Talk:Zelda Timeline


 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3

Include Epilogue
In HH, Each Timeline branch has an Epilogue which hints at the future of this timeline, i think they should be included

Adult Timeline (WW-PH-ST): When old kingdom was destroyed, Hyrule walked a new path in the world carried by the wind. With only a few remnants of the Lineage of the Goddess left, what will happen to the new generation? From now on, a new history will be spun.

Child Timeline (MC-TP-FSA): The Sorcerer Vaati was swept up in the endless reincarnation cycle of Ganondorf the thief. The question of whether or not the Light World can escape the threat of darkness remains. There may again come a time when the Four Sword is necessary.

Downfall Timeline (aLttP-OoX-LA-LoZ-AoL): The power of the gods had been restored to Hyrule Kingdom through the courage of a young boy. Did generations pass, full of peace and the light of prosperity? Or did the curtains open to an age of darkness where people sought and contested each other for power? The future of this timeline has yet to unravel. Hyrule hero 03:54, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

The Split of the Timelines / Fourth Timeline Theories
For a long, I had been thinking about the Downfall Timeline split. The Downfall Timeline is like the Child Timeline, at the same time, it was also the adult era of the Hero of Time. By looking at the Zelda timeline from Hyrule Historia, I had noticed the defeat of the Hero of Time was never the cause of the split of the timeline at all. It occurred once Link pull the Master Sword from its Pedestal of Time. The adventure of the Hero of Time in the alternate Adult Timeline was really different, as the Sacred Realm nor Hyrule did not turned into evil worlds like the successful Adult Timeline already did. Probably because Link did not slept and was awake. Surely Ganon wouldn't do anything because the hero was there.

Directly after Link turned eighteen, Ganon kidnapped Zelda and Link went after him. At the final battle, Link failed to defeat Ganon and he was able to extract the Triforce of Courage and Wisdom from Link and Zelda. So, the princess and her people sealed the Evil Incarnation of Darkness along with the Triforce within the Sacred Realm. Zelda and those people were the Seven Sages (they aren't Ruto, Darunia, Saria, Impa, Nabooru, nor Rauru). There would be a theory, the Hero of Time (it wasn't confirmed that he was killed) or the implied Sage of Time used the Ocarina of Time to perform the Song of Time so the Goddess of Time would create another timeline in which the hero would save Hyrule from its terrible future and the young boy would learn about his destinies exactly like it happened in Ocarina of Time, which would lead the Hero of Time to defeat Ganon in his adult era at the ending of Ocarina of Time, and being able to find a true future for his childhood with the help of the Goddess of Time in his child era in Majora's Mask.

Surely the Goddess of Time was responsible for the splits and the allowance of Link looking for a great future for the Adult Timeline in Ocarina of Time and especially for the Child Timeline in Majora's Mask too, since the Lanayru Province's Temple of Time, the Song of Time and time itself are somehow connected to the Goddess of Time.

The Terminan Apocalypse is depicted to be the unsuccessful ending of Majora's Mask in an alternate Child Timeline, just like the Imprisoning War is an event from an alternate Adult Timeline. It would be possible to have a fourth timeline after Majora's Mask in which the Hero of Time failed to save Termina from the Skull Kid and the Moon, which would surely have effect on Hyrule as well.

What do you think of those theories?--Prince Ludwig 15:50, 11 August 2012 (EDT)


 * Interesting. You're posing a completely unique theory, and it is easily justifiable with events from the series.
 * I was especially intrigued when you mentioned the Sages. In A Link to the Past, you are given a backstory that appears quite similar to that which you have described. The Zelda of ALttP is a descendant of one of the Sages, as are the other maidens who later become contained within the crystals in the Dark World. Until reading this, I had never thought that the Sages in Ocarina of Time could not possibly be the same as those mentioned in the backstory, because those sages are human, as are their descendants.
 * If anything, all I want is for Nintendo to give further information so we can solve these mysteries and stop speculating. Despite the views expressed in that last sentence, I find your ideas remarkable. Kyro-Dizzy


 * Thanks. For a second, I thought I said nonsensical stuff. Because as said after Link failed to defeat Ganondorf, Zelda and the people of Hyrule sealed the king of thieves within the corrupted Sacred Realm, and those guys, who possess magical abilities (like most Hylians originally have), would become officially the Seven Sages/Seven Wise Men. Hey, that would also reveal why Volvagia is still alive in The Adventure of Link since the Hero of Time wouldn't fight Volvagia in the Downfall Timeline.--Prince Ludwig 23:11, 11 August 2012 (EDT)


