autopatrol, Bots, curators, Administrators
5,079
edits
Zelda Wiki talk:Canon Policy: Difference between revisions
From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
m
Update username
TriforceTony (talk | contribs) (Do not interject between messages.) |
LD-420 Caleb (talk | contribs) m (Update username) |
||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Now, on the language thing. I know Timeline theorists and all are going to disagree, but we aren't going to change the entire wiki to pander to specialized interests. This policy was in place long before I even came around and will continue. | Now, on the language thing. I know Timeline theorists and all are going to disagree, but we aren't going to change the entire wiki to pander to specialized interests. This policy was in place long before I even came around and will continue. | ||
The rest however is up to debate and general consensus. {{:User: | The rest however is up to debate and general consensus. {{:User:Axiomist1875@legacy41958496/sig}} 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I partially agree/disagree. I think there's no question about the Capcom games. They had Nintendo involvement, whereas the CD-i games did not. As for the Mangas, Nintendo has stated that they are simply to add on to the story and fun, and are not part of the canon. If I recall correctly, we decided that the Valiant comics are "Ambiguously Canon", something that other wikis have done with questionable topics. I'm currently working on a banner for that. Now remind me- what games were Flagship again? *I have a cold and it's kinda hard to think straight* {{:User:Alter/sig}} 18:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | :I partially agree/disagree. I think there's no question about the Capcom games. They had Nintendo involvement, whereas the CD-i games did not. As for the Mangas, Nintendo has stated that they are simply to add on to the story and fun, and are not part of the canon. If I recall correctly, we decided that the Valiant comics are "Ambiguously Canon", something that other wikis have done with questionable topics. I'm currently working on a banner for that. Now remind me- what games were Flagship again? *I have a cold and it's kinda hard to think straight* {{:User:Alter/sig}} 18:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
::Although stuff flat-out not produced by Nintendo should be right-out excluded, like Prima Games guides. [[User:Ganondorfdude11|Ganondorfdude11]] 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ::Although stuff flat-out not produced by Nintendo should be right-out excluded, like Prima Games guides. [[User:Ganondorfdude11|Ganondorfdude11]] 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I have scraped up a policy basesd entirely upon what has been the de-facto standard so far. It should be adaquate. And I was very descriptive, to avoid confustion.{{:User: | :::I have scraped up a policy basesd entirely upon what has been the de-facto standard so far. It should be adaquate. And I was very descriptive, to avoid confustion.{{:User:Emma/sig|~}} 16:45, October 6, 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::Let's see it. Or is it on the page we already have? :P {{:User:Alter/sig}} 19:27, October 6, 2009 (UTC) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ::::Let's see it. Or is it on the page we already have? :P {{:User:Alter/sig}} 19:27, October 6, 2009 (UTC) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
The guides and books are useful for finding otherwise unnamed Enemies, Characters etc. These will be known to a rather widespread amount of the fan base, therefore ought not be outright rejected. Fanon, let's face it, we hate it. But it's impossible to not have a small degree of it. I want it minimized. The theories may seem so obvious, but the facts of it need to be sourced. Anyway this isn't my all inclusive take, just a line of discussion for the policy. | The guides and books are useful for finding otherwise unnamed Enemies, Characters etc. These will be known to a rather widespread amount of the fan base, therefore ought not be outright rejected. Fanon, let's face it, we hate it. But it's impossible to not have a small degree of it. I want it minimized. The theories may seem so obvious, but the facts of it need to be sourced. Anyway this isn't my all inclusive take, just a line of discussion for the policy. | ||
:ps, something concerning the release dates should be included as well, especially concerning ports. I default to whichever has the most info for the manuals, but the ingame content should be Port > Earlier Release. One benefit of that is that the GCN TP remains the canon version{{:User: | :ps, something concerning the release dates should be included as well, especially concerning ports. I default to whichever has the most info for the manuals, but the ingame content should be Port > Earlier Release. One benefit of that is that the GCN TP remains the canon version{{:User:Axiomist1875@legacy41958496/sig}} 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I am registering my protestation of the Prima Game Guides being "non-canon", as they in reality are "ambiguously canon" and fit that description entirely. Trying to say they are non-canon is biased based upon the opinions of the select few. [[User:Christopher|Link87]] 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | ::I am registering my protestation of the Prima Game Guides being "non-canon", as they in reality are "ambiguously canon" and fit that description entirely. Trying to say they are non-canon is biased based upon the opinions of the select few. [[User:Christopher-gpuser|Link87]] 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I support Link87. Until there is evidece that they are not cannon, then they should be left as ambiguously canon. BenitoPerezGaldos 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | :::I support Link87. Until there is evidece that they are not cannon, then they should be left as ambiguously canon. BenitoPerezGaldos 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::This topic seems to have stalled with little objections elsewhere, and none posted here where it can be accessed readily. {{:User: | ::::This topic seems to have stalled with little objections elsewhere, and none posted here where it can be accessed readily. {{:User:Axiomist1875@legacy41958496/sig}} 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Would we want each guide listed with its canon status for the prima guides? And other guides as well. As the image I'm getting here is that from ''Twilight Princess'' on it should be somewhat canonical. It would be less confusing to list them all rather than saying ones before a certain point are not.{{:User: | :Would we want each guide listed with its canon status for the prima guides? And other guides as well. As the image I'm getting here is that from ''Twilight Princess'' on it should be somewhat canonical. It would be less confusing to list them all rather than saying ones before a certain point are not.{{:User:Emma/sig|~}} 20:05, October 8, 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Game guides and regions == | == Game guides and regions == | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
