Zelda Wiki talk:Canon Policy

Zelda Wiki.org Canon Policy
Seeing the expansion of the Tingle spinoffs, ready availability of the CDi Roms, scant information on canceled Zelda titles, disputes with the Japanese translations, etc and so on. It's becoming more of an issue that ZW has no clearly outlined Canon policy. To me, Canon goes:
 * Nintendo Zelda Title(in game stuff)> Manuals>Stategy guides(useful for finding names)>Magazine articles>Nintendo Website content(excepting Zelda.com)
 * Noncanon:Cdi games, comics, manga, books,
 * Canon until there's a conflict: Capcom LoZ titles, Flagship LoZ titles> Spinoff titles
 * Language English (American Spellings)-English (British Names-for titles not released in USA)-Japanese

Now, on the language thing. I know Timeline theorists and all are going to disagree, but we aren't going to change the entire wiki to pander to specialized interests. This policy was in place long before I even came around and will continue.

The rest however is up to debate and general consensus. 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I partially agree/disagree. I think there's no question about the Capcom games. They had Nintendo involvement, whereas the CD-i games did not. As for the Mangas, Nintendo has stated that they are simply to add on to the story and fun, and are not part of the canon. If I recall correctly, we decided that the Valiant comics are "Ambiguously Canon", something that other wikis have done with questionable topics. I'm currently working on a banner for that. Now remind me- what games were Flagship again? *I have a cold and it's kinda hard to think straight* 18:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about cases in which the English translators messed up? I know it doesn't happen often, but the original American manual for ALttP contradicts OoT in several places, and there was one line in the American version of TP that said that the Oocca created the Hylians, when that contradicts the creation story set forth in both ALttP and OoT. The Japanese version just says that they created Hyrule (the kingdom).


 * And the Capcom games seem to be considered canon by Nintendo. Maybe we can divide this into:


 * Flagship games:
 * All 14 currently-released Legend of Zelda titles.
 * Spin-off titles:
 * Tingle games
 * Tetra's Trackers
 * Ancient Stone Tablets
 * Game and Watch
 * Link's Crossbow Training
 * Non-canon games:
 * CD-i games Ganondorfdude11 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although stuff flat-out not produced by Nintendo should be right-out excluded, like Prima Games guides. Ganondorfdude11 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have scraped up a policy basesd entirely upon what has been the de-facto standard so far. It should be adaquate. And I was very descriptive, to avoid confustion. 16:45, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see it. Or is it on the page we already have? :P 19:27, October 6, 2009 (UTC) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, besides the games' statuses
Now I think the simplest way to outline the other stuff would follow: Manuals > Developers quotes (credible sources only, preferrably print) > Guides: Nintendo's > NonNintendo's > Other books such as the story books. > Fanon

The guides and books are useful for finding otherwise unnamed Enemies, Characters etc. These will be known to a rather widespread amount of the fan base, therefore ought not be outright rejected. Fanon, let's face it, we hate it. But it's impossible to not have a small degree of it. I want it minimized. The theories may seem so obvious, but the facts of it need to be sourced. Anyway this isn't my all inclusive take, just a line of discussion for the policy.


 * ps, something concerning the release dates should be included as well, especially concerning ports. I default to whichever has the most info for the manuals, but the ingame content should be Port > Earlier Release. One benefit of that is that the GCN TP remains the canon version 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am registering my protestation of the Prima Game Guides being "non-canon", as they in reality are "ambiguously canon" and fit that description entirely. Trying to say they are non-canon is biased based upon the opinions of the select few. Link87 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Link87. Until there is evidece that they are not cannon, then they should be left as ambiguously canon. BenitoPerezGaldos 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This topic seems to have stalled with little objections elsewhere, and none posted here where it can be accessed readily. 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would we want each guide listed with its canon status for the prima guides? And other guides as well. As the image I'm getting here is that from Twilight Princess on it should be somewhat canonical. It would be less confusing to list them all rather than saying ones before a certain point are not. 20:05, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Game guides and regions
As people might have noticed there is numerous differences between American spirit and European spirit tracks. This brings in the question as what should be counted as the canon names. Since this is a mainly American based wiki we use the American names, but should we? I say we should use the names closest to the Japanese names, or the meaning of the Japanese names.

