Zelda Timeline FAQ Version 2.51

IMPORTANT NOTES, PEASE READ!

1)THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY MY WORK. TripleEspresso9 (GameFAQs), along with a few friends made this Guide/FAQ. This updated version was posted by joenopride (GameFAQs), but is still TripleEspresso9?s work. I was given permission to post this here by Darken Poltergeist (GameFAQs), a friend of TripleEspresso9.

2) I am told that the information on TP is outdated. To what extent, I don?t know. As soon as someone posts a newer version, I?ll update this topic.

3) This topic is a DIRECT COPY of joenopride?s topic. Just keep that in mind when:
a) reading some of the first person perspective stuff.
b) reading some of the ToU / codes of conduct stuff.

4) I have not fully read this version of the guide. I have only read the older version; nor was I involved in the creation of any of the topics. Therefore, I may not be able to correctly answer any questions about this guide.

5) Do to the shear size of this post, it may take me several editings to get the bolding/underling/linking/italicizing perfect, so just because something isn?t bolded/linked doesn?t mean its not suppose to be. If someone sees a broken html tag (b[], ]b], ect.) or a link that?s not linked, let me know, as I might not catch it.

6) Whether or not you knew or cared about the timeline for the Zelda series, this is a very good read (based on the older version).

Guide Introduction

This FAQ is loosely affiliated with this one: http://www.zeldawiki.org/in...Timeline

Hello to all members of the Twilight Princess Wii General Board! Before I begin, I must say that this guide will indeed contain some minor spoilers for most of the games. However, there are no spoilers for Twilight Princess in this guide, so don?t worry. Now, some of you have probably read Version 2 of this topic on the GCN board, but I?m guessing most of you haven?t. I believe, and many of you probably do as well, that this game will attract people who have never played a Zelda game, or some past fans who haven?t touched the series since Ocarina of Time. Many people won?t give a hoot about the timeline, but many will, and this topic is for them. That being said, this topic is not a proper update to the current timeline guide. You might find this hard to believe as you read this expansive guide, but there was much more information that we wanted to include. So, think of this as a Version 2.5, of sorts. Now, this version is still very different than V2, as not a single section went unchanged, so even if you read the last version, you?ll still find a lot of new information here. The biggest change to this guide would have been the addition of the section that explains each game?s story in detail. This is to address one of the biggest complaints with V2, that people basically had to take our word for what happened in the games, and couldn?t always see where we made some of our connections. A great deal of credit will go to Darken Poltergeist and OmegaDevastator for this section, as soon as they finish it and send it to me, but for now, it?s not here, sorry. You?ll just have to take our word that the things we say in this guide are accurate, or look up some of the information yourself if you have doubts. Another big new feature that?s actually a part of this guide is the addition of subsections. Unlike V2, each section is broken down into smaller segments to make finding what you?re looking for easier, and this also makes the guide much neater. And one final thing, the goal of the first two versions of this guide was to be as factual as possible, mostly dealing with things that are confirmed by the creators. This version will still do this, but there will be many more sections that present both sides of an argument, even if one side was ?confirmed? by the creators. This will let you decide which theory or position you support, and should make your timeline experience more enjoyable and hands on, instead of, ?This is right, that is wrong, deal with it.?

Final Disclaimer: GameTrailers ?revealed? the timeline in Part VI of their excellent Zelda Games Retrospective miniseries. Seeing as this guide was released before their video, we who wrote this have no idea what they were going to say about the timeline, or if it was going be accurate or not. A legitimate concern is that no matter what they say, people will take it as fact. So, to all past, present, and future readers of this guide, take everything you hear from the GameTrailers video with a grain of salt.

But enough of that. Sit back, relax, and read away!

Table of Contents

Credit to Coco Monkay for this idea. Press Control then F to bring up the search bar. The addition of subsections should make this even more effective. Just enter the title or number (1c, 3b) of the section or subsection into the search bar, and pressing enter once or twice will take you directly to that section. Neat, huh?

Section 1-Thread Conduct
Section 1a-What Not To Do
Section 1b-Bumping and Other Unnecessary Stuff
Section 1c-The ToS Clause

Section 2-Abbreviations
Section 2a-Game and System Abbreviations
Section 2b-Other Common Zelda Series Abbreviations

Section 3-Basic Stuff
Section 3a-There IS a timeline.
Section 3b-So how many Links are there, really?
Section 3c-Like it or not, the Four Swords Trilogy and the Oracle Games are part of the timeline.
Section 3d-Hylian, Hylians, Hyrulean, Hyruleans, Hyrulian, and Hyrulians
Section 3e-Ganon, Ganondorf, and Vaati

