I think the website refers to the most recent version of the spreadsheet that Alquakskey has posted here (unless Alquakskey has posted a newer version that I missed). It doesn't agree at the moment with the current version of the tree (since the tree was updated), but I believe Alquakskey is working on that
The link in the first post in this thread refers indeed to a much older version of the spreadsheet, but I think only LP can change that.
You're right - looks like I found the second-to-latest spreadsheet in the thread. alquackskey , could you maybe number your lists? V1.5 or something like that
Apologies, was away so I wasn't able to respond to this
I think the best solution, moving forward, would be for me to edit an existing sheet each time; I'm mostly working on the same file, anyway, and have just been making separate documents for posterity's sake - and there are ways to do that that would still allow for convenience of access
I'm making solid progress with the current iteration - I'm past all of the longest generations, so things should move a little bit more quickly. Once I have it fully prepared, I'll release it as a new document on Sheets, and apply any changes and updates in future to that document, if that solves the issue?
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Apologies for delays - still ticking through when I get the chance
Just a quick question regarding I TL 1403-AP.
So, as I understand it, the ancestors are not designated as such in-story, but in Qit/CSU 20B. Brancapanetti da Madia is confirmed in the article. Paperone da Barletta is also confirmed in the article. Paperin Papermosca is, in the German translation (And corroborated by Paperpedia Wiki), confirmed to be Paperone's nephew.
Is there any clear indication that Paperfanfulla da Lodi/Gustav Gans von Gantersheim is an ancestor of Gladstone? The Italian version, at least from what I can see on Paperpedia, doesn't seem to indicate any relation (Though neither the story nor his character has a dedicated page).
Is there something in the German version, or the other page of Qit/CSU 20B? Mainly just trying to verify the information on the story, as I don't have access to it myself, nor the article past the first page
EDIT: Also, less of an important note, but do we have scans for I TL 3151-2? The reason I ask is because this article suggests that Paperin's full name is 'Paperin Paperineto', so just checking if we could confirm or deny that
EDIT: Also worth asking about I TL 3151-2. Is there a source on the Italian names? I ask because I was looking for scans, and found this:
Which would name the Scrooge lookalike as Paperon, rather than Paperone - just wanted to double-check on that one to be sure
Last Edit: Nov 30, 2023 2:12:23 GMT by alquackskey
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Apologies for delays - still ticking through when I get the chance
Just a quick question regarding I TL 1403-AP.
So, as I understand it, the ancestors are not designated as such in-story, but in Qit/CSU 20B. Brancapanetti da Madia is confirmed in the article. Paperone da Barletta is also confirmed in the article. Paperin Papermosca is, in the German translation (And corroborated by Paperpedia Wiki), confirmed to be Paperone's nephew.
Is there any clear indication that Paperfanfulla da Lodi/Gustav Gans von Gantersheim is an ancestor of Gladstone? The Italian version, at least from what I can see on Paperpedia, doesn't seem to indicate any relation (Though neither the story nor his character has a dedicated page).
Is there something in the German version, or the other page of Qit/CSU 20B? Mainly just trying to verify the information on the story, as I don't have access to it myself, nor the article past the first page
Paperfanfulla da Lodi is confirmed to be an ancestor in Qit/CSU 20D.
EDIT: Also, less of an important note, but do we have scans for I TL 3151-2? The reason I ask is because this article suggests that Paperin's full name is 'Paperin Paperineto', so just checking if we could confirm or deny that
EDIT: Also worth asking about I TL 3151-2. Is there a source on the Italian names? I ask because I was looking for scans, and found this:
Which would name the Scrooge lookalike as Paperon, rather than Paperone - just wanted to double-check on that one to be sure
He is indeed called Paperon and not Paperone. I think it's a typing error in the tree, as I also wrote Paperon in my notes. His nephew's full name is indeed Paperin Paperineto.
