TheMidgetMoose

Thank you so much, Drleevezan! It is a tremendous honor, and I am grateful for the opportunity.

Great job with the promotion! You've really earned it!

~ Ducktor Who

Thank you for those kind words, Ducktor Who!

You're welcome!

~ Ducktor Who

Sounds good as far as the Wiki is concerned. You're probably already aware, but Bambi cameos pose quite the problem with chronology. There are Bambi cameos simply everywhere! One notable cameo that might pose problems to your current hypothesis is in The Rescuers (1977). You can see the relevant clip here. Bambi (as a fawn), his mother, and some of the birds seen in Bambi all make cameo appearances. Unless our argument is that the deer and birds seen there are different creatures who just so happen to look like Bambi characters, I think we need to take that into consideration chronologically. The Rescuers is very important chronologically, as it takes place after the United Nations was founded. Based solely on that, it would have to take place in 1945 at the earliest! Unless we are to assume that the U.N. was founded earlier in the Prime Universe than in our real-world, then (once again, going off the assumption that we are going to count Bambi's cameo as a valid Bambi appearance) surely Bambi and No Hunting likewise take place in 1945 at the earliest.

The designs of some of the ducks and pheasants in Bambi are also reused in The Fox and the Hound. Friend Owl cameos in Goliath II (which I imagine we consider as canonical due to the appearance of Tick-Tock). I've heard it cited many times that Bambi's mother appears in both The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast; but the doe in The Jungle Book is colored differently and appears thinner, while the deer in The Beauty and the Beast is only seen from a distance, I think. I just now checked the Disney Wiki, and they also cite The Sword and the Stone as featuring a cameo from Bambi's mother, but once again, I'm not sure we have a close enough view of the character to confirm if it's Bambi's mother. Also, for what it's worth, Faline's mother looks nearly identical to Bambi's mother, so I don't think it's a stretch that there are just many does that share a strong resemblance.

I'm not sure if any of this is signficant or important chronologically, but I think the Rescuers cameo should definitely be given some thought, due to the fact that it's not just Bambi's mother who appears but fawn-Bambi himself as well as some birds from Bambi. Also, as I've already pointed out, The Rescuers must take place after the U.N. was founded. Whether that was 1945 in the Prime Universe or not, I do not know.

Edit: Faline grows up to look very similar to Bambi's mother in terms of build and size. Bambi's fawns look nearly identical to him, just with different coloring. Maybe it's not too much of stretch to say that the deer seen in The Rescuers are not Bambi and his mother but Faline and one of her fawns. I'm not sure if it will work for the Wiki or not, but it's an idea.

Goliath II is indeed canonical, not just because of Friend Owl and the Tick-Tock Crocodile, but also because of Rajah the Tiger himself, who, if you'll recall, is precisely the same tiger as previously seen in the Goofy cartoon Tiger Trouble. Nor is Friend Owl the only owl featured in in it; the unnamed non-anthropomorphic owl from Ichabod and Mr Toad is also featured, as, IIRC, is the Owl from Sleeping Beauty. They just decided to put all the Disney owls in a scene because why not? 

Not, of course, that this poses any kind of continuity trouble on its own. 

The other cameos, though… yeah. Bit of a mess. I agree that the Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast and Sword in the Stone does are clearly just other random does for whom they traced Bambi's mother's animation to save money. She doesn't appear in those films any more than Baloo is in Robin Hood. Similarly, I wouldn't read anything into the bird designs in Fox and the Hound, especially as those "designs" are just realistic depiction of the bird species rather than anything personalized; not, mind you, that within the Unaging Hypothesis these couldn't just be those same birds forty years on. Bambi, after all, is still alive as well in Donald's present, 2010's included. 

I think that with The Rescuers so very obviously not happening in the early 1940's, it's best to also treat its cameos as just "hey, that deer looks lik………" rather than a serious attempt to feature the characters as such. The reason the No Hunting thing is undeniable is that Bambi's Mother gets a line and it's very obviously hers. 