Section 4-Canon
Section 4a-The Rules of Canon
Section 4b-Creator Quotes and Interviews
Section 4c-Sidequests and Official Art
Section 4d-Extra Content, Easter Eggs, and Cameos
Section 4e-Canon: What Is, and What Isn?t
Section 4f-Final Notes on Canonicity

section 5-Number of Timelines
Section 5a-Single vs. Double Timeline
Section 5b-What the Creators Have to Say about the Number of Timelines

Section 6-How the Double Timeline Theory Works
Section 6a-The Sequence of Events
Section 6b-The Explanation

Section 7-How the Single Timeline Theory Works
Section 7a-The Sequence of Events and Explanation

Section 8-Problems With the Single and Double Timeline Theories
Section 8a-Problems With the Single Timeline Theory
Section 8b-Problems With the Double Timeline Theory

Section 9-In-Game Timeline Evidence, Alternate Theories, and Other Stuff
Section 9a-Zelda?s Time Period is Erased
Section 9b-Link Does the Events of MM, then Re-Does the Events of Adult OoT
Section 9c-The Unified Timeline Theory
Section 9d-In-Game Timeline Evidence
Section 9e-Single vs. Double Timeline Conclusion

Section 10-Game Order
Section 10a-OoT, MM, TP, TWW, and PH
Section 10b-ALttP, LA, LoZ, and AoL

Section 11-Uncomfirmed But Interesting Speculation, and Common Timeline Misconceptions
Section 11a-The FS Trilogy
Section 11b-The Oracle Series
Section 11c-Oracles Before ALttP
Section 11d-Oracles After LA
Section 11e-Oracles After AoL
Section 11f-Some Common Timeline Misconceptions

Section 12-Geography
Section 12a-The Many Hyrules of the Zelda Series
Section 12b-Notes on the ?Changing? Geography of Hyrule
Section 12c-Geography Conclusion

Section 13-The Seal War/Imprisoning War
Section 13a-Introduction to the Zelda Universe Wiki Page
Section 13b-ALttP/TWW Related Arguments
Section 13c-Could Hyrule every recover from the flood?
Section 13d- Does ALttP's backstory reference more than one event? And, does it reference OoT?
Section 13e-Does ALttP?s backstory reference FSA?
Section 13f-Could TP bring a solution?

Section 14-Formulating Your Very Own Timeline Theory
Section 14a-Choosing the Number of Timelines
Section 14b-An Explanation
Section 14c-Placing the FS Trilogy
Section 14d-Placing the Oracle Games
Section 14e-Your Timeline Theory

Section 15-The ?Cardinal Sins? of Timeline Discussion
Section 15a-The Offenses
Section 15b-Cardinal Sins Conclusion

Guide Conclusion

Section 1-Thread Conduct

Unfortunately, this has to be the first section because, as the original version showed, some people will miss it.

Section 1a-What Not to Do

I?ll say it right now. This goal of this guide is to present everything in an unbiased way. The most hotly debated issue in all of the timeline discussions is whether or not there are two timelines or one. There is evidence for and against both sides, and creator quotes that support both sides. Neither one is proven, regardless of which one is more likely. That being said, THERE ARE TO BE NO FLAMEWARS IN THIS TOPIC ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE TWO TIMELINES OR ONE! You?ll discover, as you read the guide, that whether there are one of two timelines barely changes the actual order of the games, so wasting time and space arguing about this issue is pointless. But other than that, just follow the usual rules: no flaming, no trolling, no spamming, and all that other good stuff. Please follow this rule, as well. Try not to bash someone's theory too badly if you don't agree with it. Just politely correct them, or argue about it in a semi-civilized manner. I realize this rule probably won't be followed, but I thought I'd put it in here anyway.

Section 1b-Bumping and Other Unnecessary Stuff

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO BUMP A STICKIED TOPIC! Three of the last four posts in the GCN board guide (at the time I first wrote this) were bumps, even after someone informed the posters who did it originally that it was unnecessary. Just be warned, bumping a stickied topic can be considered disruptive posting. I won't mark you for it, but certain rule-worshipping posters may, so please, don't bump this topic after it's stickied. Now, as the last version showed, this topic will likely fill up very fast, so please don?t waste space asking when it?s going to be stickied. I will apply for the sticky within a week after I post it, and it will likely be stickied within a month after I apply for it. Also in V2, there were a lot of comments along the lines of, ?I only read the Guide part because I didn?t feel like reading the whole 300 post thing, so here?s my question.? To all readers, this is fine. It?s my opinion that if your question is so rare that it wasn?t covered in this extensive guide, you can go ahead and post it without worrying about it having been covered in the earlier pages. If you?re not interested in any timeline debating and just want your question answered, you only have to read the first two or three pages. I?d also appreciate it if nobody posted any comments along the lines of, ?I don?t care about the timeline.? To be blunt, we don?t care that you don?t care about it, and telling people who are interested in the timeline that you aren?t interested in the timeline just wastes your time and ours, and topic space. So please don?t do it.

