Talk:Zelda Timeline/Archive 3

Speculation
It should be noted that, as of now, speculation should be kept to a minimum on this page, and any of it should be placed in a speculation section. I address this issue because a simple speculation made in the 'Defeat of the Hero': The Downfall timeline has caught my attention. Within this section of the article, it is supposed that Link, the Hero of Time, despite his best efforts, was defeated by Ganondorf in the final battle. Now, though it may be true that the newly revealed timeline does state Links defeat, it is never suggested, as far as I know, that it occurred during the final battle. This detail may seem futile, but it is truly quintessential to understanding the back story to A Link to the Past. I say this because, as this source would seem to point out, http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z3translation/z3_manual_story.html, this does not concord with the initial premise of the Japanese version of the later game. Some may argue that retcon has been employed, but it seems to me the triple timeline split was put in place to avoid such retconing. It would therefore be preferable to simply say Link was defeated in Ocarina of Time without specifying when. It seems speculation would actually point to him never getting a piece of the Triforce and the Master Sword, placing his demise during his childhood years. If any source points to Link being defeated during the final battle, please let me know, but as of now I have not seen evidence of that premise. Hiimvince 15:10, 14 January 2012 (EST)
 * You can look it upon here. I will add a ref in the page. Zeldafan1982 16:30, 14 January 2012 (EST)
 * It does seem Nintendo retconed the backstory of A Link to the Past a bit. Thanks for the link.Hiimvince 16:41, 14 January 2012 (EST)
 * Hyrule Historia says that Link is defeated after Ganondorf kidnaps Princess Zelda, but before he transforms into Ganon. There are no other specific details.Password 17:24, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Official timeline in Hyrule Historia?
The recently published Zelda book, Hyrule Historia, seems to have an official timeline in it to end the discussions and theories. Anyways, here it goes:

Skyward Sword |             The Minish Cap |               Four Swords |             Ocarina of Time

This is the first part of the timeline. The interesting part is that according to the book, it splits not in two parts, but rather in three.

A means when the Hero of Time fails, B means the Child Timeline and C means the Adult Timeline.

Ocarina of Time |          -          /                       |                     \         A                        B                      C  A Link to The Past        Majora's Mask          The Wind Waker |                       |                      |    Oracle series         Twilight Princess      Phantom Hourglass |                       |                      |  Link's Awakening      Four Swords Adventures     Spirit Tracks | The Legend of Zelda | The Adventure of Link

What do you think? I guess this should be at least considered in the page. Thanks.

Sources: http://kotaku.com/5869993 /http://www.linkshideaway.com/QuickNews.asp?cmd=view&articleid=716 http://bbs2.ruliweb.daum.net/gaia/do/ruliweb/default/nds/84/read?articleId=649765&bbsId=G003&itemId=5&pageIndex=1

--Zelda Fan 123 11:17, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 * This is all pretty fascinating, but I really think we need some proper translations. Some things need explanation before they make sense, namely the third split, and the placement of Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures (that hurts my brain, doesn't FSA directly refer to Link being the same Link?) and Zelda not recognising Link in the Oracle games (namely whether its the same Link or not). Most new translations are turning up here http://historyofhyrule.com. As far as I can tell, the timeline that Kotaku is running with is based on that single post on a Korean website with very little explanation. No scans are available yet. Until it turns up in the hands of reputable sources and actual events can be discussed (personally I have ordered one, but my knowledge of Japanese is very limited) I think its best to keep it off the page. Obviously once its translated, this whole page will need a rewrite.
 * Also, this may end up as nothing, but so far in the preview pages that HAVE been translated, the ordering of events is still very vague and could possibly be open to some interpretation. For instance, if the Oracle games happen to share the same page as ALttP and LA, that doesn't not necessarily mean that it comes between them.
 * Personally I'm liking the three split option as it means my beloved ALttP's backstory isn't messed about with too much. Always bothered me how Nintendo sort of forgot that OoT was a prequel to it. The failure timeline is full of win. Fizzle 14:04, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * I'm a bit confused about the "failure" timeline. How could ALttP happen if the events of the adult OoT weren't stopped? Wouldn't Ganon simply rule the universe? Wasn't OoT specifically made as a prequel to ALttP anyway, and now they're saying that only the first quarter of it is the prequel? Plus with the FS thing...this would make a lot more sense if FS and FSA were both moved to before ALttP, considering how close the events of FSA are to the reports of the Imprisoning War. Eh...having a third timeline solves a lot of the problems, but it isn't supported by the events of the game, either, so it sounds like they're opening the door for stuff like "This game is in a timeline where TP happened except nobody wore hats!" and other types of multiverse tomfoolery.KrytenKoro 15:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * I think, basically, they've realised that A Link to the Past was meant to be a sequel to OoT (and has always been stated as such), and also realised that OoT has two other sequels that don't mesh with it. Since TWW took up the place where ALttP was originally meant to go, and TP took up the other place on the child timeline, they needed to create a third option. Since the biggest discrepancy between the plot of OoT and the Imprisoning War is the actual "war" itself with the Knights of Hyrule and that Ganon got the whole Triforce, they needed to create a timeline in which this actually occurs. Of course, this is all just assumption. Exactly how this split occurs nobody knows. The word is that Link fails in the final battle with Ganon. This would lead to Ganon getting the Triforce of Power and Wisdom, hence having a complete Triforce, but then he is sealed in the Sacred Realm by the Knights of Hyrule and Seven Sages some time later (hence the Downfall of Hyrule as a chapter title). I can only assume these are different Sages than the ones in OoT.
 * So when they created OoT... it already had a "what if" ending. The ending is "what if there was someone to wield the Master Sword". The third timeline is that the Imprisoning War happens exactly as it was originally meant to. In that respect, Ocarina of Time already created a multiverse by being a different telling of the Imprisoning War. Whether this split is actually caused by some actual timeline tomfoolery we don't know. Lets wait and find out.
 * And yes, they possibly could of fit ALttP after FSA (especially if they're putting it after TP anyway), but that brings up its own issues. Fizzle 19:40, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * This timeline has been confirmed from [|this video], which has someone flipping through the book. The timeline is in a chart and elaborated upon in following pages. Ganondorfdude11 22:10, 22 December 2011 (EST)