I'm still chipping away, but two things have come up worth mentioning:
The first is Jean Valduck. I picked up the newly translated book recently, and it changes his name to 'Jean McJean'. Might it be better to use this now as his 'official' name on the tree? (I can apply the same to the adoptive relatives; the Thénardiers are still confusing, though - it's not made any clearer if they're legally her guardians. I do think that they probably are; on the one hand, Terrible Tom (the Pete lookalike) talks about bringing her back where they found her, but on the other, Javert either doesn't know about Daisette or doesn't consider her being there to be an issue. Could go either way, but I'm starting to lean towards the Thénardiers counting on the Adoptive front - input is appreciated, though, as it's vague either way)
The second is that some of the generations may be slightly out of line - just looking to verify, for the sake of indexing: The first is the line going down from P. P. Paperus down to the Paperus from I AO 52322-A; the generations don't line up with the ones across from them. If this is intentional, I can work with it, but if not, I'd just like to double-check, as they'd either need to be considered generations of their own, or there'd have to be a distinction as to who counts on which generation.
The same question applies to Paperuru and Paperishtar; they are not quite aligned with the other characters. Initially, I marked them as their own generation, but since I'm asking about the above, I thought I might as well ask to be sure
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
The second is that some of the generations may be slightly out of line - just looking to verify, for the sake of indexing: The first is the line going down from P. P. Paperus down to the Paperus from I AO 52322-A; the generations don't line up with the ones across from them. If this is intentional, I can work with it, but if not, I'd just like to double-check, as they'd either need to be considered generations of their own, or there'd have to be a distinction as to who counts on which generation.
The same question applies to Paperuru and Paperishtar; they are not quite aligned with the other characters. Initially, I marked them as their own generation, but since I'm asking about the above, I thought I might as well ask to be sure
About P.P. Paperus and his ancestors: I had already noticed myself that something had gone wrong there. Their blocks are accidentally smaller than all other blocks, causing a misalignment. It will be corrected in a new update. Paperus from I AO 52322-A was supposed to be in the same generation as Maol Mhuire.
I hadn't noticed yet about Paperuru and Paperishtar, so thanks for mentioning that. They were supposed to be in the same line as Paperonios.
Still chipping away, getting closer to the end, thankfully - I have some general housekeeping to do, but the skeleton is getting along well
Just a few more bits:
For one, King Daffy is currently unnamed in the tree - however, I have sources for his name: In "Bugs Bunny in King Arthur's Court", he's named Arthur for obvious reasons. In all subsequent appearances, he's King Daffy. The comic explaining his backstory doesn't name him, but the manual for Acme Arsenal does:
He's also named as such in Looney Tunes: World of Mayhem (Here is the blogpost for when he was added to that one). I think, if nothing else, he should be named as 'Daffy'.
I'd also like to verify if we have any scans for Plauto Paperone being named? The reason I ask is because I could only find one on INDUCKS, and it seems there that his name is Paperone Plauto:
Also, two minor side-notes: The first is a vague question that's not massively important, but it has been bugging me. In the article for 'Il Colosso di Paperodi' in the Opera Omnia collection, it's explained that Roditta was actually conceived as Rodetta Rodemì, an ancestor of Goldie, but she was then replaced by an ancestor of Brigitta. If we ever got a link to Goldie in the tree, would this character be added? She's named and all, but doesn't actually appear in the story - I'd kind of view it in the same vein as the McDuck ancestors from D 91308S, but it's not something I have a hard stance on. Just curious as to the thoughts there - I know we don't have anything linking Goldie in (Barring we finally get a concrete answer on Dickie ) but it's more of a conceptual question
The second is that I've managed to order the Disney Collection figure of Witch Hazel, which supposedly expands a bit on the story with Barone Black Spot. Admittedly I don't expect anything to come of it, but we'll have a concrete answer on that one soon (And I've been jotting some Blot notes down in case anything does )
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I'd also like to verify if we have any scans for Plauto Paperone being named? The reason I ask is because I could only find one on INDUCKS, and it seems there that his name is Paperone Plauto:
Interesting. I namely have this scan in which he is called Plauto Paperone.