On a related note if an official guide or websites refers to an enemy by a different name then what the enemy obviously is (slimes vs zols and eye brutes vs Hinox in PH) should we use the guide name or the common enemy name? In twilight princess the so-called moldorms are obviously lanmolas. | On a related note if an official guide or websites refers to an enemy by a different name then what the enemy obviously is (slimes vs zols and eye brutes vs Hinox in PH) should we use the guide name or the common enemy name? In twilight princess the so-called moldorms are obviously lanmolas. | ||
{{:User:Ganondox/sig}} 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | {{:User:Ganondox@legacy41960592/sig}} 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Hyrule Historia == | == Hyrule Historia == | ||
Is it canon? | Is it canon? | ||
Some thing in the book (like the timeline) contradicts the games, on the other side it is from the creators... so is the book canon or not for the wiki? --[[User:Soran|Soran]] 15:55, 3 January 2012 (EST) | Some thing in the book (like the timeline) contradicts the games, on the other side it is from the creators... so is the book canon or not for the wiki? --[[User:Soran@legacy41964327|Soran]] 15:55, 3 January 2012 (EST) | ||
:It's not as much of a contradiction as a retelling/retconning of the events. So if it's from the creators, then it has indeed credibility. Hopefully the wiki staff will update the article ASAP for updating's sake. --{{:User: | :It's not as much of a contradiction as a retelling/retconning of the events. So if it's from the creators, then it has indeed credibility. Hopefully the wiki staff will update the article ASAP for updating's sake. --{{:User:K2L3798@legacy41960118/sig}} 16:18, 3 January 2012 (EST) | ||
:In my eyes it's to much, so I can't accept it... for me the book isn't canon, but what is more importend here? A book or the games--[[User:Soran|Soran]] 16:27, 3 January 2012 (EST) | :In my eyes it's to much, so I can't accept it... for me the book isn't canon, but what is more importend here? A book or the games--[[User:Soran@legacy41964327|Soran]] 16:27, 3 January 2012 (EST) | ||
::Both are important. At first it seems like the games don't show much of the timeline connections, but that's because they were developed long before a timeline was ever in consideration. This is true for the NES and SNES games. So just because you refuse to call the book canon doesn't mean the ''entire'' wiki has to go with the refusal as well. You're free to build your own canon with theories and the such, but please leave a way for the confirmed stuff to be placed wherever they're relevant enough. --{{:User: | ::Both are important. At first it seems like the games don't show much of the timeline connections, but that's because they were developed long before a timeline was ever in consideration. This is true for the NES and SNES games. So just because you refuse to call the book canon doesn't mean the ''entire'' wiki has to go with the refusal as well. You're free to build your own canon with theories and the such, but please leave a way for the confirmed stuff to be placed wherever they're relevant enough. --{{:User:K2L3798@legacy41960118/sig}} 16:37, 3 January 2012 (EST) | ||
::They don't ignore just a few sentence, they ignore the intro of FSA (where was say, that the Link is the same from FS), they ignore the Ganonconflict, they ignore just fakes how zelda and link doesn't know each other ... for me it isn't canon. But we have the problem, how we work with the book. If it is canon for the wiki, we can use the infos of the book like infos of games, if not, we can just use it for some notes... that the problem not if I refuse the book or someone alse, just how we can work with it... --[[User:Soran|Soran]] 16:45, 3 January 2012 (EST) | ::They don't ignore just a few sentence, they ignore the intro of FSA (where was say, that the Link is the same from FS), they ignore the Ganonconflict, they ignore just fakes how zelda and link doesn't know each other ... for me it isn't canon. But we have the problem, how we work with the book. If it is canon for the wiki, we can use the infos of the book like infos of games, if not, we can just use it for some notes... that the problem not if I refuse the book or someone alse, just how we can work with it... --[[User:Soran@legacy41964327|Soran]] 16:45, 3 January 2012 (EST) | ||
:::No timeline is perfect. None of our fan timelines have been perfect, and many required fanfiction to make it work. You can't expect the official timeline to work perfectly either. However I have to say that it works way better than any of our fan timelines before. The book was authorized by Nintendo, its editor is Aonuma for heaven's sake, it is indeed canon by all means since we take developers' word for canon. Soran, no offense, but I think you're acting a little butthurt over this. Which I can kinda understand, I was a little butthurt at first too. [[User: | :::No timeline is perfect. None of our fan timelines have been perfect, and many required fanfiction to make it work. You can't expect the official timeline to work perfectly either. However I have to say that it works way better than any of our fan timelines before. The book was authorized by Nintendo, its editor is Aonuma for heaven's sake, it is indeed canon by all means since we take developers' word for canon. Soran, no offense, but I think you're acting a little butthurt over this. Which I can kinda understand, I was a little butthurt at first too. [[User:Midoro|The Goron Moron]] 17:21, 3 January 2012 (EST) | ||
An admin should add Hyrule Historia! [[User:Zeldafan1982|Zeldafan1982]] 17:50, 30 April 2012 (EDT) | An admin should add Hyrule Historia! [[User:Zeldafan1982|Zeldafan1982]] 17:50, 30 April 2012 (EDT) | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
::::I think the difference here is that the Skyward Sword manga does not, to my knowledge, directly contradict the events of the game unlike all the other mangas, which are based on the games but take liberties with the plot for the sake of writing an interesting story. The Skyward Sword manga actually depicts a series of backstory events that could of occured, and given their appearance in Hyrule Historia, may indeed of occurred. Of course, without a fully translated book, I'm not sure yet if the manga is included simply as a bonus or if there is any mention of it's relevancy to the series. | ::::I think the difference here is that the Skyward Sword manga does not, to my knowledge, directly contradict the events of the game unlike all the other mangas, which are based on the games but take liberties with the plot for the sake of writing an interesting story. The Skyward Sword manga actually depicts a series of backstory events that could of occured, and given their appearance in Hyrule Historia, may indeed of occurred. Of course, without a fully translated book, I'm not sure yet if the manga is included simply as a bonus or if there is any mention of it's relevancy to the series. | ||
::::I think at this stage, at least until we get further translations, it would qualify as "ambiguously canon". The others are official, but not canon as they simply contradict the stories in a number of ways and thus cannot be so. {{:User: | ::::I think at this stage, at least until we get further translations, it would qualify as "ambiguously canon". The others are official, but not canon as they simply contradict the stories in a number of ways and thus cannot be so. {{:User:Fizzle8094@legacy41964097/sig}} 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