 * Upon further reflection, it's possible that there is not just three, as you pointed out. However, I have considered the possibility that there is even more than four. Most of Link's trips through time involved a change in the world, however small. It's possible that even grabbing a Rupee could add another timeline, though that's rather drastic. Any number of Link's actions could split the timeline even further. Ignoring Ocarina of Time, there are other games that this idea can be applied to, such as Skyward Sword, to name but one, with the many paradoxes created by the use of the Gate of Time. Kyro-Dizzy 00:13, 13 August 2012 (EDT)


 * I just hope that that "further information" is given through games more than anything else. 10:09, 12 August 2012 (EDT)


 * I don't see why not. The canon is established in the games. The manga and even the animated series typically just find a way to fill plot holes presented in the games. Some things are added in here and there, such as the different copies of Link having split personalities and Vaati going back on his wrongdoings and making amends for them. The games are the first source of accurate information. The only problem is when the stories overlap, but that's mainly because of the passing of time weathering the records of the past. Kyro-Dizzy


 * This discussion isn't really relevant to the article. Please try to understand this is not the place for general timeline theorizing. Any further discussion should concern the addition or the improvement of article content. Thank you! 07:59, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

Canonicity of Hyrule Historia
I've noticed that this site and others are treating Hyrule Historia as 100% factual. I know it's an official Nintendo document, but how canonical is the information really? For one thing, there's a major error in the placement of the Oracle games that doesn't match in-game information. For another, why is one of the timeline splits caused by something that doesn't officially happen in the story? (Or to put it another way, why isn't a timeline split caused by Link's defeat in EVERY game?) I believe the information is definitely worth noting, but it should be treated as no more legitimate than any other timeline theory, i.e., adding a Theory tag perhaps. Wicky1489 23:47, 22 August 2012 (EDT)


 * If it's not canonical, then what do you expect? According to you, what should the timeline be like?--Prince Ludwig 03:53, 23 August 2012 (EDT)


 * Yes, it's effectively Nintendo's own statement on the timeline. How is it not canon? What would it take for it to be canon? Take into account that Hyrule Historia comes with a disclaimer; Aonuma himself states that there ARE inconsistencies, but that these are inevitable and unavoidable as they reinvent the series with each new entry.
 * The third timeline is, arguably, a bit of a cop-out, sure. But it's what they've decided to do and is presumably what they are sticking with for the foreseeable future. They effectively already contradicted themselves by releasing The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, giving A Link to the Past nowhere to go (basically, it's their own fault for confusing the timeline in the first place). Rather than retcon it to a different place in the timeline, they simply added a third ending to Ocarina, so it could remain as it's intended sequel.
 * The idea that it's no more legitimate than any other timeline theory is laughable. Of course it's more legitimate! How could it not be? Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it the best timeline imaginable, but it is canon. 09:44, 23 August 2012 (EDT)

The Timeline is really understandable since it's the official one! I've got no problems with it since it makes so much sense! :) what only bugs me is that Hyrule Historia forgot to add that at the very end Link (Twilight Princess) parted away with Epona (not staying in Ordon Village. Check here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgp8K9GiZ74 --Isamisa 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Downsizing
After reading the discussion over at Hyrule Castle about over-sized articles, I've been considering ways to downsize this one. One solution would be to split the four timelines (Unified, Downfall, Child and Adult) into their own separate sub-pages (i.e. "Zelda Timeline/Adult Timeline"), or even full pages (i.e. just "Adult Timeline"). The summary paragraphs (which contain details on the games that occur in each timeline) beneath the current headings could remain on this page, while the rest of the information could be moved. My only concern with this would be that the name "Downfall Timeline" is fan-created, which is fine by me, but may be a problem for people who think this would make the wiki seem unprofessional.

Another, albeit more complex, solution would be to make separate pages for each of the so-called "Eras". Although some, such as "The Force Era", would probably be fine as separate pages, others, such as "The Era of Prosperity", would most likely end up as stubs. This may change as we gain more knowledge with the English release of Hyrule Historia, but for now there's not much we can do. Personally, I prefer the former idea, as it would be simpler, and would keep most of the information in the same place. Anyway, these are just a couple of ideas, and if anybody else has any I'd like to hear them. 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of on the opinion that this is one article for which expecting a small article is just expecting too much. This article is always destined to be one of the largest articles on the wiki. We could seperate the four timelines into four different pages but that might make things more confusing, rather than less so. Also, the Downfall Timeline thing already bugs me as it is. Gametrailers probably had it best with their "Fallen Hero" (I think that was it) title. That way all three timelines are named after the state of Link at the end of OoT. Not to go too off topic, but would anyone actually be opposed to it being named this way? I was thinking of renaming it thusly if nobody was actively against that.


