Talk:Donaldism

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: United States Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

To-do of this article[edit]

I don't know of an official English translation of Gisle's book but if such one exists, the quotations should probably follow that instead of my English translation of the Danish translation. Same thing with the names of the periods from the book.
As hinted in the article I am not aware of anyone having updated Gisle's time table after 1973 but this should probably be envestigated further.
There are probably more fanzines than those listed (probably even from non-listed countries). They need descriptions, or at least mentioning.
Some of the fanzines are simply put on a list because I don't know much about them and/or am not able to read them. They should probably have a more thorough description like the others.
Probably more...

--Pryds 23:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know no donaldist has since updated the peiods from Gisles book - maybe it should be done. Nor have I ever heard of an english translatiion --(User: Anders Christian Sivebæk 23:27 8 August 2008]

Hmmm, I note that "klodrism" is translated to "fethrism", after Fethry Duck. Curiously, in the Swedish translation, the original word was used, instead of the translation "knasism", since it was claimed a translation would destroy the original meaning of the scientific terminology, or something like that... =S Also, in the Danish translation, apparently, "klodrism" instead of "vimsism".

Klodrism = fethrism[edit]

Too late... I'm afraid that at Gemstone, we've published a few articles actually translating klodrism to fethrism, so that's now its most-often used English name. I wonder why others objected to translating the name from Norwegian? 68.6.84.194 07:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a note in the Swedish translation, (Ankismen, translated by Göran Ribe, 1976 edition, page 49, rough translation into English)

The authors have strongly opposed evry attempt to replace the word "klodrism" with a Swedish equivalent, 
claiming that would shake the foundations of what is Donaldist research. 惑乱 分からん 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the real reason, maybe it's part of the academic humor that was so frequent in early Donaldism. Also, the authors even invented a pseudo-Latin form clodrismus. 惑乱分からん 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources?[edit]

Are there any references to this subject in reliable sources? At present, all the sources provided are from 'Donaldist' groups themselves, which cannot be considered independent of the subject matter. Third-party references are needed to prove that this is a notable fandom/field of study. Robofish (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say anything about the international perspective, but the German version has plenty of coverage, both passing and in-depth, for example:

Amalthea 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR[edit]

This article seems to be all Original Research and could even be a hoax. Is there any external references in English that can be used as evidence that "Donaldism" actually exists? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I left a number of links in the section above. I didn't check them again, and didn't check the article, but the "Donaldism" fan club does certainly exist and I consider it notable.
Amalthea 20:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:There are only a few references in English because most of the original (English) texts are - to say it in a friendly manner - written in a very simple style. The translators, on the other hand, created their own versions, often including sophisticated allusions to their own cultural backgrounds, and gave every character an individual voice. (E.g. the German translation by Erika Fuchs includes alliterations, (mis-)quotes from German classics, allusions to real-live topics etc.) By the way, if you don't accept a source because it has been published in another language, 99% of all knowledge would be lost.--77.47.74.154 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Stefan Diös" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Stefan Diös has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § Stefan Diös until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]