What Fizzle said.{{:User:Justin/sig}} 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | What Fizzle said.{{:User:Justin ZW/sig}} 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Hmm, yeah. Fair enough. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | :Hmm, yeah. Fair enough. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
Questionable canon is even more complex. Some, again, don't allow it at all. Others allow it, but only in special "questionable canon" sections and/or in articles about that particular work. Others allow it in the main sections, but only with a special template. And still others allow it to be in any main section as long as it doesn't contradict full canon. | Questionable canon is even more complex. Some, again, don't allow it at all. Others allow it, but only in special "questionable canon" sections and/or in articles about that particular work. Others allow it in the main sections, but only with a special template. And still others allow it to be in any main section as long as it doesn't contradict full canon. | ||
As you can see, as a new editor, this page does not give me all the information about canon that I would need to edit this Wiki. I think it should. It would be pretty easy--just add a sentence or clause after what's currently in each bullet point. For example, the canon bullet point would be changed to read "{{Color|#00CC00|'''Canon'''}} — This material makes up the fictional universe and can be added to any relevant article or section of the wiki." | As you can see, as a new editor, this page does not give me all the information about canon that I would need to edit this Wiki. I think it should. It would be pretty easy--just add a sentence or clause after what's currently in each bullet point. For example, the canon bullet point would be changed to read "{{Web Color|#00CC00|'''Canon'''}} — This material makes up the fictional universe and can be added to any relevant article or section of the wiki." | ||
The others would get similar sentences, depending on how you like to handle them. For example: "{{Color|#CCCC00|'''Ambiguously Canon'''}} — This material cannot be definitively considered canon, but as it does not necessarily contradict canon sources, is considered canon by many people. It can only be added in special sections." | The others would get similar sentences, depending on how you like to handle them. For example: "{{Web Color|#CCCC00|'''Ambiguously Canon'''}} — This material cannot be definitively considered canon, but as it does not necessarily contradict canon sources, is considered canon by many people. It can only be added in special sections." | ||
Wouldn't this be a good idea, so that new users know exactly what can be added? [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | Wouldn't this be a good idea, so that new users know exactly what can be added? [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Edited. Hopefully it's clearer now. {{:User: | :Edited. Hopefully it's clearer now. {{:User:Abdullah5599@legacy41961806/sig}} 17:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
::Could you also add that it's fine to add ambiguously canon or non-canon info anywhere as long as you put up the relevant header? I assume this would be OK. Also, would you add what we've learned about the SS manga? Or did the staff never come to a decision about its status? [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 03:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | ::Could you also add that it's fine to add ambiguously canon or non-canon info anywhere as long as you put up the relevant header? I assume this would be OK. Also, would you add what we've learned about the SS manga? Or did the staff never come to a decision about its status? [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 03:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
== Valiant Comics == | == Valiant Comics == | ||
At the moment, all the Valiant Zelda comic pages and sections are considered "ambiguously canon", unlike all other Zelda comics, the cartoon and the adventure books. I think these should be moved to non-canon however, as I see no major differences between this and the aforementioned material. While it may be more accurate to the games than the cartoons, and take place in an "empty" spot on the timeline, it's still largely the same take on the series as the cartoons and has numerous contradictions to the main series (Ganon being alive after the events of Zelda II, for one thing). It's not canon. {{:User: | At the moment, all the Valiant Zelda comic pages and sections are considered "ambiguously canon", unlike all other Zelda comics, the cartoon and the adventure books. I think these should be moved to non-canon however, as I see no major differences between this and the aforementioned material. While it may be more accurate to the games than the cartoons, and take place in an "empty" spot on the timeline, it's still largely the same take on the series as the cartoons and has numerous contradictions to the main series (Ganon being alive after the events of Zelda II, for one thing). It's not canon. {{:User:Fizzle8094@legacy41964097/sig}} 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Well, if it doesn't contradict any of the games, and if it's licensed by Nintendo, then we can't really know if it is canon or not. After all, it's possible that Ganon was revived for the comic you mentioned—just as he has been for many of the games in the past—or that these comics were actually taken into consideration during game development. [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | :Well, if it doesn't contradict any of the games, and if it's licensed by Nintendo, then we can't really know if it is canon or not. After all, it's possible that Ganon was revived for the comic you mentioned—just as he has been for many of the games in the past—or that these comics were actually taken into consideration during game development. [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
::It does contradict the games in a number of ways, not least the visual appearance of the characters of Zelda, the Triforce (pyramid shape) and Ganon, but also the fact that Link's Shadow is a minion of Ganon (impossible, he was one of the Great Palace guardians placed by the King), Link has a back story where he hails from a completely different kingdom that is clearly just made up by the author and not official, the map of Hyrule included in the comic is COMPLETELY wrong and is basically an inaccurate combination of the maps of the first two games, the events of Zelda II have happened except they have also not happened because he fights Iron Knuckle for the first time again (in the wrong Palace), and so on and so forth. It's not possible to mesh it with the games without a ton of fanon and it's clearly no different from the cartoons in terms of it's place in canon, even if it does make a slightly better attempt at fitting in. Not only that, but I doubt the comic even existed outside America. {{:User: | ::It does contradict the games in a number of ways, not least the visual appearance of the characters of Zelda, the Triforce (pyramid shape) and Ganon, but also the fact that Link's Shadow is a minion of Ganon (impossible, he was one of the Great Palace guardians placed by the King), Link has a back story where he hails from a completely different kingdom that is clearly just made up by the author and not