Donald himself says that Upsy is/was his uncle and HDL's great-uncle
That doesn't automatically make him Elvira and Humperdink's son. One can speculate to that effect, but it shouldn't be presented as official without qualification.
Donald himself says that Upsy is/was his uncle and HDL's great-uncle
That doesn't automatically make him Elvira and Humperdink's son. One can speculate to that effect, but it shouldn't be presented as official without qualification.
How would he be Donald's uncle without being his paternal grandparents' son if his name is "Duck"?
That doesn't automatically make him Elvira and Humperdink's son. One can speculate to that effect, but it shouldn't be presented as official without qualification.
How would he be Donald's uncle without being his paternal grandparents' son if his name is "Duck"?
He could be an unrelated Duck like Daisy or Donna (possibly of one of them's family) who married one of Donald's aunts (paternal or maternal). That being said, I agree that's a bit contrived.
That doesn't automatically make him Elvira and Humperdink's son. One can speculate to that effect, but it shouldn't be presented as official without qualification.
How would he be Donald's uncle without being his paternal grandparents' son if his name is "Duck"?
It was discussed previously on this thread that he could be the son of one of Humperdink's brothers or cousins. "Uncle" is a broad term. But the point I was making was that sites should be careful to distinguish between official, published canon and fan speculation, no matter how logical and well thought-out such speculation may be.
How would he be Donald's uncle without being his paternal grandparents' son if his name is "Duck"?
It was discussed previously on this thread that he could be the son of one of Humperdink's brothers or cousins. "Uncle" is a broad term. But the point I was making was that sites should be careful to distinguish between official, published canon and fan speculation, no matter how logical and well thought-out such speculation may be.
Scrooge McDuck wiki considers Sarah Jolley's comics as official, so it is a lost case
Scrooge McDuck wiki considers Sarah Jolley's comics as official, so it is a lost case
We consider them valid sources. We do not in any way deceive our readers about their legal status, however. They're all in the Unofficial Works category.
Generally the ideal is that we take a very wide view of what is canonical, but always mention what comes from what. Do please point out cases where theories aren't identified as such — there are supposed to be "(presumably)"s and "(?)" and so on to all of these, and any mention of Jolley's comics in BTS material should be worded in such a way as to make it clear they are not licensed.
Scrooge McDuck wiki considers Sarah Jolley's comics as official, so it is a lost case
We consider them valid sources. We do not in any way deceive our readers about their legal status, however. They're all in the Unofficial Works category.
Generally the ideal is that we take a very wide view of what is canonical, but always mention what comes from what. Do please point out cases where theories aren't identified as such — there are supposed to be "(presumably)"s and "(?)" and so on to all of these, and any mention of Jolley's comics in BTS material should be worded in such a way as to make it clear they are not licensed.
It is just strange. I mean, will you consider every fancomic as a valid source?
Scrooge McDuck wiki considers Sarah Jolley's comics as official, so it is a lost case
We consider them valid sources. We do not in any way deceive our readers about their legal status, however. They're all in the Unofficial Works category.
Generally the ideal is that we take a very wide view of what is canonical, but always mention what comes from what. Do please point out cases where theories aren't identified as such — there are supposed to be "(presumably)"s and "(?)" and so on to all of these, and any mention of Jolley's comics in BTS material should be worded in such a way as to make it clear they are not licensed.
Agreed. I'll volunteer to help edit any pages that are littered with fan theories that are not marked or noted as such, though I'm confident in saying that any of you are welcome to edit yourselves if you wish to do so.
No matter what I say or do, know that Jesus loves you.
We consider them valid sources. We do not in any way deceive our readers about their legal status, however. They're all in the Unofficial Works category.
Generally the ideal is that we take a very wide view of what is canonical, but always mention what comes from what. Do please point out cases where theories aren't identified as such — there are supposed to be "(presumably)"s and "(?)" and so on to all of these, and any mention of Jolley's comics in BTS material should be worded in such a way as to make it clear they are not licensed.
Agreed. I'll volunteer to help edit any pages that are littered with fan theories that are not marked or noted as such, though I'm confident in saying that any of you are welcome to edit yourselves if you wish to do so.
This text is from Goosetave Gander's page on the wiki:
"Likely a member of the Duckburg high society, the traditional-minded, often-smug Goosetave Gander may have first married Matilda McDuck around 1905, shortly after her arrival in Calisota. This union may have lead to the birth of a son, Oscar Gander, who would grow up to become something of a jinx. It would seem that they quickly divorced, and Oscar probably continued living with his father"
There is no official support to this claim, and it is not marked as "fan theory"
Generally the ideal is that we take a very wide view of what is canonical, but always mention what comes from what. Do please point out cases where theories aren't identified as such — there are supposed to be "(presumably)"s and "(?)" and so on to all of these, and any mention of Jolley's comics in BTS material should be worded in such a way as to make it clear they are not licensed.
Well, Upsy's parentage is a case in point. It is not described as speculation, or a presumption, anywhere that I can see. Or the Humperdink Duck page that seems to take for granted that "Grandpa" from the "No Hunting" cartoon is the same as Comics-Humperdink.
Agreed. I'll volunteer to help edit any pages that are littered with fan theories that are not marked or noted as such, though I'm confident in saying that any of you are welcome to edit yourselves if you wish to do so.
