Talk:Zelda Timeline


 * Archive-01

Objection!
This might not be very important, but I'll say it anyway; Under "Ganon related arguments" the text says something about Zelda being absent from some titles, thereby suggesting that Ganon is never absent. It is true that Zelda is absent in some titles but Ganon is absent in many titles too, like LA, PH, ST, MM, and so on.

Maybe I've just got everything wrong again, but my point is that perhaps we should change it so that it says something like "Ganon is less often absent then Zelda". What i'm trying to say is that right now it sounds like Zelda is often absent but never Ganon when you read it and that is not really true...

There, everything I just wrote was probably pointless, but now I've said what I wanted to say. Thank you for not throwing eggs at me. --Olle93 22:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to the Past & the original
All over this place you say that it is one of the cannon facts that Link to the Past is before the original, but I can't see any reason why this must be the case. I have seen time lines that put it later, and I remember a quote from the creator suggesting that it took place after the original.


 * This was a stated fact from Nintendo. They said so around the release of A Link to the Past. It is even implied in the title of the game. Until we retrieve the exact words, I put down a citation needed tag.--Matt 14:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I always understood the title as referring to the "past" events discussed in the game's prologue, not that the entire game takes place in the past. Also, there is a Miyamoto quote that suggest the exact opposite.  While LttP is likely before LoZ, it is not clear enough to be put in the section for absolute facts.  --Extry 16:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't go around changing articles just be cause you disagree with a controversial fact.--Matt 14:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion on the time line is beside the point to my edits, I wasn't changing it to match my own view on it, I changed it because it is controversial, and therefore should not be included in the lists of absolute facts. You need to clearly separate the parts that are undisputed from the theories, and the relationship between the 8-bit and 16-bit games is debatable. --Extry 16:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is correct. All of the timeline articles are controversial. Separating undisputed facts from the theories is the best thing to do.--Matt 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A Link to the Past takes place before the events of LoZ, but it isn't a direct prequel to the game. I believe after the events of the series, the events of OoX and LA take places, followed by the events of LoZ. The Triforce, obtained from the Dark World by Link, is given to the Royal Family for safe keeping. Afterward, the events of OoX occurred in which a new Link touched the Triforce (his reasons are unknown) and is given a test, saving Holodrum and Labrynna. Afterward, Link goes on his journey through the Hylian Sea, and the events of LA occur. Link is stranded afterward, washes on a foreign nation (most believe to be Calatia) and lives there. His descendant, Link, travels to Hyrules and the events of LoZ takes place. --xThe_Guardianx 10:28, 8 April 2009
 * i agree with extry despite this being over for a year now Don Lark Kiin

Two things: The back of the box states that ALttP Link is the ancestor of LoZ/AoL Link and Miyamoto stated in the first timeline annuocement that it was after OoT and before the frist two games. PureLocke 17:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

aLttP and tWW parallel?
I was thinking that both the Wind Waker and a Link to the Past take place in the "adult" time-line, but they seem, IMO, to be irreconcilably conflicting. Then it hit me: in the beginning of tWW, during the "fairytale" opening they told that Ganon appeared after being sealed by the Hero of Time, but the Hero did not reappear to stop him. There's no mention of Ganon(dorf) appearing any more times than that, so there shouldn't be any games between tWW and OoT. The same would apply for aLttP: an ancient story of Ganon being trapped in the Sacred Realm, but we discover he's loose during the game, and the events at the end of OoT mesh (nearly) perfectly with the opening plot. So my idea is that tWW is a "what if" scenario. *What if* Link didn't emerge in the aLttP, *what if* no-one could've resisted Ganon? Think about it. Agahnim would've revealed himself as Ganon as soon as he was ready, so when he did, it would've come as a complete surprise to the people, who might've been completely oblivious as to what was happening inside their kingdom.Tounushi 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wind Waker occurs, it just happens in a different timeline. In Wind Waker, Ganon used his minons to weaken the Master Sword, allowing him to release the seal enough to gain a physical presence in Hyrule. He then proceeded to attack the Kingdom, searching for the other two Triforce pieces. The reason a hero didn't appear is because Hyrule runs on a reincarnation cycle. When a person dies, they either become ghosts or are reincarnated in the future. Link's soul is special, because he is reincarnated a decade or so before Hyrule needs a hero (i.e. Link was born 10 years before he was needed to stop Ganondorf in OoT). Because Link doesn't exist in the Wind Waker timeline, his soul cannot reincarnate there and no hero appears. That is why the goddesses intervenes and the Great Sea is formed. Also because of this, a new hero is needed and the Hero of the Wind is born. ALttP on the other hand occurs in the timeline where Young Link warns the Royal Fanily of Ganondorf's actions. The events of MM, TP and FS/FSA occur. When Ganon is sealed away in FSA, portals to the Dark World continue to open, one of them swallowing the Four Sword. The power of the Dark World cracks the Four Sword, allowing Ganon to take the Triforce and the events of ALttP happen. xThe_Guardianx 10:35, 8 April 2009