 * Aside from that, with the English release of HH nearing, I think we should just wait and see. Personally I'm not against having pages for each era, but we'd still need a page like this to cover it all. 21:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I do think this page can be cut down, but in a different way. Meaning no offense to those who helped put together the new timeline page on such short notice, ever since HH was released, I feel like the quality of writing of this article has been diminished quite a bit. The "Chronology of the Legend of Zelda Series" drags on and on and is quite frankly a chore to read. As opposed to being a retelling of Zelda from start to finish, I feel like this article should focus on the content that's unique to Hyrule Historia, namely the stuff that goes on between games. Personally, that's what interests me in this article. If I wanted a refresher on the games' plots, I'd just play through the games.


 * In short, I think this article can be effectively downsized with concise writing. That is, focusing on HH-exclusive content (i.e. the events in between games) and cutting down information from individual games' plots, as they're already covered on the game articles are mostly dead weight here. 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be beneficial to do what Hylian King says. The games' plots are summarized elsewhere, and so should be linked out. "Full Article Here" or something, and then continue on with the relevant information that should actually be in the article. --Xizor 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, a lot of pages can be dealt with just using better writing. This wiki is fantastic, but the writing is not always the best. On pages like this we need to get to the point concisely. 02:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually a really good idea, HK. We talk about the world's creation, then say "This precedes the events of SS." Then after that we go "After the events of SS, blah blah blahbitty blah." Gets to the point without being redundant. Plus, we can just link to the game pages, maybe even directly link to the story in each. Cuts down the article without getting stupid about it. 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that definitely seems like the best idea. Cuts down on the unnecessary long summaries of the game's events and focuses more on what HH brought to the table. --Dany36 05:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it absolutely necessary to cut down the article? I think it is quite convenient to have summaries of each game on the same page. Some may prefer this rather than looking at (currently) 16 pages to find the relevant info described in detail. If there are severe technical problems with pages of this size though then ok :/ Zeldafan1982 20:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know how you feel, but there are technical problems which come with large articles like this. In addition to that, readers experience long loading times, which can be even worse for our mobile users, and if I recall correctly, they make up somewhere between 20-30% of our readers. 06:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article is to be cut down then another possibility (similar to the one Dannyboy601 proposed) is to split it into two instead of four (the less pages the better!). The Unified and Downfall timelines could stay here while the other two can be moved to another page except for their leading paragraphs. This will cut down the page to about 65KB. Zeldafan1982 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyrule Historia's Timeline - Official English Version
I suppose that people will wait until tomorrow (the official release date of January 29th, 2013) for complete confirmation of the 'translation', but here's an image of "Page 69" of Hyrule Historia (the official English version) that I found posted in a Kotaku article:

Official English Version of Page 69 - http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18cmu1rb7r902jpg/original.jpg

SOURCE: http://kotaku.com/5979119/heres-your-first-look-inside-the-glorious-legend-of-zelda-hyrule-historia-collectors-edition

I can't believe the day's almost here after all of this waiting, to be honest. XD Fenyx4 17:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Haha indeed. I'll go ahead and upload that image. Thanks for the link! 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Introductory section
After reading the official translation of page 68 (link), I'm not sure if there is supposed to be a Hyulean narrator. The translation that was done by Glitterberri (link) :"…This is a tale that was passed down by humans such as yourselves…" seemed to me very reminiscent of what Fi says at the beginning of SS.. Still, it is clear that the history is told from an in-universe perspective and this should be mentioned. Also, since the stories change, it is also apparent that the account may not be entirely accurate, meaning that there is some room for individual interpretation.

About this section: "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.", do you think it is equivalent to the official: "...you will be able to discover for yourself the real history of Hyrule" ?