official, the map of Hyrule included in the comic is COMPLETELY wrong and is basically an inaccurate combination of the maps of the first two games, the events of Zelda II have happened except they have also not happened because he fights Iron Knuckle for the first time again (in the wrong Palace), and so on and so forth. It's not possible to mesh it with the games without a ton of fanon and it's clearly no different from the cartoons in terms of it's place in canon, even if it does make a slightly better attempt at fitting in. Not only that, but I doubt the comic even existed outside America. {{:User:Fizzle8094@legacy41964097/sig}} 18:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::I think the only reason the Valiant comics are ambiguously canon is because a couple of years ago, there was a member (Alter, to anyone who remembers) who was pretty much the only one working on adding the content to the wiki, and really the only one who cared. He was pretty bent on defending its status as ambiguously canon, and I guess back then no one really cared too much about the subject to actually do something about it, so it just stayed. I'm all for moving down their status to Non-canon, though. --[[User:Dany36|Dany36]] 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | :::I think the only reason the Valiant comics are ambiguously canon is because a couple of years ago, there was a member (Alter, to anyone who remembers) who was pretty much the only one working on adding the content to the wiki, and really the only one who cared. He was pretty bent on defending its status as ambiguously canon, and I guess back then no one really cared too much about the subject to actually do something about it, so it just stayed. I'm all for moving down their status to Non-canon, though. --[[User:Dany36|Dany36]] 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::Yep, that was entirely Alter's doing. Given the direct contradictions to the games, there's no way it can be canon. I'm all for labeling it as such.{{:User:Justin/sig}} 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | ::::Yep, that was entirely Alter's doing. Given the direct contradictions to the games, there's no way it can be canon. I'm all for labeling it as such.{{:User:Justin ZW/sig}} 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::I can think of explanations for a few of the things Fizzle mentioned, but if you guys want to, you can classify them as non-canon. They're asynchronous in enough ways that their place in the Zelda timeline seems nonexistent—at the best, rather marginal. [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 23:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | :::::I can think of explanations for a few of the things Fizzle mentioned, but if you guys want to, you can classify them as non-canon. They're asynchronous in enough ways that their place in the Zelda timeline seems nonexistent—at the best, rather marginal. [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 23:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Additions == | == Additions == | ||
[[Captain N: The Game Master]], [[Scribblenauts Unlimited]], | [[Captain N: The Game Master]], [[Scribblenauts Unlimited]], {{ALttP|BBII}}, [[Captain Rainbow]], [[Nintendo Land]], and Tekken Tag Tournament 2: Wii U Edition should all be added under "non-canon". {{ZG&W}} should probably be added to ambiguously canon. I know I have called {{TLoZGW}} ambiguously canon because we don't know that it's not, the fact that it was developed by Nelsonic on a non-Nintendo LCD device and the storyline makes no sense or difference to the res of the universe, I think it could probably just be taken as non-canon. Also, maybe add game manuals as a canon source? --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Definitely. Although, I'm not convinced Scribblenauts and Tekken should even have a place on the wiki outside [[Cameos of The Legend of Zelda]]. It occurred to me that we could ship the articles off to [[nw:Nintendo Wiki|Nintendo Wiki]], they'd probably be interested in having them. But I digress. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | :Definitely. Although, I'm not convinced Scribblenauts and Tekken should even have a place on the wiki outside [[Cameos of The Legend of Zelda]]. It occurred to me that we could ship the articles off to [[nw:Nintendo Wiki|Nintendo Wiki]], they'd probably be interested in having them. But I digress. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
::Scribblenauts seems a bigger deal than Tekken as the actual characters appear, Tekken is just costumes. But I've not played it yet so I'm not clear on the details. But it seems possibly slightly bigger than a cameo, especially if they're playable. Tekken is in the same situation as the Dynasty Warriors costume cameo and seems on a similar level to the cameos in the upcoming Animal Crossing, probably shouldn't have a page unless those ones do as well. {{:User: | ::Scribblenauts seems a bigger deal than Tekken as the actual characters appear, Tekken is just costumes. But I've not played it yet so I'm not clear on the details. But it seems possibly slightly bigger than a cameo, especially if they're playable. Tekken is in the same situation as the Dynasty Warriors costume cameo and seems on a similar level to the cameos in the upcoming Animal Crossing, probably shouldn't have a page unless those ones do as well. {{:User:Fizzle8094@legacy41964097/sig}} 16:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::Scribblenauts has quite a few Zelda characters and objects actually appear in it. If someone can get their hands on the sprites, or if anyone actually has the Wii U version, we would be able to get more information about the game up. Tekken probably doesn't need an article since they are purely costumes, but maybe list "[[Cameos of The Legend of Zelda|Other cameos]]" (grouping them all together like that) as non-canon as well. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 07:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | :::Scribblenauts has quite a few Zelda characters and objects actually appear in it. If someone can get their hands on the sprites, or if anyone actually has the Wii U version, we would be able to get more information about the game up. Tekken probably doesn't need an article since they are purely costumes, but maybe list "[[Cameos of The Legend of Zelda|Other cameos]]" (grouping them all together like that) as non-canon as well. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 07:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
