Talk:Zelda Timeline


 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2

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

WW --> PH --> ST SS --> MC --> FS --> OOT --> MM --> TP --> FS                            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)

"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)