Section 1c-The ToS Clause

Some of you have probably seen this poster around, and many of you probably haven?t. Her name is TalesofSymphonia, and she NEVER contributes anything useful to timeline topics. She seems to be genuinely interested in the timeline, but she refuses to accept anything about the timeline that she didn?t make up or discover. She?s widely regarded as a troll, and her posts in timeline topics usually start multi-page flamewars, so if she posts something, no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous it may be, (like the time she said that TWW Link was the same as FS Link because of a design on their belt buckles) please don?t dignify it with a response. Here?s to hoping she doesn?t decide to post in this topic.

Well, now that all of that is out of the way, we can get on to the actual guide. Read it, enjoy it, and by the time you?re finished, you?ll be a Zelda timeline expert!

Section 2-Abbreviations

Because of all the long names and titles in this series, many things are abbreviated, and this guide will be very difficult to understand if you don?t know them. So, here are the most common abbreviations.

Section 2a-Game and System Abbreviations

(T)LoZ-The Legend of Zelda-Released in 1987 on the Nintendo Entertainment System.

(T)AoL-The Adventure of Link, also commonly referred to as Zelda II-Released in 1988, also on the NES.

(A)LttP-A Link to the Past-Released in 1992, on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, or SNES.

LA-Link's Awakening-Released in 1993, on the GameBoy. A deluxe, color version was released in 1998
on the GameBoy Color.

OoT-Ocarina of Time-Released in 1998, on the Nintendo 64.

MM-Majora's Mask-Released in 2000, also on the N64.

OoA-Oracle of Ages-Released in 2001, on the GBC.

OoS-Oracle of Seasons-Released on the same day as OoA, also on the GBC. The two are often collectively referred to as either ?the Oracles,? or OoX. Why OoX? I have no idea.

FS-Four Swords-Released in 2002, as part of a GameBoy Advance port of ALttP.

(T)WW-The Wind Waker-Released in 2003, on the GameCube Nintendo.

FSA-Four Swords Adventures-Released in 2004, also on the GCN.

(T)MC-The Minish Cap-Released in 2005, on the GBA.

TP-Twilight Princess-Released in November 2006 on the Wii and December 2006 on the GCN.

PH-Phantom Hourglass-Set to be released sometime in 2007 on the Nintendo Dual Screen, or DS.

Section 2a-Other Common Zelda Series Abbreviations

MS-The Master Sword-The Legendary Blade of Evil?s Bane.

TLotF-The Legend of the Fairy-An infamous little story from TWW.

PotFS-Palace of the Four Sword-A secret dungeon in the GBA remake of ALttP.

SR-The Sacred Realm-A dimension of Hyrule that contains the Triforce.

To(P)(W)(C)- This can be the Triforce piece of Power, Wisdom, or Courage

IW/SW-Imprisoning War/Seal War-A mysterious conflict covered later in the guide.

That?s all I can think of for now, but I may add more.

Section 3a-There IS a timeline.

You'd think this would be obvious, but apparently it's not. So for anyone who says there isn't one, go to www.gannon-banned.com, look at number 16, and read the articles in the links provided. Then tell me there's not a timeline. It?s fine to believe that there isn?t a timeline, I guess; but if you do believe that, you?re wrong, with all due respect, so please just ignore this topic.

Section 3b-So how many Links are there, really?

Well, there are multiple Links, 8 or 9 known ones to be exact. They are, in release date order, not timeline order, like this:

LoZ and AoL Link- They were the only two Zelda games at the time, and AoL talks about Ganon defeating
Link a few years ago. This should be pretty obvious, to tell the truth.

ALttP and LA Link- Both the end of ALttP and the manual to LA refer to Link as the ?Legendary Hero of
Hyrule.? They?re the only two games that do so, and one of the Nightmares LA Link fights is Agahnim. He was the only Link exposed to Agahnim at this point in the series as well. Because of this, we can easily infer that ALttP and LA Link are the same guy.

OoT and MM Link-This should also be pretty obvious. Watch MM?s intro if you dispute this, but I don?t think there?s anyone who does.

OoA and OoS Link-No explanation needed; I hope.

FS Link*

TWW and PH Link-At E3 2006, the Nintendo representative presenting Nintendo DS games said that PH, ?Picks up where TWW left off.? Because of this we can very safely assume that they feature the same Link.

FSA Link*

TMC Link

TP Link

*There is evidence both for and against FS and FSA Link being the same person. This will be presented shortly, so you can make that judgment for yourself.

