Talk:Timeline

 This talk page's sole purpose is discussion regarding issues with the article itself. If you have a timeline theory of your own, please create a personal userpage for it.

Severe Timeline Mistakes
A lot if issues have been brought up with Nintendo's terrible translation, and Miyamoto's often manic, careless attitude. Throw in the issues of maintaining a moneymaking strategy over almost thirty years now, and you see the problems with the Zelda series' timeline. However, I believe that Miyamoto and others have done an amazing job tracking the history of two things in particular: The Master Sword, and the Triforce. The issue that throws most people off, is that the Triforce was incorrectly translated several times. There are places where they meant to say "Light Force", and instead wrote "Triforce". Triforce refers to the individual triangles, while the "Light Force" is the actual "Triforce" that we Americans have accidentally come to know and love.

The Legend of Zelda:

This game contains a vastly important amount of backstory (I still have my original manual from my first edition copy) exclusively in the manual. The Ganon/Gannon discussion back in the early 90s was what started the entire multiple Gannondorf argument. Gannondorf was originally introduced as a "King of Darkness" in the Legend of Zelda. He had no backstory, and no description, as nobody had survived the telling of his tale. Zelda also is not mentioned within the game itself. However, Impa is a significant part of the story, and introduces Zelda, and the breaking of the Triforce of wisdom. At the time, there were only two Triforces, Wisdom, and Power. It is stated that Ganon himself (who is often called by two names, one seems to refer to the man, the other seems to refer to the beast, but this is later taken advantage of by Miyamoto, and was likely not initially intended. It seems like more of a "Gravity is weaker in Nirn" argument to cover up for a mistake.) invaded from outside of hyrule. It does not mean that he invaded from another land, but that he, and his dark minions simply came from elsewhere. Since there is no mention of his origin, it leaves room for later explanation, which Miyamoto capitalized on greatly.

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

This is often the most heavily overlooked game in the series, and was the second-most poorly translated Zelda game ever released. This backstory explains that Link was called to Hyrule by the legacy of the Triforce of Courage, which manifests in the one who will come forth to conjure it to conquer evil and reunite the Triforce into the "Light Force". Zelda II introduces the most important elements of the game: The Three Triforces, Ganon's resilient nature as a spirit of evil, and reincarnation of the "Judge of Courage". However, it should be noted that Zelda herself contradicts all timelines from within the manual. It is stated that all daughters of the Hylian Royal family will be henceforth named Zelda. This seems to have been a tradition leading all the way backward through time from our apparent timeline.

Zelda: A Link to the Past (EU/US) / Triforce of the Gods (JP)

The manual spends a great deal of time describing the events of "The Binding war", which until approximately 2002 or 2003, was largely believed to be where Miyamoto pulled the story of Ocarina of Time from. Ganondorf is seen in his Pig form acting from the dark world, where he is sealed away. It is suggested that Link undoes the damage to Hyrule, but nothing is done to the Golden Land, which due to Ganon's invasion of Hyrule in The Legend of Zelda, it seems to have been left with Ganon's ashes still within, and his minions finding some way to resurrect him. (Of course, The Adventure of Link states that he needs Link's blood to return... So there's a small plot hole for Ganon's return to Hyrule.

In order to place A Link to the past, one must place the events of the Legend of Zelda and Zelda II after this game. Why? The Master Sword. The Master Sword makes no further appearance after the end of this game. Simply because it was sealed away "never to be used again" according to the end-game cinematic.

Link's Awakening:

This game has no real place in the Zelda Canon other than the statement that it was indeed the Link of A Link to the Past. The events of this game actually occur within the dreams of the Wind Fish, and therefore, have no basis in any timeline or reality. All we know is that Link went out to sea at some point after A Link to the Past.

Ocarina of Time:

Ocarina of Time was created with the backstory of the "binding war" in mind. The seven sages, the Master Sword, and Ganon's backstory all link this game to being a prequel of at least one generation of A Link to the Past (A thousand years or more is more likely, however.)

Minish Cap/Four Swords/Four Swords Adventures

These games tell the story of Vaati, and the Four Sword. The Four sword was rumored to have been created by the the Minish, a people who lived in the sky, and brought down with them the "Light Force". The sword resembles the Master Sword, and "Is resistant to Magic", which was the exact quality of the Master Sword. The Master Sword was constructed specifically to ward off the magic of the "Light Force." Why would the Minish bring the Light Force to earth without the power to counter it? Why would the bring some sword that had nothing to do with the "Light Force" at all? Perhaps this was a coincidence, but due to the upcoming information from Skyward Sword, we can reasonably determine that the Skyward Sword IS the Four Sword, and the Four Sword IS the Master Sword. This is a bit of a stretch using the Canon, but the A Link to the Past states that the Sages imbued a sword with the the power to counter the Light Force's Magic. In The Ocarina of Time, the Light Force itself was sealed BY the Master Sword. In A Link the the Past, the Triforce is guarded by a barrier that only the Master Sword can open. This is a dual layer of defense, seeing as the sword is also the only thing that can defeat an individual who bears the Triforce of Power, the only case where there would be a need to undo the evil the Light Force could unleash.

