Talk:Hylian Cosmology

the elemental association and most associations concerning the three godesses are actually interchangeable. allow me to explain. though the three are not the same individual, you can say somthing about one, it can just as easily be said about others.

Kingfisher 07:30, 11 January 2007 (CST)


 * But by "associations" we mean thse worldy things most commonly associated with the the particular diety in the seires. Taking Din, for example; In OOT, the magic that bears her name is Din's Fire; In tWW, Din's Pearl is the reward for completing the "Fire Temple"; and in TP, the principle dungeon of Eldin is, again, the Fire dungeon. In this mannor, each diety is consistently associated with a single element, a single color, a number of races, etc. -PIE

Multiple Timeline Theory Refute
I don't understand why you can be so presumptious about the Multiple Timeline Theory. Nothing ever "proves" that there are two timelines; in fact, there very well may not be. "The Legend of Tingle", an Easter Egg in tWW, includes information from Majora's Mask, telling the story (presumably about "Tingle's Freshly-picked Rose-colored Rupee Land") of how Tingle went from being a 35yr old man who wants to be a fairy and sells maps in Termina to being a true fairy and having his own island and services in The Wind Waker.


 * There are a number of possible compensaions for "The Legend of the Fairy". Most simply, in 'Tingle's Frachly Picked' Tingle aquires the ability to universe warp. An immortal multiverse traveler, the guy can be anywhere in the timeline he choose. Secondly, the classic argument, the entire affair may be an eastegg; it is comical in nature and, as it requires a peripheral system to obtain, may have never been intended as a part of the storyline. Finally, there are a number of crazy multiverse theories which allow passage from the child to adult timelines by way of a single timeline Termina.

If there were multiple timelines, then Tingle's entire backstory would be a plot hole. Just because a Nintendo official says that there are multiple timelines doesn't mean there are. Nintendo once stated that Link's Awakening happens in the middle of The Adventure of Link, as he's crossing the sea; while popular belief is that it is the sequel to Triforce of the Gods (in fact, many reference point to that, see Oracle Confusion).


 * In was an NoA official, not a Nintendo official, who made the comment. A developer certainly has more authority than a salesman, and the fact of the mannor is that TP makes perfect sence in the context which Mr. Aonuma suggests. This theory was popular long before it received developer support, beause, frankly, all other possible TP placements suck (or scre up wind waker placements).


 * It's still an official statement, from an official who places gameplay first plot second. It really only means so much, even though he's an important person. The game has to decide. But it doesn't matter that his statement "makes sense" given TP. So what? A lot of things can make sense, that doesn't mean it's what we should do. It only makes it credible, not right. The theory itself was indeed popular before TP, but not until after OoT and MM. It gained ground with the release of WW, but it still doesn't matter. It's all speculation, maybe official speculation. But it's still up to us whether we want to accept it or not. I don't have to do anything just because Aonuma says so, or even if the entire community says I should. trueedge 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At another point, Nintendo officials have said that first Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask occur; then Twilight Princess occurs a couple hundred years later, then the flood a couple hundred years after that, then The Wind Waker and The Phantom Hourglass a couple hundred years after that. In addition, the Twili are referenced in the Earth Temple in The Wind Waker; if there was no memory of the Twili's invasion, then the Temple wouldn't have included a giant statue of a Twilit Monster.


 * Erm, I'm not exactly sure what your talking about but I somehow doubt Nintendo had the foresight to include a Twili moster in tWW. Even if they did, your ignoring the main design purpose of TP. Timeline wasn't anywhere near as much of a consideration as past reference. Aonuma has specifically sated that TP contains many references to games with which it shares no story point, simply to enhance the underlying consistancys in the series. (The star game man, the picture of OOT's fisherman, and the comments on the Zora King are all good examples which Aonuma specifically points out for our benefit)

In addition, Ganondorf's sealing in the Twilight Realm is the alternate story to Ganondorf's sealing in the Evil Realm at the end of Ocarina of Time. He still had to be hunted down after Link told everyone about what Ganondorf was planing to do, and then the Sage spirits sealed him away. These spirits are not proof that there are two continuous timelines; nor are the pictures of the alternate timeline Sages in the Master Sword chamber of Hyrule Castle in tWW. The Sages as seen in Twilight Princess could mearly be the phantoms of the spirits that once existed alongside Rauru in the ancient past. Also, the Sages of Ocarina of Time must return at somepoint; even if they are not awakened by the end of Ocarina of Time's child timeline, they still hold the power of the Sages within them, and may reappear if Nintendo ever returns back to finish the tale of the Hero of Time (he still hasn't found Navi yet, even though that was his entire motivation in MM - at least until he found out about the impending Apocalypse).