'The Wind's Awakening Houglass Realm'
This is a theory of mine. Other than The Wind waker/HourGlass, Link's Awakeing is the only one to have a boat. Also, at the end of WW link had Te King of Red Lions. But not in PH. So...    "Link set sail, on the King of Red Lions with Tetra in her boat. Along the way he also hoped to became stronger, to better protect Tetra. During a horrible storm, Link was seperated from Tetra. His shipped destroyed, he found him self on an island, and lost all his items. After collecting many more, and awakening the Wind Fish, it turned out the island was a dream of the Wind Fish. Finding himself stranded on a piece of debris, he also found all his items fro Koholit Island (for that was the name of this island) had disapeared with it. Soon, Tetra found Link. They than continued their journey. However, Link was to find the Wind Fish incident, and his next adventure connected. He soon found a Ghost Ship, finishing it's job in another dimension, also appered in his. Not knowing this, he and Tetra both went aboard. Though fighting Valiantly, they both are defeated. Tetra is taken to the inner part of the ship, While Link was knocked out, and ended up overboard. Having amnesia about the events on board the ghost ship, Link goes out to defeat Bellum, the one sapping Life force out of severl beings of this dimansion, Including the Ocean King. THe Ocean King is truly the alternate form of the Wind Fish. As theire life force is one, they were both weakend. TRhey both had used left over energy to bring forth illusions. With the Ocean King, he was given a body, for his concius to work through. The Wind Fish on the other hand, not realizing why he was becoming weak, wished to protec himslf. So he put himself in a deep sleep, inside a giant egg. All his extra energy went to making the dream cme true. None knew if these two stories were related till lng after all it's characters were dead. After rescuing The Ocan King, they arrived back at their imension. They eventually found what they wanted. A land large enough to ppulate again. They eventually found a place that looked remarkably ike the hyrule of old. The god's blessed the provinces of thes land, and that surrounding it. They gave the kingdom and surrounding area 6 spirits to protct it. Little did they know, an evil mirror lied in the Eastern (or Western) Desert. So, they made a new Hyrue, called, New Hyrule. Eventually, as Time passed, the forgot of Old Hyrule, and Called their land, just Hyrule. 7 sages found ganon's stone body. Deciding another evil may some day rise, the took the sword, and put it in a temple forgottten, known as the temmple of time, and two sentries to guard it. They than tooktheir swor, and attempted to kill Ganon."    You know what happpens afterwards. (p.s, sorry about the funny wat it is. I did the best I could. Also, it's writtend as an actual Legend) Millionandfourswords 14:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Looking at the page history, there have been several times when new or anon users added/changed content to suit their own timelines. Therefore I propose that we semi-protect this page. That means that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. This page is about confirmed facts, not a place to dump theories. 08:52, November 6, 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Timeline Theories is the page for personal opinions. So how does one become an auto confirmed user? 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations
I think that it's almost worth moving the abbreviations section to it's own page within the timeline category there. 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. So yeppers! 01:02, November 15, 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, will do it now. 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion page is for discussion
Can people please stop making opinionated edits based on their own understanding of what is and isn't important? There's a discussion page for a reason. For example, "Zelda Universe is debating x" is just about the least valid reason in the world to alter a basic timeline format, in which that debate has no relevance. --Impossible 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Child/Adult timelines?