This puts it either before, or after the Ocarina of Time story, my guess is before, simply because the Four Sword seems to have lost its "splitting" power after some time. (Note the resemblance between the original renditions of the swords!)

Note that In the Ocarina of Time, the Light Force was scattered to three individuals. Ganon was "killed" and sealed in the dark realm still holding the Triforce of Power.

Alternate Timelines:

Ocarina of Time had to create multiple timelines, due to the paradox theory. Link awakens to find the Master Sword put back in place, and lives out his childhood, while simultaneously living out his adult life in the alternate timeline. In Child Link's timeline, Gannondorf cannot seize power because Link will not gather the stones to set the plan in motion in the first place, thus undoing the future timeline and cutting it off from becoming an infinite loop.

Child Link's Timeline contains the Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess games, which MUST come before A Link to the Past, due to the Master Sword being in use in both games. However, Twilight Princess introduces the Shadow Realm, and Termina. Termina is an alternate world with an entirely different creation myth, which seems to be plagued by a time distortion, and Twilight Princess focuses on the Shadow world. Remember A Link to the Past? Everything in the Dark World is transformed into something else, and mirrored on the other side? Ocarina of Time seems to have a different way of thought, that it's just the future as Gannondorf molded it, so I would argue that Gannondorf was actually never in the Dark World, just the future. In the end, it would make more sense that Twilight Princess' backstory ties in, and states that Gannondorf was banished to the Dark world, which led to the events of Twilight Princess itself. This creates an obvious bridge to Ocarina of Time. Also, Twilight Princess creates a clear bridge to A Link to the past, with the sacred grove overtaking the Temple of Time, where the Master Sword rests in A Link to the Past. Also note the Master Sword preserving the form of Link in the Shadow realm. This points to the same phenomenon in A Link to the Past. (Liberal time distortions in this one too... seems to be a theme here)

Anybody who has been following, will note that my timeline has now been established, but I'm further going to continue this point, because the timeline is VERY obvious once you track the history of the artifacts, and not the characters themselves.

Adult Link's Timeline, however demonstrates that the "Link" persona resurfaces elsewhere to boys who are gifted with certain traits, and the "Hero of Time" himself is not only remembered in Legend, but also chosen by the Triforce of Courage, which has been reincarnating itself into individuals through time. This is Shown in Windwaker, which, while being a fantastic game, was one of the hardest pieces of the puzzle to solve until Twilight Princess explained what happened to Gannondorf. In the end, Gannondorf cannot himself be fully destroyed while in posession of the Triforce of Power. There is a small problem with this timeline, however. The Master Sword was lost to the bottom of the sea after Gannondorf's defeat, meaning this timeline is quite possibly not ever again recovered. Meaning, this timeline cannot possibly connect to A Link to the Past directly. Obviously, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks follow the same link in this timeline, and Tetra suggests a reincarnation of Zelda herself. So this is quite possibly a completely unlinked timeline.

Now, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons are not able to be placed in the main timeline, but from what I can tell, Capcom was trying to put them in between or After A Link to the Past, and Link's Awakening, as the games were modeled after those two games. Any usage of the Master Sword however, is incidental, because it involves a password within the game. I'm going to go ahead and call these two games not part of the timeline at all, and lump them in with the CD-i games, as being marketing tactics, and not part of the overall story arc, seeing as they have little to do with the story of the artifacts that tell the tale themselves.

So, due to these factors and references:

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link English/Japanese manual Zelda: A Link to the Past English/Japanese manual (Online interviews from Skyward Sword) (References to the Four Sword and the Minish) Ocarina of Time's backstory (creation of the Tri/Light Force)

The timeline has clearly been painstakingly tracked to:

GENERATION I:

1. Skyward Sword

GENERATION II:

2. Minish Cap

GENERATION III:

3. Four Swords* 4. Four Swords Adventures*

GENERATION IV:

5. Ocarina of Time (child) 6. Majora's Mask

GENERATION V:

7. Twilight Princess

GENERATION VI:

8. A Link to the Past 9. Link's Awakening* 10. Oracle of Ages*/Oracle of Seasons*

GENERATION VII:

11. The Legend of Zelda 12. Zelda II: Link's Adventure

GENERATION IV (alternate):

5. Ocarina of Time (adult) GENERATION V (alternate):

6. Windwaker 10. Phantom Hourglass 11. Spirit Tracks


 * = Not part of a canonical timeline, because of conflicting information or other problems

I would also like to point out the Gannondorf inconsistencies. Gannondorf himself has been reinvisioned about five times since his introduction. He has been a pig-faced sorceror, a desert bandit, a sorcerous theif, a king of the Garudo, an evil spirit, etc. Ganondorf has gone through numerous changes because of artistic difference. You will find his backstory very clear on who he was and what he hails from, even through the games.

Gerudo are renown bandits in Hyrule, and live in a harsh environment. Ganondorf simply sought the Triforce of power to make his kingdom as Lush as Hyrule's, but eventually, when the Triforce came to his grasp, as the Link to the Past manual states, as all other men have before him, been reduced to a greedy power-seeker. Ganondorf starts out as the Garudo King (Read bandit king) with powers of the black arts (both in Ocarina/Link to the Past manuals!), and therefore, his form was twisted into the Piggish form in the Dark World. He does not openly appear in Zelda II, but in the Legend of Zelda, he does have a piggish form. Note the Pig form has only actually maintained for 2 games. Ocarina of time had him in a beast (somewhat pig-like) form, and other games have him becoming more feral and beast-like.