On a related note if an official guide or websites refers to an enemy by a different name then what the enemy obviously is (slimes vs zols and eye brutes vs Hinox in PH) should we use the guide name or the common enemy name? In twilight princess the so-called moldorms are obviously lanmolas.

23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyrule Historia
Is it canon? Some thing in the book (like the timeline) contradicts the games, on the other side it is from the creators... so is the book canon or not for the wiki? --Soran 15:55, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * It's not as much of a contradiction as a retelling/retconning of the events. So if it's from the creators, then it has indeed credibility. Hopefully the wiki staff will update the article ASAP for updating's sake. -- 16:18, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * In my eyes it's to much, so I can't accept it... for me the book isn't canon, but what is more importend here? A book or the games--Soran 16:27, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * Both are important. At first it seems like the games don't show much of the timeline connections, but that's because they were developed long before a timeline was ever in consideration. This is true for the NES and SNES games. So just because you refuse to call the book canon doesn't mean the entire wiki has to go with the refusal as well. You're free to build your own canon with theories and the such, but please leave a way for the confirmed stuff to be placed wherever they're relevant enough. -- 16:37, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * They don't ignore just a few sentence, they ignore the intro of FSA (where was say, that the Link is the same from FS), they ignore the Ganonconflict, they ignore just fakes how zelda and link doesn't know each other ... for me it isn't canon. But we have the problem, how we work with the book. If it is canon for the wiki, we can use the infos of the book like infos of games, if not, we can just use it for some notes... that the problem not if I refuse the book or someone alse, just how we can work with it... --Soran 16:45, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * No timeline is perfect. None of our fan timelines have been perfect, and many required fanfiction to make it work. You can't expect the official timeline to work perfectly either. However I have to say that it works way better than any of our fan timelines before. The book was authorized by Nintendo, its editor is Aonuma for heaven's sake, it is indeed canon by all means since we take developers' word for canon. Soran, no offense, but I think you're acting a little butthurt over this. Which I can kinda understand, I was a little butthurt at first too. The Goron Moron 17:21, 3 January 2012 (EST)