I was thinking to change the section a bit, e.g. :"The chronology section of Hyrule Historia, consists of a collection of tales passed down by the people of Hyrule. Since the account presented may contain inaccuracies, the editors of the book invite the readers to give their own interpretation regarding the actual events." Any proposals/thoughts? Zeldafan1982 21:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading a bit too much into it. I think they clearly tread a line between being "in-universe" and not intentionally, to leave it a bit vague. The whole book is sort of like that. It doesn't really matter if it's in-universe or not. The point they are making is that it's a fluid thing and might change in future. 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It can change yes, the justification they give though is that the stories passed down by the people can change (or that parts that are obscure now may become more clear later), not that they, as developers, may change something in the future (i.e retcon). I'm removing the bit about the narrator for now. Zeldafan1982 15:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Demonic War"
The game is quite vague about the period this conflict occurred, therefore this section is a bit speculative. The conflict can have a short mention in the FSA section and in Hyrule's page, as it is not really necessary for the conflicts described there to be arranged chronologically (at least not all of them). Zeldafan1982 18:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. 18:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Two Zelda's
As i understand from this article, there are two Zelda's alive at the time of Zelda 1 and 2, namely the Zelda who split the Triforce of Wisdom and the Sleeping Zelda. Or am I just confused now?--Grizzfang 19:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is correct. The Adventure of Link is a direct sequel to The Legend of Zelda, so the Princess Zelda from the latter is still around when Link awakens the Princess that predates either games. 20:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Useless Theories....
Since Hyrule Historia contained the official timeline, shouldn't the "Timeline theories" section of the article be deleted?
 * They are preserved to depict a time when the fandom used to speculate about the timeline. It might need a slight wording change, but we have no intention of deleting the timeline theories. 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Downfall Timeline Alternate Theory
I was thinking about how the Downfall Timeline fits into the timeline as a whole, and Link being defeated seems like a pretty weak basis for a timeline split - and what if ALttP Link was defeated? Or TP Link, or WW Link? Wouldn't that cause a split in the timeline as well? And if not, what makes OoT Link so special?

The other two timeline splits make sense - as a result of the time-travel involved at the end of the game, the Adult Timeline continues on from the point where Link defeated Ganondorf, and was sent back to his childhood, leaving this timeline completely. The Child Timeline starts from when Link arrives back in the time of his childhood - he warns Zelda and the rest of the Royal Family of Ganondorf's treachery. With Ganondorf stopped, the later events of Ocarina of Time never happened, creating the Child Timeline.

The Downfall Timeline, on the other hand, appears to be based off the concept of parallel universes. I believe a more plausible and more consistent basis for this timeline is Link returning to his childhood mid-quest. If Zelda sending him back in time creates a timeline split, him sending himself back should logically do the same thing. Throughout the game, Link has to return to his childhood twice - once to go through Beneath the Well and get the Lens of Truth, the other to complete the 'child section' of the Spirit Temple, although it's probably possible to do both in one go. When he went back to his childhood, he changed something - the Kakariko Well was dry, the Dead Hand was... well, dead, and the Silver Gauntlets were gone from the Spirit Temple. While these may not seem like particularly major changes, they would have had some effect on the future. Due to this, he would have returned to a different future than the one he left - another timeline. This would mean he never returned to the one he left, in which he would no longer be there to defeat Ganondorf.

To sum up: Downfall Timeline is created when Link returns to the past BEFORE defeating Ganondorf - essentially the Adult Timeline if Link had never existed. This leads to Ganondorf eventually being sealed in the Dark World following the Imprisoning War. This leads to the events of A Link to the Past, the Oracle Series, Link's Awakening, The Legend of Zelda and Adventure of Link.

Adult Timeline is created after Link defeats Ganondorf, and is sent back to the past. This leaves Hyrule without a hero when Ganondorf escapes his seal and attacks Hyrule, leading to Great Flood, and the events of The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks.

Child Timeline is created when Link arrives back in his childhood after being sent back by Zelda. Link's foreknowledge of Ganondorf's plans prevents the original events of Ocarina of Time from happening. Having saved Hyrule, Link leaves to search for Navi, leading to the events of Majora's Mask. The warning to the Royal Family leads to the Ganondorf's imprisonment, attempted execution, and subsequent exile into the Twilight Realm. This leads to the events of Twilight Princess, and later, Four Swords Adventures.

Does this sound like a plausible theory? Link23 (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's certainly plausible, but I find it unlikely. For the most part, time travel in OoT seems centered on the idea of a wormhole- a "tear" in the spacetime continuum that forms a tunnel between the past and future. This tunnel opens whenever Link draws and replaces the Master Sword, thus forming a firm link between the Unified, "pre-Child" timeline and the Adult Timeline. However, at the end of the game, Zelda uses her power to transport Link back to an earlier point in time, before the wormhole's point of origin in the "pre-Child" timeline, and then permanently seals the wormhole by laying the Master Sword to rest and closing the Door of Time. It is this that allows the Child Timeline to be formed in the first place. Thus, the Child and Adult timelines also exist in two different universes, sharing a common connection to the Unified timeline but otherwise being distinct from one another.