That makes eight Links, or nine, and that's all of them so far. Now, one common misconception is that all the Links in the FS trilogy are the same person. That is not true, because in the beginning of FS, Zelda explains to Link who Vaati is, and also tells him the Legend of the Four Sword. You'd think if he used the Four Sword to defeat Vaati in TMC, he would remember Vaati, and what the Four Sword is. So, we know that FS and TMC Link aren?t the same. But some believe that FS and FSA Link are the same. Here?s the evidence against it. On the back of FSA?s box, there is the line, ?For years the mighty Four Sword rested until one day, a dark shadow tricked young Link into drawing it.? Also, the Links in those two games look like they're about the same age. If the sword rested ?for years? why would Link still look, and be referred to as young? Nintendo?s weakest system, in terms of pure power, the NES, was able to show a four-year age difference between LoZ and AoL Link. Surely the ?Cube would have been able to pull that off.

Also in FSA, Link has to relearn how to use the Four Sword. Some will say that?s simply because Nintendo had to explain to players how to play the game, but in every other Zelda sequel, MM, LA, AoL, OoA/OoS, the games assume familiarity with the controls. They don?t tell you what to do to control Link. Hell, in FSA, Link didn?t even know he couldn?t leave an area without gathering up all the clones. Also, it would have been very easy for Nintendo to make it clear that FS and FSA Link were the same person. It would have been as simple as having Kaepora Gaebora, the wise owl, say something like, ?Don?t you remember how to control your clones, Link?? But, that wasn?t the case. However, there is some evidence that shows why FS and FSA Link may be the same guy. First of all, the background given in FSA?s introduction is pretty minimal. It makes it sound like the events with Vaati happened pretty recently, and it also refers to the hero, Link, by name. All direct Zelda sequels mention the hero of the previous game by name. Also, when playing FSA?s multiplayer quest, the owl doesn?t explain how to control the clones. So, as you can see, there is some contradicting evidence here.

Section 3c-Like it or not, the FS trilogy and the Oracle games are part of the timeline.

True, they were made by Capcom, but they were overseen by Nintendo. FSA was actually made by Nintendo outright. Also, in a recent interview, Mr. Eiji Aonuma, the man in charge of the Zelda series and its timeline, said that the Four Sword series is very important to the overall Zelda timeline. The only Zelda games not part of the timeline are the three Phillips CDi games: Zelda's Adventure; Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon; and Link: Faces of Evil.

Section 3d-Hylian, Hylians, Hyrulean, Hyruleans, Hyrulian, and Hyrulians

These words are confused quite a bit when it comes to this series. As of right now, Hylian, Hylians, and Hyrulean, are the correct official spellings. Hyrulian and Hyrulians were used in the manual of LA, but the official spellings have since been changed. Here's how it works. Hylians are the people with pointy ears who are featured in OoT, and who were said to be able to communicate telepathically in ALttP. The "Hylian Shield" in OoT was a product made by them, so it is Hylian. It's kind of like how a product made in China could technically be considered Chinese. Now, as for Hyrulean, you may have seen it used to describe Link's adventure in FSA. The easiest way for me to define Hyrulean would be "of Hyrule." All the races, Zoras, Gerudo, Gorons, and Hylians are Hyrulean, because they live in Hyrule. They are of Hyrule. It's similar to one's personal heritage, I believe. My family is mostly Italian, but we live in the U.S., so we?re American as well. Link's adventure in FSA takes place in Hyrule, so it is also described as Hyrulean. Hyrulians means the same as Hylians, I believe, but it's not the correct term. The same goes for Hyrulian. It would have the same meaning as Hyrulean, but it's not correct either. Also, Link is believed to be a Hylian in every game. He's not an elf, as some people still say.

Section 3e-Ganon, Ganondorf, and Vaati

One of these three is the main villain in nearly every single Zelda game. Vaati is the main villain of the FS trilogy, and Ganon is the main villain in most of the more traditional Zelda games. Ganon is the same person as Ganondorf, and there is likely only one Ganon and Vaati per timeline/universe. They always seem to break out of whatever they?re sealed in, or be revived. Now, I know the guide to the GCN board says that Ganon and Ganondorf can be used interchangeably, but I disagree. Ganon can be used interchangeably, as shown in TWW, but have you ever seen Ganon, in his beast form, referred to as Ganondorf? I sure haven?t, and I don?t believe he ever has been throughout the series. So, use Ganon to refer to the Gerudo or beast form, but use Ganondorf to refer exclusively to the Gerudo form. The important thing here though, is that how Ganon returns to menace Hyrule is hardly ever explained. It?s actually only explained once, and that?s when we are told that Twinrova revives him in a linked Oracles playthrough. In TWW?s intro, we are told that he breaks out of his seal, but not how or why. So the point is, how Ganon is revived or breaks out of his seal shouldn?t be used as evidence for, or especially against a timeline theory. It?s one of the biggest mysteries in the series, and therefore is a hole in any theory.