 * And your point is? No, the Light Spirits and the sages do not prove a Doublt Timeline, neither do they, in any way, contradict it. Most of this paragraph is just random assumption, no proof for any specii side. The developer's expression of intent proves the Double Timeline. It seems to me like your picking out little, irrelevant points to attack a rather simple and straight forward big picture.
 * Every book, movie and story has little anochronisms, and there is no reason the the Zelda series should be any different, but the overall story makes perfect sence the way that the writers say it should make sence. Don't sweat the details dude.

-all comments by PIE, who wonders, as a point of interest, where, if at all, you discuss the timeline on the web...

Nayru, Associated Element?
If Din has always been associated with Fire, and Farore with Wind, then why does Nayru suddenly lose Water as her associated element to Time? Is this because some people associate the "Goddess of Time" that Zelda mentions in MM to Nayru? Or am I missing something else that was said in the series?

By the way, I'm completely new to this and have zero idea if I'm doing this correctly.


 * Don't worry, you're doing it just fine (although be sure to end each one of your posts on a talk page with  ~ , as this signs your posts automatically). As for your question, I have no idea why people keep associating Nayru with the Goddess of Time. It's not likely that there's a reference in Majora's Mask that I missed (it is my favorite game of all time, after all)... maybe whoever wrote that part of the article could elaborate? I just remembered that the oracle Nayru IS the Oracle of Ages (and therefore, controls time), so... makes sense. Ando 10:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)


 * Ok. I was just checking into it because at the moment I'm looking at the Legend of Zelda from a literalist's point of view.  And had Nayru literally been shown as something different in one of the games I would've been very confused.  I'll need to play through the Oracle games once again though.  It seems to be the key to my study at the moment.  In particular Zelda's actual role in the game.  Maybe I'll learn to edit my profile page and talk about it there.  lol  UndrDog 17:18, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Re: Multiple Timeline Refute
Lots of interesting things in this article and on this discussion page. I have to add some comments. I've made 8 videos on YouTube discussing the Zelda Timeline theories (username: trueedge2097). I'm an old-school linearist, and I believe the games can still fit into that single chronology. But I do give credence to the splitist view. It does seem practical with the newer games on the market.

But I believe our authority needs to be in the games themselves, not in developer statements. Nintendo places the priority on gameplay rather than plot. So any game's placement in the timeline always come at least secondary. To fix this, we have to change the production process, and that's not happening anytime soon. So any statement (even from Aonuma and Miyamoto) has to be taken with a grain of salt. We must admit that there problems with any timeline theory, even the split. Problems can be handled one of four ways:
 * 1. It can be admitted. Come clean and say we know it, while still holding to that particular view.
 * 2. It can be overlooked. We just missed something. We're all human.
 * 3. It can be ignored. Don't worry about that and focus on what we DO know. This doesn't solve the problem. It only pushes it aside.
 * 4. It can be denied. We could stop our ears and refuse to hear any truth (ANY truth). ("Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose!")

What is a Split Timeline?
This article mentions a split timeline is a rather common convention in fiction involving time travel. Is there any way to prove that? Are there any citations that we could use? I ask because I really don't see it that way. The split timeline as we are describing it is in fact unique here. It's not the same as Back to the Future. In Back to the Future, what was done in the past didn't just "create an alternate future." It, in fact, REWROTE the future, replacing the events with new events. This is demonstrated when Marty's photograph changes, and he begins to fade. This is actually a very LINEAR view of time travel (what happens in the past changes what you saw in the present and in turn the future). The split timeline as described for Zelda is the idea that Link's OoT adventure created two distinct timelines. For this to happen, they must both exist simultaneously and independently of each other (parallel universes). This is actually not common at all in fiction involving time travel, but very unique. (I am open for consideration. I'd love to see lists of fiction, whether TV, radio, books, etc, that use such a timeline.)   trueedge 16:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)