 * Translated here. --KingStarscream 14:46, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * Well, since we have a lot of people considering adding the timeline, somebody must do it! I don't want to wait weeks until I have 200 edits to then make the move. --Zelda Fan 123 07:40, 28 December 2011 (EST)
 * I can start working on it now in Word, but it might take a while to get all of the "finer details" worked out in a readable, understandable fashion. I think I'm going to add the official timeline as a new section at the beginning and but the existing body as "Previous Theories" or some suchlike. Once I'm done I'll leave another post here. --KingStarscream 09:06, 28 December 2011 (EST)
 * EDIT: Well that was fast! I've got the revised page up over on User:KingStarscream/Zelda Timeline. The content page here is locked, so I'll have to pass it on to a mod to get it put it.  Also, let me know if there are any changes that need to be made to my draft. --KingStarscream 10:20, 28 December 2011 (EST)
 * The problem is that currently we don't know the details on how the HDT is created. I have the impression that it's not just a hypothetical scenario, rather it occurs in a parallel universe (as in the Many-worlds interpretation in quantum-physics). Also, the "hero's defeat" implies that Link fell in the battle. I think we should wait a bit more, until we have a translation of the relevant pages. Zeldafan1982 14:04, 28 December 2011 (EST)
 * Can't you understand? It has been translated over and over again! Even a guy showed the book itself and somebody translated that. --Zelda Fan 123 17:04, 28 December 2011 (EST)
 * I wasn't referring to the diagram. We have to know at which point the third branch is created. GlitterBerri has a small paragraph about that, but she says it is from an unofficial source. Thus far only four pages have been translated! Another source: Beno's translation. Also this thread. Zeldafan1982 19:01, 28 December 2011 (EST)
 * I corrected my edit to reflect the vagueness of the third timeline. I don't think it's really a requirement that we know how or when it happened, just that it did.  Nintendo says there's a third branch, BOOM, there's a third branch.  Them not explaining the details around it doesn't negate its existence. --KingStarscream 11:39, 29 December 2011 (EST)
 * Actually, I don't think Link just dies. You see, it's actually quite simple. There is an original timeline, let's call this one timeline A. On OOT, Link sets out for Hyrule Castle, meets Zelda and goes to the Temple of Time. When he takes the Master Sword out of the pedestal, he doesn't travel in time nor create any alternate timelines. He just sleeps for 7 years. After that, he meets Sheik and starts awakening the Sages. But at some point, when going to either the Spirit or the Shadow Temple, he needs to go back to his childhood (to enter the Spirit Temple's passage to the right or get the Lens of Truth on the Bottom of the Well). After putting the Master Sword on the Pedestal of Time, he time travels 7 years back in time and at the same time, returns to being a child. That's the beginning of the Adult Timeline, which we will call timeline B. Now here's the interesting part: Link is no longer on timeline A, so Ganondorf succeeds in his plan but the Sages stop him and imprison him (Imprisoning War). But from the point of view of someone from timeline A, Link failed/died in his quest. However, he just went from a timeline from another. Back to timeline B, Link awakens all other Sages and fights Ganondorf. He defeats him and Zelda sends him back to his childhood again. Zelda is left alone on this destroyed Hyrule from timeline B, but they eventually reconstruct it and the backstory of TWW happens. But what about Link? Well, he's not back to the childhood from timeline B. He's now on a third timeline, called the Child Timeline. The Master Sword returns to its correct place and Link goes to meet Zelda again. From the player's view, the game ends and there's nothing more, but in fact, Link tells Zelda of what Ganondorf is going to do to Hyrule. He also uses his Triforce of Courage to prove that everything is true, and the Royal Family decides to arrest Ganon before he does anything. Years later, the Sages use a white sword made by themselves to execute Ganondorf for his horrific plans. This Ganon didn't even get the Triforce yet, but according to developers, by some "divine prank", he actually has the Triforce of Power and survives, thus starting TP. I know this is long and all, but I tried to be as detailed as possible. --Zelda Fan 123 13:04, 29 December 2011 (EST)
 * (backing this up a few notches for space) That's my theory too, but it's only a theory. It's likely got to do with the return to childhood for the Spirit Temple, but we can't say for certain since it's not official.  Still, I stand by my statement that we don't need to know what caused the third branch to know it exists. --KingStarscream 15:42, 29 December 2011 (EST)
 * This translation link is no longer available. Kyro-Dizzy


