Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5189655-20150205205704/@comment-24199126-20150213005258

Okay let's all step back and clarify things a bit.

Originally, this was about discussing whether or not to extensively incorporate OUAT content onto the Wiki. It has since evolved because part of Varg's rationale for having OUAT content is:

1) OUAT is not canon, thus cannot be allowed on the Wiki.

2) Frozen books are not canon.

3) Therefore, the books are not allowed.

Well, aside the inherent flaws in applying this kind of reverse thinking (e.g. just because we have supposedly non-canon books does not mean we have to also include OUAT on the wiki), the argument itself is not sound because there's nothing to suggest the books are not canon. Presenting the case that Disney possesses ownership over Frozen suggests (notice I didn't say confirm) canonicity, whereas there is NOTHING whatsoever to suggest the books are not canon.

Even if we ignore the fact your apocrypha information comes from Wikipedia (the page even says it lacks citations, thus the information is not verifiable), it still does not provide strict criteria to determine when something should be considered as such (notice how often the word "may" is used). Thus your categorization of the Frozen books as apocrypha becomes completely unsubstantiated. I'd also like to remind you that in the case of the Star Trek novels, they had to release an official announcement defining what was canon; seeing as no such thing has happened for Frozen, you now have no grounds to claim the books are not canon.

You're demanding evidence for the canonicity of the books when it's already been provided for you; in the absence of denial, common sense informs us that the owners of the work view it as canon. If anything, the burden falls upon you to provide evidence of the contrary.

But fine, let's hypothetically say the books aren't canon. If we include them, we must include OUAT...hehe, well no. Because OUAT still has the other hurdle of complicated information to overcome.

Varg2000 wrote: And once more, it is quite different to just jump into the fourth season than to write a cohesive description of the season (perhaps with earlier events from earlier seasons in mind).

I think Heimr Arnadalr understood you just fine; it seems you misunderstand yourself. The bolded portion suggests adding earlier seasons of OUAT. If we include earlier events from earlier seasons just so the Frozen arc makes sense, we are then delving into non-Frozen content, once again reinforcing the view that OUAT should not be on this Wiki. I mean, the OUAT Wiki exists for a reason ...

But Humprhy is right. This has reached somewhat of a stalemate. Funny enough, the discussion is split 50/50, so we'll just have to wait to see who else speaks up.