:If I remember correctly, then remakes are considered to take precedence over the originals, whereas Second Quests are always non-canon. The Realm of Memories, on the other hand, is a trickier question. (Make sure that you verify this with a staff member before you edit anything.) [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 15:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | :If I remember correctly, then remakes are considered to take precedence over the originals, whereas Second Quests are always non-canon. The Realm of Memories, on the other hand, is a trickier question. (Make sure that you verify this with a staff member before you edit anything.) [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 15:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:I'm pretty sure that remakes (OoT3D over OoT) are considered higher canon then originals, but the originals are still canon. This may only apply to names; as the Cursor Fairy is surprisingly considered non-canon, which seems to say that the Wii version of TP is Non-canon. {{:User:Darkness/sig}} 15:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | :I'm pretty sure that remakes (OoT3D over OoT) are considered higher canon then originals, but the originals are still canon. This may only apply to names; as the Cursor Fairy is surprisingly considered non-canon, which seems to say that the Wii version of TP is Non-canon. {{:User:Darkness@legacy41966669/sig}} 15:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:I think it depends on the content in question. About the maps, HH shows the original OoT map and the GC TP map, which were those considered to be canon before the release of the book. The stages from the Realm of Memories are not mentioned in HH. Regarding stuff like the owl statues or the Stone of Agony I guess the newer games can take precedence. Basically, we have to look at each case separately.. [[User:Zeldafan1982|Zeldafan1982]] 18:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | :I think it depends on the content in question. About the maps, HH shows the original OoT map and the GC TP map, which were those considered to be canon before the release of the book. The stages from the Realm of Memories are not mentioned in HH. Regarding stuff like the owl statues or the Stone of Agony I guess the newer games can take precedence. Basically, we have to look at each case separately.. [[User:Zeldafan1982|Zeldafan1982]] 18:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the issues discussed in the three topics above Remakes never reached a resolution and/or were never followed up with actions. We should really remedy this. [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the issues discussed in the three topics above Remakes never reached a resolution and/or were never followed up with actions. We should really remedy this. [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Taken care of. The '''<nowiki>{{ambig}}</nowiki>''' and '''<nowiki>{{ | :Taken care of. The '''<nowiki>{{ambig}}</nowiki>''' and '''<nowiki>{{Noncanon}}</nowiki>''' tags will have to be changed on all the individual articles. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 22:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
::Oh, boy. That sounds like fun... :P [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ::Oh, boy. That sounds like fun... :P [[User:Linebeck IV|Linebeck IV]] 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past<br /> | The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past<br /> | ||
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening<br /> | The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening<br /> | ||
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons/Ages {{ | The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons/Ages {{Unsigned|SilvRboLt|12:20, 24 September 2013}} | ||
:The ''Zelda'' series is not based around a player being able to restart after getting a game-over. In context of the series, Link does not have the ability to retry that final battle. Essentially, the timeline splits (particularly the Downfall Timeline) run on the [[Wikipedia:Many-worlds interpretation|many-worlds interpretation]], which means those games are indeed canon. All timelines are canon, just alternate canons branching from a center, parent canon. | :The ''Zelda'' series is not based around a player being able to restart after getting a game-over. In context of the series, Link does not have the ability to retry that final battle. Essentially, the timeline splits (particularly the Downfall Timeline) run on the [[Wikipedia:Many-worlds interpretation|many-worlds interpretation]], which means those games are indeed canon. All timelines are canon, just alternate canons branching from a center, parent canon. | ||
:By the way, please remember to sign your signature with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). {{:User: | :By the way, please remember to sign your signature with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). {{:User:TriforceTony/sig}} 23:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
==A Link Between Worlds== | ==A Link Between Worlds== | ||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
What do ya'll think? {{:User:Conzuh/sig}} 19:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC) | What do ya'll think? {{:User:Conzuh/sig}} 19:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
:In the December 18th Nintendo Direct, Iwata stated that it wasn't going to be a ''Legend of Zelda'' installment (that much is obvious at this point, anyway). But neither are the ''Tingle'' games or | :In the December 18th Nintendo Direct, Iwata stated that it wasn't going to be a ''Legend of Zelda'' installment (that much is obvious at this point, anyway). But neither are the ''Tingle'' games or {{LCT|-}}, yet we consider those ambiguously canon. | ||
:I think labeling ''Hyrule Warriors'' as ambiguously canon would be appropriate. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | :I think labeling ''Hyrule Warriors'' as ambiguously canon would be appropriate. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::If I remember correctly, all that was said was that it won't be part of the core franchise. When we look at other series, like Metal Gear, we see that not being part of the core franchise does not mean non-canon (Metal Gear Rising). All that we can say is that it is not part of the core franchise, we have no information to rightfully judge if it is or is not canon yet. [[User:Dark Mirror | ::If I remember correctly, all that was said was that it won't be part of the core franchise. When we look at other series, like Metal Gear, we see that not being part of the core franchise does not mean non-canon (Metal Gear Rising). All that we can say is that it is not part of the core franchise, we have no information to rightfully judge if it is or is not canon yet. [[User:Dark Mirror's Link|Dark Mirror's Link]] ([[User talk:Dark Mirror's Link|talk]]) 22:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::EDIT: It makes more sense if that comment was to tell the people that Hyrule Warriors is not the Zelda U game that is being worked on. This means that we cannot determine if it is or is not canon, we can only tell that it is not part of the core franchise (which, if memory serves me right, the Four Swords games were not part of the core franchise either, yet they are canon). In order to make a more accurate decision we have to wait. [[User:Dark Mirror | ::EDIT: It makes more sense if that comment was to tell the people that Hyrule Warriors is not the Zelda U game that is being worked on. This means that we cannot determine if it is or is not canon, we can only tell that it is not part of the core franchise (which, if memory serves me right, the Four Swords games were not part of the core franchise either, yet they are canon). In order to make a more accurate decision we have to wait. [[User:Dark Mirror's Link|Dark Mirror's Link]] ([[User talk:Dark Mirror's Link|talk]]) 22:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::Why is the game listed as non-canon then an not ambiguously canon? Also wy is the Tingle series listed as ambiguously canon, it contradicts the other games.--[[User:LordM|LordM]] ([[User talk:LordM|talk]]) 15:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | :::Why is the game listed as non-canon then an not ambiguously canon? Also wy is the Tingle series listed as ambiguously canon, it contradicts the other games.--[[User:LordM|LordM]] ([[User talk:LordM|talk]]) 15:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::The game has been listed as non-canon because of the recent Aonuma interview and overall community consensus, which have been covered in the discussion [[Talk:Hyrule Warriors#Canon|that you were present for]]. | ::::The game has been listed as non-canon because of the recent Aonuma interview and overall community consensus, which have been covered in the discussion [[Talk:Hyrule Warriors#Canon|that you were present for]]. | ||