An admin should add Hyrule Historia! Zeldafan1982 17:50, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm very late to this party. I believe what I'm about to do is called "Playing the devil's advocate". There is evidence that, at the very least, the notion that OoT and ALttP are one and the same cannot be correct. And it doesn't even have to be about the manuals, a quote from ALttP just destroys it: "Link, thanks to you, I was able to escape from the clutches of evil. Thank you!...The Triforce will grant the wishes of whoever touches it, as long as that person lives... That is why it was hidden in the Golden Land. Only a select few were told of its location, but at some point that knowledge was lost... The one who rediscovered the Golden Land was an evil thief named Ganondorf. Luckily, he couldn't figure out how to return to the Light World... I'll just let that last part sink in. Let's go in and actually examine the ramifications of what that last bit means: it means Ganon did not come back to Hyrule after making his wish, as opposed to OoT where he rules it, and The fact that he was able to make a wish on the Triforce from witin the Sacred Realm and was unable to come out means he obtained the Triforce with his first touch, or at least not as described in HH (Where he obtained it in Hyrule immediately following Link's alleged defeat) the former of which requiring a balanced heart, invalidating the two Ganons even being the same due to the statement that the original was unbalanced. Hwrdjacob (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Canon Issue Regarding the SS Manga
As I was reading the October 2012 (Vol. 283) issue of famed magazine Nintendo Power, I noticed that in an article on Hyrule Historia, Dark Horse Books editor Patrick Thorpe was quoted as saying, "[...]Newer fans are going to be excited about the large Skyward Sword section and the manga by Akira Himekawa, which contains some really important continuity that impacts the entire series." His statement about the manga makes me believe that said manga, or at least parts of it, should be considered canon or semi-canon. Granted, this hinges on whether or not one believes that his word should carry the same weight as that of a series developer. As the leader of the localization, though, his statement certainly demands some attention, and should, in my opinion, be at the very least recognized by the staff of this wiki. Whether or not it makes the manga in question a viable part of the official timeline should be your decision. Thank you for your time! Linebeck IV 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm very familiar with the Zelda mangas, but as I understand it, they've always provided extra continuity and explanations in regards to the games they're based on, so I don't see how the Skyward Sword manga is particularly different. I would say the manga remains non canon barring an explicit statement from a Nintendo representative saying otherwise (and there doesn't seem to be one; just took a look at Aonuma's statement in Glitterberri's translation of Hyrule Historia). The fact that parts of the manga can be found in the same book alongside canonical material is certainly significant, though. I wouldn't be surprised if certain elements of the manga appeared in a future title... I guess we'll have to wait and see. 23:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, though in this case the manga should probably be marked as ambiguously canon in the same way as the Satellaview games. Your thoughts? Linebeck IV 13:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Even though they may have taken endorsement a step further with Hyrule Historia, the manga has always been officially endorsed by Nintendo. And so, as I said, I personally don't see how the Skyward Sword manga is particularly special as to deserve a different canonical status. 23:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the difference here is that the Skyward Sword manga does not, to my knowledge, directly contradict the events of the game unlike all the other mangas, which are based on the games but take liberties with the plot for the sake of writing an interesting story. The Skyward Sword manga actually depicts a series of backstory events that could of occured, and given their appearance in Hyrule Historia, may indeed of occurred. Of course, without a fully translated book, I'm not sure yet if the manga is included simply as a bonus or if there is any mention of it's relevancy to the series.
 * I think at this stage, at least until we get further translations, it would qualify as "ambiguously canon". The others are official, but not canon as they simply contradict the stories in a number of ways and thus cannot be so. 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What Fizzle said. 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yeah. Fair enough. 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indubitably. :P However, we should also consider the arguments against it. We don't know if Thorpe's statement should truly be considered an endorsement from Nintendo (not to mention that the wording of said statement is suspect, as I now realize that the phrase "really important continuity" might also apply to the SS section of Hyrule Historia). Also, while I believe nothing in the manga contradicts the main game, has anyone here actually read it? Because if something is in conflict with the main game, the rest of the subject matter might very well be discounted. Until we have definite proof that it contradicts the game, though, I believe we should certainly consider tentatively classifying it as ambiguously canon. Obviously, the Zelda story and continuity is sometimes just as confusing and vague as it is fascinating. Linebeck IV 11:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found only two instances where the manga differs from the game. The first one is about the Master Sword, the manga says that the goddesses created it, whereas the game mentions Hylia. Also, at the end of the manga Hylia doesn't seem to be injured. Still, given that it is included in HH, its canonical status is not very clear, namely if it should be viewed as a story providing additional (canonical) information, or as bonus, non-canon material. Zeldafan1982 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thus, its exact level of canon is unknown, and should therefore be classified as ambiguous (in my opinion, at least). Linebeck IV 00:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How does canon affect what can be added to the Wiki?
You've done a great job categorizing what is and is not canon. But you've not explained what canon means to the wiki. Different wikis handle this differently, and I think it would be a good idea to specify.

Canon is usually handled the same way everywhere: it's what can be added to any relevant article on the wiki. But ambiguous and non-canon are handled differently. Some wikis don't allow non-canon to be mentioned at all. Others allow it in articles about that particular work (like an article about the CDi games) and/or in special "apocrypha" sections in regular articles.

Questionable canon is even more complex. Some, again, don't allow it at all. Others allow it, but only in special "questionable canon" sections and/or in articles about that particular work. Others allow it in the main sections, but only with a special template. And still others allow it to be in any main section as long as it doesn't contradict full canon.

As you can see, as a new editor, this page does not give me all the information about canon that I would need to edit this Wiki. I think it should. It would be pretty easy--just add a sentence or clause after what's currently in each bullet point. For example, the canon bullet point would be changed to read "Canon — This material makes up the fictional universe and can be added to any relevant article or section of the wiki."

The others would get similar sentences, depending on how you like to handle them. For example: "Ambiguously Canon — This material cannot be definitively considered canon, but as it does not necessarily contradict canon sources, is considered canon by many people. It can only be added in special sections."