 * As for the Downfall timeline, I personally like it as a concept and can't really understand why everyone makes such a fuss over it. In all probability, it was made up on the spot as a deus ex machina of sorts, but this doesn't make the concept itself inherently flawed. As you said, a pseudo-Downfall timeline should occur in every game whenever Link dies- and, according to quantum mechanics, they do. We just have yet to see them because no games have occured in them yet. I actually think another timeline split happens in Skyward Sword... though that's a discussion for a forum, I suppose. Setras (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics, that was the word I was looking for!

You make a good point, though - I was mainly thinking of how the Downfall timeline seems a bit irrelevant to the others, but it's just an idea I had. Link23 (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Downfall Timeline is created when Link returns to the past BEFORE defeating Ganondorf - essentially the Adult Timeline if Link had never existed. According to HH though, Link is defeated and not merely absent. Moreover, I don't think the OoT Sages would be able to seal Ganon without Link's help. Link may have been defeated but he could have also weakened Ganon enough for the sealing to occur.
 * Regardless, the talk pages are reserved for discussions on how to improve the page, so we are off-topic :P Welcome to the wiki by the way :) Zeldafan1982 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A Link Between Worlds
Will events from A Link Between Worlds be added to this? I feel like they ought to regardless of whether or not they were in Hyrule Historia. We know the official timeline placement as told by Nintendo (between Link's Awakening and The Legend of Zelda) So why not put it in there? Ongs (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added, but it would be best to "let the dust settle," on the issue. There are a few disputed or unclear details in the game. Specifically, the back story of A Link to the Past appears to have been changed (or new details added) - the game clearly states that the Triforce split into 3 parts at the end, with one remaining with the "royal family," one being sealed away with Ganon (how does that work if he's dead?), and another vanished to appear when the time was right.
 * There's also the topic of when the back story of Lorule actually occurs. It happens prior to the events of A Link Between Worlds, but is it after Link's Awakening? Or did the back story happen during A Link to the Past? These are all things that need to be decided.
 * Simply put, I think it would be wise to wait to add the information until the game has been around a bit longer. --Joshua (Yumil) (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is a good idea to wait. However as for the problems you've stated with continuity, I figured that the Triforce was split again after Link touched it at the beginning of Oracle of Seasons. However, I guess this doesn't really make sense given that that Link had already proven he had a balance of the three virtues and it wouldn't split when he touched it. I also think that the origin of Lorule can just be addressed along with the rest of the A Link Between World info. Just as it is for the origin of the Twilight Realm because its not entirely clear when everything with the Dark Interlopers happened but its just placed with the other Twilight Princess stuff. Ongs (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the addition as it is important to mention that the Unified Triforce is enshrined in Hyrule Castle's grounds, and Link and Zelda make their first wish of it. This leads to the obvious conclusion that the game portrays the beginning of Hyrule's Golden Era, the time when the Triforce came into possession of the Royal Family, which is further evidenced by Nintendo's own assertion it occurs between Link's Awakening and the original Zelda. Obviously the main event in the timeline that would clearly fit the events shown at the end of the game, is the beginning of Hyrule's Golden Era. The Golden Era section should be split into two, "The Beginning" with the "main article" being the "A Link Between Worlds" article, about how the Triforce was unified and came into possession of the Royal Family, and then a rewrite of the currently existing section. Many fans suspect Lorule is possibly the alternate Hyrule of the Majora's Mask "Child Link" timeline, and sometime after Ganon's defeat, the Triforce was destroyed in a misguided attempt to stop someone like Ganon from getting access to that Hyrule's Triforce. It was sometime after that point that Hyrule became corrupt and the name was changed to "Lorule" and Zelda, also corrupted, became "Hilda". I also think that theory needs to be written up on the Lorule page, as it appears to be a common viewpoint, and would also make sense of the director's earlier cryptic comments that "Majora's Mask" had something specifically to do with the finale of this game.Colliric (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The area Link and Zelda visit at the end of the game is not Hyrule Castle; it is the Sacred Realm. Speak to Zelda before approaching the Triforce and she will say "How rare to visit Hyrule's Sacred Realm." Furthermore, it identical to the Sacred Realm in Lorule that you visit moments before.

