Thread:Varg2000/@comment-24199126-20150130132615/@comment-5189655-20150202132853

Humphry02 wrote: 1) It's been stated that it will be a problem because should we do it like this then we would have fragmented pieces of information, and then adding in a link will simply be relying on information that isn't our own source, and so we have no control over it as a Wiki. It would be impractical to try and monitor changes to external articles, which may at some point be altered and have an effect on what we have said. I'm going to say now that I have never watched OUAT and don't plan to any time soon - my field of interest directly concerns  Frozen  canon, original and in-universe. I don't know how much of an effect characters outside of  Frozen  have on the  Frozen  characters in OUAT.



2) It doesn't change it: it rebuts it. I see you mean that  you  found out by accident, but I still don't know why you are saying that people "accept that we never got to know their names". It doesn't matter what people accept, the names are there. Sure, you have to do some digging, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's very insightful, in fact.





3) Not everything related to Frozen is released by Disney, but what is released by Disney should be taken as official, and part of Frozen, unless stated otherwise by Disney itself. OUAT was not released by Disney. Dragonboy has clearly stated that the writers of OUAT say that it their version of Frozen is separate from the original. I take it you saw my timeline? ABC is owned by Disney, I don't know about OUAT itself, but ownership of ABC does not necessarily mean ownership of OUAT. Even if it was, it has been clearly stated that OUAT events are separate of the original  Frozen. That's the thing: it's an  alternate continuation , not an extension that is building upon the original events of the film, so why would we concern ourselves with it? I know that those games were fan-made; I wasn't trying to compare them to OUAT in a sense of quality or anything, I just meant that they were unofficial.





4) I don't get what you are saying here. We talk about  Frozen  in-universe, which basically means that we talk as if it is all real, or that we are, I suppose, in their universe. Basically don't walk up to someone and start talking how we do on here because they'll think you’re crazy. If we're talking alternations, why stop at OUAT? What about other media that contains alternate events? We start going down the road of parallel universes and all - branches that stem from the original  Frozen  - then we are no longer talking about material that we are obliged to quantify.





<p style="margin:0cm0cm0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">"It would still be in the real world, just a different reality with a different timeline, basically." So not part of the original  Frozen  universe then.

<p style="margin:0cm0cm0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;">

<p style="margin:0cm0cm0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;">

<p style="margin:0cm0cm0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">5) Look, books released in an official capacity by Disney like  Phantoms of Arendelle  and  A New Reindeer Friend , and then the new one coming out in July are all extensions of the original  Frozen  universe, and have a place here because they are part of the original universe. I don't know if you saw the comics on my PB, but I am leaving them out because I'm not sure on the provenance of the magazine that they are contained in. I will certainly find out. It is called the official magazine, but it's only in the UK I believe, unless someone else can tell me that it is in other countries. The thing about the comic strips is that they are just fun little add-ons to events taking place after  Frozen . I would say that they happened, but for reasons I have specified, I will not say so officially on the Wiki. You might say that we are ignoring part of the franchise, but franchise does not necessarily mean part of the  Frozen  universe. Therefore, speaking for myself here, see media such as OUAT having no place on the Wiki, because the events are not part of the original timeline. And as I said, the books are not alternate continuations, they follow on from  Frozen  itself.

<p style="margin-top:0px!important;">

<p style="margin:12pt0cm;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">6) Yeah, just see what I said above. As for the idea that they are in the same universe but on different timelines, well that just doesn't make sense. OUAT has to be set in another universe, like how my diagram illustrates. And a book is certainly canon, like those aforementioned, but OUAT is not.

1) You're making a good argument on this point, I can at least tell you that.

2) I guess my point here is that the names of the king and queen are unknown by the majority so that the names doesn't become any major issue other than according to those few who know the names.

3) Everything "official" that is related to Frozen is released by Disney, because Disney are the only owners of the brand, trademark and franchise. OUAT was released by ABC, a company which Disney owns! ABC is part of Disney, and Disney allowed them to use the brand, and thus, OUAT is an official part of the Frozen-franchise, it's just not an actual animated sequel to the film. You have to understand that some parts of a franchise ARE spin-offs, alternate continuations or retroactive continuations, but they always do expand on the franchise itself, it's like a natural law.

The books based upon the brand are ALSO alternate continuations (and I bet you will see that they and their expansions to the story won't be referenced or accepted by the timeline/storyline of the original film and its sequels and short-films). Both OUAT and the book-adaptations are ALL spin-offs/alternate continuations which go by their own timeline and series of events, but they are all based upon the original film and expands/builds upon the film.

I realized that you were using the unofficial games to make a point of them being "unofficial", but that's the thing, my point did not have anything to do with quality, my point was that OUAT is official (an officially released work by Disney/ABC and and part of the Frozen-franchise) and cannot be compared to anything unofficial like the aforementioned games.

4) Well, the wiki already contains book-adaptations and much more which are alternate continuations, so why ignore OUAT? The books cannot be labeled under "being part of the original universe" either, because only the film, its sequels and shorts can be considered as true parts of the original universe. The books are just alternate continuations and expansions which go by their own timeline but have their basis in the original film. I'm trying to make a point here.

5) I dealt with this issue on point number 3) and 4). The book-adaptations are no more official, part of the original universe or part of the Frozen-franchise than OUAT is. Once Upon a Time (and any other TV-adaptations) is an alternate continuation. The books are alternate continuations. The comics are alternate continuations. The video games are alternate continuations. But all are based upon the original film/universe, all are spin-offs/expansions upon the original film/universe, all are part of the Frozen-franchise, and all are owned and released by Disney.

6) As I made clear before, the books are no more canon than OUAT. Only the film, its sequels and shorts are canon. Everything else are alternate expansions which are all based upon and expands upon the original film. I still see no reasonable explanation as to why OUAT's place in the franchise should be ignored but not the books, comics or video games. And it is, yet again, wrong to say that OUAT does not expand upon the original film, because it is based upon the film and it does expand upon the film (if the show's storyline isn't enough, the creators of OUAT even blatantly states it). Watch the show! I advice you not to speak of something you have yet to watch/experience.