Note that Ganon does appear in both Four Swords games, however, this is technically speaking before his arrival in the timeline. This is why I put them with special markers. Perhaps Gerudo are very long-lived? Also, why is he in pig form with the trident BEFORE the creation of the Master Sword and before his first bid to steal the Triforce? Also, why has he burned his bridges with the Gerudo before presenting himself as emmissary of the Gerudo?

In my opinion, these inconsistencies place the Four Swords games almost out of the Canon, were it not for the artifact timelines.

Also note the Generation headers. This shows the reincarnation of the Hero of Time/Judge of Courage. This was clearly stated in the manual for Zelda II, and implied heavily in both Windwaker and Twilight Princess.

mistake regarding adult and child timelines following ocarina of time
wouldn't Windwaker follow the child timeline, taking place after Majora's Mask? i only say this because in the intro of Windwaker it tells the story of show Ganondorf was sealed by the hero of time and everyone was happy, yadda yadda yadda. But one day Ganondorf escaped the seal and ravaged the land. the people prayed the hero would come and save them again but he never did and so the land was flooded and covered with water.

what I believe may have happened is that as we know link sealed ganondorf, and then went back in time to live out his life. so mabey link went back in time, at which point ganondorf freed himself and link couldn't fight him again because he was stuck in termaina for Majora's Mask.

pretty much, here's what i think it should be:

Ocarina of time (adult) -> Twilight Princess

Ocarina of time (child) -> Majora's Mask -> Windwaker -> Phantom Hourglass -> Spirit Tracks

Fighting back...
It's a good point, but in order for the split timeline theory to work, Wind Waker has to come first on the adult timeline and Majora's Mask first on the child. Ganondorf is sealed at the end of OoT, then Link is sent back and the timeline splits. Majora's Mask is a direct sequel to OoT, and Wind Waker follows years after OoT, but it must be on a new timeline because it's about when Link isn't there. Also, we know that Twilight Princess is 100 years after OoT. Hyrule was flooded in the adult timeline, and that is not shown in Twilight Princess. Also, too many references are made. It wouldn't make sense.

Furthermore, you've put TP on the adult timeline, when it HAS to come on the child in order for the theory to work.

Zeldafreak09 (talk)

Skyward Sword is before Ocarina of Time
http://www.gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=130953

One thing I don't understand
First off I always assumed that Link wasn't there when Ganondorf was free because he left the adult Link timeline and into a new timeline so he wasn't there when it happened but what I don't understand is if Ganondorf was stopped and he never got the triforce in that timeline shouldn't it still be in one piece in twilight princess since it only gets split when an evil person touches it?

There is no paradox in Ocarina of Time.
If the Ocarina works the same way as it always did it would have sent Link back to the time when Ganon was already in the Sacred Realm planning his attack on the Light World. This is proved by the look on young Zelda's face at the end of the game, because she knows that Ganon is comming. It also gives her time to turn into Shiek.

If you take Minish Cap, Four Swords, Four Sword Adventure, and both Oracle Games out of the Cannon it is easier to see the timeline. Consider those games to be the Legend part of Zelda(just like the cd-i games). Also, some text may also have to be considered. The most obvious being at the end of A link to the Past where it says that the Master Sword is never used again. That is not true.

A Link to the Past has to be the first Zelda so far because it explains that the Master Sword was created by the Sages during the Imprisoning War. Years pass and Link has to fight Ganon. He destroys Ganon.

In, Link's Awakening Ganon's Spirit is held in the World of Koholint. When Link awakens the Wind Fish, Ganon's Spirit is released and he takes the form of a Moblin from the Legend of Zelda hudreds of years later of course.

The Link from a Link to the Past eventually becomes King, his daughter is the Zelda from The Adventure of Link. We all know what happens to her. He has his son to thank for that.

Hundreds of years later, Link is reborn as is Ganon in the form of an enormous Moblin. He defeats ganon and the events of Zelda II unfold approx 7 years later. Link is 16. He finds the last triforce and the whereabouts of the lost Master Sword, he has the Temple of Time built. Remeber the old man at the end of Zelda II, he is actually the King of Old(the Link from A Link to the PAst) he tells Link from Zelda II where the MAster Sword is.

The ocarina of Time takes place a couple hundred years later than Zelda II. Ganon has reincarnated himself yet again as a gerudu this time. About ten years before the begining of the game Link is brought to the Deku Tree during a war to unify Hyrule. This could explain why Zora's were enemies in the past and where Gorons came from(previously at war). Going on what I originally said about the ocarina, Link leaves for Termina to avoid Ganon's Destruction.

Link returns from Termina when he is 17, and Ganon is gone. Much like the back to the future series Link appears right behind Zelda the second she sends him home. He helps her to rebuild and they even build the Prison from Twilight Princess.