 * The part I always have qualms with is that Majora's Mask and Wind Waker are on opposite sides of the timeline. The reason for this is that the backstory for Wind Waker clearly mentions the Hero of Time leaving Hyrule for another, unknown land. It's quite obviously referring to Termina. Wind Waker should most certainly have a tie to Majora's Mask. (Plus the fact that Majora's Mask and Wind Waker are abbreviated as MM and WW, respectively, which can be flipped to get the abbreviation for the other title. But that seems unlikely to be anything more than a fun fact.)
 * In addition, I believe that the key components to this timeline are the ones we know little or nothing about. There are very large and at the same time very small gaps for which we have no base. There is no backing for such events as the Sealing (Imprisoning) War. The information for this, which is detailed in A Link to the Past, must actually refer to the Era of Chaos, for the Sacred Realm was sealed in that time period. The implications of this are very interesting, for the Era of Chaos must take place eons before A Link to the Past. There is also the Golden Era, which implies that the Triforce is used by the Royal Family of Hyrule to give the land peace and prosperity. The problem then becomes that, in order to use the Triforce, the Royal Family must have some member with an unbreakable spirit, as Zelda says in Skyward Sword. This is highly unlikely, as I see it, for such a person must be very influential yet have a strong balance in their heart. The ideal person would be a descendant of Link, but he himself has no known connection to the Royal Family.
 * Thus far, I have mostly been examining the Decline Timeline to point out unvisited periods throughout the whole. But there is another interesting detail in it. The timeline is dubbed "Hyrule's Decline and the Last Hero." It is the second part that has caught my attention: "The Last Hero." The implication here is that, from A Link to the Past to Adventure of Link, there is no new hero. In other words, the Link in ALttP is the same one as in AoL. This is the first conclusion one comes to. It may, however, be a reference to the fact, learned from ALttP, that Link is likely the only remaining descendant of the Knights of Hyrule, who are, by their lineage, destined to become the hero of Hyrule that casts down Ganon. Still, we cannot rule out any possibilities, no matter how ludicrous they may seem. Kyro-Dizzy

The Timeline has Been Revealed!
I'm sure you've all heard that the new timeline has been revealed:

<--->(OOT) --> WW --> PH --> ST

SS --> MC --> FS --> OOT --> MM --> TP --> FS

<--->(OOT) --> ALTTP --> Oracles --> LA --> Zelda --> Zelda II                                           What do you think about this? And what about this page? I suggest we rework the page in to a "Zelda Timeline Theories" page and move all of the official statements plus the official timeline in to its own page as the "Zelda Timeline" page. That way timeline theorists can still read all of the theories if they want to create their own timeline. This can also work to help update the timeline in the future if a game's placement isn't revealed.

What do you think?

Lunertexcosmo 01:51, 23 December 2011 (EST)lunertexcosmo
 * Please don't expect users to comment as to their feelings on the matter of the timeline, as we are a wiki, not a forum. Every other question you pose pertaining to the article itself is fair game. Thanks! 13:54, 25 December 2011 (EST)
 * Please don't expect users to comment as to their feelings on the matter of the timeline, as we are a wiki, not a forum. Every other question you pose pertaining to the article itself is fair game. Thanks! 13:54, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Move
Now that the official timeline has been revealed, I would suggest moving this current article to an entirely different title (something like Zelda Timeline Speculation), and then make a whole new article about the confirmed timeline. I believe the official timeline is justified a separate article, as the 3-way split was explained in detail within the Hyrule Historia book, and having these two pages alongside each other would result in the page being too big. If you're looking for this information on the timeline, refer to here. Toast Ultimatum  07:40, 23 December 2011 (EST)
 * I agree. Maybe the move should wait until we can get scans from the book translated so that it can be more fully explained. Ganondorfdude11 02:46, 24 December 2011 (EST)
 * why not, i dunno, just delete all the speculation? the vast majority of the content on this page is nothing more than fanwank and folly now that nintendo has revealed what is "officially" canon and has no place on a website designed to inform people about this video game series. if people are unhappy that all their "hard work theorizing" has gone to waste then it's their own damn fault for spending too much time developing fanon that would inevitably be rendered false.Andross 07:16, 25 December 2011 (EST)


 * First off, Andross, if you do not curb your language, we may have to take consequential action on you and your account here on Zelda Wiki. This is a family-friendly encyclopedia; language like that has no place here. To see what you said, look in previous revisions (I deleted the word(s)). We can make room for the official timeline, but there will be by no means a full scale deletion of any such previous timeline content. It is important to this wiki and to the community that we preserve past information pertaining to both - as such, not ALL of this information will stay. I foresee a trimming of the speculative timelines to reflect only the ones with high evidence, timeline uniqueness, and general acceptance in the community (before the official release). Personally, I believe half of the fun in video games is theorizing and messing about with the franchise's "expanded universe": its the only way to continue the experience with a game you love without playing it! Stay civil everyone! 13:48, 25 December 2011 (EST)


 * of course speculating and whatnot CAN BE fun, but only when it doesn't contradict official information (in which case it becomes "this is how I want things to be" subjective narcissism or, in interwebz terminology, fanwank). if this new timeline is official--and by all accounts, it is--then any and all prior fan timelines will be rendered "what if this happened instead" fanfiction. why would one want that on a website that is meant to objectively inform individuals about this video game series, when it would only confuse readers/people new to the series instead? tl;dr when the official timeline is confirmed there will be zero acceptance of any speculative timelines and only nintendo's will be canon. Andross 14:49, 25 December 2011 (EST)
 * I agree that HH's timeline is the canonical one. Despite that, be assured that there will be fans who would stick (or create) to their own timelines if they think they make more sense. As long as the article is clear about what is official and unofficial (and the reason unofficial timelines still exist) I don't see how a reader could be misinformed. Zeldafan1982 15:13, 25 December 2011 (EST)