This text is from Goosetave Gander's page on the wiki:
"Likely a member of the Duckburg high society, the traditional-minded, often-smug Goosetave Gander may have first married Matilda McDuck around 1905, shortly after her arrival in Calisota. This union may have lead to the birth of a son, Oscar Gander, who would grow up to become something of a jinx. It would seem that they quickly divorced, and Oscar probably continued living with his father"
There is no official support to this claim, and it is not marked as "fan theory"
Well the language used does indicate that what is being said is not official. "May have" and "would seem" aren't phrases used to describe something known as a concrete fact. Anyway, I agree with you that the page needs a little bit of work to make things clearer and more transparent, but I'd first need to know the source of everything. I think I could properly rewrite/rephrase most of it except for the "traditional-minded, often-smug" bit, as I don't what the source is for that.
No matter what I say or do, know that Jesus loves you.
except for the "traditional-minded, often-smug" bit, as I don't what the source is for that.
In this case, the source is simply Don Rosa's Duck Family Tree. This is, I think, rather obviously, what the snobbish expression Rosa gave the character is meant to convey, in much the same way that while no story has ever gone out and said this, it's obvious we're meant to conclude that Molly Mallard was tired and weary and lower-class, and that Lulubelle Loon is good-natured and a bit kooky. I don't know. If other people see something else in the portrait, we could reword this, but it seemed straightforward enough to me.
Or the Humperdink Duck page that seems to take for granted that "Grandpa" from the "No Hunting" cartoon is the same as Comics-Humperdink.
We don't, as a rule, have different pages about different versions of a single character. That the Grandpa Duck in No Hunting looks different from the Grandpa Duck in the comics doesn't change anything, so long as it is reasonably possible to reconcile both accounts. Similarly, Don Rosa's Dingus McDuck, Tony Strobl's Titus McDuck and all sorts of other references to Scrooge's paternal grandfather are all covered in one page, even if, of course, not all of the writers using a "paternal grandfather of Scrooge" knew of what everybody else had done about the character.
It is just strange. I mean, will you consider every fancomic as a valid source?
No; we only cover:
ones by people who were, or would later become, creators of licensed Disney comics (so we cover Return to Duckburg Place, for example, although of course it's non-canonical);
ones endorsed as canonical by official creators (Francisco Angones has sometimes reblogged fan comics and, occasionally in just so many words, called them canonical to the 2017 Continuum; why shouldn't we listen?);
professional-grade ones (that is to say, ones made by a professional comics author — this being the case of Sarah Jolley — or ones that are indistinguishable from what you might find in an official comic book).
I think the Home page on the Wiki should be edited to more clearly inform the reader that there's a fair chance that they will end up on an article that contains a lot of non-official information and fan-theories/fiction.
I ended up on the "Mr Gearloose" page and was frustrated with the fact that the page consists of nothing but fan-speculation. It should be more evident when you're linking an unseen character with a random look-a-like extra, and it should be even more evident when this connection is seemingly based on nothing.
On the topic of Grandpa Duck - There's a family tree made by Giovan Battista Carpi that clearly identify the old Grandpappy from No Hunting and Donald's paternal grandfather as two separate characters. From what I understand of the Wiki's rules, this (an official source) should weigh heavier than a fan-theory which is based on nothing. Therefore, shouldn't that be a reason to separate those characters into two pages?
Scrooge, you say that the Wiki also cover "[comics] that are indistinguishable from what you might find in an official comic book". I assume this refers to stories that simply are skillfully drawn and written, even if they are still made by a person without any real authority on the subject. If that is a correct interpretation of your statement, I find it very troubling indeed.
IOn the topic of Grandpa Duck - There's a family tree made by Giovan Battista Carpi that clearly identify the old Grandpappy from No Hunting and Donald's paternal grandfather as two separate characters. From what I understand of the Wiki's rules, this (an official source) should weigh heavier than a fan-theory which is based on nothing. Therefore, shouldn't that be a reason to separate those characters into two pages?
That is a very good point. We'll have to discuss this on the Wiki's forum. I don't know if it's enough to trump the original authorial intent, though… hm. Hm, hm, hm. Yes. That does warrant more discussion.
Scrooge, you say that the Wiki also cover "[comics] that are indistinguishable from what you might find in an official comic book". I assume this refers to stories that simply are skillfully drawn and written, even if they are still made by a person without any real authority on the subject. If that is a correct interpretation of your statement, I find it very troubling indeed.
Not only that are "skillfully drawn and written", but ones that are genuinely within the realm of what might in other circumstances be printed in an official book, or released as official film material, when it comes to animation. That being said, it's a bit of a theoretical rule, this one. I don't believe we've ever had cause to apply it thus far. In what way do you find it "troubling"? It's really basically an extension of the first rule; even if we have no hard evidence that the person creating it is otherwise a professional, anything professional-grade makes the cut. (With the proviso you correctly cited that in cases of continuity conflict between an unlicensed and licensed work, the licensed work trumps the unlicensed one, whereas if it were between two licensed works we'd consider both equally possible.)
You seem like a reasonable person, Scrooge. I like that!
I guess the reason I find it troublesome is because potentially anything could qualify to end up on the wiki, as long as it reads and looks nice enough. This in turn is probably due to the fact that the first times I visited the wiki, I was under the impression that the information presented would be reliable (as in, from a licensed source). But I guess if the Home page would make it clearer that the wiki is a bit more liberal concerning that sort of thing, it would be alright.
However, a lot of the time people don't go to the Home page first - instead they google ... Hortense McDuck for example. If they stumble upon her Scrooge McDuck Wiki-article, they will miss out on the rules on the Home page. What I'm trying to say is that it's important that every article makes it clear which facts are based on licensed works, and which are not.