700 years later Ganon escapes the dark realm and returns to the world of light only to be sent to the twilight realm by the sages. About 500 years after that the events from Twilight Princess take place. The link form Twilight Princess becomes none other than the King of Red Lions. He lives for Two Hundred Years. Then Ganon arises from the depths of the world and the flood begins. 1400 years after that the events of wind waker take place and the hour glass and finally spirit tracks. The new game skyward sword will most likly take place before A link to the past even though the manual was clear that the sword was made during the first imprisonment of ganon.

The skyward sword was probably created by the bird like race introduced in Twilight Princess. The sword somehow becomes the MAster Sword. Then when the Imprisoning war happens, the MAster sword is not actually created but rather re discovered.

This theory seems to make the most sence to me, plus, it has some cool parts, like the King of Red Lions actually being the Link fro Twilight, and the Link from a Link to the PAst is the King from Zelda II. Take it however you like but I don't think the timeline ever splits. The ocarina would have to work the same way it did throughtout the game. It takes you back into the past, but, past events have already transpired. Atleast, that's my take anyway. However you do view the timeline, the cool thing is that it is conjecture because it is after all, The Legend of Zelda.

Confirmation
This. --Auron  Kaizer !  17:41, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, this seems front page news worthy. It's not every day that we get info about the official timeline's impending release. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:58, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I call BS. According to this, the only place we're getting this "timeline being revealed" idea from is a part of the book's table of contents, the same thing displayed on AK's link. This list is apparently describing SS, OoT, TP, and WW. These are all games for which we are absolutely certain about their timeline placement already. The book itself might be front page worthy anyway given how rarely we have something to post, but timeline wise I find it very unlikely we'll see any game placements which experts like ourselves haven't already known of for years. In any case, I wouldn't post any claims of timeline revelation without further info. It sounds to me like a bunch of journalists misinterpreting something and making a huge fuss over nothing (as per usual journalism standards). By the way, does anyone know who wrote this book?--Fierce Deku 03:38, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * EDIT: FYI, further research strongly supports the idea that there is no further evidence of a timeline revelation as of right now, and various other sources share my skepticism that we'll actually learn anything new.--Fierce Deku 04:06, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Until further notice, I agree with FD. Everything I have seen so far only suggests that only what is already blatantly obvious about the timeline will be in this book. Hopefully, that's how it will actually turn out. Jedimasterlink (talk) 09:33, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

And this. --Auron  Kaizer !  16:01, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say we put this on the front page since this is, until further news comes up, the official timeline. -Minish  Link   16:08, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's up with that third split? Is that an alternate branch of the adult timeline or the child timeline? Or can it split off of either one? Jedimasterlink (talk) 16:19, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd guess either one, but it somehow seems more fitting to say adult. -Minish  Link   16:28, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * The third branch is apparently if you cannot complete OoT, presumably at any point in the story. In broader terms though, its just if you die and Ganondorf takes over Hyrule. However, it doesn't make much sense why that is even there since it doesn't have that for any other game... Apparently Link can only fail in OoT... I guess if this is legit, having three branches was the only way to fit in all the games without any major contradictions. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:34, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. What baffles me is how Ganondorf got sealed in the Sacred Realm/Dark World if Link failed to defeat him. At least Link's defeat would explain how the Triforce became whole for the events of ALttP. Jedimasterlink (talk) 18:00, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly Link goes down and the Sages are able to gather just enough power to seal Ganon. What I want to know though is how Four Swords Adventures randomly comesin after Twilight Princess...does that mean Minish Cap and Four Swords take place in the gap between the two? EDIT:...Nevermind about the Minish Cap and Four Swords thing. Look harder next time me. Though, I still want to know how Minish Cap properly links in, with the Light Force and all. Evnyofdeath 18:06, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, strictly speaking, there would be more than three branches, given the amount of time travel Link does over the course of OoT. However, the Song of Storms paradox reveals that sometimes time travel can occur without creating alternate timeline branches, so my guess would be that only one other instance of time travel in the game had whatever qualifications it took to create new timeline branches, resulting in Link not existing in one branch and going on to complete OoT in another. - Is drak  thül  18:31, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oracle of Ages proves that Nintendo has no grasp of consistency when it comes to time travel. That game alone poses three different effects of changing time. Oni Dark Link 19:00, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, they've dug themselves into something they cannot get out of. They will never be able to explain the timeline without any lingering questions. They likely don't deal with OoA because it is nowhere near as important as OoT in the overall grand scheme of things. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:03, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick side note on OoA, a number of quotes say that Veran didn't merely travel through time, but use words like "She's disrupting the flow of time", as though she's not just doing things in the past but actually screwing up the way that time itself works. It's sort of a cop out, but saying that time itself is just "broken" is the only way I see to make that game make sense.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 00:32, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * This timeline sounds ridiculous to me, and I'm basically refusing to accept it until someone like Aonuma tells us it's true. To be fair I'm also in a pretty intense state of denial/rage at the moment though. That being said, until we understand where the info in this book came from, we really can't say if it's from the real top secret timeline document or not. For this to be legit would be a complete 360 from everything Aonuma has said about not revealing the timeline and how few people have seen it. I'd recommend a separate section with the heading "Hyrule Historia Timeline", until we hear confirmation that this book can really be considered something more than in-house fanon.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 00:32, December 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * As this page indicates, "The timeline itself was created by Zelda series producer Eiji Aonuma who is the supervising editor of the book." --Ian talk 10:19, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmph. I suppose that's it then. Interestingly, it says that Ganondorf was "reincarnated" for FSA rather than "revived". Score one for the Multiple Ganon Theory. And it seems I was right at least in assuming we never had enough information to correctly guess the timeline. Who would have thought nearly half the games in the series only happen if Link fails in OoT? Official or not, that just doesn't compute, even if that was the best way to bypass major contradictions. Jedimasterlink (talk) 00:03, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, since Aonuma stated that he created the timeline present in the Historia, that pretty much settles it and we should really add it in. I managed to get the bare bones of the timeline in there, so feel free to tidy it up if it is allowed. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:33, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

