Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5189655-20150205205704/@comment-25389622-20150212203953

You can hold to something all you like, doesn't make it valid. Your first point is you asserting something without backing it up. What you think needs backing up with reasoning. I still don't get why you insist that POA and O&SOTI, or anything similar, take place on another timeline... Where's your rationale in that? Why are shorts (which you wouldn't even include as a possibility were it not for Frozen Fever) and sequels the only medium that are permitted to be in-universe? Such a thing was never implied. The events of the aforementioned books flow along from the events of the film, supporting their case for being in-universe. I am dubious about the series of books, which are aimed at a much younger audience, but the ones specified have a place on the same timeline as the film because 1) They are officially licenced by Disney and 2) The events in the books follow seamlessly on from the film. Now, unless there is some  huge contradiction dealt towards  the books by  Frozen Fever , the books (the one's mentioned, at least) are taken to be on the same timeline as the film.  Nothing  has been implied to say that they are not linear to the events of the film.

''Being officially licensed doesn't make them part of the movie-canon. And "from the movie" is merely a marketing-label, it doesn't have anything to do with the canon. '' True, it may not necessarily make it canon as such, but less us consider other criteria and see what happens then. What do you mean "merely a marketing-label"? It's  from the movie , what does that have to do with how they market it?