How the Royal Family actually gets the Triforce is still unclear (and probably irrelevent for adding A Link Between Worlds to this page). If Link touched the Triforce in A Link to the Past and it split into three after he makes a wish, then what makes it not split into three again in A Link Between Worlds? --Joshua (Yumil) (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the opening sequence of the game again(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve1MG5Xee64), it is CLEARLY explained that it was the Royal Family(or someone close to them), sometime after Link's Awakening, took the decision to split the Triforce into three parts due to the temptation it was causing for rivals, like Ganon, to steal the full Triforce and get it's power, and NOT anything that Link did. Someone else touched the triforce and wished it to be separated back into it's original three parts. So it is obviously supposed to be sometime AFTER the Oracle games that the Triforce was split up into three, and NOT during those two games. It is explained in the game that the Royal Family of Hyrule(or the person who seperated the Triforce) did not foresee that the Triforce's three parts would naturally/spiritually gravitate towards the traditional owners and become part of them again, unless the wish to separate it was more specific(Like say, they wished separate it physically only, as is the case in the NES games). Zelda absorbed the Triforce of Wisdom, Link the Triforce of Courage, and Ganon was restored by the Triforce of Power. This is CLEARLY explained in the opening sequence of the game, so there should be no arguement that somehow "Link split it up by touching it" when it is explained that it was the Royal Family of Hyrule that did it. So it is important to mention that this clearly shows the restoration of the Triforce to the Royal Family, who now are aware of the ramifications of wishing the triforce to return to it's three parts, as well as the ramifications of wishing it destroyed(as Lorule shows Zelda what would happen to Hyrule, and is itself possibly one of the "alternate timeline" Hyrules). The other user obviously did not pay full attention to the opening scene, and postulated that it could have been Link that split it up immediatly after ALTTP. While the first user got the point correct(Royal Family, or someone close to them, Impa perhaps? split it up), but didn't recognise that "Legends" do not always follow in a complete chronological "start to finish" story, so the event could have occurred any-time following the end of Alttp, and most likely occurred after Link's Awakening(given the complete Triforce was shown in the Oracle games). You can speculate that the Oracle games may have "driven the point home" to the Royal Family(or whoever broke the Triforce back up), and sometime after hearing of those events they made the decision to wish the Triforce split back into three parts.Colliric (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh hell, you're right. I had neglected the line in the prologue that said the Royal Family decided to split the Triforce apart. Doesn't that put all contested continuity errors to rest then? That explains why the Triforce is split at the beginning of the game and back together by the end of the game for the events of The Golden Era to take place. I feel as if we should have a "mock-up" A Link Between Worlds section in the discussion area so people can go and edit it and figure out what it is people aren't agreeing on. Once everyone agrees on it then we can put it into the article. Ongs (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Placement, sure. The fact that there are seven sages in the backstory, rather than six + Zelda, is a direct contradiction to...what, twenty years of Zelda?KrytenKoro (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I read an article that was suggesting that perhaps the prologue was referring to the events of Ocarina of Time as well as A Link to the Past and that may be where the seven sages comes from. The prologue says that the seven sages locked away the Triforce in the Sacred Realm which is consistent with the lore in Ocarina of Time and then that Link teamed with the descendants of the seven sages to defeat Ganon in A Link to the Past. Just because they are the descendants of the seven sages doesn't necessarily mean there has to be seven of them. The only problem with this theory is that it suggests that the jump in time ignores the Imprisoning War and Ganon being sealed in the Sacred Realm along with the creation of the Dark World. But perhaps, since the prologue is meant to be a legend these details were lost to legend and perhaps due to the nature of legends it is bound to have inconsistencies anyway. Ongs (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The portraits at the beginning explicitly depict Link, Zelda, and seven robed figures, which makes it a plot error. Within the game, there is no indication that this number is incorrect: the power to release Ganon is obtained by kidnapping the seven sage descendants, plus Zelda. While it is possible to construct a conspiracy retcon to resolve this (true legend (from a few generations ago(!)) lost to time, Zelda's bloodline split, whatever), it is by no means indicated by anything within the game, which makes it an error of very large proportions.KrytenKoro (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I ever saw that video before...even having beaten the game. The only backstory I was aware of is the one inside Hyrule Castle. It uses some of the same images, but the wording is more concise and confusing. (I'm seeing now that the video plays if you leave the title screen up long enough)