Also, a point on theorizing philosophy: unless at all avoidable (or it's a story self-consciously set in the future, obviously), I really wouldn't like to displace stories to a date later than their release date. One of the driving forces behind the “stories take place around the time they're released” philosophy is that no short amounts of stories tell us that the very Disney comics we read in the real world also exist within the Prime Universe as occasionally-embellished accounts of real events. Within this framing device, it's possible for a story that Don Rosa draws in 1987 to actually take place in 1951, if old Don's work was delayed (say, he took some time to talk Scrooge into letting him put it to paper because it was an embarrassing tale?) — but it just breaks that metafictional framing entirely if it's a story written in 1942 that takes place in 1946. 

Of course, we can't literally hold to the principle that all Disney comics exist in-universe with the exact same release dates in the real world to be a hard canonical fact​​​​​​​. But it's one of the variables to try and balance, is what I mean. 

Yes, the cameo in No Hunting is definitely the one that would be hardest to rewrite as being another set of deer. Another reason to discount the Rescuers cameo is geography. The Devil's Bayou seems to be around Florida (I think), while Bambi is typically shown living in the Black Forest in Calisota. An English scanlation of the Bambi manga said that the story took place in a forest in Austria. That's another issue for another time, but I think it definitely helps the argument that Bambi most likely does not take place in (or even near) Florida.

Your thoughts about placing stories earlier than their release date as opposed to later make sense! I hadn't thought of things like that, since I don't personally subscribe to the idea that most stories are also in-universe stories/biographies. I'll definitely try to keep it mind for future chronological issues.

The Austria thing is easily explained by the fact that Bambi & the Dwarfs & Co. don't live in any one forest so much as they live in the Forest, a sort of platonic ideal of deep unsettled forests which can seemingly be magically accessed from most any forest in the world. I mean, it's the only explain worth a damn I can find for what the Seven Dwarfs' cottage and the Song of the South Settlement would be doing in what appears to be a forest near Duckburg. 

Good explanation. I can't confirm that the Bambi manga is set in Austria, as I've never read the original Japanese version, but this explanation would certainly suffice.

Er... I don't really know. My guess would be yes. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like it was Scrooge MacDuck that added it to each page when creating or editing the infoboxes. I don't know if he meant to do it or if it was just a mistake. Hopefully he'll see this thread when he's online again and can tell us his opinion.

That said, it isn't too difficult to undo an edit, so even if we're wrong, it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to get the "Cinammon Teal" bit back. 

No idea where this came from, sorry. Probably a copypaste artifact. You were obviously right to delete it.

Makes sense. Do both Aquarela do Brasil pages get a modifier or just one? If so, which one?

Also, if Aquarela do Brasil (cartoon) becomes a page, would its "References" and "Continuity" section basically match Saludos Amigos'?

I think the cartoon should get the modifier, as in most instances we'll just link to Saludos Amigos anyway. And yes, by necessity most every References and Continuity entry for Aquarelo will also be in Amigos. It happens. The same phenomenon can be observed with the various versions of Trick or Treat. 

Speaking of which, however: don't forget to add to the Continuity of both that some caution must be exercised when dealing with Aquarelo's depiction of events, firstly because it is stylized and we cannot really take it for granted that José Carioca came into being seconds before meeting Donald because a giant paintbrush drew him into existence, and secondly because of the apparent conflict with Legend of the Three Caballeros. 

Makes sense. I thought a common ancestor was being implied. My apologies. I hope I didn't cause too much trouble.

No problem! You've been a great contributor to this Wiki! As I said in m profile, you are "every bit, if not signifcantly more worthy of [the Best New Member award] than I." Thanks for all you do for this community!

You're welcome!

~ Ducktor Who

Thank you, Drleevezan!

You're welcome! You definitely deserved the award!

Ah, I see. I was planning to make pages for Dumbo and related characters, so I was going through and checking all previous references to Dumbo to make sure something about the film wouldn't link to the character page or vice versa.