Hi. I'm new to the wiki... and to the Zelda series too! I own three games, but I am not an expert. Anyway I'm quite an expert in editing wikis and there is one thing I wanted to know: what does "Child/Adult timeline" mean? There are something like five or more pages talking about that, I read them all and I still can't understand! It seems like Ocarina of Time has two endings and each of them have its own sequels, creating two timelines, am I right? Anyway this is not clearly stated anywere, not even in Ocarina of Time's page! The most accurate description states that "the "child" timeline originated from that ending, while the "adult" timeline originated from that other..." but this takes for granted that the reader finished the game at least twice! I see there is what usually happens in game-related wikis: the wiki is created by people who know every single thing about the series, so they write things that are naturally to them whitout thinking that are impossible to understand for a person that never played that game. (another example being Super Mario Wiki talking about Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong without ever expleaning the Tag system of Donkey Kong Country, making the relation between the two impossible to understand) I think what is needed is a clear statement that explains the origin of the two different timelines. If it already exists then please let me know.--Kombatgod 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SOME timelines on here are old, and quite frankly not well thought out. Basically the Child timeline is the series of events (games) that occur when Link returns to the present at the end of OoT. The Adult Timline is the series of events that occur in Hyrule, that Link left to return to the present. Hope this helped. =) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the point is that I never played that game, so I can only imagine what that means and I think it is a probleb also for other un-expert readers (but maybe I'm the only one who cares about deep storyline without knowing the game!) Anyway, let's see if I understood: during the game you travel through time and change the events (for example kill Ganondorf, I try to guess). Then you return to the present and Ganondorf is still alive. So the child timeline has Ganondorf alive while the adult has him dead. This creates two parallel universes like Trunks' in Dragonball! Is it like this? Anyway, it seems like OoT doesn't have two endings in terms of gameplay (like in Metal Gear Solid), but just two epilogues in the same play, am I right?--Kombatgod 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's the deal. At the end of Ocarina of Time Ganondorf is defeated. I'm ot sure if he is 100% dead or not (when is he really) but this still left 7 years in which Ganondorf has ravaged the KIngdom and left it in disrepar and evil. To fix this, Link replaces the Master Sword in the pedestal once and for all. The Master sword controls where Link is in time. If it is removed he is seven years in the future and an adult, while if it is in the pedestal he is a child and Ganon's reign of tyranny hasn't started yet though he does possess the triforce of Power. When Link returned for the last time he stopped Ganon and changed time causing two "Parallel Universes" to be created. One (The Adult timeline) where Ganon had conquered Hyrule for seven years before being stopped by a mysterious Hero who was never seen or heard from again but just faded into legend. Then the Child timeline where events where stopped before they happened, the Hero of Time (Link) remained, and set off before getting stranded in Termina. Hyrule was at peace. I've probably repeated myself several times in those ramblings and got abit scientific but I hope it helps 128hoodmario 16:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Adventure of Link after Ocarina of Time
In a nintendo power interview with Eiji Aonuma, he said himself that Adventure of Link comes after Ocarina of Time(which is why they named the characters after towns in AoL, so in the Timeline it would appear as if the Towns were named after the sages). shouldn't this be put somewhere on a timeline page? --Hemu War 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Video
i saw the video on the front page, im not sure when it was put up there, an I saw it on 12/12/09 but there are alot of flaws in his theory that i dont agree with, i found this video awhile ago and he really knows what hes talking aboout and has evidence to back up all of his theories http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2g65jL3HDg  --onikage_666 10:47 12 december 2009 (UTC)
 * ocarina hero's timeline is terible an one of the most flawed ones there is. he doesnt have any proper theorys to back it up and seems to chnge his mind frequently. at one point he even claimed wind waker occurs after twilight princess and that the next game would be colin trying to stop "ganondorf" flooding hyrule. Don Lark Kiin 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

