Talk:Zelda Timeline


 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4

Triforce Heroes
How does that game fit into the timeline? --LTIan (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a section for Tri Force Heroes that answers that. 21:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

On the picture from Hyrule Historia, and splitting the articles.
I see that the picture from Hyrule Historia is important to include, but eventually, it gets outdated fast. I'd suggest recreating the picture with WikiMarkup instead.

Also, would it be a good idea to split the article after the timeline split?–– ♫ Ellie ♫ 09:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be better to use an official image, even if it is getting outdated. About the split, we are currently in the proccess of splitting the timeline page as it is becoming really huge. You can see some of this work here. 19:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem currently however, is that the reader can't concretely see the timeline in terms of the games. And Tri Force Heroes shouldn't be italicized.–– ♫ Ellie ♫ 21:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Tri Force Heroes is the title of a game. All game titles, regardless if they are canon or not (and in Tri Force Heroes' case, it is canon), should be italicized. I fail to see any issue with that. 23:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the other game titles are :P Peanutjon (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that Tri Force Heroes "shouldn't" be though. That split page is obviously very much a work-in-progress. The other sections haven't been italicized yet, as they should. It's not an issue that Tri Force Heroes happens to be italicized. 02:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Theories about a 4th Timeline and Hyrule Warriors
I personally consider Hyrule Warriors and Link's Crossbow Training to be placed in a 4th timeline, where Ganon was sealed after he received the Triforce of Power in Ocarina of Time, scattering his soul and body across Time, Space, and Dimensions. Link's Crossbow Training would be placed in that timeline because Linkle was originally going to be the main character of it.

Breath Of The Wild
Rumoured (to be taken with a pinch of salt) after TLOZ: Adventure of Link (most likely), or one of either: after Phantom Hourglass and before Spirit Tracks, or a separate timeline after Phantom Hourglass without Spirit Tracks. Thoughts? I'd go with the former (after Zelda 2).


 * In the memory link get from the Sacred Ground Ruins Zelda says "Whether skyward bound, adrift in time, or steeped in the glowing embers of twilight..." making a clear reference to SS undefined,, and . Given this reference, and the 10,000+ years between Ganon appearances, I think it's now safe to say this takes place at the end of the Child Timeline, after . Should this be added to the timeline? Or should we wait for Nintendo to officially announce where it goes? D0xis (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Right now i think we should wait, to me it seems it uses several thinks from other Zelda Games, like the Ritos who don't appear in the Child Time line or were ever mentioned before. It looks to me like this is a new Timeline which somewhat mixed things up (Hylia was never mentioned before or in OoT, now she suddenly is a thing, then the Rito who are supposed to be an Evolution of the Zora (Wind Waker), the Decline of Kingdom Hyrule (due to Link being Defeated).


 * Right now placing it somewhere is impossible. Lyk3 (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. All of the points you've listed are easily explainable in the 10,000+ year gap. Korok and Rito evolution, TONS of characters we've never seen or heard of... The decline of the kingdom is explained very early on in the game. (trying to avoid spoilers)
 * That being said, the other possibility here is that the 3 timelines have (somehow) merged back into one. Unlikely but possible. Either way, I guess we'll just have to wait and find out. ~D0xis of the V0id~ (T 02:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * By now, it's pretty much been confirmed that Breath of the Wild takes place in the Child Timeline. It seems to be at the end of the timeline. Toolen22 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not confirmed at all, there's evidence for both child and downfall timelines. There's a plaque talking about Ruto becoming a Sage and helping Zelda and Link fight Ganon in OoT, which never happened in the child timeline. ReignTG (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stop this before the argument starts here too. This debate has been going on in the ZU Discord for some time now. There is evidence that places BotW in ALL the timelines. While the references to the Child Timeline are the most prominent, we can't simply ignore the fact the the other references are present. Quite frankly, there is too much information, and too much debate. We have to wait for Nintendo to tell us. ~D0xis of the V0id~(T 14:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * “The kingdom of Hyrule has a long and storied past, where the events of one era may just be ancient myths in another. Since olden times, the land has repeatedly undergone periods of prosperity and decline, so much so that it is unknown whether the legends passed down are actually true, or simply fairy tales.” This section was taken from the book The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - Master Works. It was released only in Japan, and I don't know if the translation from Japanese is correct. But if it is, BotW will be placed at the very end of the timeline as a whole, and the branch (Child Hero, Adult Hero, Fallen Hero) will not matter.


 * With that, the interpretation will be up to us: if John says it takes place in the future of the Child Hero, then the other branches will become myths in his decision; if Mary says it takes place in the future of the Adult Hero, than the other branches will become myths in her decision; and so on...