Section 4-Canon

Next, we have the issue of what is and isn't canon. Canon, by this definition, means part of, or important to the storyline. If something is canon, it has relevance to the overall story of a game, or possibly even the entire timeline. For example, the Ocarina of Time in OoT is about as canon as you can get. The Piranha Plants and Cheep-Cheeps in LA are about as non-canon as you can get. Now I'll explain the most widely agreed upon rules of canon. Before I begin, though, bear in mind that these rules are by no means 100% definitive, or released by the creators. They are just very widely agreed upon by people who discuss the timeline, and most posters follow most of these rules. The only ones who can truly decide whether or not something is canon are the creators. So, treat these rules as guidelines, not law.

Section 4a-The Rules of Canon

Canon is a tricky subject, because, regardless of what anyone says, not everything that's in a game is canon. Most things are, but some aren't. If everything in every game was canon, then Zelda and Mario must take place in the same universe because of all the references to Mario Zelda games make, like Goombas, Cheep-Cheeps, and Mario portraits. It's pretty safe to say that this isn't the case, so trust me. Not everything in every game is canon. That being said, there are rules you can follow to determine what is and isn?t canon.

First of all, any item that you must collect, or task you have to do that is essential to a game's main plot is canon. An example would be...getting the Kokiri Sword in OoT. Now, things like glitches that allow you to skip portions of a game don't factor into whether or not something is considered canon. According to TSA, it is now possible to complete OoT without ever setting foot in either the Water or Fire Temples, but doing things like beating Morpha and acquiring Megaton's Hammer are still considered vital to completing OoT, in terms of canonicity.

Section 4b-Sidequests

Moving on, a good bit of most Zelda games is taken up by sidequests, so here's how they work. You should consider all sidequests potentially not canon. If it's not necessary to complete something or receive an item to advance the plot, it may not be canon. Some sidequests are undoubtedly canon, and there's a special way to tell. For example, in LoZ, there is no need to acquire the Magic Sword. However, in AoL's manual, there is a quote along the lines of, "So Link set off on his dangerous quest, his shield in his right hand, and his Magic Sword in his left." That shows us that LoZ Link did in-fact acquire the Magic Sword, so it's canon. Keep in mind, if something is not canon, it's like it never happened. Another way to tell is looking at official art. There was artwork officially released by Nintendo that shows Link wearing the Keaton Mask. That shows that he did acquire it.

So, if another game, or official art proves that a sidequest happened, it's canon. If a sidequest is not proven to happen in another game, it's not canon, but only if it has timeline impact, like the Master Sword in the Oracles. It is not required to advance the plot AT ALL, as I will say later, and it's never proven to have happened by another game. Because of that, it's not canon. Now, there are hundreds of sidequests with no timeline importance, such as getting the Fierce Deity Mask in MM. IMO, it's stupid to say that MM Link never got the FDM simply because it's not proven in a later game. So, if a sidequest has no timeline importance, it IS canon. The problems, of course, lie with the controversial sidequests. These particular ones cause problems when you follow a ?every sidequest is canon,? or ?every sidequest isn't canon,? rule. That's why the aforementioned guidelines are necessary.

Section 4c-Extra Content, Easter Egg, and Cameos

Just a quick note, this section is the least agreed upon area.

Next, we have extra content, such as the infamous Legend of the Fairy and the Palace of the Four Sword in the GBA version of ALttP. You determine if something is extra content if it's required that you beat the game to see it, or must pay extra money to see it, like buying a GBA to use the Tingle Tuner. The Legend of the Fairy, and the FS Palace both fit under this category. Both of these also potentially have a large amount of impact on the timeline, and neither are proven by another game. For this reason, they are both, as of now, likely not canon. I say as of now, because something to prove otherwise may be discovered in the future. As for cameos, treat them as non-canon as well. A cameo is a character that doesn't seem to fit in the setting, and is usually thrown in for fun, similar to an Easter Egg. For example, the Oracle Ladies in the TMC town square. But that's covered later as well. So, with sidequests, cameos, and extra content that have a potential impact on the timeline, you follow a "Guilty until proven innocent" rule, if you will.