I died a little inside. After years of exhaustive analysis, creative thought, fans being allowed to interpret the series in whatever way they enjoyed most, and all round more fan investment in the universe's workings than many works of fiction could have dreamed of, we're left with this. A third timeline splits off for absolutely no reason, Link, the Hero of Time, the last hope of Hyrule, DIES, and everything turns out perfectly fine. Ganondorf, having already crushed all notable resistance aside from Shiek and the now dead Link, gets the whole Triforce, but apparently Zelda survives this process because she and the other sages, many of whom were in mortal peril prior to Link helping them and almost none of whom even knew they were sages, show up anyway and seal him off. Later in the timeline, he breaks free, but everything turns out better seeing as Hyrule did not have to be flooded. So basically, the events of Ocarina of Time and the Hero of Time's quest weren't merely WORTHLESS, they made things WORSE. And here I thought Aonuma wanted the stories of indiviual games to be the most importnat thing, but I guess there being a point to the Legendary Hero's existence isn't essential to OoT. And where exactly did FSA's Dark World come from if it's in the child timeline? It probably shouldn't have sages or Gerudo either. I'm sure the Dark World could just decide to create itself though, why not, now that the Triforce pieces can just decide on their own to jump into TP characters' hands. I could go on like this but you get the point. I expected better of Aonuma. He shouldn't have done that... I pray to the Four Giants that when Aonuma eventually retires from Zelda, someone like Yoshiaki Koizumi will take over and retcon this mess. Sorry for the rant, I needed to vent before I could edit again. But yeah, my sense of disgust and betrayal aside, we kind of have to take this as gospel now. I do think that we should point out issues and inconsistencies though just like we did with any other story related explanation.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 01:30, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really don't like it, while I wouldn't want that to happen, you could pull a Kefka Palazzo and go to Japan, find Aonuma, get rid of him, and take over the Zelda division of Nintendo and redo it in the way you want it. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:11, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * That branch implies that either A) Something else woke the sages [unlikely] or B) Link fell in battle against Ganon [Very likely if you think about it] or C) A third timeline was created when Link intitially went forwards in time, and in this timeline Ganondorf hadn't killed the current sages, thus the new generation of sages didn't need to be awakened by Link, which is good because this timeline wouldn't even have a Link in it. Evnyofdeath 02:47, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ganon didn't necessarily have to kill Zelda (or Link, for that matter). When he reunited the Triforce in TWW, he simply subdued them. We have to make that assumption if Ganon was sealed in the Dark World after he defeated Link, or else nobody would have been able to close the seal from the Light World. The Flood vs. no Flood thing is what bothered me most about this timeline after seeing that Link had to be defeated for 6 games to happen at all. I never thought about the FSA Dark World issue, though that is really troublesome too. Applying Nintendo Logic to the what the Triforce does in TP is about as bad, if not worse. I mean, did Link take the Adult Timeline's Triforce of Courage to the Child Timeline and force the Great Cataclysm that way or something? And apparently, Ganon continued to live after OoA/S, even though Link clearly defeats him after his incomplete resurrection. The now invalid theory that Link accidentally wished Ganon back to life at the end of ALttP is more coherent than that (still pretty incoherent, but still). One could say that many of these contradictions could be resolved by future games, but if Nintendo resorts to that, then releasing the timeline has forced them to put up constraining plot walls, which was the single biggest reason I never wanted to see an officially released timeline. Jedimasterlink (talk) 03:49, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * There are excuses that can be made for everything I suppose, but even if how a third timeline was able to split off and how it turned out the way it did made perfect technical sense, the idea that the Hero of Time can fail and Hyrule is still just as well off (better even) is just not in the spirit of Zelda. I could literally go on about the problems with this timeline for days though. Sorry about all the complaining, I'm just angry because I've put so much effort into trying to make sense of this stuff, both here on the wiki and elsewhere, and it's kind of useless now, because now it's official canon that this stuff just doesn't have to make any sense. I could try my hardest to think of good ways to fill the now-confirmed plot holes (after all, no timeline was completely devoid of holes), but I did exactly that with the Zelda timeline once before, only to end up with far less reasonable explanations being made canonical. Yeah, revealing the timeline was a really bad idea both for the fans' sake and for the poor souls who have to make up more Zelda games. Really though, they'll just make up whatever plot they want, and if it doesn't fit they'll make a contrived excuse for how to add it in anyway. There were a number of explanations sitting right in front of them that I was really disappointed to see them overlook. Sorry, I'm complaining again. I'll try to cool it with the timeline hating.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 04:11, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think the only reason Nintendo even released a timeline is because 4 out of 5 fans all but demanded one. And how really knows whats in Miyamoto and Aonuma's head when it comes to this, they may be pulling a batman gambit on us. Evnyofdeath 04:37, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Fierce Deku, your assertion that the timeline created where the Hero of Time failed to defeat Ganon was better off than the areas where he succeeded was flat out false. First off, had Link lost, there would have been a war that most likely resulted in several people being killed (and the fact that Gorons are absent in that timeline's Hyrule would imply that they went extinct), and even after that, there were also plagues that were heavily implied to have been caused by Ganon via his proxy, Agahnim to land him in power and then to open up the Dark World, and Ganon still continued to plague the world, unlike the Child and Adult timelines where Ganon ended up dead, reincarnated, and then sealed in the Four Sword in that order, and permanently dead, respectively. Plus, Ganon permanently losing his sanity and intelligence from a botched revival would probably explain why Ganon in the first LOZ seemed to be rather chaotic in his attacks rather than somewhat organized in them. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:55, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose in the long run that Ganon shows up/is revived more in non-Adult lines (for no particular reason), but seeing as Ganondorfs or other foes will supposedly pop up in an endless cycle for as long as they make games, all kinds of additional crises can end up happening in the future of all timelines. The situation that the Hero of Time was actually a part of turns out worse if he actually succeeds, seeing as the Adult timeline is the only point in Hyrule's many histories at which things are so bad that Hyrule must be flooded. Whatever you think about how good or bad things were in the timelines, the Link is dead timeline still has no origin, and it's just not in the spirit of the series to say that Link can/does fail, but his goal gets achieved anyway.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 02:18, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

