicitly referring to.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
(I was hoping nobody would actually use this point, but alas.) Internal data is practically completely irrelevant. They use all sorts of random names for internal data, such as the aforementioned Terry, as well as Kai and Lana for Elio and Selene respectively, or Ninten for Red in RBY... I could go on.
I’m aware that Red and Blue both have figures already. But that didn’t answer my question. If for whatever reason they called them Fire and Terry, using the same phrasing that they do for Green from FRLG, would we use those names for FRLG only? No, obviously. It defies common sense to let figures control Pokémon canon so strongly. But that’s what we’re doing here.
If anyone legitimately believes that if Kotobukiya called Red “Fire” for FRLG, then we should change it there, then I really don’t know what to say. --celadonk (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Red has a consistent name that since Gen II, Blue has a consistent name since Gen II. If a figure gave them different names, then we're going to ignore it because that is not the names they consistently had before. Leaf never had a consistent name until to Kotobukiya figure. Kotobuyika has consistently been calling the FRLG design of the character Leaf, hence why "we're holding the figure so highly".
The name Green has only been used for the LGPE design of the character, not the FRLG one. And whether they are the same character is another thing. There is nothing saying that they are the same. Their clothes sharing similar colors is not proof, that could be chalked up as a reference. I don't follow the manga, so I'm not too sure about that, but the character existed before the FRLG design did.--ForceFire 05:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, this is the biggest loophole we’ve seen so far.... so you’re saying that we should apply different logic to Red than to Green just because Green hadn’t shown up until later? So much for the strict policies that Tiddlywinks was advocating for and using to defend their argument.
I am absolutely dumbfounded that we’re still deliberating over whether they’re the same character or not. It’s common sense. Extremely similar outfit, similar function in game (it only makes sense that the female player character from FRLG would appear alongside the male player character from FRLG as NPCS). Honestly, I’m amazed (and pleasantly surprised) that nobody has legitimately suggested that Elio from SM and USUM are different characters, or really any pair of the same character with much more drastic design differences than the flipping of two colors and the omission of a hat. --celadonk (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Red and Green don't have different logic. If a character has no name in a game, and has not had a name in a previous game, we may accept a name that pops up.
There's just no breating room to change Red's name because it has a very long history that doesn't have an "opening" like Green did (not to mention being so consistent). Green only received a name for LGPE, so FRLG was still iffy...and a figure popped up to fill that in.
We're not changing names willy-nilly like you fear. If you want to worry about anyone, Ethan is probably the only other PC who has a similar hole as Green.
And I can't speak for ForceFire, but the decision as staff has been that Leaf/Green are the same character, which is why they're on the same page. Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Why did the staff make this decision? Do they have evidence that Leaf/Green are confirmed the same that us non-staff have overlooked? bwburke94 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(resetting indent)While I agree that they are the same character, since the article was renamed Green I think the article should consistently call her Green. The reference to her old name Leaf should go to the Trivia section. Ethan's page consistently called him Ethan and didn't switch to Gold for Generation 2 contexts. So a figure called her Leaf. After a TFG figure called Brendan "Landon," should we have figures as reliable sources to canon names? Especially a Japan-exclusive figure that doesn't release until September? As I recall, Gold (game) was only moved to Ethan (game) on the North American release date of HeartGold and SoulSilver. His page was never Hibiki (game) when the Japanese version was out. And if it turns out we have to split Leaf from Green, it's only a matter of using a Find/Replace function. But anyway, the thing that should settle this debate once and for all is Green's appearance in Pokémon Masters using her FireRed/LeafGreen design. We don't have confirmation yet, so we could wait. SeanWheeler (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Masters is already likely to name two characters and has reconfirmed a third, so it wouldn't be unthinkable for it to resolve this debate as well. (Red and Blue have their designs taken from HGSS, so the same would apply to Leaf/Green as well.) bwburke94 (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
So what did Masters call her? Golden Trainer (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Five months? Talk about cutting it close on this bump. The article calls her Leaf in the context of Pokémon Masters, so maybe Pokémon Masters calls her Leaf? Or is it just like how we've been calling her Leaf for years and Masters didn't name her? I'd like to know how Vmario97 got that sprite. SeanWheeler (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe "Leaf" has only appeared in a cutscene in Masters so far, and was not named in it. --Neumannz (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I second that. I watched a few videos of Pokémon Masters chapter 21 (the one where she appears), in both English and Japanese. As of yet, I've only found that cutscene where "Leaf" appears and she is not named. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Welp. Is there any possibility we could get a name by looking at Masters' internal game files? Golden Trainer (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
And if we don't get a name, could we make the article more consistent about calling her Green? SeanWheeler (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, datamining reconfirmed her being named Leaf, her trainer move being named Let’s Go! (but we need the Japanese name to see if the reference is made up in the Western translation or not), her Pokémon being an unevolvable Eevee (with an Extreme Evoboost-based sync move), making her a counterpart of Elaine rather than Green (who doesn’t have an Eevee in her team). Without the dialogue from her, we don’t have any useful evidence beside this systematic use of Leaf every time the design from Fire Red and Leaf Green is used.—Mister Wu (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
So should we move this back to Leaf (game)? SeanWheeler (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the current layout of the page is fine, until more information is revealed. The policy here is to use the artwork from Let’s Go Pikachu! and Let’s Go Eevee!, and The Pokémon Company consistently avoided using the Leaf name with that appearance. If the artwork from Masters was used, at that point the Leaf name should be used, as that artwork was related to that name. This would be consistent with the introductory paragraph of this main page as well.—Mister Wu (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Layout