For the sake of completion and a reflection of the Zelda community's evolution, I think at least we should retain how the theorizing has changed over the course of the years. With each new installment, theories have changed to accomodate to the storyline of these newer games. The 2D Child, 2D Adult and 2D Split Timeline theories may not be canonical anymore, but they did have a strong influence over the gaming community and fans of the series in general. Overlooking this in favor of simply saying "now THIS is the timeline, n00bs, mwahahahaha!" is like disowning theories like Newtonian Mechanics just because Einstein came with a more complete theory, never mind the huge inspiration Newton and others like Galileo and Copernicus gave to the world of our ancestors. But hey, that's just me! -- 15:58, 25 December 2011 (EST)


 * I agree with the suggested move. Have the official timeline on this page with the relevant explanations, and add a link to the speculation page. State that these were the theories fan had made before the official one was released and BAM! Disaster averted. You have to remember that we are also a community wiki, and all these timelines have impacted the community long before Hyrule Historia came out. Maybe we can even explain what that impact was in detail. 16:08, 25 December 2011 (EST)

For the record, I'm a bit skeptical about this timeline, and I'm surely not the only one. Personally, I won't really believe it's the real deal until I hear Miyamoto or Iwata say so. However, if it is official, then our hands our tied. In any case, this is definitely a great opportunity to finally cut down on speculation in some of our other articles. I won't be surprised if we see a different version of the timeline released some time in the future, though. 15:28, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * According to GlitterBerri Aonuma is the supervising editor (link). Zeldafan1982 17:48, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * Either way, this is still a translation - we can see that it appears canonical, because Glitterberri is a respected translator in the community and that there are editing credits by higher-ups in Nintendo's EAD, but there still is no official English version. Haters are going to hate, and nay-sayers are going to nay, but we do need to leave a disclaimer on the new page for the "official" timeline that states something like this: "Although evidence points strongly in its favor, all information pertaining to the timeline sourced in Hyrule Historia is translated from the Japanese edition. An official English version does not exist at this time; there many be discrepancies in translation between the English and Japanese languages that may change the overall intent, structure, or perception of this information and/or timeline." Without this disclaimer, we make the mistake of all wikis that claim ultimate fact from translated material - we need to be able to cover ourselves in the event that an English version does arise with differing material, which it likely would. It's all about preserving the credibility of the wiki, while staying open in case there is some change to the information across regions. 17:56, 28 December 2011 (EST)
 * The likelihood of an official English release appears to be low at the moment, considering that there are no plans by Nintendo to translate the book. Ganondorfdude11 03:54, 31 December 2011 (EST)
 * Regardless of the likelihood of an English release, it is a comment that is necessary to keep us from making too many assumptions. As a wiki with biased and unpredictable user contributed material, we need to attempt to stay as honest and reputable as possible. 18:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)

"unconventional"
how is "gameplay first, story later" unconventional.

seriously, guys.

that's standard game design. the entire industry, save for a few exceptions like heavy rain, follows that philosophy. "story first, gameplay later" would be unconventional design whose only proponents would be writers and art majors who somehow think that being able to tell a good story is the same thing as being able to design a good game.Andross 07:16, 25 December 2011 (EST)
 * What we mean by "unconventional" is the speed at which Nintendo games, especially Zelda, throw the player into the action without a whole lot of introduction/dialogue, and continue to do so throughout the game. In this age, franchises like Mario and Zelda (excluding SS), generally keep dialogue to a minimum in favor of actual gameplay. Its a solid distinction to make - the argument can be made that, yes, that is standard game design in the general sense, but the speed and fullness at which Nintendo goes about it is indeed unconventional in today's gaming scene. It is a good point though, and a distinction in the article should be made. Good catch. 13:58, 25 December 2011 (EST)
 * I have to disagree with the part about minimal dialogue in SS. The intro section of the game involves an awful lot of UNSKIPPABLE dialogue, including the teacher telling you how to run up walls and jump gaps and stuff.  The cutscene at the beginning of the game is about 3 minutes of Link's nightmare followed by reading a letter.  After that, the whole "find your bird" thing involves a number of lengthy conversations. It keeps going from there. It's "gameplay first" only in the sense that it doesn't have a 20 minute introduction.
 * All of that said, I'm NOT complaining about it in the least because I enjoy the story behind SS, which explains a number of important plot points for the overall universe. Exposition is good.  But it's not all that different from other modern games anymore.  OoT invented the "video game as a movie" concept, but that was the last time it was truely unconventional. --KingStarscream 11:50, 29 December 2011 (EST)
 * I think the point is that the developers design all the gameplay first, THEN add the story elements later. I've often heard that design work in Zelda games usually begins with the dungeons, with overworld and story elements coming later. However, I don't think this is necessarily all that unconventional, depending on the game.
 * Also, I think people need to replay TP again, because if you thought SS the longest intro, you definitely aren't remembering TP that well. Yeesh. At least the text easy to skip through, but still. Man though, I miss ALttP's design of basically throwing you into the first dungeon straight away. I think a lot of people would be grateful for a more intergrated and less expositiony tutorial sequence. Getting off topic here though. Fizzle 09:05, 31 December 2011 (EST)
 * "Getting of topic here though"