And now there's this. --<font color="#3ba0c5">Auron  Kaizer <font color="#3ba0c5">!  06:21, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see how that's "backtracking" in any way. All he said is that the timeline isn't perfect and may contain contradictions, and that it wasn't a priority when making the games. Although it does make its officialness less set in stone, I don't think it'll affect the content of the articles all that much seeing as we already point out the inconsistencies with the games' canon. Also, I just have to say...people were pleased to see this timeline? I mean, I know much of the Zelda fanbase has really weird standards (ZeldaWiki is proof of this), but...really? <font color="#14148A">Xykeb  <font color="#4B0082">Yvolix   Zraliv  06:50, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * This pretty much just tells us what we already knew, except now I have reason to suspect that Aonuma might be about as pleased about his timeline as we are. Unfortunately, it seems likely that many Zelda fans were happy to see this. I was the only one out of my Zelda-knowledgeable friends to have any negative feelings about the release of the timeline. Jedimasterlink (talk) 07:17, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Separate timelines is stupid.
To those that think Wind Waker started a separate time line, did it ever occur to you that they just wanted to try a new art style and it was just not good enough to be on the consoles after that and just stuck it on to the DS for two more games?

As for the child and adult theories, Link never fails, except for when they needed him to be there for a calamity. But the calamity happened when he was away in Terminia (Majora's Mask).

It's a singular time line.