Wouldn't this be a good idea, so that new users know exactly what can be added? Trlkly 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Edited. Hopefully it's clearer now. 17:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you also add that it's fine to add ambiguously canon or non-canon info anywhere as long as you put up the relevant header? I assume this would be OK. Also, would you add what we've learned about the SS manga? Or did the staff never come to a decision about its status? Linebeck IV 03:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A week late, but it is done. As for the SS manga, everyone that took the time to weigh in seems to be in favor of considering it as "ambiguously canon." If there are no objections, I'll go about making the change.
 * For the record, this would be a community decision. At Zelda Wiki, most matters are decided by the editing community as a whole, not just the staff. We're not authoritarians. :P 15:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Arguing in favor of that manga was one of the reasons I joined this wiki. Of course, we'll have to wait until we have a better—hopefully official—translation before we can decisively place it in one camp of canon. For now, though, I strongly suggest ambiguous canonicity. Linebeck IV 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Valiant Comics
At the moment, all the Valiant Zelda comic pages and sections are considered "ambiguously canon", unlike all other Zelda comics, the cartoon and the adventure books. I think these should be moved to non-canon however, as I see no major differences between this and the aforementioned material. While it may be more accurate to the games than the cartoons, and take place in an "empty" spot on the timeline, it's still largely the same take on the series as the cartoons and has numerous contradictions to the main series (Ganon being alive after the events of Zelda II, for one thing). It's not canon. 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if it doesn't contradict any of the games, and if it's licensed by Nintendo, then we can't really know if it is canon or not. After all, it's possible that Ganon was revived for the comic you mentioned—just as he has been for many of the games in the past—or that these comics were actually taken into consideration during game development. Linebeck IV 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It does contradict the games in a number of ways, not least the visual appearance of the characters of Zelda, the Triforce (pyramid shape) and Ganon, but also the fact that Link's Shadow is a minion of Ganon (impossible, he was one of the Great Palace guardians placed by the King), Link has a back story where he hails from a completely different kingdom that is clearly just made up by the author and not official, the map of Hyrule included in the comic is COMPLETELY wrong and is basically an inaccurate combination of the maps of the first two games, the events of Zelda II have happened except they have also not happened because he fights Iron Knuckle for the first time again (in the wrong Palace), and so on and so forth. It's not possible to mesh it with the games without a ton of fanon and it's clearly no different from the cartoons in terms of it's place in canon, even if it does make a slightly better attempt at fitting in. Not only that, but I doubt the comic even existed outside America. 18:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the only reason the Valiant comics are ambiguously canon is because a couple of years ago, there was a member (Alter, to anyone who remembers) who was pretty much the only one working on adding the content to the wiki, and really the only one who cared. He was pretty bent on defending its status as ambiguously canon, and I guess back then no one really cared too much about the subject to actually do something about it, so it just stayed. I'm all for moving down their status to Non-canon, though. --Dany36 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was entirely Alter's doing. Given the direct contradictions to the games, there's no way it can be canon. I'm all for labeling it as such. 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can think of explanations for a few of the things Fizzle mentioned, but if you guys want to, you can classify them as non-canon. They're asynchronous in enough ways that their place in the Zelda timeline seems nonexistent—at the best, rather marginal. Linebeck IV 23:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Additions
Captain N: The Game Master, Scribblenauts Unlimited, Barcode Battler II, Captain Rainbow, Nintendo Land, and Tekken Tag Tournament 2: Wii U Edition should all be added under "non-canon". should probably be added to ambiguously canon. I know I have called ambiguously canon because we don't know that it's not, the fact that it was developed by Nelsonic on a non-Nintendo LCD device and the storyline makes no sense or difference to the res of the universe, I think it could probably just be taken as non-canon. Also, maybe add game manuals as a canon source? -- Snorlax Monster  15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Although, I'm not convinced Scribblenauts and Tekken should even have a place on the wiki outside Cameos of The Legend of Zelda. It occurred to me that we could ship the articles off to Nintendo Wiki, they'd probably be interested in having them. But I digress. 