May or may not be a valid idea, maybe not by the Wiki standards, but...
Should a "No Timeline Theory" be mentioned in the article? Nintendo of America tried to contend that there is no timeline, but this, of course, got shot down by fans who said that Aonuma or Miyamoto knows the timeline and that no matter what NOA says, there is a timeline. Regardless of all that, I still think that the theory that there is no timeline, only common themes and the occasional sequel (such as the known [OoT?]-WW-PH-ST continuity), is plausible and valid enough to get a section. I mean, if one looks at the big picture, it can be argued that there are just too many inconsistencies for there to be a timeline. Right now, I'm a bit of an agnostic on this theory. I'm not even sure if I believe it, even if it seems like the only plausible reasoning sometimes, but still want to argue for its mention, even if I'm the only one who's even close to believing it. Teamrocketspy621 17:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is really any need to do so, reason being that those who do not believe there is a timeline, probably won't be reading this page anyway. 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that the people who study, scrutinize, and believe in a timeline ought to know that there are theorists who propose a no-timeline theory? That's how I see it. Teamrocketspy621 04:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, because every game released since 1998 except for the Oracles can be placed on a timeline with 100% certainty, the "There is no timeline" theory simply doesn't hold water.

Here are the completely known, 100% confirmed timelines: Timeline 1:OoT-TWW-PH-ST Timeline 2:OoT-MM-TP Four Swords:TMC-FS-FSA If 9/14 games can be placed in a timeline with such certainty, the "no timeline" theory only really applies to older games like 'A Link to the Past'' and the NES games. Maybe this article can be re-written to include information on these confirmed timelines and the rest of it moved under theory.Ganondorfdude11 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Understandably, certain games can be connected together with little effort, but there are sometimes instances of inconsistencies between games that are supposedly even in the same timeline together - like you said, though, the "no timeline theory" applies when you consider the older games, when a timeline did not exist: therein lies the source of these inconsistencies between games and thus, the reason that an overarching timeline of the series can be challenged. All of this makes it hard to put a real timeline together; hence, we have these debates over it all. As I said, I'm not exactly advocating it, but it's still a theory that some hold due to the fact that they see it impossible to connect certain games together with the overwhelming inconsistencies. I don't know if I'm one of those people, but it can't be denied that some people believe that only themes can be consistent between games. I fail to see how it doesn't "hold water" because some games are sequels or within the same subseries. Teamrocketspy621 20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The no timeline/timeline debate will go on until the developers fork over the "confidential document" of the timeline they've been speaking of for years. Thus, I think the "no timeline" bit is valid at this point, and hey! It's already on the page. ;)

ST
Someone should add ST to all of the timelines on this page. Spoon Link 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wize king from Zelda II and where he is in the timeline
The wize king mentioned in Zelda II I feel is missing from the discussion of timelines and seems to be a very important part of the idea and can help nail some things down, (or make a mess of it too, part of the reason here Im looking for other opinions)

So what we know and is indisputable since it is in the manual is he: Had control of all pieces of the triforce while he ruled, and hid the triforce of courage in the great palace to be retrieved much later by Aol Link. His son is the source of the tradition for all females born to the Hyrule royal family be named Zelda.

So who is he and where does he exist in the timeline?

On one side he has to be fairly early since his son is the reason why every princess in all games are named Zelda, and the games seem to take place a long time apart.

But on the other hand he has the triforce, so he has to come after games where Ganon (or Ganondorf) went to sacred realm to get it. Because if the king hid the Triforce of Courage in the great palace, Ganon wouldnt go to the sacred realm (LTTP & OOT).

Meaning it would just be a coincidence that the princess just happens to be named Zelda; which isnt very appealing. Nor is it that the idea that when history repeats itself the people who most represent the ideas of courage, power, and wisdom always are named Link, Ganondorf and Zelda. Because if thats the case then why create the prince of hyrule backstory and his decree to name all princesses Zelda? Or if the royal family had an unwritten rule of naming everyone Zelda then why make it official or bother mentioning it? Again not too appealing.

And where it gets messy is where does Windwaker, PH, ST and all that fit into place? If there was a split in the timeline after OOT then how do both timelines have the same tradition? (I always though Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule looked a lot like the picture in the AoL manual of the wize king, but Im gonna say its just a coincidence because if they are the same people that opens an entire new even bigger mess)

So then it has to be there is only a single timeline. But then how does the story of the Hero of Time come into existence? And why would Link in OOT just go in a circle that never ends? Talk to Zelda in the courtyard, get the gorons ruby and zora sapphire, get the master sword, get locked away 7 years, defeat Ganon, get sent back in time by Zelda, talk to Zelda in the courtyard, get the gorons ruby ect ect over and over and over... omg lol

So again I'd like your opinions on this. I know there is no real answer on this, but I think its always fun and interesting to discuss this stuff.