::::Also, please specify how the ''Tingle'' games contradict the canon. {{:User: | ::::Also, please specify how the ''Tingle'' games contradict the canon. {{:User:TriforceTony/sig}} 16:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::Eiji Aonuma states Hyrule Warriors exists in a different dimension from the Hyrule Historia split timelines. HOWEVER, the Hyrule Warriors dimension does OFFICIALLY pull characters from those timelines, so it can be considered ambiguously canon. The characters who took part in the event and returned to their timelines probably retain memories of the event. (Article: [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/11/eiji-aonuma-addresses-hyrule-warriors-place-in-the-zelda-timeline.aspx] ) --[[User:Webmetz|Webmetz]] ([[User talk:Webmetz|talk]]) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::Eiji Aonuma states Hyrule Warriors exists in a different dimension from the Hyrule Historia split timelines. HOWEVER, the Hyrule Warriors dimension does OFFICIALLY pull characters from those timelines, so it can be considered ambiguously canon. The characters who took part in the event and returned to their timelines probably retain memories of the event. (Article: [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/11/eiji-aonuma-addresses-hyrule-warriors-place-in-the-zelda-timeline.aspx] ) --[[User:Webmetz|Webmetz]] ([[User talk:Webmetz|talk]]) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
I think it's time to establish where ''Tri Force Heroes'' falls, regarding canonicity. Currently, there are two quotes, which I'll share. | I think it's time to establish where ''Tri Force Heroes'' falls, regarding canonicity. Currently, there are two quotes, which I'll share. | ||
{{Quote|'''Where is Triforce Heroes in the Zelda timeline?'''<br>That’s a tough question. The Zelda timeline is "complicated" and if you look at the history of Zelda you will see there are three branches. I can’t really designate which one of those branches we’re looking at, but as far as the design itself, we looked to Link Between Worlds. But it’s not – as far as a timeframe – it’s not before or after. We haven’t really settled on that.|Hiromasa Shikata}} | {{Quote|'''Where is Triforce Heroes in the Zelda timeline?'''<br/>That’s a tough question. The Zelda timeline is "complicated" and if you look at the history of Zelda you will see there are three branches. I can’t really designate which one of those branches we’re looking at, but as far as the design itself, we looked to Link Between Worlds. But it’s not – as far as a timeframe – it’s not before or after. We haven’t really settled on that.|Hiromasa Shikata}} | ||
<span class="plainlinks">[http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_legend_of_zelda_triforce_heroes/b/3ds/archive/2015/06/17/you-won-39-t-be-saving-zelda-in-triforce-heroes.aspx This quote]</span> establishes that they haven't really considered ''TFH'' to have a place in the timeline. | <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_legend_of_zelda_triforce_heroes/b/3ds/archive/2015/06/17/you-won-39-t-be-saving-zelda-in-triforce-heroes.aspx This quote]</span> establishes that they haven't really considered ''TFH'' to have a place in the timeline. | ||
{{Quote|It really depends on what the developer has in mind for the franchises. Sometimes you have Zelda sequels and what we have today with Zelda: Triforce Heroes is completely different and not in the timeline of Zelda. So, it really depends on what the developer has in mind and what they propose.|Julie Gagnon}} | {{Quote|It really depends on what the developer has in mind for the franchises. Sometimes you have Zelda sequels and what we have today with Zelda: Triforce Heroes is completely different and not in the timeline of Zelda. So, it really depends on what the developer has in mind and what they propose.|Julie Gagnon}} | ||
And <span class="plainlinks">[http://nintendoenthusiast.com/news/nintendo-talks-annualization-of-franchises/ this quote]</span> (from a later point than Shikata's statement) shows that Nintendo does not consider TFH to fall in the timeline at all.<br>So then, I say that Tri Force Heroes isn't canon, because it doesn't take place in the timeline. Thoughts? {{:User: | And <span class="plainlinks">[http://nintendoenthusiast.com/news/nintendo-talks-annualization-of-franchises/ this quote]</span> (from a later point than Shikata's statement) shows that Nintendo does not consider TFH to fall in the timeline at all.<br/>So then, I say that Tri Force Heroes isn't canon, because it doesn't take place in the timeline. Thoughts? {{:User:TriforceTony/sig}} 09:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I have no idea who Julie Gagnon is and don't know how high-up in Nintendo she is. Hiromasa Shikata, the game's director, indicates that at E3 they hadn't decided about where in the timeline it fits in (which I'd like to extend to the possibility that it may not be in the timeline at all, in light of this new evidence). This certainly merits at least tagging the game as "Ambiguously Canon", but I'm not comfortable taking the word of a Nintendo employee who does not appear to be involved in the game's development over the director saying they haven't decided yet. It's possible that at some point during E3 they decided that the game is not going to be in the timeline, but I doubt they would do so and in such a way that Julie Gagnon would definitively know. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 09:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | :I have no idea who Julie Gagnon is and don't know how high-up in Nintendo she is. Hiromasa Shikata, the game's director, indicates that at E3 they hadn't decided about where in the timeline it fits in (which I'd like to extend to the possibility that it may not be in the timeline at all, in light of this new evidence). This certainly merits at least tagging the game as "Ambiguously Canon", but I'm not comfortable taking the word of a Nintendo employee who does not appear to be involved in the game's development over the director saying they haven't decided yet. It's possible that at some point during E3 they decided that the game is not going to be in the timeline, but I doubt they would do so and in such a way that Julie Gagnon would definitively know. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 09:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
::{{Quote|I am in charge of all the media relations for Nintendo Canada in Quebec. I am also the francophone spokesperson for Nintendo Canada.|Julie Gagnon}} | ::{{Quote|I am in charge of all the media relations for Nintendo Canada in Quebec. I am also the francophone spokesperson for Nintendo Canada.|Julie Gagnon}} | ||