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Scribblenauts seems a bigger deal than Tekken as the actual characters appear, Tekken is just costumes. But I've not played it yet so I'm not clear on the details. But it seems possibly slightly bigger than a cameo, especially if they're playable. Tekken is in the same situation as the Dynasty Warriors costume cameo and seems on a similar level to the cameos in the upcoming Animal Crossing, probably shouldn't have a page unless those ones do as well. 16:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scribblenauts has quite a few Zelda characters and objects actually appear in it. If someone can get their hands on the sprites, or if anyone actually has the Wii U version, we would be able to get more information about the game up. Tekken probably doesn't need an article since they are purely costumes, but maybe list "Other cameos" (grouping them all together like that) as non-canon as well. -- Snorlax Monster  07:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, list all these games as "Cameos" in the non-canon part of the content page, then link to a page of cameos where we go into detail about the appearance of Zelda characters in said games.
 * This brings up the matter of organization in this wiki and how we classify things as canon. In my opinion—once again—we should try and cooperate with other wbesites on what is and what isn't canon. I know a major restructuring is a massive pain, but I'm beginning to think it's necessary.
 * And if you do decide that you want a Scribblenauts Unlimited article, as a huge fan of the Scribblenauts series, I would be happy to oblige. My school break ends tomorrow, though, so I'm not sure how timely I could be. Linebeck IV 12:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, but you already have articles. Well, if we decide not to merge them, I'll get to work on Scribblenauts Unlimited. Linebeck IV 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Remakes
Is the content of remakes taken as a higher form of canon (e.g. retcon), or is it the original game that is canon? Things like, is the mirrored world of Wii Twilight Princess canon, is OoT Master Quest's Hyrule canon rather than the original's, is it the Shard of Agony that Link found in OOT3D rather than the Stone of Agony, are Link's Awakening DX's Owl Statues scattered through Koholint Island or is it Stone Slabs, are FS Anniverasy Edition's Hero's Trial and Realm of Memories canon? On a related note, are Second Quests ever considered canon? -- Snorlax Monster  14:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, then remakes are considered to take precedence over the originals, whereas Second Quests are always non-canon. The Realm of Memories, on the other hand, is a trickier question. (Make sure that you verify this with a staff member before you edit anything.) Linebeck IV 15:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that remakes (OoT3D over OoT) are considered higher canon then originals, but the originals are still canon. This may only apply to names; as the Cursor Fairy is surprisingly considered non-canon, which seems to say that the Wii version of TP is Non-canon. 15:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the content in question. About the maps, HH shows the original OoT map and the GC TP map, which were those considered to be canon before the release of the book. The stages from the Realm of Memories are not mentioned in HH. Regarding stuff like the owl statues or the Stone of Agony I guess the newer games can take precedence. Basically, we have to look at each case separately.. Zeldafan1982 18:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Linebeck IV 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A specific case of remakes taking prestidence that comes to mind is ALttP GBA. It uses more consistent terms like Sages, and many of the new mechanics were reused in ALBW, like Rupee Rocks.Hwrdjacob (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Undecided Issues
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the issues discussed in the three topics above Remakes never reached a resolution and/or were never followed up with actions. We should really remedy this. Linebeck IV 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. The   and    tags will have to be changed on all the individual articles.  22:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, boy. That sounds like fun... :P Linebeck IV 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, do you want to recolor the templates and/or arrange things in a certain order? Linebeck IV 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well styling the templates is a separate issue that would be handled from the template pages themselves. As for order, I don't think that needs to change... Not quite sure what you mean by that. 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As in, alphabetical order, chronological order, etc. But it isn't necessary. And by the way, thanks! Linebeck IV 01:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are the BS-X games labeled as "Ambiguously Canon"?
Didn't Hyrule Historia confirm that they aren't canon? - Dere 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The games are briefly mentioned on page 237. They didn't try to fit them into the timeline, but that's no change. They still don't conflict with the canon storyline (as far as I know). 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Canon or Non-canon?
Here's what's been bothering me for a bit. I was looking over the Hyrule Historia's "Downfall Timeline" section (or "Game Over", if I recall.) And 5 games take place during this timeline. Now, as it is pretty much impossible for such a timeline to exist (you can simply retry until you eventually defeat Ganon in OoT), Wouldn't that make the following games non-canon?:

