Porque cantando se alegran, cielito lindo, los corazones...

Hey, remember that Simpsons clip of Groundskeeper Willie explaining traditional Scottish dress that I was trying to find yesterday? I found it!

...dubbed into Spanish! Enjoy!

This might count as petty, but...

This is taken from fail_fandomanon in a thread about "annoying fanon taken as canon":

Oh, in Sherlock fandom there's so much of that going on. A few examples:

- Sherlock being asexual.
- Sherlock being or having been a cocaine (or any drug) addict.
- Sherlock hating the way his own brain works ("too much noise" and the like; I blame wordstrings for this. She's very good writer, but I don't like her take on Sherlock, and I really don't like her take being accepted by large parts of fandom).
- Sherlock being a sociopath (yeah, I know he says so himself, but that doesn't make it true).
- Mycroft not really caring about his brother.

*forehead slap*

( An exercise in futility, in which I take on this comment point-by-point. )

/end Sherlock-specific bit

All of this brings me to my topic for discussion: what is canon? How attached are you to the 'facts' of the media you enjoy? Do you like it when the source material mixes it up and plays with canon, or is a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of your little mind? (I know it is of mine...)

Where is the line between canon and fanon?

Also: Do you have bits of fanon you find annoying, or that you actually like better than canon?

As for my own personal favorite bit of fanon: see icon!