I move to begin the article with a section on the unused Generation I character before segueing into information about Green and Leaf. Any objections? LavaringX (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. bwburke94 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This page is kind of a mess and I want to try and make it more organized, clean it up a little. --LavaringX (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It's already in the trivia section. And the prototype character is not Green, Green is inspired by that prototype, but that does not mean the prototype is Green herself.--ForceFire 10:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should move it up from the trivia section to the front of the page. It's pretty pertinent. --LavaringX (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
While ForceFire noted they are not the same, I feel it is fine being left in the trivia. It is A)Not the same character, B)a character which inspired Green's design. Most other pages with notable beta content related to them are just stuck into trivia as they are not something you would see during normal gameplay at all. Frozen Fennec 15:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
May I ask how they are not all the same? (that is, how they are not all versions of the same character in different alternative universes (as each game sort of exists in its own alternative universe)) CherubAgent1440 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are we still calling her Leaf?

This article opens with the following gem in the very beginning: "As the player character in Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, she is known as Leaf (Japanese: リーフ Leaf)." This isn't even true. Why are we saying this? Whatever happened to, "Please only submit information you know to be accurate, and adhere to a neutral point of view. Do not misrepresent rumors, misconceptions or opinions as fact"? She's referred to as "Leaf" with some placeholder text in the game ROM that the player never even sees. In the game itself, her name is whatever the player types in. It was fine before we had her in any in-game NPC roles, but now that she's appeared as Green in Let's Go along with Red and Blue, we have an official canon name for the character. We don't call Red "NINTEN" because of placeholder data for his name in the Gen I games, because he got an NPC role in G/S/C which named him Red. We don't call Ethan "Gold" because of the instruction manual for Gold, because he got an NPC role in HG/SS which named him Ethan. We don't call Brenden "Landon" because of the figure made of him, because of his NPC role in R/S/E which named him Brenden. We don't call him Orlando either, even though the OR/AS demos called him that, because for all of these we have an understanding that main series games > spin-off games/demos > unused game data > figures/instruction manuals/etc.

But when I look through this page, I see countless instances referring to her as "Leaf", saying things like, "Leaf makes a cameo appearance in both Pokémon Colosseum and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness", or "Leaf as a palette swap of Pokémon Trainer in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate", or "Sprite of Leaf from Generation III", when NONE of these games refer to her outright by any name at all. I'd fix this page up myself, but I'm sure that if I did someone else would just swoop in and revert it or something anyways. Can we just agree on the name of this character, already? We've got an official name now, so it's time to quit arguing over it. And no, the character in Let's Go very clearly isn't a different character from the one in FR/LG any more than Red and Blue are. It seems like some people are just too attached to their long-held fan name for the character to let go of it, but seriously it's not like I see anyone saying that "Red" from G/S/C/FR/LG/HG/SS/B2/W2/S/M/US/UM/LGP/LGE/whatever is different from "Ninten" from Gen I because the canon name doesn't match the internal name or something. I think that it's about time we get our act together as a fandom, and publish articles like this one a bit more professionally. The name "Leaf" should be talked about in the character's name segment, and as a trivia footnote, but that's it. The name "Leaf" should be talked about in the character's name segment, and as a trivia footnote, but that's it. MasterPeteDiddy (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I basically agree with everything you said. In my opinion we shouldn't use the name "Leaf"; we already have "Green".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the name "Red" was introduced in the games when Red appears as an NPC in Generation II. If that's true, then back in Generation I he would be only known as Ninten (because of the internal data). The same rationale to use the name "Leaf" for Gen III Green could be potentially applied to use the name "Ninten" for Gen I Red. But I don't think anyone wants to call Red "Ninten". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! You are completely correct. MasterPeteDiddy (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Pokémon Masters

I think for the first time we now have an official game that calls FRLG's female player character Leaf in-game (i.e. not through datamining, etc.). This may significantly affect some of the above arguments. Not sure which talk page section this bit ought to belong in. Blueapple128 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

She just happens to have an Eevee with a move called Let's Go x)--DanyyelTR (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, the Japanese name is 「みんなでいくよ!」 or “Let’s Go Together!”, considering how the Japanese name of Let’s Go Eevee! explicitly uses the English Let’s Go term it’s an indirect reference - after all, it was Elaine and Chase who got Eevee, not Green, so Leaf was apparently chosen to be an indirect counterpart of the former, much like Chase is an indirect counterpart of Red in Fire Red and Leaf Green.—Mister Wu (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


Where was the splitting of the article discussed before the decision was taken? Because I sure didn't see any of that here. Golden Trainer (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Splits, page moves, and other such are generally decided by staff. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
So the staff members decide that on their own? Then what's the point of the talk page? Golden Trainer (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Staff members do not decide on their own. The talk page is for discussing various things including possible splits, moves, or page deletion. The templates for each all make a note that user input is taken into account before staff come to a final decision. Frozen Fennec 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)