Ah, ok. I thought that only applied to the "Description" sections. I didn't realized that rule applied to the opening section as well. Thank you for the compliments, though! I hope to keep editing for as long as I can and help this great project grow!

Yes, the in-universe rule applies to the description, opening, and categories of character pages, but not to the "Behind the scenes" sections of the pages or infoboxes. It's an easy misunderstanding to make, though, and one that I'm sure I myself made when I began editing the Wiki.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification!

@Drleevezan Follow-up question: Is it allowed for categories such as "Minor Characters" to be used. Also, I notice such categories as "American characters", "main characters", and "characters created for the 2017 Continuum" exist. Aren't these categories technically from an out-of-universe perspective, since you likely wouldn't walk up to someone in real life and call them a "main character"? I guess what I'm getting down to is that I'd like to know whether or not these categories are okay to use, or if I should refrain from doing so.

Well, "American characters" and the like aren't really out-of-universe, because it's like saying "American people", but it can refer to animals as well, hence, "characters" instead of people. "Main characters" and "Characters created for the 2017 Continuum" are out-of-universe, but I suppose "Main characters" can be considered an exception to the rule. Perhaps we should stop using "Characters created from the 2017 Continuum", though.

What about "Minor Characters"? I think I did use this on a few pages. Should I remove them, or should I continue to sort pages into this category?

No, "Minor Characters" is fine. It falls into the same category as "Main Characters", which, I suppose, we've made an exception for.

As far as I'm concerned, categories have no imperative to be in-universe; there are in- and out-of-universe categories alike, even if there are more in- than out-of-universe ones. 

@ScroogeMacDuck Oh, I had thought that you wanted categories to be in-universe as well, for character pages - I remember that you said, in response to my adding a Black Cauldron characters category to the Hen Wen page about a year ago: "Nnnnope, we don't do that. Sorry, but unlike the Disney Wiki, I'd rather we stick to in-universe info." So I'd assumed that applied to all character page categories. Perhaps we should put something about the in- or out-of-universe stance of categories on one of the policy pages, to make it more clear.

There's definitely going to be a set of Scrolls about categories (and other such issues) once I get the whole Scrolls of Scrooge project done. But the long and short of it is that we chiefly categorize for in-universe features, but do also have categories that are out-of-universe, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

On top of Minor Characters, Main Characters and so on, another example of that is “Antagonists” — that's actually why we have both it and “Villains”: “Antagonists” means the antagonist of a story, whether or not said antagonist is villaious; “Villains” mean characters seen as villainous in-universe, whether or not they've ever been the main antagonist of a story. 

Alright, then. Sorry for the confusion, @TheMidgetMoose - although the bit about the character page openings still stands, they at least should be written from an in-universe perspective.

I think I got ya. The character page opening and description should be written from an in-universe perspective. Character categories and infoboxes include both in-universe and real-world information. "Behind the Scenes" and sections such as "References" or "Continuity" are written from an out-of-universe perspective. Do I have it right?

Yes, I think you've got it. Although, the 'References' section is usually written from an in-universe perspective, too - there's no rule about it, but it usually makes more sense to write it that way, as there's not really any need to mention behind-the-scenes information in that section, since it's about things which occurred within the story. The 'Continuity' section is definitely out-of-universe, though.

Alright. I'll try to keep these rules/guidelines in mind while writing future articles!

Okay. I understand, but I now must ask this question: Why does the category exist? It had been used before I used it. I thought that the name sounded a little weird, as "Characters created by Don Rosa" would make more since than "Character created by Don Rosa", but I figured it would be good for people to be able to find characters by the creators, which is why I went ahead and added it. I apologize if I've caused any trouble.

I think it's an artifact from our merging with the Duckburg Wiki (as are the “Male Characters” and “Female Characters” category, which are unneeded duplicates of our “Males” and “Females”). If not, then it must date back to the very earliest days of the Wiki, before we established most of our policies for how to write pages. 

The problem is that even after you strip a category off every page that was in it and delete the ‘page’ of the category, Wikia still remembers the category's existence and suggests it to editors. There's no good way around it. 

Ah, I see.