::So apparently she's the top French-speaking PR person for Nintendo of Canada. That said, I don't think one statement from Gagnon isn't enough to say definitely that the game isn't canon. It would take some kind of confirmation from someone else at Nintendo. "Ambiguous canon" seems like the prudent approach until we know more. | ::So apparently she's the top French-speaking PR person for Nintendo of Canada. That said, I don't think one statement from Gagnon isn't enough to say definitely that the game isn't canon. It would take some kind of confirmation from someone else at Nintendo. "Ambiguous canon" seems like the prudent approach until we know more. | ||
::Personally I don't see the point in trying to decide a canon status right away. The fact that it's a | ::Personally I don't see the point in trying to decide a canon status right away. The fact that it's a future game already implies that a lot of things about the game are "ambiguous." {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 11:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
== Smash bros == | == Smash bros == | ||
super smash bros for 3ds and wii u is not in the table. --[[User:0551E80Y|0551E80Y]] ([[User talk:0551E80Y|talk]]) 07:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC) | super smash bros for 3ds and wii u is not in the table. --[[User:0551E80Y@legacy41972809|0551E80Y]] ([[User talk:0551E80Y@legacy41972809|talk]]) 07:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I just added the game to the table. Thanks for the heads up. {{:User:Chuck/sig}} 07:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC) | :I just added the game to the table. Thanks for the heads up. {{:User:Chuck/sig}} 07:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Line 243: | Line 243: | ||
:I'll let someone else answer that as I'm not a reference for the canon policy, but in the meantime I can tell you that, Hyrule Warriors is not a ''The Legend of Zelda'' game. That is, I think, 99% of the reason for it being non-canon on here. [[User:MannedTooth|MannedTooth]] ([[User talk:MannedTooth|talk]]) 11:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)\ | :I'll let someone else answer that as I'm not a reference for the canon policy, but in the meantime I can tell you that, Hyrule Warriors is not a ''The Legend of Zelda'' game. That is, I think, 99% of the reason for it being non-canon on here. [[User:MannedTooth|MannedTooth]] ([[User talk:MannedTooth|talk]]) 11:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)\ | ||
::Eiji Aonuma has previously confirmed that | ::Eiji Aonuma has previously confirmed that {{BotW|-}} occurs after ''Ocarina of Time'' so while it has no definitive placement on the Timeline, it still occurs somewhere on the Timeline.<br/>{{Cite Web|quote= '''Ben Reeves:''' Does Breath of the Wild take place before or after Ocarina of Time? '''Eiji Aonuma:''' After. |author= Game Informer |published= February 9, 2017 |retrieved=October 16, 2017|url= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qApEgUxp58k |title= 51 Questions And Answers About The Legend Of Zelda: Breath Of The Wild |site= YouTube |type= Video}}<br/>''Hyrule Warriors'' does not occur anywhere on the Timeline and therefore will never be canon. Also, as a note, the inclusion of ''The Legend of Zelda'', ''Zelda'' or ''Zeruda no Densetsu'' has no real bearing on what is considered canon by the Wiki. It just happens to be that other than ''The Adventure of Link'', all games that have been placed on the Timeline or confirmed to be somewhere on the Timeline have had ''The Legend of Zelda'' in the title. {{:User:Link Lab/sig}} 17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
:::Eiji Aonuma said that while ''Hyrule Warriors'' isn't a main story Zelda game, it still does exist in the Zelda Universe as an alternate dimension.<ref>"Within the Zelda canon, there is the timeline, but there has always been the sense of the main story and kind of a side story. Like, Majora's Mask might be considered part of that, though it does exist as part of the timeline. With Hyrule Warriors, there is a link between the two, but it exists as a separate dimension, so it doesn't exist as part of the main canon.", Eiji Aonuma - [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/11/eiji-aonuma-addresses-hyrule-warriors-place-in-the-zelda-timeline.aspx Eiji Aonuma Addresses Hyrule Warriors Place in the Zelda Timeline]</ref> With | :::Eiji Aonuma said that while ''Hyrule Warriors'' isn't a main story Zelda game, it still does exist in the Zelda Universe as an alternate dimension.<ref>"Within the Zelda canon, there is the timeline, but there has always been the sense of the main story and kind of a side story. Like, Majora's Mask might be considered part of that, though it does exist as part of the timeline. With Hyrule Warriors, there is a link between the two, but it exists as a separate dimension, so it doesn't exist as part of the main canon.", Eiji Aonuma - [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/11/eiji-aonuma-addresses-hyrule-warriors-place-in-the-zelda-timeline.aspx Eiji Aonuma Addresses Hyrule Warriors Place in the Zelda Timeline]</ref> With {{BotW|-}} currently not being a part of the main timeline,<ref>"Actually, those timeline-related questions are difficult because we’ve never designed any Zelda games by saying “hey, we’re going to put that game here, we need to have it fit into this period or that one, etc.” That’s not what comes first for us. But indeed, once the game is released and we’ve been able to develop our story, we can tell each other “oh yes, we can make it fit here”, but that’s not important to us. Especially since there could be contradictions in every new game if we tried to follow the timeline. If we can put a game in the timeline, that’s great, but as for Breath of the Wild, we haven’t really decided where it belongs for now.", Eiji Aonuma - [http://nintendoeverything.com/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-devs-on-why-heros-path-mode-was-added-as-dlc-timeline-more/ Zelda: Breath of the Wild devs on why Hero’s Path Mode was added as DLC, timeline, more]</ref> and existing on a plane without being intigrated into the timeline yet retaining canon; ''Hyrule Warriors'' being on it's own timeline could retain canon too.[[User:Editorguy117|Editorguy117]] ([[User talk:Editorguy117|talk]]) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
