Adaptational Sexuality/Gender Identity

I was advised to move this to its own thread from this one, so I'll ask here: Is it still counted as Adaptational Sexuality/Adaptational Gender Identity if a character that's only confirmed to be LGBT+ by Word of Gay has their identity explicitly stated in the adaptation?

This falls into something which I described here: "The less "faithful" an adaptation is, the more likely that the derivative will use new tropes or the same tropes in a different manner."

Emphasis on "same tropes in a different manner". The sexuality hasn't changed, but the way the sexuality was presented to the audience was. It went from Word of Gay to explicit content (however it was made explicit).

I believe that any trope for a derivative work should handle such changes that way, the "adaptational" tropes are already intended to focus on how a story changed from the original to the derivative.

It should, yes; I stand by what I said in that thread.

Yeah, I agree: more generally I think explicit use of something that was only implicit or a creator statement before qualifies as an Adaptational Trope.

The fact that the single most famous example of the Word of Gay scenario (Dumbledore) hasn't been shoehorned into Adaptational Sexuality yet tells me that tropers at large don't think it should count.

I know this is a wiki and prominent examples can slip through the cracks on trope pages, but I doubt the Harry Potter fandom would have let something this big slip through.

Well... that and the fact that he's infamous for it being sort of spontaneous with little to no hints in the book, and by the time of Fantastic Beasts everyone already knew... so there was never a point for it to be "ambiguous".

Adaptational Sexuality doesn't seem to indicate the source material should be ambiguous.

...So, I'm very tired and mistook this as a discussion on Ambiguously Gay. Somehow.

So ignore me

If it was author intent for the character to be X identity, it being explicit by the point of the adaptation doesn't strike me as a change in identity, just a change in presenting the character, so I think that's where the confusion is. I and most readers seem to gather that the tropes refer to "X changes to Y in adaption" rather than also covering "non-textual X facet of character becomes textual in adaptation".