Also, two minor side-notes: The first is a vague question that's not massively important, but it has been bugging me. In the article for 'Il Colosso di Paperodi' in the Opera Omnia collection, it's explained that Roditta was actually conceived as Rodetta Rodemì, an ancestor of Goldie, but she was then replaced by an ancestor of Brigitta. If we ever got a link to Goldie in the tree, would this character be added? She's named and all, but doesn't actually appear in the story - I'd kind of view it in the same vein as the McDuck ancestors from D 91308S, but it's not something I have a hard stance on. Just curious as to the thoughts there - I know we don't have anything linking Goldie in (Barring we finally get a concrete answer on Dickie ) but it's more of a conceptual question
Are there any published sketches in which she is said to be Goldie's ancestor (like there are the published sketches of D 91308S; which would make it a similar case)? Or is it only mentioned as an original concept/idea that was never published as such (maybe because it was not approved by the editor? in which case it should probably be rejected for inclusion in the tree, as how we treated similar cases like that).
I'd also like to verify if we have any scans for Plauto Paperone being named? The reason I ask is because I could only find one on INDUCKS, and it seems there that his name is Paperone Plauto:
Interesting. I namely have this scan in which he is called Plauto Paperone.
Also, two minor side-notes: The first is a vague question that's not massively important, but it has been bugging me. In the article for 'Il Colosso di Paperodi' in the Opera Omnia collection, it's explained that Roditta was actually conceived as Rodetta Rodemì, an ancestor of Goldie, but she was then replaced by an ancestor of Brigitta. If we ever got a link to Goldie in the tree, would this character be added? She's named and all, but doesn't actually appear in the story - I'd kind of view it in the same vein as the McDuck ancestors from D 91308S, but it's not something I have a hard stance on. Just curious as to the thoughts there - I know we don't have anything linking Goldie in (Barring we finally get a concrete answer on Dickie ) but it's more of a conceptual question
Are there any published sketches in which she is said to be Goldie's ancestor (like there are the published sketches of D 91308S; which would make it a similar case)? Or is it only mentioned as an original concept/idea that was never published as such (maybe because it was not approved by the editor? in which case it should probably be rejected for inclusion in the tree, as how we treated similar cases like that).
That's very odd - no idea what to make of that. Typically, I'd be on the side of going with Paperone Plauto on the grounds that the character himself is saying it - however, most descriptions of the story do, indeed, say Plauto Paperone. I'll try to track the story down at some point for a concrete answer; without reading the full context, I can't even fathom how that one works
As for Rodetta, there are no sketches - it's purely based on the article here:
According to INDUCKS, the story was written by Fabio Michelini and the art was done by Giuseppe Dalla Santa and Maurizio Amendola. I don't know if that's a mistake - Scarpa isn't listed, but according to the article, he did the pencils and inking along with Amendola for the relevant chapter. According to the article, Michelini wrote the script, and substituted the Goldie ancestor with a Brigitta one.
So, it wasn't a decision that was forced on them; Michelini wrote a Goldie ancestor, and Scarpa said 'Nah we're using a Brigitta ancestor'. As such, it's near guaranteed that no sketches exist - it's possible that Amendola got some done for her, but the likelihood is that Scarpa changed it before it was started, I'd assume. I'm probably just clinging too closely to the fact that they namedrop the Goldie ancestor. I'm not strongly advocating for her (Plus, as mentioned, we don't have any real evidence to connect Goldie anyway unless some kind of hard link is made regarding Dickie), I suppose I'd just advocate for Rodetta on the grounds that she was at least intended to exist, and was at the very least conceived as a real character. Plus, as mentioned, she wasn't forced out by Disney, but Scarpa just took Michelini's character and said 'No'
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Apologies to double-post, just looking to verify: I TL 2071-3 features Paperiside and Paperbek, who are in a similar boat to Paperuru and Paperishtar.