 * Sorry, couldn't resist, mwahahahahahahaha!! Happy new year, everybody! -- 22:20, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Rename article to 'Chronology of the Legend of Zelda series'
Per Dany36's request, I wanted to discuss a move of this article from 'Zelda Timeline' to 'Chronology of the Legend of Zelda series'. Now that Nintendo has provided an official chronology for the series, I feel 'chronology' has a nicer ring to it, while 'Zelda Timeline' just kind of feels like it is still very fan-oriented. Mighty Dekunut 20:13, 4 January 2012 (EST)
 * I say it should stay. Since when does fans refer to the timeline as "chronology"? I know that the term is a bit more correct, but most people just call it the timeline. It's been like that for years now. The Goron Moron 20:15, 4 January 2012 (EST)
 * That is one of the reasons why I feel more comfortable with chronology. Fans refer to things like timeline. Nintendo (as was also used in the intro to the article) uses the word chronology. It is official now; no more (need for) fan interpretations. Mighty Dekunut 20:34, 4 January 2012 (EST)
 * I would gladly accept it. On the timeline page, it shows "The Chronology of Hyrule's History", so you may add my vote. --Zelda Fan 123 19:40, 6 January 2012 (EST)

It's not a model practice carry over support or opposition from other talk pages. If the original user wants to support something, he or she can come here and do it directly. Anyway, I disagree with the move. "Timeline" and "Chronology", while not exactly of same meaning, are hardly different for the usual Zelda terminology. -- 20:11, 6 January 2012 (EST)


 * I'm on the fence on this one. "Chronology of the the Legend of Zelda series" does sound more professional, but it's not nearly as effective a headline as "Zelda Timeline". Really, either title is equally accurate and both are used officially. In fact, I'm fairly certain the term "timeline" is used much more often than "chronology", by both fans and Nintendo officials, and all over the wiki. For the sake of consistency, I think the title of this page should reflect that. 20:58, 6 January 2012 (EST)


 * Yeah...I don't think there's much need to move the article to a new name. HK's right though, I'm pretty sure Aonuma himself has even used the word "timeline", so neither is more official than the other. Dany36 23:32, 7 January 2012 (EST)


 * There's a difference between an interview, and -my point here being- Hyrule Historia saying "this is the chronology of the Zelda series". Mighty Dekunut 00:57, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Scan of the timeline
Hey, we now got a direct scan of the timeline from the book. It's in Japanese, but I think we should replace the fan version with it and leave a link to GlitterBerri's version on the page in case somebody wants to look at it. Anyways, here it is: File:ZeldatimelineJapHH.png.. Should we add it to the article? --Zelda Fan 123 10:11, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * I don't think it should replace the one from GlitterBerri. Keep in mind that we are an American, English wiki, so putting up a picture full of text that most might not understand readers might not be the best idea, even if it's more official. In any case, I took the liberty of adding it to a gallery myself. Thanks for uploading it! "Picture of the Year" or what, eh? 11:36, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * My idea is to put the original one in the same place as the translated one, but only move it to the left (since there is already the Timeline template to the right). Then we could put a link to the translated one on the original's thumb or put the translated one on the gallery. --Zelda Fan 123 12:47, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * I think it makes more sense to have the translated one up top. Like I said, the vast majority of viewers at this wiki won't be able to read any of the text in the original Japanese picture. 15:28, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * Well, I'm ok with it being there, but it's not very pleasant to see something fan-made. Also, the credits on the top right aren't making the image any better... Maybe somebody with patience should make a perfect remake of the original page in English. --Zelda Fan 123 15:48, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * a perfect remake in English
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you not trust the translation? Or are you only bothered by the credits? Mighty Dekunut 18:15, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * I think the translations are perfect, the only thing that bothers me are the credits and a few mistakes, such as "The Dark Wold..." and a few missing info between Link's Awakening and Zelda I. --Zelda Fan 123 18:36, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * Finally! I wasted my whole afternoon doing this, but I have made a more accurate translation of the timeline. It includes the description, corrects any mistakes that are on the GlitterBerri version, adds the missing info and looks more like the book (I have also corrected a TLOZ artwork that was wrong). You can see it here: File:ZeldatimelineHHtranslation.png. --Zelda Fan 123 11:24, 6 January 2012 (EST)


 * That's great! Can you set the picture on the article? --9klas 18:06, 6 January 2012 (EST)


 * Unfortunately, no... I must have 200 edits to edit the article, which would be hard to do quickly. --Zelda Fan 123 12:03, 6 January 2012 (EST)

Timeline references and the importance of brevity
While adding legitimate, in-game and manual references are well and good, why aren't we adding translated references from Hyrule Historia itself? If I'm not mistaken, several fansites around the community have the many pages describing the timeline translated as well, references which would further confirm the chronology and the explanations we have here. Since its all translated material, and we have the disclaimer in the page's introduction warning of potential misinterpretation, it would work in the same vein to add text references straight out of Hyrule Historia. I am aware that ZeldaInformer is a great source of this translated information, as they've posted several connected pieces in the last week of so in respect to the book.

