Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia

Release
With the book officially out in English today, am I right to assume it's safe to add information from it to articles? ReignTG (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's officially part of the English canon now. TriforceTony (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Canon
How much of this book can we actually take to be canon? Eiji Aonuma and the others don’t appear to have been as involved in the development of this book as they were in the others. Some of it even appears to contradict what they have said in the past. The change to the timeline was confirmed as canon on the official website, but the rest is questionable. Toolen22 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Except for extraneous bits, such as the SS - manga and obvious errors, everything in The Goddess Collection are canonical even if they were not necessarily written by Aonuma. They were created as a series of books to elucidate the canon and were directly supervised by Nintendo (also one of the writers credited for  has been with Nintendo for at least 30 years).
 * As a general principle, official statements from Nintendo employees are considered canon unless they contradict in-game evidence. The Goddess Collection, due to their relationship to the timeline, are considered on-par with game canon and so supersede any previous evidence provided in the games. TriforceTony (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, though. Doesn't the Encyclopedia's revelation about Termina directly contradict Anju's grandmother's stories from Majora's Mask? As well as Tatl's flashbacks demonstrating that she and Tael were with Skull Kid when he stole the titular mask and that Termina clearly existed before the theft? And other claims the book makes, like Dragon Roost Island being Zora's Domain, when all the in-game evidence points to it being Death Mountain. Whisperstar13 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As Tony mentioned on Termina's talk page, the memories of the people of Termina would necessarily be unreliable. It's not just that the world was changed, it was magically altered so that it had always been that way from its internal perspective. People were created with memories of a past that never happened. So the grandmother's stories (which sound like fairy tales versions of what really happened anyway) likely aren't entirely accurate even in the false history of the world. As for Tatl and Tael, they were from Hyrule originally. They stole the mask from the Salesman in the Lost Woods. The flashback uses the same area where the opening cutscene of Link getting mugged takes place, and is implied to be only shortly after the mask got stolen.
 * There are still holes in the idea, though, like Skull Kid confirming the story about the Giants (for the most part). And since there was no implication of Termina being an illusion in Hyrule Historia, it seems like this bit of backstory is a recent invention rather than Aonuma's original intent. Until we know if he was the one who wrote it, or if it was a mistake by the book's authors (perhaps conflating Termina and Koholint?), it seems open to debate. But for the purposes of the wiki, this is the current canon.
 * As for Dragon Roost being Death Mountain, I always thought Fire Mountain was supposed to be Death Mountain. The claim of it being Zora's Domain seems to at least be based on the confirmation that the Rito are descendants of the Zoras, and is a bit odd, but not outright contradictory. --Otakuunitedstudio (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Verification
As someone who hasn't read the book, I came across a few claims that it was written by the staff of a fan magazine who admitted to taking liberties with the source material and just making a bunch of stuff up. Is this true, and if so, why are we accepting it as canon anyway? Whisperstar13 (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of those claims and we can't consider them reliable on hearsay alone. Even if the canon established in were disloyal fabrications they're still canon by virtue of being published on the will of the developers. TriforceTony (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's brought up here. Something about a staff page where it's revealed Nintendo took more of a "counseling" role to the magazine staff who actually did the writing. (There's also a snapshot of the page, but it's in Japanese.) If it's true, the article should be updated to show who authored the book, at the very least. Whisperstar13 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello? Did anyone ever look into this? I still don't think you guys should be blindly accepting the book when it wasn't written by Nintendo and blatantly defies things that were established in the games themselves. Whisperstar13 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia is an officially licensed book that is promoted by Nintendo itself. Even the changes to the timeline in the book are present in the official website for the series. These kind of media is normally used by Nintendo to update and/or retcon information present in the games themselves, just as remakes, remasters, and re-releases also do. 04:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Being that this is supplementary material, it is considered canon to the series officially but also is a secondary source. For the purposes of the series creators and this wiki, that means that it is true regardless of who wrote it. That said, Nintendo are free to change it if they decide to later (and may), but have accepted it for the time being. That said, fans have the liberty of interpreting things for themselves and if you don't like some of the changes, you can choose to ignore them. Much of the minutiae, like Termina being an illusion, aren't mentioned in any other source including the website. So if you don't want to believe it, you don't have to. But the site is going to treat it as valid until new material contradicts it. --Otakuunitedstudio (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)