Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5189655-20150205205704/@comment-5189655-20150213075712

Dragonboy: Fair enough, you're making some valid points. However, both the books and OUAT are released by Disney, and the only real difference between them is that the creators of OUAT explicitly stated that their show was an alternate continuation, whereas no words whatsoever have come from the creators/publishers/writers of the books. It's an unresolved issue. Really, the books and the show are just about as canon as they are non-canon, and personally I always consider any new expansion (such as a show, book, comic, or game) on a franchise to be non-canon until or unless explicitly and officially stated otherwise. In the end, at least from my view, the canonicity on this wiki becomes very selective and blurred or uncertain.

The information on the Wikipedia-article can be verified by yourself with a little research, and the article on "Apocrypha" overall provides some further (although off-topic) elaboration; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha. The article lacks sources, but the article is basically just an overview and its points are valid. The usage of the word "may" is not a valid complaint, however. Regardless of the degree of sourced material on the Wikipedia-article, apocrypha still exists and is very common, and a lot of material from the Frozen-franchise fits under this label. Exactly, they provided an official announcement about the canonicity, but no word whatsoever have come from Disney on Frozen, and I'd call it very likely that they havent given that particular issue any attention.

There is no support for the books being either canon or non-canon. Although I believe it's much more safe to assume that only animated shorts and sequels should be considered canon to the film, as books have the large potential and risk of contradicting events in the film-canon, and with works such as books and comics you have the opportunity to provide several different alternate continuations, all taking their own route and evolving to their own identity and level of canon or expanded universes in the franchise.

I'm not as much saying that "if we include the books then we must include OUAT" as I am trying to make clear that it's confusing if we are to keep the books but ignore OUAT  (to keep certain parts of the franchise but ignore others with not much reason as to why) for example. Either way, in the process of ignoring either the books or OUAT, you are also ignoring big parts (even if spin-offs/alternate continuations/expanded universes) of the history of the franchise and such different storylines which are still part of this fictional world.

I most certainly did not "misunderstand myself", I was trying to make a (perhaps unclear) point, but which was easily misunderstood, and I believe you may have misunderstood me aswell. The bolded portion does not at all suggest adding previous seasons of OUAT, but only if necessary give references to them (or certain events) so that the context of the fourth season would be more coherent. Even if these words of mine did suggest adding the previous seasons, these seasons would still just be part of the Frozen-arc, as they would merely be previous events. But again, we do not need to include every tiny bit of information regarding OUAT in order for the Frozen-arc to make sense, but exclusively provide the information necessary to establish the coherence of the storyline. And an advice is also to not overreact towards this and don't judge it too early, but judge it first when the OUAT-contents are established in articles and when it can be seen more clearly.

But yes, this conversation isn't really going anywhere, so let's await further (elaborated) replies. At least you know my stance, it should be rather clear.