Currently, Paperiside and Paperbek are marked as their own generation - is this correct, or should they be moved to another generation (Same as either Paperete McDuck or Quit, Quot and Quat)?
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
One more small question - currently, the Unnamed McPaper from I TL 2345-6 has been composited with the unnamed McPaper ancestor from I TL 448-A. The Unnamed McPaper is currently in Generation IX.
I just wanted to verify that the one from I TL 448-A is confirmed to be a different character to Dick McDuck, who is currently in Generation VIII? They're from the same story and I don't, off-hand, have any info regarding the Italian version of I TL 448-A, so just wanted to double-check
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Apologies to double-post, just looking to verify: I TL 2071-3 features Paperiside and Paperbek, who are in a similar boat to Paperuru and Paperishtar.
Currently, Paperiside and Paperbek are marked as their own generation - is this correct, or should they be moved to another generation (Same as either Paperete McDuck or Quit, Quot and Quat)?
Yeah, same issue as with Paperuru and Paperishtar. Since they are in the wrong line, Papriside and Paperbek also got shifted. Paperiside and Paperbek were intended to be in the same generation as Paperete.
One more small question - currently, the Unnamed McPaper from I TL 2345-6 has been composited with the unnamed McPaper ancestor from I TL 448-A. The Unnamed McPaper is currently in Generation IX.
I just wanted to verify that the one from I TL 448-A is confirmed to be a different character to Dick McDuck, who is currently in Generation VIII? They're from the same story and I don't, off-hand, have any info regarding the Italian version of I TL 448-A, so just wanted to double-check
Ah, it seems I need to pay better attention that when I add a character he isn't already with a different name on the tree elsewhere. Luckily we have you to check it all carefully McPaper (or actually Mac Paper) is the Italian name of the one called Dick McDuck in the German translation. Scans here.
An interesting update - I've read through "A Twisted Tale: Set in Stone", and it has some information that might be helpful regarding Mim. I'll note before going into it that I've added Guinevere to the Adoptive section - note that she's adopted in the same way that the Thénardiers 'adopted' Cosette/Daisette, or how Mother Gothel 'adopted' Rapunzel. I've added her blood relatives, too - her parents are named in the book. The question is whether or not to add Arthur (And, by extension, Sir Kay and Sir Ector). They don't get married in the book, but they're pretty clearly staying together long-term. There's one passage, when they're in the modern day, that makes me wonder: "Wait," Arthur said, his turn to interrupt. "Did you just say King Arthur legend?" He glanced at Guin. She looked back at him, raising her eyebrows. "Yeah, you know. The Whole Knights Of The Round Table, Guinevere, Lancelot?" The man looked at them strangely. "I would have thought you'd be all over that kind of thing, judging from the way you're dressed." He shook his head, looking disappointed. "Kids these days. No sense of history." Now, we know that the story doesn't 1:1 follow Arthurian legend, but would the above imply it to be a given that Guinevere marries Arthur in the 'future'? Another relevant passage in this context: "The jousting tournament had been held to determine who would become England's next king, with the winner taking the throne. England had been too long without a king after Uther Pendragon had died with no heir, and it had thrown the kingdom into a dark age full of war and famine. They badly needed someone to don the crown and start making some rules around the place. And Sir Ector, Arthur's foster father, had decided his son Kay would be perfect for the job." And another, from Sir Ector's point of view: "Then King Uther had come - a vicious war chief who had never lost on the battlefield and yet was charismatic enough to convince the smaller lords to join his realm. [...] Until England decided to put a child on the throne. Sir Ector huffed, infuriated all over again. This was all Hobbs's fault. If only the man had not suddenly come down with the mumps, Ector would never have been forced to take the scrawny little orphan to London instead, to serve as Kay's squire." It's possible that Mim killed Uther and got Arthur sent to Ector (She replaced the real sword in the stone ages ago and picked Arthur to pull it so she could manipulate him and become ruler), but it's not entirely clear. Basically just wondering if we should consider Guinevere as Arthur's wife in context, and if so, whether we should assume that, true to legend, Uther is Arthur's father.
