Media Categorization for Trope Examples only Verifiable in Adaptations

A discussion started by Larkmarn on Ask The Tropers that originally intended to dissent my a short-term repair project filing previous filing indicates an issue needs clarification. The issue is, if a trope example can be identified in an adaptation, but can't be practically identified from its source material (e.g. due to language), how should these trope examples be categorized in trope pages, Source material media or adaptation media?

The present question involves 22 or so Japanese Literature entries that have Anime adaptations. These work pages are namespaced as Literature/. However, since the Anime adaptations are often the only form of these works translated into English, most editors are effectively only troping examples they see in the adaptation (anime), and due to language barriers, we don't know if most these examples appear in the source material (novels). In addition, it is known that the anime form is the more well-known form in the West, even for works that are officially translated (e.g. Another).

We have two views:

1. Because it's namespaced under the source material medium, it's categorized under that source material's medium.
2. Because we only know it appears in adaptation, it's categorized as the adaptation's medium.

I hereby request the tropers' opinion on this issue.

edited 26th Jan '16 9:42:52 PM by SamCurt

Well Light Novel, Manga and Anime should be filed in the same category.

It's all the same work, only a few get enough changes to need a split, and we don't get light novels here till way after an anime or manga adaptation is a hit. An LN is pretty much the equivalent to an English 'young adult' novel but with colored anime art and possibly manga pages mixed in.

Japanese only full Novels that get made into animes are pretty much in the same boat. We never got the Perfect Blue novel, 99.99999% of English viewers don't even know it exists, if people go looking for an example they will expect it in the Anime folder.

edited 26th Jan '16 10:08:40 PM by Memers

I think it's preferred to attribute it to the source rather than to the adaptation, if it's possible. If it's not known how the source handles that trope, we attribute it to the adaptation, since that's what we know. If someone comes along with that knowledge, it's just a matter of fixing it.

That's at least how I've treated anime adaptations of visual novels, and moved those to the Visual Novels (or Video Games) folder, if they also apply to the source.

If light novels really are so different from other literature, there could be an idea to sort them in their own folder on trope pages, much like anime and manga are separated from western animation and comics.

My troping experience is this would cause some awkward situations, such as have some examples of one work put under Anime (unverifiable in Source) and others under Literature (verified in Source).

By the way, I personally don't think this discussion is about light novels as they are conventionally categorized as Anime, but I won't interfere if other tropers want to discuss that point. The 22 works involved in the original issue are not light novels, they're "full novels" (in Memer's words) or occasionally Children's Literature.

edited 27th Jan '16 1:15:01 AM by SamCurt

They're not unverifiable if they're verified in an adaptation, since then they're verified for the adaptation.

Oops! I made a mistake here; I meant "unverifiable in source material."

I don't think that's any more awkward than having tropes that apply in the adaptation only.

Well the only way an English speaker can find see Myriad Colors Phantom World or Hyouka is literally the anime. No English speaker will look for an example in lit, it's going to get dupe wicks if it we forced them there. Hell our thread on the work is in the anime forum...

Also the source material is written as an anime style work, published by an anime company.

V Ns you can get in the west.

edited 27th Jan '16 6:08:27 AM by Memers

I'd like to point out that even if the source is available in the troper's home region, if they haven't seen it, they shouldn't add it in the source's medium.

If I've only seen an anime and not read the books, I shouldn't be adding an example in the Light Novel section because I've never read the light novel. Details could be different, and probably are. So if we put everything in just the source medium's folder, our options are:

• Create work for those familiar with the source policing wicks to make sure it fits the source material
• Those who have only seen adaptations aren't allowed to trope the work

I just don't see the problem with people posting for both the adaptation and the source. What's wrong with duplicate wicks? They may not be exactly the same, and if the pages are eventually split off, then it makes that split easier in the long run.

edited 27th Jan '16 10:32:13 AM by Larkmarn

Dupe wicks just lead to page clutter and confusion, especially when it comes to animes where works tend to be almost identical, if they are THAT different another page is created with a different title.

Negima has 3 manga, 8 Animes, 1 animated film, a live action drama, 8 games, a VN, a stage play, and probably a lot more I don't even know about.

Negi, the main character, does not need to be listed in every single medium section of say Adorably Precocious Child.

edited 27th Jan '16 11:34:05 AM by Memers

I think a bunch of Lord of the Rings tropes are duplicated, to pick an example where both versions are well-known in English. If they appear in both, there's often a reference in the Film section to just go look in Literature. That's not how it should be, though, since you shouldn't reference other examples on the page.

So, at least the current three participants seem to have the consensus that, whenever the trope example is not immediately verifiable in source material, categorize under adaptation medium, while still divided on the issue of source-material verified trope examples.

I would also want your opinion on trope examples that only exist in the source material. I expect this to be an issue mainly for works where there is an official English translation for the source material, but of course I can't deny the possibility of some hardcore fans who actually obtain the source material themselves.

If it only exists in the source material, it should only be listed in the source medium.