The Legend of Zelda

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons/Ages


 * The Zelda series is not based around a player being able to restart after getting a game-over. In context of the series, Link does not have the ability to retry that final battle. Essentially, the timeline splits (particularly the Downfall Timeline) run on the many-worlds interpretation, which means those games are indeed canon. All timelines are canon, just alternate canons branching from a center, parent canon.
 * By the way, please remember to sign your signature with four tildes ( ~ ). 23:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A Link Between Worlds
Don't forget to add to the canon list. This page is protected and I'm a classic member so, I can't do it.


 * Done. Thanks for spotting it! 08:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hyrule Warriors
We're starting to learn a bit more about the game, and for the sake of clarity I think we should assign its canon-status. After all, it can always be changed when the game is out.

Since there's no evidence (as far as I know) to suggest is non-canon, I suggest we label it as "ambiguously canon" until we know for sure whether the game conflicts or not with established events.

What do ya'll think? 19:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the December 18th Nintendo Direct, Iwata stated that it wasn't going to be a Legend of Zelda installment (that much is obvious at this point, anyway). But neither are the Tingle games or, yet we consider those ambiguously canon.
 * I think labeling Hyrule Warriors as ambiguously canon would be appropriate. 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, all that was said was that it won't be part of the core franchise. When we look at other series, like Metal Gear, we see that not being part of the core franchise does not mean non-canon (Metal Gear Rising). All that we can say is that it is not part of the core franchise, we have no information to rightfully judge if it is or is not canon yet. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: It makes more sense if that comment was to tell the people that Hyrule Warriors is not the Zelda U game that is being worked on. This means that we cannot determine if it is or is not canon, we can only tell that it is not part of the core franchise (which, if memory serves me right, the Four Swords games were not part of the core franchise either, yet they are canon). In order to make a more accurate decision we have to wait. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is the game listed as non-canon then an not ambiguously canon? Also wy is the Tingle series listed as ambiguously canon, it contradicts the other games.--LordM (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The game has been listed as non-canon because of the recent Aonuma interview and overall community consensus, which have been covered in the discussion that you were present for.
 * Also, please specify how the Tingle games contradict the canon. 16:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Eiji Aonuma states Hyrule Warriors exists in a different dimension from the Hyrule Historia split timelines. HOWEVER, the Hyrule Warriors dimension does OFFICIALLY pull characters from those timelines, so it can be considered ambiguously canon. The characters who took part in the event and returned to their timelines probably retain memories of the event. (Article:  ) --Webmetz (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tri Force Heroes
I think it's time to establish where Tri Force Heroes falls, regarding canonicity. Currently, there are two quotes, which I'll share. "Where is Triforce Heroes in the Zelda timeline? That’s a tough question. The Zelda timeline is "complicated" and if you look at the history of Zelda you will see there are three branches. I can’t really designate which one of those branches we’re looking at, but as far as the design itself, we looked to Link Between Worlds. But it’s not – as far as a timeframe – it’s not before or after. We haven’t really settled on that."

- Hiromasa Shikata

This quote establishes that they haven't really considered TFH to have a place in the timeline. "It really depends on what the developer has in mind for the franchises. Sometimes you have Zelda sequels and what we have today with Zelda: Triforce Heroes is completely different and not in the timeline of Zelda. So, it really depends on what the developer has in mind and what they propose."

- Julie Gagnon

And this quote (from a later point than Shikata's statement) shows that Nintendo does not consider TFH to fall in the timeline at all. So then, I say that Tri Force Heroes isn't canon, because it doesn't take place in the timeline. Thoughts? 09:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who Julie Gagnon is and don't know how high-up in Nintendo she is. Hiromasa Shikata, the game's director, indicates that at E3 they hadn't decided about where in the timeline it fits in (which I'd like to extend to the possibility that it may not be in the timeline at all, in light of this new evidence). This certainly merits at least tagging the game as "Ambiguously Canon", but I'm not comfortable taking the word of a Nintendo employee who does not appear to be involved in the game's development over the director saying they haven't decided yet. It's possible that at some point during E3 they decided that the game is not going to be in the timeline, but I doubt they would do so and in such a way that Julie Gagnon would definitively know. -- Snorlax Monster  09:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Kasuto found this interview with Julie Gagnon where she is asked her role at Nintendo. This is her answer which I've translated as best I can:
 * "I am in charge of all the media relations for Nintendo Canada in Quebec. I am also the francophone spokesperson for Nintendo Canada."

- Julie Gagnon


 * So apparently she's the top French-speaking PR person for Nintendo of Canada. That said, I don't think one statement from Gagnon isn't enough to say definitely that the game isn't canon. It would take some kind of confirmation from someone else at Nintendo. "Ambiguous canon" seems like the prudent approach until we know more.
 * Personally I don't see the point in trying to decide a canon status right away. The fact that it's a future game already implies that a lot of things about the game are "ambiguous." 11:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Smash bros
super smash bros for 3ds and wii u is not in the table. --0551E80Y (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just added the game to the table. Thanks for the heads up. 07:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo Land
Nintendo Land does not contain Zelda characters, just Mii's dressed up as Zelda characters. So I think it should be removed from the table as the question "is it canon" makes no sense in the first place. Might as well list Animal Crossing: New Leaf. Com BOY (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo has said BoTW has no timeline placement, yet it's canon. Thus Hyrule Warriors should be considered canon too.
Nintendo has said BoTW has no timeline placement, yet it's still canon. Thus Hyrule Warriors should be considered canon too. Hyrule Warriors was said to not be a part of the main timeline, but happening in an alternate universe. Breath of the Wild could very well be the same case. We should revamp the canon policy.