 * Tetra wasnt called Zelda which would suggest that she started the tradition on that side (others might say she wasnt called Zelda to hide from Ganondorf but she had no knowledge of her heritage and no one could of told her of the tradition). She was declared Zelda in honor of the one from Ocarina of Time and the other Zelda's on that time were likely named after her (or the one from Spirit Tracks since we find out in Spirit Tracks that she kept the name Tetra) Don Lark Kiin 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its been a while since I played WW but when Daphne revealed who Tetra really was and mentioned her mom did he give any further details? But I always sorta viewed Tetra as the "celldas" version of Sheik. But the Spirit Tracks info is interesting too. I gotta get a DS soon. Good info! Bortson 23:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (ps Im still learning how to sign ect) Bortson
 * We dont know how much she was told by her ancesters but we do know she didnt know of the Zelda II back story since she didnt recognise the name Zelda. Don Lark Kiin 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder what her mother knew. Im going to replay Windwaker and see if the King mentions anything about the previous Zelda. Interesting--Bortson 18:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Spirit Tracks
Spirit Tracks isn't upcoming anymore. Add Spirit Tracks to all these timelines. If you do not, readers may assume that it's not canon. (Of course, you'd have to be pretty thick to do that, but still.)Spoon Link 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If I made a timeline...
...reversing the by Aonuma 'confirmed' arc of CT: OoT/MM-TP and AT: OOT-TWW would it still be considered and getting listed here, if I backed it up properly? I'm currently working on a timeline making so much more sense, if TWW was in the CT and vice versa and official statements can be and have been wrong in the course of time. Official statements shouldn't be taken as an excuse to not further discuss a "confirmed" arc, if there are inconsistencies. Btw, I bet, if Nintendo was to announce an official timeline, they'd pretty much fork it up themselves IMO. TheHellfridge 14:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "reversing"? Any properly sourced timeline can go on here, as long as it has support from the community and in-game evidence. The "support by the community" part is crucial; because we are a wiki that reflects it's community, all theoretical pieces must have community support to exist on pages. This means it may have to be submitted to forums on different fansites to amass support. So sure, your timeline can go on the page, as long as it has the above, as all others on this page do. 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By reversed I mean putting TWW in the CT and TP in the AT. I was wondering, since all kinds of timelines are featured on this page (single timelinse, different universe etc.), but not a single one is considering it the way I'd do it in my new timeline (anymore), just because Aounuma said so (and yeah, I'd put ingame-evidence above anything anyone said in some interview; official statements can change, the games are the real thing). TheHellfridge 17:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you get that? The whole reason for WW is OoT Link going back to the child timeline and leaving Hyrule unprotected, forcing the goddesses to flood Hyrule when Link cannot appear. Then TP has Ganondorf 'executed' before he can take over and he does not recognize the Master Sword as the one thing that can screw him over. There is no in-game or developer evidence to support the opposite. PureLocke 18:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask to already discuss my not written timeline. I asked, if it would be considered and listed here, if I can back it up properly. The discussion can come after that.TheHellfridge 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, as it is often said this isn't a forum. Well as Cipriano said if you can get support for it on other websites(Zelda Universe/Dungeon/informer/etc.) I just don't see how it is possible but if you can do I'd be interested in seeing it. PureLocke 19:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, so if I finished my theory I'll present it on either one of the forums and see, what people say, right? I was planning anyway to make it in a video to explain it in greatest detail. And if it won't be accepted it will have been a great fun. TheHellfridge 20:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea to me! Here we start with discussion and then move towards implementation, not the other way around. The iea sounds unique enough that forums might just eat it up! :) Provide us a link to a forum that you sent it to after you think it's recieved enough commentary, as well. 03:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it really that necessary?
... to put hell on the page? I'm a guy that doesn't really like words like f--k on the page --AnonymousPerson 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wording changed. Thank you for pointing this out. Although I'd like to ask you not to link to banned/deleted users like that. Especially to one with a vulgar name. 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Seventh Timeline "Arc" (under Timeline Principles)
As the news section of the main page says, (and the main Timeline Principles page now says) OoT precedes SS, according to Aonuma. Spoon Link 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good catch. I'll be updating all of the timelines and quotes with this new info. 03:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake with Spirit Track's Link
Since Link in ST it's not the same with the one in WW/PH an appropriate edit should be made! (/ replaced with -) Zeldafan1982 09:29, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Good catch! Because this is a wiki that anyone can edit, if you see a problem or inconsistency in an article, you can go right in and fix it yourself! Don't be shy! As for this one, I fixed it earlier. :) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Adult Timeline?
At the end of Ocarina of Time, Link returns to the past having knowledge of future events and explains them to child princess Zelda, thereby thwarting Ganondorf's plans, preventing the "future" (as Link witnessed it) from ever occurring. For all intensive purposes, the entire adult segment of the game could easily have been spelled out as an introduction with the game essentially ending when Link first meets Zelda. There is no "timeline split". What future that would have been simply disappears (or merges with) and the only timeline that follows thereafter goes straight into Majora's Mask. I hope someone with an understanding of X Y Z W coordination can realize that "time" and "location" are completely different things. In fact, to completely entertain the idea of an alternate timeline, Link would have to originally travel to the past, from the future (as exists in most stories involving Time Travel) rather than to the future, from the past.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I simply can't believe anyone who has played the game all the way through to the final end screen would think that there are two distinctly different "locations" separated from a single length of time where either Link or anyone/anything else could exist exactly as the player witnessed it following Ganandorf's reign.

