Talk:Hearth's Warming/@comment-125801-20161203195826/@comment-4531340-20161205032251

The only reason "canon" is even brought up is because Daniel Ingram mentions it - after all, canon is an in-universe term, and all that's being done by 764 is covering official material that is different from what Ingram is saying, just like every other place on the wiki where one depiction in one form of official material differs from another depiction in a different form of official material (where it's just stated, without trying to draw conclusions or figure out what is or isn't "canon", which necessitates taking an in-universe perspective)

Basically, what I'm saying (with respect to that particular situation) is that there's nothing wrong with the addition to the article, or 764's wording.