The idea of "Canon" being something that "is" and "is not" in the Zelda universe is an arbitrary distinction that is self defeating. To assume that "non-canon" means that the facts are conflicting between games would mean the entire Zelda timeline is itself non-canon, because of conflicting evidence between past games. This clearly has no effect on "canon" as the writers and creators of the Zelda Franchise will say whatever they please as canon. THEREFORE the only real definition of "canon" is what Nintendo has deemed as canon. This article is gatekeeping for the self righteous nature of peoples' to assume their own opinions have an impact on works of art that are not their own, and censoring the truth of what exists in and between games. Unless one is the creator of the Zelda universe they would have no right to deem works as non-canon that have appeared in ANY main timeline Zelda game. The existence of "non-canon" works in "canon" games directly invalidates what this article postulates. Either logic has no place here, or this article is false, made to cover up evidence that does not fit perfectly within an outsider's perspective of another's work.
- "To assume that 'non-canon' means that the facts are conflicting between games would mean the entire Zelda timeline is itself non-canon, because of conflicting evidence between past games."
- This is where your argument runs into a flaw, because nowhere in our canon guidelines does it state that we determine material to be non-canon solely because of conflicting facts. "Canon" is a well-known term that is widely used in discussion on fiction, and the Legend of Zelda franchise is no exception. Main series games are considered canon, and everything outside of that is either ambiguous or non-canon unless stated otherwise by Nintendo in official material.