The second most logical explanation that could occur is during the events of the ending of OoT, when Link returns as a child to 'meet' princess Zelda for the first time. It would require only that despite what Link says (Link does speak in Ocarina of Time, he just doesn't have a word bubble or written dialogue for the player to read. This is easily proven during this exact scene when Zelda ask's for Link's name, then learns of his name after a short pause. Link could essentially say anything with the player's only hint's being the response of another character), the future still continues. Perhaps in the sense that even though Zelda is told of Ganondorf's plans, she may not have been quick enough to act so that Ganondorf end's up escaping, chasing Zelda and Impa on horse. Regardless of how it happens, but simply entertaining the idea that the end of OoT simply loops right back into Link's first meeting with Zelda, then NO timeline is developed. At all. It just becomes an infinite loop, enclosed and entirely separate from any other Zelda.

I hope a moderator or admin could clear this up from the official page. I also apologize if this has been covered already, I didn't read the rest of the discussion and I've had a little to drink tonight. (Stikku 07:01, 12 May 2011 (EDT))
 * You do make some very valid points here, many of which I feel a good percentage of the Zelda community overlooks when playing the games. From Link and Zelda's point of view, yes, the "future" never existed because they formulated a plan to change events in the future from the "past", which is their present. The issue comes in here - what about the lives of everyone else in the world in Link's future? To them, Ganondorf's takeover is likely to be seen as daily life; they are unaware of Link and Zelda's appearance and disappearance after Ganondorf's defeat - all they know is that evil came and was defeated, and henceforth return to their daily lives. To them, there's no reason to believe that their realm doesn't exist, and thus sets up the split timeline in which there is no "Hero" to save "future" Hyrule from Ganon's return pre- The Wind Waker. To recap, the alternative timeline is created from the mindset of Link and Zelda, the only two who are consciously aware of it. And in the end, the split timeline's been confirmed by the developers at Nintendo, regardless if some may believe it defies the laws of physics. Then again, it is just a video game, they can do whatever they want! :) Lastly, for any argument to be taken seriously, make sure you don't end with "I've had a little to drink tonight", it immediately shoots your credibility! 09:50, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * The series's chronology is pretty mind-screwing as it is anyway. Stikku suggests that Link travels back to the moment when he first met the princess, which is simply not true. In the game, Link never was able to return to any moment older than that when he first took the Master Sword, so why would he be able to after the game ends? Also, Ocarina of Time isn't very consistent with how time works. Twilight Princess indicates that the young hero changed the course of the events instead of creating a paradox or something like that, yet a paradox is exactly what happens when he travels to the past and plays in front of Guru-Guru the song Guru-Guru himself taught him in the future. Also, Majora's Mask revolves around an unlimited amount of timelines where Link perform different actions during the same three-day spacetime fork, so the time loop theory just doesn't work at all in that game. --K2L (Interrogatory) 14:01, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
 * The only proof I can find for this "officially stated support" of the split theory is on this page http://www.thehylia.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1173582355&archive=&start_from=&ucat=19& (ctrl+f and type in "and the wind" noquotes). However, even here it does not directly state anything other than Eiji Aonuma's five word sentence, "The Wind Waker is parallel." He doesn't state what exactly it's "parallel" to and somehow manages to completely bypass the question without bringing up another mention of The Wind Waker. He does however, directly state that at the end of OoT, child Link and child Zelda have a conversation which leads to the "execution"(banishment) of Ganondorf, that very scene (apparently) 'occurring only a few short years after Ocarina of Time, as shown in Twilight Princess.' In fact, the only reference to this timeline split theory at all takes place a ways down the page in the comments section (Comment #14 by Muljo_Stpho).
 * Technically, this is more fan speculation than not.

(Stikku 23:42, 12 May 2011 (EDT))