Regarding Mim: For one, we get a general indication of time - basically, Mim traps Merlin in the 21st Century, and while he can still time travel, he can't pinpoint when to. He says "Then there was the twelfth century - that one was actually quite pleasant, if you must know; almost felt like home." As such, if we do try to re-place Mim, we could assume that her general time period is either 11th or 13th century.
We also learn that Mim has gone by 'Morgan le Fay' - obviously a reference to the character in Arthurian legend. That's not to say it's her real name, but it's basically said that she's gone by many names. If we're looking for a 'real' name for her, that could be it. Archimedes says the following regarding Merlin's studies: "Unfortunately, it's much worse than we thought. It turns out Morgan le Fay is a very powerful wizard who practises sorcery of the worst kind. Sorcery you've actually witnessed first hand - though at the time, she was going by another name."
Finally, we get at least some indication regarding Mim's biological children - or lack thereof. "Mim had been fostering Guinevere for the last thirteen years, after 'borrowing' her from her cradle in her parents' home back in the Summer Country. Mim had always thought it would be fun to have a child to teach magic to, and had somehow not managed, thus far, to produce any on her own." It's confirmed that Mim stole Guinevere about 13 years before the events of The Sword in the Stone. She muses in the 'present day' that she has never had children of her own - as such, the parents of Mad Maddy and her siblings had to have been born at some point after the events of the film.
Also, of less importance, but worth noting - Peter Pan, Cinderella (Which is specifically noted as being set in 1800s France) and Mickey Mouse are all directly referenced. The events of Peter Pan and Cinderella are treated as having happened - Mickey could easily be a fictional character in-context, though.
Secondly, I was confused by what I was seeing online about I TL 2160-2, so I tracked down a copy for myself. I'll clarify that mine is from a later printing - I doubt anything was changed, but I'll note that just in case. So, Brigitta has a coin collection, and wants Scrooge's help with it. She has a book of coins with her, and explains that her great-uncle Ridge McBridge was a collector.
Worth noting that he's explained as her great-uncle, but she subsequently calls him 'Uncle Ridge'. So, they head off to Scotland, and Brigitta notes that aunt Sterling will be happy to see her.
So, they meet aunt Sterling, and they give Scrooge a tour - notably, she exclusively refers to Ridge as 'Uncle Ridge'. This could just be a thing of calling him 'uncle' for Brigitta's sake, but in context, I'm not sure.
Brigitta also mentions that Aunt Sterling 'has always looked after the villa and its treasures'. So, at the very least, Ridge/Oberon should be moved a generation down, as he's explicitly referred to as Brigitta's great-uncle. For Sterling/Gesine, it's more vague - it's all down to how you interpret phrasing. If you take 'zia' literally, then she's Brigitta's aunt and most likely Ridge's niece. If you take it in the sense of the boys calling Scrooge 'uncle' - or even Brigitta referring to Ridge as such - you could roll with the idea that she's his wife, and should also be moved a generation back. Personally I'd assume that it goes 'Brigitta - Brigitta's aunt Sterling - Sterling's uncle Ridge' but there's enough evidence on either side to say that it's 'Brigitta - Unknown - Great-uncle Ridge and his wife Sterling' either Worth noting that, if we follow the former line of thinking, it's possible that Sondra could be Sterling's daughter? They live in different parts of Scotland (Sterling in 'Brigittingham' and Sondra in Aberdeen, I believe) but it could work for simplicity's sake
This story also helps regarding another one - in I TL 2074-4, we've made the assumption that Paperon's first name is Paperonuccio because the Brigitta expy refers to him as such. However, Brigitta also refers to Scrooge by that name in this story, so I think it's safer to assume that it's a nickname in both cases.
Hoping to have more updates shortly, but that'll do for the moment
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
In S 87011, the Paperus anticus is said to be the link between the Paperus preistoricus and the Paperus. Some scans here. This is from the Italian translation. No idea how this is phrased in the original script, but since Paperus probably refers to the species of the present Ducks, then the Paperus anticus and the Paperus preistoricus are ancestors.