However, I do think that back story in the video clearly explains what has happened - except the fact of how Ganon ended up with the Triforce of Power after the Royal Family split it. I can accept the idea that these three individuals seem destined to always have the pieces, but the game doesn't specifically say that. Still, I think a lot of unexplained differences are cleared up. --Joshua (Yumil) (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Having read some quotes from the game (I haven't played the game yet), my current view is that the game gives an inaccurate account of past events: ''"There is a legend oft told in Hyrule Kingdom. It is the legend of the Triforce, once kept within Hyrule itself. Said to be a gift of the gods, the Triforce could grant a wish of all those who touched it. So of course, many wanted to get their hands on it. Wars were fought for the Triforce. The royal family summoned the Seven Sages, who sealed the Triforce in the Sacred Realm. But a thief of notorious repute broke into the Sacred Realm and claimed the Triforce. With its power, he became the Demon King Ganon, who sought to dominate all Hyrule. But just as Ganon had the kingdom in his evil clutches... a legendary hero answered the call of Hyrule's princess. And this here, wielding the Master Sword, took up a quest to challenge Ganon's might. He joined with the descendants of the Seven Sages to seal the Demon King in darkness. The Triforce was divided into three - its tempting power out of any one person's reach. One part stayed with the royal family, while another slipped into Ganon's possession. Legend says that the third part found its home in the heart of the hero eternal... And while legends come to us from the distant past, others have yet to be written... "'' The most obvious error is the fact that the events of OoT and ALttP are treated as one. Given that, I think that the bit where Ganon was "sealed" should (at the very least) be taken with a grain of salt. We know from ALttP that Ganon was merely killed (not sealed), so it's possible that the confusion is due to Ganon being sealed during the OoT era, and that the actual events got mixed up. So, I'm proposing that we should not assume that Ganon made a return between ALttP and ALBW where he was supposedly sealed. Simply, the account presented in ALBW is not to be trusted, it's just an.. amusing conflation of various events. The latter could be mentioned as well, I think. Opinions? Zeldafan1982 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why I wrote all of this after Link's Awakening. Link of A Link to the Past killed Ganon two times which immediately led to the events of Link's Awakening. Now it was revealed that Ganon went to the Sacred Realm and returned to Hyrule. In A Link to the Past, the Sacred Realm was the Dark World. And the Dark World wasn't mentined but was Lorule instead. He stole the Triforce from the Sacred Realm, kidnapped by Zelda and was defeated by Link afterwards. No wonder that Link was still able to defeat the evil god, because Link was powerful after everything that happened in his life. I don't know who were the Seven Sages, but I assume the Seven Sages of that time weren't the ancestors of 's Seven Sages but the Seven Maidens, the descendants of the Wise Men. They looked female. The original sages they mentioned in A Link to the Past were the chosen ones from and there were seven of them.


 * I'm still trying to be on track about this, so yeah. Now I have another new theory... And the backstory of A Link Between Worlds most likely took place directly after Link's Awakening.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't played the game I might be mistaken, so correct me if the game says otherwise. My objection is that there is no need to assume that Ganon makes a return between the Oracles and ALBW. The ALBW backstory says that Ganon was sealed, but rather than this being a separate event between the Oracles and ALBW, it could simply be a conflation of OoT and ALttP. What I mean is that this bit "But a thief of notorious repute broke into the Sacred Realm and claimed the Triforce. With its power, he became the Demon King Ganon, who sought to dominate all Hyrule. But just as Ganon had the kingdom in his evil clutches.." refers to OoT, the next one "a legendary hero answered the call of Hyrule's princess. And this here, wielding the Master Sword, took up a quest to challenge Ganon's might. He joined with the descendants of the Seven Sages" obviously refers to ALttP, and the last bit "to seal the Demon King in darkness." refers again to OoT. (On a sidenote this bit "Wars were fought for the Triforce. The royal family summoned the Seven Sages, who sealed the Triforce in the Sacred Realm" conflates the IW with the war that occurred before Rauru sealed the Sacred Realm with the Temple of Time). So, the way I see it, the only thing that needs to be added between the Oracles and ALBW is that at some point the Royal Family decided to split the Triforce.
 * Also, I don't think it's very clear whether, after the Triforce split, the ToP went immediately to Ganon or ended up at some point to his possession. We could just mention that the ToP "slipped into Ganon's possession". Zeldafan1982 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, I mean... It was intended to have more references to Ocarina of Time's Downfall Timeline just as it does for A Link to the Past, and they mixed things up so we still don't know. Ganon died two times, the events of Oracle and Link's Awakening were hardly mentioned. And this time, he was sealed. He was never sealed in Oracle and A Link to the Past, he was destroyed by Link.


 * If I understand clearly, is that the paintings mixed things up the events of Ocarina of Time, the Imprisoning War and A Link to the Past. To reveal something to you, the events were mentioned in the game in order. Link was actually with Zelda, the Seven Sages and Ganon was still alive in darkness while the Triforce split, the events occurred on Hyrule (not the Dark World) and Link didn't set sail after saving the world, it's pretty clear what it means.