 * I know I'm entering the fields of theory, but this must be discussed so that we can have this information placed in the page. Leonardo faber (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It has already been confirmed by the developers that BotW takes place at the end of the timeline, so we don't really need fan translations to quote on that. The page just needs to be updated with the BotW information found on the game's page. 18:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hyrule Encyclopedia
It appears that the Hyrule Encyclopedia may have changed the timeline, specifically the location of the Oracle series. Apparently, it places the Oracle Series AFTER Link's Awakening, and that the Link from that game is not the same Link as the one in the Oracle series. Someone should look into this posthaste. Toolen22 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Someone should also look into the canonicity of the Hyrule Encyclopedia. Some of it seems contradictory to established canon. Some people are saying that this is because the creators of the franchise may not have played as big a role in its creation as they did with the Hyrule Historia. It's even been said that this is mentioned in the book in a sort of disclaimer. Sadly, I cannot verify this information, as I do not possess a copy of the book. If his is true, then the timeline should probably remain as is. Toolen22 (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Either way, until it receives an English localization, it cannot supersede the American English timeline. TriforceTony (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that the book is out in English, should this be revisited? It does list the Oracles after Link's Awakening, but it still refers to them all being the same Link, the one from ALttP. It also says "Attentive readers may note that the timeline shown here differs slightly from the one found in Hyrule Historia. The timeline can be interpreted in a number of ways, and may change depending on new discoveries that have come to light and on the players' imaginations." Maybe we should either A) simply list those three games after ALttP in release order noting they are the same Link and the exact order the three games occur in is uncertain or B) stick with the Hyrule Historia timeline as better supported by the developers and simply give a footnote that the Encyclopedia flips LA and OoX. Bardtard72 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The official order it lays out is, then , then . We should change this article to reflect that. TriforceTony (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently, only admins can edit the article.
 * Regarding the placement of AlttP, LA and Oracles I think that both placements should be mentioned. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Official Timeline Change(s)
I read in a recent article on Siliconera that Breath of the Wild was officially placed at the end of the timeline, with which timeline exactly being left open ended. Additionally, Aonuma mentioned constantly editing the timeline, mentioning Link’s Awakening being changed to before the two Oracle games in order to squash the theory of Link dying at sea. You can see that article here: http://www.siliconera.com/2018/08/05/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-has-been-added-to-the-series-official-timeline/ This makes me wonder if other changes were made to the timeline that we don’t know about. Where can we see these changes? Drewmaru (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That information has been known since last year. Both Aonuma and Fujibayashi had already explained in various interviews that BotW takes place at the end of the timeline. Hyrule Encyclopedia also introduced the changes in the timeline since its original release in Japan. However, this page hasn't been updated accordingly as it was meant to be split (and probably will at one point). 22:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the article
There are three things that have to be changed in the article:

1) The placement of LA

2) The placement of BotW (unknown timeline)

3) According to Encyclopedia the interloper war occurs in the era of chaos.

Only admins can edit the article though. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is anyone going to contact the administrators? It’s literally been months since this article has been edited. It’s way out of date. Toolen22 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I will likely rewrite the page anyway so it is unlocked. TriforceTony (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Era of myth
We don't know in which timeline the era of myth belongs. Also, the periods that follow are not sub-periods of the Era of Myth. They are periods that are after the Era of Myth. The Era of Myth is in the distant past.

Can you give the quote that says that the events merge? Page 360 of Creating a Champion does not say such a thing. Also, where does it say that the myths are not believed by most? Zeldafan1982 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There isn't a direct quote, but it can inferred through joining information in Creating a Champion with stuff stated in interviews regarding the fact that the game takes place at the vague end of the Zelda timeline and that they didn't want to stick to any one timeline while making Breath of the Wild, and mixing a little bit of common sense into it. It doesn't take a lot of common sense to understand what page 130, and particularly the "Era of Myths" section, in Creating a Champion is getting at, if you ask me. Epsecially since BOTW has a lot of mashed together elements from all three of the timelines that should stand on contradiction to one another, so at least from a meta point of view Nintendo are clearly not giving a crap anymore and just merging it all together. And note that I specifically put "any timelines", not "all", or not naming specific ones. The point is that Breath of the Wild takes place in a era that's vaguely post-3-branch-timeline and that is just brushing the 3-branch timeline under the rug by just going "their all fairytales about Ganon's endless revival that are hardly believe anywmore". From a meta point of view, this appears to be Nintendo trying to fix the mess of a timeline they created. From an in-universe point of view it hardly makes any sense, but Nintendo doesn't seem to care. They've never cared for the official timeline much anyway, it's just about the solo game each time for them. And as for the name, "Era of Myth" is just a generic for the timeline (although technically it'd be more a collection of eras; "Era of Myths" is like an era that contains a bunch of other eras), that uses a descriptive name, since there is not an official one. Granted, the thing regarding the merger of the timeline events into a generic "Ganon kept getting revived and defeated" backstory is kind of meta, but this is what happens when Nintendo decides to shove a meta gimmick like this into their timeline.  It becomes a little difficult to write timeline descriptions accurately while avoiding bringing up any meta gimmicks that Nintendo has pulled outta their rears. I don't see much way around it, other then the way I described it in the timeline. --Catcure (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The Oracle Link
In Encyclopedia Link's specific section notes that the Link in OoA&OoS is the same Link from A Link to the Past. However, elsewhere in the Encyclopedia they seem to infer the exact opposite with the wording used on things such as OoA&OoS plot summaries. The Oracle events on History of Hyrule, for example, state that "a young man visitng Hyrule Castle is...", heavily inferring that this is a new Link. I do believe that the direct statement should take presedence over inferences, but I just wanted to ask what other people make of it, as it is not as though there aren't other errors in Encyclopedia. I wondered if we should consider, if there are so many other instances where this is contradicted, that someone made a mistake and accidentally put past, out-dated info into that section. It probably isn't the case and there's no way to know either way I guess, but it's something to note. If we are to take the chronology presented as is, for example, then apparently Ganon tricked Link into releasing Vaati in Four Swords before he was even born. Which was clearly an error someone made by somehow putting a FSW plot summary in the FS part. With something like that, you can tell it was clearly an actual error because there's a lot of other things in the book that completely contradict it, like Ganondorf's section. --Catcure (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * To me that seems like a very loose interpretation of the book, especially since p.98 of establishes that Series: already saved ALttP:. Regardless, the canon established in  is taken over the canon in, where applicable. TriforceTony (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)