In I TL 3350-2, Fethry says that professor Crapilloga is related to him. But by the end of the story it remains unclear if he is really related. Scans here. It might be that I CD 535I-1 gives more information, but I don't have that one.
In S 87011, the Paperus anticus is said to be the link between the Paperus preistoricus and the Paperus. Some scans here. This is from the Italian translation. No idea how this is phrased in the original script, but since Paperus probably refers to the species of the present Ducks, then the Paperus anticus and the Paperus preistoricus are ancestors.
Ahh, I love finds like these! They're fascinating in the wider context of the 'universe' That being said, how would we actually place them?
As far as I understand, the link here is about the wider context of a greater ancestor - so, this Paperus Anticus isn't specifically related to Donald, but the Paperus Anticus species. As such, it obviously wouldn't apply to a single generation. And, of course, that would then follow for Paperus Preistoricus too.
I'll say upfront that the specific science is not something I'm familiar with - as such, the following comes from a quick skim of the general idea: It seems that 'Paperus' is a fill-in for 'Homo' - as in, Homo Sapiens, Homo Habilis etc. However, it can also be substituted for human; that would be how 'Paperus Anticus' can evolve into just a 'Paperus'.
We know that the line is Paperus Preistoricus, Paperus Anticus, Paperus. From what the professor says, it seems that that line is linear - since he mentions the Anticus as a missing link, they'd most likely have to be at least fairly close.
From my quick look at Wikipedia's Hominin Timeline, I think it would stand to reason that we do the following in this case: Paperus is understood as a Homo Sapiens, or 'Early Modern Human'. This tracks with our current info. Paperus Anticus is understood as Homo Erectus, whose earliest occurrence was around 2 million years ago. Paperus Preistoricus is understood as Homo Habilis. The timeframe is seemingly argued, but it could be anywhere between 3.3 million to 1.65 million years ago (There's seemingly a debate around Australopithecus Africanus and how it relates). Here's the Wikipedia page for Homo Habilis, should anyone want a look themselves.
This generally tracks with what we know thus far - I don't know how accurate my understanding is, but I think it lines up properly.
The only question, then, is how we actually recognize this on the tree?
In I TL 3350-2, Fethry says that professor Crapilloga is related to him. But by the end of the story it remains unclear if he is really related. Scans here. It might be that I CD 535I-1 gives more information, but I don't have that one.
Interesting stuff! Notably, it makes an interesting point regarding Fethry in Italian - he specifically comments that Crapilloga has to be related to him because 'his name ends in Oga'. It sort of implies that 'Oga' is his surname, though that contradicts what we know of him otherwise. It could also just be a silly jump he makes - however, it's also worth noting that he's insistent on referring to Crapilloga as a 'great great cousin'. In other words, per Genealogy Explained, "someone who is four generations removed from a common ancestor." It's hard to gauge - both points are things that Fethry would characteristically get into his head, but they're worth taking note of. Either way, after Christmas, I'll try to get my hands on I CD 535I-1 if I can; I doubt it'd have a clear answer, but worth looking for.
Assuming it has no info, though, I've been wondering - might it be worth adding a section for people who could be relatives, but their status is intentionally obscured in-universe? As in, not just anyone who could be one (That'd be a nightmare and a half), but characters like Crapilloga, Dickie Duck and even Douglas McDuck because of D 2010-143. The reason I bring it up is because I've been thinking about Dickie Duck, and can't come to a solid answer either way. This might be a reasonable compromise?
Finally, my Disney Collection figure arrived. Absolutely gorgeous, but that's not what we're here for Sadly, I can confirm that no link is mentioned between Black Spot and the Phantom Blot. Lots of Goofy ancestors mentioned, but they're irrelevant here
As for the index itself, I'm mainly going back over sources right now - I have the skeleton of the index sorted, just verifying who I have proof of
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!