:::But Hyrule Warriors does take place after ''Ocarina of Time'', ''Twilight Princess'', and ''Skyward Sword'' in it's own alternate dimension/timeline.<ref>"Within the Zelda canon, there is the timeline, but there has always been the sense of the main story and kind of a side story. Like, Majora's Mask might be considered part of that, though it does exist as part of the timeline. With Hyrule Warriors, there is a link between the two, but it exists as a separate dimension, so it doesn't exist as part of the main canon.", Eiji Aonuma - [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/11/eiji-aonuma-addresses-hyrule-warriors-place-in-the-zelda-timeline.aspx Eiji Aonuma Addresses Hyrule Warriors Place in the Zelda Timeline]</ref> This is evident by the plot where they open portals to said eras of Hyrule's past. It's no different than | :::But Hyrule Warriors does take place after ''Ocarina of Time'', ''Twilight Princess'', and ''Skyward Sword'' in it's own alternate dimension/timeline.<ref>"Within the Zelda canon, there is the timeline, but there has always been the sense of the main story and kind of a side story. Like, Majora's Mask might be considered part of that, though it does exist as part of the timeline. With Hyrule Warriors, there is a link between the two, but it exists as a separate dimension, so it doesn't exist as part of the main canon.", Eiji Aonuma - [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/11/eiji-aonuma-addresses-hyrule-warriors-place-in-the-zelda-timeline.aspx Eiji Aonuma Addresses Hyrule Warriors Place in the Zelda Timeline]</ref> This is evident by the plot where they open portals to said eras of Hyrule's past. It's no different than {{BotW|-}}, which takes place after ''Ocarina of Time'', but has no current place in the timeline either. {{BotW|-}}, like ''Hyrule Warriors'', is currently not a part of the main timeline<ref>"Actually, those timeline-related questions are difficult because we’ve never designed any Zelda games by saying “hey, we’re going to put that game here, we need to have it fit into this period or that one, etc.” That’s not what comes first for us. But indeed, once the game is released and we’ve been able to develop our story, we can tell each other “oh yes, we can make it fit here”, but that’s not important to us. Especially since there could be contradictions in every new game if we tried to follow the timeline. If we can put a game in the timeline, that’s great, but as for Breath of the Wild, we haven’t really decided where it belongs for now.", Eiji Aonuma - [http://nintendoeverything.com/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-devs-on-why-heros-path-mode-was-added-as-dlc-timeline-more/ Zelda: Breath of the Wild devs on why Hero’s Path Mode was added as DLC, timeline, more]</ref> (as of now it's currently not part of main timeline at all, Aonuma doesn't even know where it would fit). [[User:Editorguy117|Editorguy117]] ([[User talk:Editorguy117|talk]]) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
==The Encyclopedia and canon== | |||
For those that don't have a copy of ''The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia'', it has a section near the back of the book titled "Still More Legends" briefly covering the non-core ''Zelda'' titles. This section is further divided as such: | |||
- '''Spinoff titles''': These games are referred to as "spinoff games set in the ''Zelda'' universe" and that they "do not necessarily have a place on the core timeline but are still set in the same world". Covered in this section are the ''Zelda'' Game & Watch game, the Satellaview titles ''BS The Legend of Zelda'' and ''Ancient Stone Tablets'', and {{LCT|-}}. Also under this section as "Special Editions and Rereleases" are {{MQ|-}}, {{CE|-}}, {{FSAE|-}} and (oddly enough) ''My Nintendo Picross''. ''Zelda'' amiibo figures are also mentioned in a separate box in this section. | |||
- '''Appearances in other games''': These are noted to be "games set in other universes". Covered here are the {{SSB|-}} games, {{SCII|-}}, ''Sonic Lost World'', {{MK8|-}}, and the ''Hyrule Warriors'' games. The ''Tingle'' games are covered in their own section here similar to the "Special Editions and Rereleases" section above. | |||
- '''Even more games''': This is just a quick list of various other titles ''Zelda'' characters and elements have cameoed in. Far too many to list, but if I say it includes games like ''Super Mario RPG'', various ''WarioWare'' titles, and ''Skyrim'' it should give you an idea of what's included. | |||
Now my question is does this impact the canon policy? If nothing else, I think this indicates the ''Tingle'' games should be demoted to non-canon. I would also argue the "set in the same world" could imply that everything in the "spinoff titles" section could be promoted to full canon status. [[User:Bardtard72|Bardtard72]] ([[User talk:Bardtard72|talk]]) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Speaking of the Encyclopedia, how much of it can we even consider canon? The creators of the game’s were not as closely involved in its creation as they were with the other books. Some of it even appears to contradict what they themselves have said. The timeline change was confirmed by the official site, but the rest is questionable. [[User:Toolen22|Toolen22]] ([[User talk:Toolen22|talk]]) 16:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Toolen's question has been answered [[Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia#Canon|here]]. Please do not start up the same conversation in multiple places. [[User:TriforceTony|TriforceTony]] ([[User talk:TriforceTony|talk]]) 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
==''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate''== | |||
Either ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]'' should be added to the table as non-canon, or the table should just say "''Super Smash Bros.'' series". I'd prefer the latter, considering that's how the ''Tingle'' games are listed. [[User:Rjd1922|Rjd1922]] ([[User talk:Rjd1922|talk]]) 14:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{Ref}} | {{Ref}} | ||
== TLoZ BotW Creating a Champion Book == | |||
Someone should add this book the the "canon" list. This Book shows many many canonical and only canonical informations about the canon main series title BotW. | |||
== Update: SS Manga Is Actually Not Canon == | |||
The Skyward Sword prequel manga included in Hyrule Historia can no longer be treated as "ambiguously canon" by the canon guidelines of this Wiki, I would argue. First of all, it should be noted that SS itself implies that Link is in fact the first Hero chosen by Hylia; they don't realize it, but the ceremony they perform where Zelda gives him the sailcloth is not actually recreating a historical event that happened previously like they believe, but fulfilling a prophecy; they ARE Hylia and her chosen Hero. Like Fi explains when Link and Zelda's father first meet her, the oral tradition they used to pass these stories down is very unreliable, resulting in their missing stuff. Furthermore, there are developer quotes from before the release of the game indicating that SS is intended to depict the true origin of the Master Sword. These things would of course directly contradict the manga's story, since it is based on the whole premise of a first Link actually existing before the Hero of SS and shows the presence of and an origin for the Master Sword before SS. | |||
However, I see how these things could be dismissed initially. SS did only IMPLY, as opposed to explicitly state, that, and devs' plans have changed before, so there was still arguably a little wiggle room to interpret things such that the manga could still be unknown as opposed to definitely non-canon. I get that. But things have changed with the release of The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia. The book confirms on page 18 with its description for the picture of SS Link facing down Demise ("The climactic battle between the hero and Demise early in the history of Hyrule. After several thousand years, from a people who could only lament and were unable to fight, the first hero was born.") that SS Link was in fact "the first hero," meaning the manga's first hero cannot be canonical. [[User:Game-fanatic|Game-fanatic]] ([[User talk:Game-fanatic|talk]]) 07:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