Did it ever occur to you that the art style isn't what caused us to say it? The reason we insist on a split timeline is the fact the higher ups (the producer and scenario writer) of Zelda have said "Oh yeah, After OoT the timeline split, WW in one direction, TP in another". And the Great Calamity is HEAVILY HEAVILY implied to be the events of OoT, considering the scenario writer said that OoT covers the backstory of LttP. Seriously, read up on the info before you say stuff like this. Evnyofdeath 05:38, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Possible confirmation of Timeline
According to this article found, translations from that Encyclopedia/Art Book in Japan have revealed the official timeline. I'm not entirely sure what the process would be for implementing the information into the article, so I just decided to link the page here and let more professional editors figure it out. --Nevermind0309 (talk) 03:08, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * We are aware of the Hyrule Historia timeline (see the discussion a couple sections above this one), but as of now we aren't sure how to implement it in the article. In any case, we will have to completely overhaul the article since unless Nintendo says otherwise, we can be pretty sure that this is the real timeline, and that all theorizing has come to an end. Jedimasterlink (talk) 04:49, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Warning on adding resurrection related timeline info
One note when writing about the new timeline, the terms from the translation such as "revived" and "resurrected" are not reliable. The words "resurrected" and "revived" are both applied to people who are being released from a seal, but were in no way dead. Yet in other places, the terms are used to denote someone who is actually coming back from the dead, such as ALttP Ganon being "revived" in the Oracles, an event we see in game which clearly involves bringing a dead being back to life rather than an unsealing. I don't know if this was poor word choice on Aonuma's part or a translation difficulty, but the revival/resurrection references have directly proven themselves unreliable, so don't take them for gospel when adding timeline info.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 02:18, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Odd thought
This is probably thinking too much into it, but I think it should be brought up in some manner. The child timeline and adult timeline splits can happen simultaneously; however, Link failing to beat Ganondorf cannot. This timeline version was obviously made to fit all of the games into one timeline that makes sense, but at the end of the day, we all know Link does succeed at the end of OoT and that he cannot fail and succeed at the same time. Therefore, I see the timeline that stems from the 'failing event' being a "what-if" timeline. And to a further extent, wouldn't that make all the games in that timeline (ALttP, OoA, OoS, LA, TLoZ and TAOL) non-canonical? It may be difficult to comprehend what I am saying here, but I figured it should be brought up. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:05, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's reading too much into this at all; to me, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to consider. Even though the games you listed are essentially a "what if?" scenario, the games still have a place in the official timeline, unlike games such as Super Smash Bros, which are not even part of any kind of alternate scenario. Therefore, I think we should still consider the games in the "Link Defeated" timeline as canonical. Jedimasterlink (talk) 23:55, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely understand what you're saying. The Child timeline split off because Link was send back in time and changed history. The "Hero of Time Dies" timeline does not have an origin, and it can only exist in a continuity in which the Adult timeline does not exist. Technically, this is in violation of Aonuma's previous statements that all the Zelda games are in the same continuity. That's one of the main reasons I despise this timeline, it officially confirms that effects do not have to have causes in the Zelda universe. Officially though the third timeline branch is supposed to be canonical, even if it doesn't make sense for it to be in the same canon. As far as mainspace goes, I can't think of anything we can/should do, other than point out when relevant that the third timeline branch is in its own disconnected continuity.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 00:15, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Think a little deeper. What happened to the original timeline Link abandoned when he went forwards in OoT. Yes, at the end he was sent back, but it is implied he was sent back to before he originally met Zelda, meaning he was sent back to BEFORE he originally went forwards in time, meaning another split had to happen, turning that into the Child Timeline, the Timeline where he beat Ganon the Adult Timeline, and the original timeline he left the Defeated Timeline. While this may not explain everything, it explains how a third timeline can exist. Evnyofdeath 03:56, January 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to when Link first pulled the Master Sword, absolutely no time travel occurred. He was put to sleep for 7 years and then woke up as an adult; he did not time travel into the future. If you're referring to other times Link pulls/puts back the Master Sword to go back and forth between child and adult, please see my explanation under the "Time Travel Theory" header lower down on this page. That doesn't hold up either for different reasons.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 04:37, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, Historia is officially published by Nintendo, with Aonuma as editor. Its possible that they're considering something that isn't known to the fanbase. I admit there are some inconsistencies, but with certain events, this was the only way to keep everything within a single timeline that worked cohesivly to an extent. Evnyofdeath 05:35, January 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand all that, and it's fine for fans to look for their own explanations, but this particular explanation doesn't quite work. I'm not quite sure where you're going with that last post. It was a good try but we can't explain something by using a fan theory that contradicts the games like that. The article currently states that the Historia timeline is indeed considered official, and that it also contains errors, both of which I think we're in agreement on. It sucks, but we would seem to be stuck with that situation.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 06:03, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Official Timeline
As is mentioned in the first part of the page, on december 23, 2011, the offical timeline was revealed. The page definitely needs to be updated, because currently, so much in it contradicts the official timeline.


 * Well, more than anything, all of the other timeline theories should be either removed entirely, or archived, because the Master Timeline debunks them all. There is no more theory.Derekoe (talk) 05:52, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the simplest and most effective way to rewrite this page is to make a section for each of the four main branches of the timeline (pre-OoT, Link Defeated, and the Child/Adult splits). Each section would chronologically list the games that take place in each branch and would briefly describe the major events of each branch, as well as what circumstances led up to it in the cases of the Post-OoT branches. Jedimasterlink (talk) 06:12, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I've just added a prose form Hyrule Historia timeline section, moved it to the first section, and redone the intro to compensate. I left everything else in. I'm not necessarily saying that has to be the final form of the page, but even if we overhaul it this is better than what we had before. Bellow are two more topics about some things I want to ask about how to handle this page.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 23:34, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Timeline Map Image
There's floating around, and we should decide if we want to use it. While I think a map like this would be helpful, I find this one confusing or downright wrong in places. It puts events before/after/during games even though the events do not actually occur in those places. For example, it puts the Great Catyclysm (Ganondorf getting the Triforce in OoT) before the timeline split even though it doesn't happen in the Child timeline, lists the Adult Timeline Ganondorf as being "revived" twice, and so on. The language used is also misleading. As I mentioned in an earlier topic, words like "revived" and "resurrected" are used inconsistently and also nonsensically. Depending on which part you're reading, the map could be trying to say anything from "unsealed" to "brought back from the dead" to "an apparently totally separate incarnation is born". No offense to the translator by the way, I suspect all these confusions were present in the original form as well. So personally I'm against using this particular image.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 23:34, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

What to leave/take
I'm also wondering how we should handle the non-Hyrule Historia parts of this page. I think it would be helpful to leave things like the appearance sections similar to how they are now for a few reasons:

First off, the official parts of the timeline have changed plenty of times before, and I'd be shocked if they never reshuffled things again in the future. At times like that, any given part of the Historia timeline could be thrown to the wind, and what happens in the actual games once again becomes the most important thing. Especially if official timeline placement confirmation does not come quickly or at all when new games are released, looking at all the games from a non-Historia perspective will be important in trying to figure out how things may be reshuffled.