On another topic, we must keep sections describing the events of the games relatively short because they already exist is much detail on the games' actual pages. Redundancy is fine as long as it serves a tactical purpose - if we explain every single part of every game we will run the risk of dealing with an overgrown, unmanageable page that would take too much load time and potentially shut down some browsers. Let's keep the info brief, and make sure that the only information that goes in is relevant to the overall timeline. Thanks! 12:23, 6 January 2012 (EST)
 * For what I've seen so far, HH is helping users debunk/confirm theories already. Stuff like the Deku Butler's Son in MM and who Link was exactly looking for in that game, are now confirmed by the book, and the articles are now being updated accordingly to these confirmations. Let's give time to time itself. Over time, info will gradually embrace the newer confirmations and whatnot.
 * As for the information being added about the game's events, at least in my case, what I do is to pinpoint the direct nods of continuity between the games in the Timeline sections of the game articles. For example, in the section for the TWW article, there's information pertaining the direct connections with OOT, the Split Timeline, some translation issues, and then a brief description of the game's sequels (PH and ST). That's probably all that section needs to have for now, though it's always open for additions and changes. Not sure if this satisfies your requests, but it's something! -- 14:38, 6 January 2012 (EST)


 * As for exactly quoting pages of Hyrule Historia, I would suggest waiting for a complete translation. Now it's mostly bits and pieces, and without the context, and exact quotation can be tricky. That's why I've just referenced the pages and page titles for now.
 * I'll have a look if I have any ideas on the game stories. Mighty Dekunut 15:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

'Defeat of the Hero': The Downfall timeline
I'm just wondering where it has been said that this timeline splits from Link being "defeated by Ganondorf in the final battle." Is there anywhere that makes specific reference to _when_ he's defeated? The Kanji character that has been translated as "defeated" could also mean "fail," so it's still pretty in the game to blindly point out exactly where this defeat happened, or if it was a defeat at all. The back story of LttP doesn't even mention Link from OoT, but merely that the Sages were still searching for "a valiant person to take up the Master Sword" when Ganon's army broke forth form the Sacred Realm and they decided it was time to seal him up.

I suggest that the first sentence in this section should read (for the time being): The Downfall timeline is a scenario in which Link failed to prevent Ganon from entering the Sacred Realm.Clapointe 21:55, 6 January 2012 (EST)


 * Page 90 reads:
 * Title: The decisive battle against Ganondorf
 * First paragraph: However, Ganondorf, who had held Link under observation, kidnapped Princess Zelda and took her to the castle, and, in an effort to obtain the Triforce, lured Link to him. Once the Triforce of Power, possessed by Ganondorf, the Triforce of Wisdom that dwelt in Princess Zelda, and the Triforce of Courage that dwelt in Link became one, they would resonate together. Finally, the time had come to battle with Ganondorf.
 * Brown memo-box: This is where, if the Hero of Time, Link, is defeated, another timeline will unfold. Please turn to page 92.
 * Hope that clears things up for you ;) Mighty Dekunut 01:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)

Critic
There some points which HH completly ignored like the ganonconflict (how does Ganon live again in LoZ) andthe OoXproblem (OoX can#t place between AllTP and LA), so maybe we make a critic section? --Soran 09:30, 14 January 2012 (EST)
 * Ganon's appearance in LoZ can be explained via a resurrection (as in the Oracles). About the Oracles' placement, Zelda's line, is indeed contradictory, but a minor one (it is noted in the timeline section of the Oracles'). We can consider this line of dialogue to be retconned I guess. It's just a single line of dialogue really :) On the other hand, I agree that the timeline as a whole is not perfect, but I'm not sure if we should create a section for that. Zeldafan1982 11:27, 14 January 2012 (EST)
 * That sort of section would just be a magnet for negativity and sore feelings that already plague the theorizing boards. Ganondorfdude11 11:56, 14 January 2012 (EST)


 * A section for discrepancies sounds like a good idea to me. There seems to be plenty of them, it's not something we should just ignore. 12:10, 14 January 2012 (EST)


 * Even it's just one line, it's a big error. And it's not just the line from Zelda, Impa doesn't know him too.
 * The Ganonconflict is a point which was dicussion so often... So if they don't bring an answer, we can say here is a plothole (maybe a story for a new game?)
 * Other points are that OoT was confirm 1000000 times as the seal war (now Link is defeated ...) and FSA is now no longer a direct sequel to FS. Maybe that the trident never was used by the orginal Ganon in the children-timeline, but was referd as his wapon in FSA. There are some little points so the timeline doesn't fit perfect.
 * Have anyone some more points?--Soran 17:18, 14 January 2012 (EST)