Section 4d-Creator Quotes and Interviews

Then we have creator quotes. Creator quotes are one of the best canon sources, regardless of what anyone says. They are canon more often than not. However, here's what you must do. Since the creators are the ones who created the Zelda series, you'd think they know more about the timeline than anyone else. As such, you follow the opposite of the sidequest/extra content rule. Creator quotes are canon until proven otherwise, but remember, it is possible for creator quotes to be proven not canon. Here's how you determine that. In short, when dealing with creator quotes, you take the most recent one, and if you can't disprove it using a more recent quote or in-game evidence, it's canon. Bear in mind that if a creator quote is proven to be non-canon, theories will have to be adjusted. That is the one downside of creator quotes. Manuals are canon, as are game boxes, but they?re nowhere near as concrete as manuals. Remakes of games are equally canon with their original counterparts, unless something has been changed in the newer release. If that's the case, the newer release is more canon. Also, second quests are not canon. Finally, the Japanese versions of games have canon priority over their English counterparts.

Section 4e-Canon: What Is, and What Isn't

So, now that you know the rules, here are some things that are and aren't canon.
All the games mentioned in this guide are canon, but the jury's still out on the BS Satellaview games. They may be, but also may not be. The comics and TV show are not canon, and neither are the CDi games. Game and Watch Zelda isn't canon either. Nor is Link?s appearance in Soul Calibur II. Like I said, the Legend of the Fairy and PotFS may not be canon; the MS in the Oracles is not canon, but the Magic Sword in LoZ is, as are creator quotes and official artwork. So, just keep canon in mind when debating the timeline, because it's probably the single most important factor in determining it. Think about it; if no creator quotes were canon, NO game would have a definite place. There would be pairs and groupings of course, but without creator quotes as guidelines, the timeline would be an even bigger mess. Just remember that.

Section 4f-Final Notes on Canonicity

Now, many people have said that it's still possible to form a timeline theory without using creator quotes. To that I say: you're right. It is possible. However, it is very difficult to PROVE something without using creator quotes, which leads me to the next topic. That topic is disproving creator quotes or game manuals using in-game evidence. It's almost unanimously agreed upon that in-game evidence is the highest form of canon, and that nothing can be used to overrule it. However, in-game evidence is just that; evidence. Very rarely will you find anything within the games that can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, overrule a creator quote, or what is printed on a box or manual. This is because very rarely will a game reference a game outside its story arc. The story arcs would have been covered later in the guide, but they weren?t written in time. Basically, the story arcs are part of a system that divides the games by their natural groupings, (TMC-FS-FSA, OoT-MM-TP-TWW etc.) The story arcs section talked about the groupings, and the fact that the arcs weren?t written to correspond with one another means that you don?t have to worry about inconsistencies between say, TWW and AoL, because the individual stories weren?t written to correspond. The point is, how many references to other games, besides the ones FS and FSA make, does TMC have? The only one I can think of is the appearance of the Oracle ladies in the town square, which as you'll have read earlier in this section, is just a non-canon cameo.

So, for the ease of anyone who's trying to figure out the timeline, I'll provide an example of in-game evidence that proves something, and in-game evidence that merely suggests something. Pretty much anyone who has even a passing interest in the Zelda timeline knows that OoT takes place before TWW, because of some in-game circumstances, and a quote from Eiji Aonuma. Let's pretend for a moment that the interview with Aonuma where he said TWW took place hundreds of years after the adult ending of OoT never occurred. Here are two pieces of in-game evidence that deal with TWW's placement in relation to OoT. The first piece suggests that TWW is after OoT, while the second one proves it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Piece 1: "The Family shield in Link's grandmother's house looks like the one OoT Link used. Therefore, OoT must be before TWW." This is decent evidence, but there could be other explanations, and it really doesn't prove anything. On the other hand...

Piece 2: "The King of Red Lions tells Jabun that TWW Link is not the Hero of Time. Therefore, OoT must be before TWW." This is correct, and it is concrete. If the KoRL and Jabun are talking about the Hero of Time in the past tense, the events involving him must have already occurred. It's simple logic, but also, it's concrete proof. So, just keep this in mind when trying to disprove what's been said by a creator or written in a game manual.

Section 5-Number of Timelines

This issue used to be, and in some places still is, one of the most pointless yet hotly debated issues in all of the Zelda timeline business. Are there two timelines, or just one?

Section 5a-Single vs. Double Timeline

These debates are very heated, and there are people on either side who are very passionate about their beliefs, as with any argument. There is evidence for both sides, but as you?ll soon see, the double timeline theory appears to be supported by the creators. However, there is a fair amount of evidence that supports the single timeline theory, so believe that theory if you like.

Section 5b-What the Creators Have to Say about the Number of Timelines

It used to be that nobody really knew whether there were two timelines or one. Many people had their ideas on the subject, but up until recently, no one really knew. However, in a press conference TSA recently attended, Eiji Aonuma admitted that his remarks about the two endings of Ocarina of Time were meant to convey two timelines. Here are the remarks in question, taken from this little Q&A session:

Q: Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline?
Aonuma: You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.
Miyamoto: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?
Aonuma: From the end.
Miyamoto: No, I mean, as a child or as a...
Aonuma: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years* after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina.
Miyamoto: This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.