Second, we always take the games themselves as the number one source of canon, so I think it'd be accurate to that and helpful to leave game event based sections somewhere in the article. Things like the alternative "Hero of Time Dies but everything turns out fine" timeline, while confirmed by creator statements, go against what we actually see in the game, which is supposed to be a higher form of canon.

Third, I don't think timeline theorizing is going to go away just because of this. Some fans will take connections implied by the games themselves as a higher source of canon. They'll reject Aonuma's reality, and substitute their own (yes, you may accuse me of bias on this particular point, since I do exactly that when not writing for the wiki, but I'm not the only fan to do it either). One could also argue that many popular game-based connections, if nothing else, should be mentioned so that they can be pointed out as retconed under the Historia timeline (like when we keep a section around for a popular but disproved theory because people need to be shown that it's false).

Basically, I think we should leave non-Historia based information because Zelda timeline crafting doesn't end with the Historia timeline's announcement. This official word on things won't necessarily remain unchanged, official word is not necessarily the only thing that should be considered when contrasted with in-game information, and in general people are still going to be interested in timeline information not as dictated by the Historia.

As as aside, if we do keep game sections, I'd also recommend a separate paragraph explaining in detail that game's connection to the previous and next game in the Historia timeline. That would be helpful to people who are confused about a specific part of the Historia timeline, and would make it easy to learn about any new games which are granted an official place in the Historia timeline.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 23:34, January 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose keeping the individual game sections does have its merits. Should we keep them, I support keeping them in chronological order, which would show in what order game elements relevant to the timeline were introduced. As you said, we would need an additional paragraph for each game to describe how one game flows from the last and into the next. Jedimasterlink (talk) 06:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Time Travel Theory
I know the official timeline has confused many fans with the third timeline, but could there be another way to link it to the rest of the timeline ? There is a POSSIBLE scenarion. As you all know, the Split Timeline Theory exists because Ocarina of Time features time traveling. The third timeline could also originate from time traveling, when adult Link must travel back to the past (e.g. When link needs to get the Lens of Truth and the Silver Gauntlets). Once Link puts the master sword on its pedestal, Link is sent back to the past. Upon comming back to the future, Link is sent to an alternate future, leaving the original one without a hero to defeat Ganon, leading to the new timeline. The aforementionned alternate future would lead to the Adult and Child Timeline. Check out the links bellow for more information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS4flaa-20

http://i.imgur.com/NRpQO.png

While unconfirmed, it is a workable theory. There is no "alternate scenario", everything does occur. Feel free to comment about this.

P.S.: I know it is not the appropriate place for such discussions, but I have no idea how or where I could discuss about this (within this wiki, of course), sorry for that.

--Mr Alex (T) 01:01, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * A forum would be a better place. <font color="#14148A">Xykeb  <font color="#4B0082">Yvolix   Zraliv  01:20, January 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * This was a very good try, but I'm afraid I can disprove it right here. We know for a fact that when Link pulls the Master Sword or puts it back in, he is not moving to a new timeline. We know this because all the progress he makes in the past and the future remain whenever he travels to either time. For example, lets say Adult Link has cleared the first 3 Adult dungeons and freed those sages. He then wants to go get the Silver Gauntlets lets say, so he stabs the Master Sword back into its pedestal, and his mind/spirit/whatever is sent back to his child body. Now in the past, he obtains the gauntlets, and returns to the Temple of Time to pull the Master Sword. This new theory states that he will go to the future of a newly split timeline. He does not however, he returns to the timeline and moment he was in when he had last stuck the sword in as an adult; this is why the 3 temples/sages are still beaten/freed. If he actually were making new timelines with every switch between child and adult era, all his progress would be "lost" each time, because he only made that progress in the timeline he left behind. Maybe Zelda's method of sending Link back can cause a new timeline whereas the Master Sword can't, or maybe an alternate timeline only branches off when the original timeline is actually prevented from occurring. The details of OoT's time travel are not clear, but what is clear is that throughout the gameplay portion of the game, Link is traveling between two eras in a single timeline. I'm going to try to contact the two sources you provided and point this contradiction out, I recommend others do the same if they know of anyone swearing by this new theory.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 04:37, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

According to this translation, "Ganondorf obtained the Triforce of Power, and Princess Zelda came into Ganondorf's hands. Link, the hero of time, challenged to bet for the fate of Hyrule, but was defeated."; that would make this theory disproven by the Historia as well as the games. I've heard the "Link Fails" timeline describes by other parts of the Historia as Link being defeated (not vanishing into the past, but "defeated"). It also says "Link, the hero of time, may be defeated by Ganondorf". The "may" is pretty explicitly saying that this is an alternate scenario, as opposed to something actually causing the hero to fail. Barring a major translation error, this would mean that the Historia is directly admitting to us that Link dying is an alternate continuity/"what if scenario", and not something which logically splits off because of time travel.--<font color="Green">Fierce <font color="SaddleBrown">Deku 06:35, January 5, 2012 (UTC)