"Actually, those timeline-related questions are difficult because we’ve never designed any Zelda games by saying “hey, we’re going to put that game here, we need to have it fit into this period or that one, etc.” That’s not what comes first for us. But indeed, once the game is released and we’ve been able to develop our story, we can tell each other “oh yes, we can make it fit here”, but that’s not important to us. Especially since there could be contradictions in every new game if we tried to follow the timeline. If we can put a game in the timeline, that’s great, but as for Breath of the Wild, we haven’t really decided where it belongs for now.", Eiji Aonuma - http://nintendoeverything.com/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-devs-on-why-heros-path-mode-was-added-as-dlc-timeline-more/

Editorguy117 (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll let someone else answer that as I'm not a reference for the canon policy, but in the meantime I can tell you that, Hyrule Warriors is not a The Legend of Zelda game. That is, I think, 99% of the reason for it being non-canon on here. MannedTooth (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)\


 * Eiji Aonuma has previously confirmed that occurs after Ocarina of Time so while it has no definitive placement on the Timeline, it still occurs somewhere on the Timeline.  Hyrule Warriors does not occur anywhere on the Timeline and therefore will never be canon. Also, as a note, the inclusion of The Legend of Zelda, Zelda or Zeruda no Densetsu has no real bearing on what is considered canon by the Wiki. It just happens to be that other than The Adventure of Link, all games that have been placed on the Timeline or confirmed to be somewhere on the Timeline have had The Legend of Zelda in the title.  17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Eiji Aonuma said that while Hyrule Warriors isn't a main story Zelda game, it still does exist in the Zelda Universe as an alternate dimension. With currently not being a part of the main timeline, and existing on a plane without being intigrated into the timeline yet retaining canon; Hyrule Warriors being on it's own timeline could retain canon too.Editorguy117 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * But Hyrule Warriors does take place after Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword in it's own alternate dimension/timeline. This is evident by the plot where they open portals to said eras of Hyrule's past. It's no different than, which takes place after Ocarina of Time, but has no current place in the timeline either. , like Hyrule Warriors, is currently not a part of the main timeline (as of now it's currently not part of main timeline at all, Aonuma doesn't even know where it would fit). Editorguy117 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia and canon
For those that don't have a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia, it has a section near the back of the book titled "Still More Legends" briefly covering the non-core Zelda titles. This section is further divided as such:

- Spinoff titles: These games are referred to as "spinoff games set in the Zelda universe" and that they "do not necessarily have a place on the core timeline but are still set in the same world". Covered in this section are the Zelda Game & Watch game, the Satellaview titles BS The Legend of Zelda and Ancient Stone Tablets, and. Also under this section as "Special Editions and Rereleases" are Ocarina of Time Master Quest, The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition, Four Swords Anniversary Edition and (oddly enough) My Nintendo Picross. Zelda amiibo figures are also mentioned in a separate box in this section.

- Appearances in other games: These are noted to be "games set in other universes". Covered here are the Super Smash Bros. games, Soulcalibur II, Sonic Lost World, Mario Kart 8, and the Hyrule Warriors games. The Tingle games are covered in their own section here similar to the "Special Editions and Rereleases" section above.

- Even more games: This is just a quick list of various other titles Zelda characters and elements have cameoed in. Far too many to list, but if I say it includes games like Super Mario RPG, various WarioWare titles, and Skyrim it should give you an idea of what's included.

Now my question is does this impact the canon policy? If nothing else, I think this indicates the Tingle games should be demoted to non-canon. I would also argue the "set in the same world" could imply that everything in the "spinoff titles" section could be promoted to full canon status. Bardtard72 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Encyclopedia, how much of it can we even consider canon? The creators of the game’s were not as closely involved in its creation as they were with the other books. Some of it even appears to contradict what they themselves have said. The timeline change was confirmed by the official site, but the rest is questionable. Toolen22 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Toolen's question has been answered here. Please do not start up the same conversation in multiple places. TriforceTony (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)