*Now, this isn't the best-translated interview ever, but Japanese and English don't translate perfectly, so it's not a big deal. The biggest mistranslation is the 100 years thing. It should be hundreds of years after the adult ending of OoT, so just keep that in mind. And you may want to ignore Miyamoto's last line as well. The fact that he didn't sound sure of himself used to be used as pro-single timeline evidence, but Aonuma's the guy more concerned with the timeline anyway, so who knows?

Here's the link to the article with the Q&A session: http://www.zeldalegends.net...tyle=tww

And the link to TSA's article: http://www.zhq2.com/eiji_ex...t1.shtml

Now, in the above interview, there is this line, ?Aonuma admits that his remarks in an interview before The Wind Waker?s release in Japan were meant to convey ?two timelines?.? As I covered in the last section, creator quotes are very important, and this seems to suggest that Aonuma, the man in charge of the Zelda series and timeline, believes that there are two timelines. Now, I?d advise you not to listen to what certain posters on THF have to say about that quote. Here?s the next, and final, line in that paragraph, just to give you context. ?At that point, there was great debate over whether the ending of Ocarina of Time should spawn off many timelines, or if there should just be one.? In my opinion, this line obviously means that there was great debate over the number of timelines at the point in time when that Q&A session was held, and Aonuma is clearing it up once and for all, by clarifying that there are two timelines. However, certain posters on THF have twisted this quote, saying that the usage of ?At that point? means that Aonuma believed that there were two timelines at the point the original Q&A was conducted, and has since changed his mind about the number of timelines, and that now there is just one. I have no idea where the hell they got this from, but, to each his own interpretation, I guess.

Section 6-How the Double Timeline Theory Works

This section, as you may have guessed, is about how the double timeline theory works. I've noticed from reading countless threads that many people who support the single timeline theory have no clue how the double timeline theory works, so they support the one that looks neater on paper. Even many double timeline believers seem to not know too much about how it works. Before I begin, I must give some credit to andor3, as he is the one who explained most of this to me, when I was one of the people who believed the single timeline theory simply because I really didn't understand the double timeline. I think it's a good idea to explain to all the people who believe the single timeline theory, or even those who believe the double timeline theory but don't know the finer points of it, how the theory works. This should help avoid misunderstandings and pointless flamewars.

Section 6a-The Sequence of Events

Okay, where to begin? First of all, this will seem rather complicated at times, so please bear with me. In this guide, the two timelines will be referred to by the terms ?Original Timeline? and ?New Timeline.? Many people use ?Child OoT Timeline? and ?Adult OoT Timeline,? but Original and New Timeline are technically more correct as Child OoT happens in both timelines. But anyway, the Original Timeline is the plain old, regular timeline. The New Timeline is created when Zelda ?sends? Link back in time.

Alright, we?re all aware that at the end of OoT, Zelda ?sends? (I?ll explain why sends is in quotes later) Link back in time. When he gets back to the past, we see him near the Master Sword, which is resting in its pedestal. This shows us that Zelda sent Link back in time to a point where he hadn?t yet pulled the Master Sword, thus preventing Ganon from accessing the Sacred Realm and the Triforce. This prevents the apocalyptic future Adult Link experienced from happening. One would think, then, that this future is erased from the timeline. However, this isn?t the case. If you?ve played TWW you know that there are countless references to the Adult portion of OoT, including a statue of Adult OoT Link wielding the Master Sword. This leaves us with a dilemma. By not pulling the MS, Young OoT Link prevented Adult OoT from ever happening. Yet TWW shows us that the events of Adult OoT did happen. The conclusion I draw from this is that the events of Adult OoT happened in one timeline, the Original Timeline, but didn?t happen in the other one, the New Timeline. This leaves us with two dimensions/universes, independent of one another, each with its own history. So, in reality, a more appropriate name for the double timeline theory would be the ?Double Dimension Theory? or ?Double Universe Theory.? The double timeline part arises because each dimension/universe has its own documented history, or timeline. Make sense? So just remember that in the double timeline theory, there are two significant universes, and each has its own timeline. Just remember that.