 * In the game, it was shown that the backstory and the legends of old told in the game actually happened, they are all true. All of them led to the events of A Link Between Worlds, which of them were the most important objects Ravio, Hilda and Yuga lacked. And Ganon's soul was released from his seal placed on him hundreds of years ago by Link and the Seven Maidens (who are not only sages but Zelda's relatives). And the Triforce was split after his defeat. But I don't want to spoil everything to you since you still haven't played the game. I've watched the whole walkthrough.


 * I understand, we don't know if it's actually Ocarina of Time/A Link to the Past where Link and the others sealed Ganon, because of that it's better to leave these informations after Link's Awakening.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is evident from the game (not just those legends) that there is some sort of seal upon Ganon, then it is logical to assume that Ganon was sealed at some point after the Oracles and before ALBW. My point is though, that it is incorrect to assume that, based solely on the legends, because they are clearly erroneous (for one, the events of OoT and ALttP are treated as one). So my question is, does the game show clearly that Ganon has a seal upon him or he is merely "dead" and Yuga wants to resurrect him?
 * If the latter is true, given that OoT and ALttP are being conflated, it is better to assume that the "sealing" simply refers to OoT.
 * What is definitely true, is that the Triforce spit sometime after the Oracles. That doesn't mean (unless the game clearly shows the opposite) that Ganon was also sealed after the Oracles.
 * Basically, this is a point where we need a consensus: is the sealing another event after the Oracles or not? Then the articles can be edited accordingly.
 * Edit: I opened a thread here so that we can (hopefully) get more feedback on the issue. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Gonna be blunt on this: your description of "sealing" and "death" essentially being the same thing in Japanese is probably correct. Ganon's defeat in Hyrule Historia is even described as him being "suppressed", and in A Link to the Past the concept of Ganon being "totally destroyed" was a NoA creation. As shown here: http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z3translation/z3_game_quotes.html#ending The term used is more vague and implies the potential of return. So yes, while Ganon was "destroyed", that doesn't mean he would come back, and as a Demon King he is essentially eternal. The term seal was probably used to correct the implication that he will never come back. Yuga's revival of Ganon is probably no different, in essence, from his revival in the Oracle games, except that at some point the Maidens are implied have done something extra to stop him from being revived again. This may of occurred after the Oracle games, while Ganon was still "dead". Sealing his soul, if you will.
 * Castlevania and Dracula is a very good example, by the way. There are a lot of similarities between Ganon and Dracula, really.
 * Incidentally, once the game is released in Japan, a lot of this will be easier to figure out, as we can compare the terminology used. I suspect the Japanese versions will match up a little better, as usual. 21:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"History of the Zelda Timeline"
I think this section really either needs removing entirely or needs some serious work done. Almost nothing is sourced and it reads like a strange editorial rather than an impartial account of events. Very tempted to take a huge axe to it, unless someone can rework it. 16:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Timeline Terminology
I was thinking perhaps we should adjust the names used for the timelines to match those in this, posted by NoA on their facebook page... http://www.buzzfeed.com/legendofzelda/the-legend-of-zelda-a-timeline

These are also the exact names used for Gametrailer's rather impressive Timeline episode. http://www.gametrailers.com/full-episodes/en597n/timeline-the-legend-of-zelda

For reference, this would be "Fallen Hero Timeline", "Child Link Timeline" and "Adult Link Timeline". I personally think this is better than "downfall" or "decline" as it doesn't imply that the timeline is "lesser" and focuses on the status of Link, as the other names already do. The other name used is "Singular Timeline" I think, for the pre-Ocarina stuff.

Basically, this is the closest I've been able to find as "official" names for each branch, as they are not named in Hyrule Historia. While not perfect, at the very least they seem to have become the most well known names outside of this wiki. If everyone is okay with this, I'll adjust the terminology accordingly. 16:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically, we can't be certain that Link was killed. Maybe he was merely knocked unconscious as in TWW? Sure, he was likely killed but HH says that he was "defeated". "Defeated Hero timeline" perhaps? Zeldafan1982 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fallen doesn't imply killed either, it just means he fell in battle. Often used to denote death, yes, but not necessarily. A "fall" can simply mean failure or defeat. I think it's suitably vague as it implies either option. My main reasoning for this is that this is the closest thing to an "official" source and also seems to be the most popular terminology. Plus I've never liked "downfall" or "decline" as both imply that Hyrule fell into ruin, but it only really did this after the Golden Age, which is also part of the timeline. 23:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)