Incorrectly linking Anime to Manga as an adaptation

jojovonjo said:
I don't see an issue. They are both adaptions of the same story. It makes perfect sense to me.

IntroverTurtle said:
Yeah it's also confusing with original anime when they have a manga adaptation of the anime.

Diran-kun said:


It looks as if one is the adaptation of the other.

And no, they might not all be adaptations of the same story. Adaptations can alter the source material.

jojovonjo said:


They would still be adaptions of the same story even if they diverged from the source a little differently. I think a better solution would be adding source material to the page somewhere. I still see no reason for the change as you suggested it.

Diran-kun said:


They might be adaptations of the same story, but they are not adaptations of each other, so it's stupid for them to be listed as such.

jojovonjo said:


You just completely changed your argument. They tell you that "this is the anime adaptation of the story" and "this is the manga adaptation of the story." Simple as that. You are making it more confusing than it is.

Deserada said:
Adaptations aren't inherently of a single source material or faithful to it. This classification isn't in the wrong.

An alternative description might be "derivative".

Deserada said:
Adaptations aren't inherently of a single source material or faithful to it. This classification isn't in the wrong.

An alternative description might be "derivative".

TallonKarrde23 said:


Adaptation follows a hierarchy in almost every single context possible in the English language relating to taking x and making another version of it. A book based on a film is an adaptation of that film - the film is not an adaptation of the book. A tv series later made is still only an adaptation of the film as well, not of the book unless it was directly stated as being based on the book.

In this context, adaptation and derivative are essentially synonymous.

An adaptation is where you take a work and re-create it. It's factually wrong to put both a manga as an adaptation as well as it's anime as an adaptation because only one of them is re-creating the other. The idea that they are sometimes different is irrelevant as well, remaking something doesn't mean copying it.

Deserada said:
They're all derivative works of a single intellectual property. Derivation/derivative only implies a single connection to any point in the interwoven collection, and works from either perspective chronologically.

vndb uses the term "Related", which I believe is plausible for their situation, however, it is a bit too encompassing, because it could also describe any of the primary derivative works (OVA, Specials, Sequels, etc.)

Most imageboards, in regard to "duplicate" images use the parent/child nomenclature, which I find as we have discussed, does not account for the branching that could occur as an IP is developed over time.

TallonKarrde23 said:
Wow, I'm glad you think how a website works has to do with how entertainment and literature works. Good thing I know more about those actually relevant areas than you and can just repeat myself because I'm not wrong.

An adaptation is where you take a work and re-create it. It's factually wrong to put both a manga as an adaptation as well as it's anime as an adaptation because only one of them is re-creating the other. The idea that they are sometimes different is irrelevant as well, remaking something doesn't mean copying it. You do not, as a writer sit there and "adapt" what you think into a story, you simply create one - so saying "they are both adaptations of the same story" is also factually wrong.

Deserada said:
See the italic text in my above post, which was edited as you wrote.
I would like to investigate your equation of "story" with what I call an IP. Note that you misquoted me there.

You seem to be making a slippery slope, as an IP can simply be a framework or a common element from which several stories are derived. When writing, I would certainly argue that the translation of an idea into any media is indeed a process of derivation, and conditionally, adaptation. The nature of the term "Intellectual Property" accounts for this.

What is intriguing, is that in adapting, one can combine multiple source materials (intellectual properties, or ideas) (in part or in whole) to achieve a different effect in the product. By extension, both a text and a film created from similar ideas are related as adaptations (though by varying degrees of estrangement, which would sound more logical when described as derivatives).

Diran-kun said:
There are things related as both being adaptations. Yes. You're right.

So, why does that mean Air and its Manga should be linked as adaptations of one another?

Deserada said:
It might have been intended at some point in the election of the word "Adaptation" for this use in MAL's database that what is referred to is in fact the relation between titles to an IP, and not to each other (the condition for adaptation).

Diran-kun said:
I highly doubt that.

Deserada said:
It's plausible, considering what you said before. If the original source material is of another medium or if two mediums were published simultaneously, it would never be integrated into or recognized in the database under a "series" page such as Wikipedia often does. That absence was thereby accounted for in the unspecific term "Adaptation".

I do understand your doubts; this is the best defense I can offer at present.

What I don't doubt, however, is that those responsible for the formatting of this site were so unconscious of other decisions (the rating scale, formatting for and separation of reviews and recommendations, etc.). Granted, this delves into speculation, but it's worth considering at the very least.

Diran-kun said:
I wouldn't consider it and do doubt it for one main reason.

MAL has a tendency to put things as they are not.

No one's going to look at Air's Anime page think, 'Oh, this must so and so'. They would rather think, 'Oh, so Air was an adaptation of a Manga?'.