If you watch the ending of a linked Oracles game, Link sails on his boat and goes on another journey. This fits perfecly with the intro of LA, which shows the boat, on the same angle, only that there is a storm. And Ganon? Maybe Twinrova revived him. Anyways, it's Nintendo's timeline. If Nintendo says Link is Zelda, Link is Zelda. If Nintendo says that's the timeline, that's the timeline. --Zelda Fan 123 13:30, 16 January 2012 (EST)
 * The official timeline is not as contradictory as some fans like to nit-pick it to be. It is actually very brilliant and clears up so many errors. For example, A Link to the Past ends with the full Triforce coming into the possession of the hero, the Oracles follows with him having left it in the possession of the Royal Family of Hyrule and the original games refer back to a time where the Royal Family had the full Triforce. Little things like one introductory line from Princess Zelda isn't a good enough excuse to say an entire timeline that the official developers had been putting together for many years is honestly that flawed at all. I have played the Oracles myself, and I do recall, when the games were linked, returning characters who met you in the previous game no longer recognised you. It's a silly continuity error within the games themselves. It should also be noted that A Link to the Past's manual had always said that Link travelled to foreign countries to begin some kind of task, so it always seemed obvious that the Oracles were made as its sequels. Besides, Ganon is dead, so it fits even better there. More good continuity in the official timeline is how Ganon becomes mindless in the Oracles and, when he returns in Zelda 1, is once again mindless. This can be seen as a result of what Twinrova did in the Oracles. As for how he came back in Zelda 1, Hyrule Historia said he was revived. The ones who revived him would be the same ones trying to revive him in Zelda 2. Other "errors" aren't errors at all and just an example of how more games can come between ones that have already been released. For all we know, between Twilight Princess and Four Swords Adventures will one day be a story involving what is left of the Mirror of Twilight being made into the Dark Mirror. The developers don't like to write themselves into a corner, so they keep gaps between the games and leave mysterious for future games to delve into. That's the way Zelda games and their associated storyline are made: out of order with gaps between, leaving room for interpretation and/or future games. Her Grace 19:52, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Not 'official'
Just want to say that a point could be made about this not truly be an official, canon timeline, but merely the timeline theory that Nintendo goes with. Zelda's always been about personal perspective, it's why they didn't release their timeline earlier. I think it's a valid point to make. Meganerd18 17:02, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 * Before the release of the timeline, they wanted, indeed, to leave the order of the games to the fans' imagination. Now that Nintendo released their timeline, the fan-created timelines are fanfics. Good fanfics maybe, but fanfics nevertheless. Since the timeline comes from the developers it's canon. I'm sorry, but this is the situation! Zeldafan1982 17:21, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 * I don't think it is. It's just how Nintendo goes by it. I doubt they would consider other timelines 'wrong', just not the ones they'd choose to go with. I for one don't go with Nintendo's because I disagree with it. Just cause it's the developer's timeline doesn't mean it's canon, it just means it's theirs. If they wanted to leave it to the imagination when they already had a timeline (which they did), then why does them releasing theirs change things in any way? And therefore why shouldn't it be noted? Meganerd18 22:09, 29 January 2012 (EST)
 * Meganerd, I fully understand what you're saying here, that this timeline perhaps is not truly 'official' and may just be one the higher-ups at Nintendo "go by" as they are looking at the Zelda series, just as a typical theorist does with theirs. While that idea is legitimate, the timeline is endorsed by a publication released officially by Nintendo, thus it is by nature an "official timeline" - sure, it may not be the official timeline of the series as you say, but an official one nonetheless, and we must cover it here as such. A note about your thought would be nice in the article to make completely sure that this timeline may not be the end all, be all, as you say - but overall, this must be covered as an "official" timeline. 22:30, 29 January 2012 (EST)
 * If they wanted to leave it to the imagination when they already had a timeline (which they did), then why does them releasing theirs change things in any way? Before the release of the timeline, one could argue that his/her timeline was what Nintendo might had in mind. In this sense, you couldn't outright call them fanfics. As a fan, you still have the right to create any fanfic piece you want (including a timeline), but the developers' timeline is the canonical one. You would be twisting the definition of canon if you denied that. Zeldafan1982 05:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)


 * Zeldafan I have to disagree. Just because it's released by a developer it doesn't mean it's Cannon. I can make a whole series, than release a game in the same universe and by my choice it's either canon, semi-canon or non-canon. It's the developers choice, this is essentially what Anouma thinks it is. Timelines are not "fanfic" they are just theories. Fan-fiction is a story that takes place in the universe of the said series(games, books, movies et cetera), that is non-canon because it's made by fans. A timeline has no fiction because it has no story, and a fiction, needs a story. Thus Timeline= Theory. Steahl 13:13, 25 February 2012 (EST)
 * Aonuma didn't say that HH is non-canon though. Here's a quote from HH by Aonuma: Chapter 2, “The Full History of Hyrule,” arranges the series in chronological order so it’s easier to understand, but from the very beginning, Zelda games have been developed with the top priority of focusing on the game mechanics rather than the story. There are many fans who are disappointed with the official timeline, but that doesn't make it non-canon. Zeldafan1982 16:27, 25 February 2012 (EST)

I understand your point, but I think because this is should be treated as Semi-Canon, until further notice. There is always a possibility that Aonuma will retract his "statement", I think this goes against what Nintendo wanted in the 2000s, for the Fans to decide for themselves. I am not saying it's non-canon. I am saying that there is nothing to say it is or isn't. Thus Semi-Canon, I think it strange that no one else from Nintendo said if it was Canon. I don't think we should retract everything just, perhaps leave a note? I don't know something about it doesn't feel quite official to me. Steahl 17:00, 26 February 2012 (EST)
 * Well they did leave a lot of things to our imagination! Look at the last edit I made in the page and you'll see what I mean. In this way, 1) they can change things, 2) let us interpret a lot in our own, 3) bypass potential inconsistencies (maybe not all, but certainly a lot) since they can be attributed to the actual events being distorted as they are passed down. Essentially not everything in HH is canon, save for the main events. Zeldafan1982 18:01, 26 February 2012 (EST)


 * Sorry Zeldafan but, you left me confused... Is your opinion that it's Canon, Semi-Canon or non-Canon Steahl 18:14, 26 February 2012 (EST)
 * I believe that the order of the games and the main events within the games and overall in the timeline are canon, but a lot of things are left to our imagination and thus can not be considered canon. For example, I find a little odd that TWW Link acquired the pearl from Jabun without any trial or that LoZ Link didn't wield the MS.. or that OoT Link left for Termina without helping (again) the Gorons and the Zora, so I could give a different interpretation on what actually happened. I'm quoting from page 68: Because what is being spun is the flow of history right up until the end of time, we wish for you to touch true adventure with your own hands and try to ascertain it for yourself. [...] This chronology is not limited to information that is currently confirmable. It also contains much that is unclear. The history of Hyrule is known to change with the times and the person telling it, and will continue to unfold. Even if none of the important points waver by much, new legends will continue to be born and history may yet be rewritten. Zeldafan1982 20:26, 26 February 2012 (EST)

