Talk:Donaldism

To-do of this article
--Pryds 23:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 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...

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
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Reliable sources?
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)
 * Can't say anything about the international perspective, but the German version has plenty of coverage, both passing and in-depth, for example:
 * 1 in Die Zeit
 * 1, 2 in Die Tageszeitung
 * 1 in Die Welt
 * 1 in Der Spiegel
 * 1 in Focus (German magazine)
 * Amalthea 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OR
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)
 * 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)
 * @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)

"Stefan Diös" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Di%C3%B6s&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)