WHAT!!!? Link staying in Ordon Village!?
"Link returns the Master Sword to the forest and heads home to Ordon Village" pg 118, Hyrule Historia That is soooo weird, because in the actual game he doesn't stay in Ordon Village, he rides away from there (with Epona), while Ilia was witnessing his leaving! In the game he doesn't seem coming back, he seems to be riding away from Ordon!! I think there must be a mistake or some mistunderstanding! Check and analyze better the ending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgp8K9GiZ74 (EXPANSION AND HD)

Watch it from 0:01 until 1:14. The rest is just pure speculation about Link's fate. Do someone agrees with me? Should we list this error/mistundertsanding in this wiki? --Isamisa 11:33, 11 February 2012 (EST)


 * Actually, it's true, no matter what. After putting the Master Sword back, Link returns to Ordon Village. Afterwards, he is seen riding away from it on Epona. He can't ride away from it without going there first :P Anyway, I don't think it's too important to list 12:50, 11 February 2012 (EST)

But still later, Link rides away and doesn't stay... Please, I would be really happy if we add it to the Timeline Zelda page! Please, I beg you! We could add: ...."but the book forgot to mention that at final Link in fact doesn't stay and rides away from Ordon Village (equipped with just his shield), while Ilia was witnessing Link's leaving from his hometown". or something similar Please! --Isamisa 15:29, 11 February 2012 (EST)


 * How do we know that Link didn't simply leave Ordon and come back again later? Riding away =/= leaving forever. Cheesedude 11:53, 13 February 2012 (EST)

I don't know but if Nintendo would've wanted to show the players that Link was "returning" home, it would be more logic to show him returning to the village, not leaving it at the end of the game. --Isamisa 17:28, 13 February 2012 (EST)

"Decline" Timeline
I've noticed most articles that include timeline data refer to the first split as the "decline" timeline, but I was wondering if this is really that accurate a name. After all, this era contains the Golden Era of Hyrule, presumably the most prosperous era in the history of the series. Not only that, but it seems that the decline really only applies to the very first game, where Hyrule is small, weak, and overrun by Ganon, but in Zelda II it is seemingly bigger than any other game and seems to be restoring itself (in six short years no less). Is the "decline" term really official in any way? Do any of the three splits actually have official names of any kind or have we just assumed names? If so, then I think a rename might be in order really, it seems misleading. 10:47, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Twinrova
A discrepancy some people have noticed is that Twinrova was defeated by the adult Link in Ocarina of Time, yet they return in Ocarina of Ages and Ocarina of Seasons. My guess is that since they show up in the timeline where the hero has failed, it must mean that Link has failed BEFORE actually defeating Twinrova. And the quote about him challenging Ganondorf but ultimately being defeated does not state anything about him being defeated in the FINAL battle, like the article says. I propose a change to at least reflect that he must've died at one point before defeating Twinrova instead of during the final battle. Dekler 05:41, 22 June 2012 (EDT)


 * As shown, Hyrule Historia specifically states that Link is challenging Ganondorf after he obtains the Triforce of Power. This means two things: It is after Link becomes an adult, and that the battle does not take place until Link challenges him in Ganon's Tower, because it's the only time where they clash under the first condition.
 * Now, it is canon that even the antagonists can be reincarnated (that is, reborn), like the Ganon in Four Swords Adventures or revived, like in The Adventure of Link or in and . It's just as (or even more) likely that either could have happened to Twinrova following her defeat.
 * Also, it's "Oracle" (of Seasons/Ages) not "Ocarina". :P 09:34, 22 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Also, it's "Oracle" (of Seasons/Ages) not "Ocarina". :P 09:34, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Hyrule from the Adult Timeline, along with the Sacred Realm, had already been turned into a world of evil, also known as the Dark World, as stated in Ocarina of Time and The Wind Waker. If that already occur, then Adult Link would have defeated Ganon and save Zelda and the world. But in the Downfall Timeline, it is said that after the defeat of Adult Link, Ganon now had turned the Sacred Realm into the corrupted Dark World, not before Link was awaken as the Hero of Time like he did in the Successful Timeline (Adult Timeline). Which means the two split timelines of the Adult Era occured once Link took the Master Sword and the Hero of Time from the Downfall Timeline probably didn't slept for 7 years, which support the Seven Sages theory which are all Wise Men instead. And the adventure of the Hero of Time from the Downfall Timeline is completely different from Ocarina of Time.--Prince Ludwig 14:13, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Unification War
The "Unification War" or "Hyrulean Ciil War" is not mentioned as being a precursor event to the era of the hero of time. Furthermore, this seems to be replaced with an overly embellished war among gorons and zoras... --DarkKunai 01:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)


 * With the release of Hyrule Historia, this article was basically rewritten from scratch, and rather recently. So it may have quite a few flaws; you are by all means encouraged to hit the "edit" button and try to deal with them as you see fit. This is, after all, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. :) 09:26, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Indeed, that part about the Zoras and Gorons isn't canon. Maybe this was mentioned in the manga? Anyway. HH does place the civil war though in the Hero of Time era (on page 84). Zeldafan1982 14:19, 14 July 2012 (EDT)