Section 6b-The Explanation

As for ?sends,? I?ll explain that now. Think of every movie, book, T.V. show, whatever, involving time travel, that you?ve come across. Whenever someone is simply sent back in time, they retain their age. This isn?t the most scientific example, but it was the first one that came to mind. In the Family Guy Movie, when the older version of Stewie vacations to the past, he is still 35, not an infant. There is also a current version of Stewie in the time period he travels to. This is how it works in every time travel story I?ve ever heard of. And it makes sense if you think about it, because if time travel was possible, but one could only venture back as many years as they?d lived, they could only relive moments of their own lives, and would have to be careful how far back they traveled, because if they traveled too far back in time, they?d be too young to figure out how to work the time machine. But anyway, think of when Zelda ?sends? Adult Link back in time. When we next see him, he?s magically become a child again. If Zelda had truly sent Link back in time, he should still be a young man. Additionally, there isn?t a current version of Young Link to be found. One may argue that the version of Link we see in the epilogue is the current version of Link, and the Adult one is simply hiding, but that makes no sense. The entire reason Zelda sent Link back in time was to let him relive his childhood, free of conflict. So, the conclusion I?m coming to in a roundabout way is this. Zelda didn?t send Link back in time, she reversed time. This leaves two possibilities. One is that after she reversed time to the point right before Link drew the MS, Link not drawing it and taking a different course of action than what had happened in the Original Timeline caused the timeline to split, thus creating an alternate universe and the New Timeline. The other possibility is that Zelda didn?t reverse time completely, she just reversed Link?s personal timeline. She rewound his life to the point right before he drew the Master Sword, and he ended up adventuring to Termina. This preserved Adult OoT, and made sure that those events were never erased from the Original Timeline. It also ensured that Link was removed from the Original Timeline, and was free to relive his childhood. So, there you have it, the rather complicated explanation of how the double timeline theory works. It?s not perfect, but it?s pretty good, IMO. Please feel free to ask further questions.

Section 7-How the Single Timeline Theory Works

If for some reason you thought that both of the given explanations for the double timeline theory sucked, then this is your alternative. There are many variations on the theory that every single Zelda game is contained in one universe, and therefore one timeline, but I?m here to tell you that this is the only one that works. It?s commonly referred to as the Two-Link OoT Theory.

Section 7a-The Sequence of Events and Explanation

In this theory, everything goes along nice and smoothly until the end of OoT, when Zelda sends Link back in time. As you may have guessed from the title of the theory, when Link arrives in the past, there is another Link, the current Link, there as well. We?ll refer to the Link who got sent back in time as Link 1, and the Link who was already in the time period as Link 2. It?s also important to note that the two Links never meet face to face. Anyway, Link 1 arrives in the past just as Link 2 is about to pull the Master Sword. When Link 2 does so, he goes to the Sacred Realm to spend 7 years sleeping and growing, until he can handle the Master Sword. While Link 2 is sleeping, Link 1 embarks on an adventure to save Termina. When he returns from Termina, he just kind of lays low and stays out of sight until Link 2 defeats Ganon. When Link 2 defeats Ganon, he gets sent back in time, and Link 1 is the only Link left in Hyrule, and that universe, where he lives the rest of his natural life. Sounds simple enough, right? In the basic explanation, this theory sounds pretty airtight, but, like the double timeline theory, it has its problems. Read the next section to find out what those are.

Section 8-Problems with the Single and Double Timeline Theories

As I said earlier, neither of these theories are perfect, and this section will deal with their respective problems.
Section 8a-Problems With the Single Timeline Theory

Unfortunately for single timeline theorists, the single timeline theory requires a little more in-game speculation, with regards to OoT, than the double timeline theory does. That?s not bias, it?s the plain truth. First of all, the Two-Link OoT Theory, called the 2LOT from now on, ignores the fact that Link reverts to his child age when he gets ?sent? back in time. As was covered in Section 6, if Link was truly sent back in time, he should stay an adult. However, that whole age reverting thing is far from scientifically proven, so it?s not a big deal. Moving on, the 2LOT contradicts the entire purpose Zelda had in sending Link back in time. She sent him back to relive his childhood without having to worry about Ganon. In the 2LOT, Ganon is no longer sealed in the Sacred Realm. True, Link 1 doesn?t have to fight him because he knows Link 2 will defeat Ganon, but a world ruled by an evil, all-powerful dictator and populated by terrifying monsters isn?t an ideal place for an enjoyable childhood. Also, why would Zelda want to put Hyrule through those 7 terrible years once more? 2LOT theorists will argue that she had no control over those events, so that?s why she did it. Is that valid? It?s up to you to decide.

Also, Epona and the Ocarina of Time really throw a wrench in the works of the 2LOT. In the Adult portion of OoT, after Link manages to tame Epona, Malon says that Link was the first one besides her who managed to do so, or something like that. We also know that Epona is Malon?s favorite horse. Yet, Epona is a mainstay in Link?s adventure in Termina. How could this be, if Adult Link was the first one to tame Epona? After Link 1 got sent back in time, he could have stolen Epona, but wouldn?t Malon have noticed if her favorite horse went missing for a few days? Now, this is a problem, but the more clever supporters of the 2LOT argue that acquiring Epona isn?t a required part of OoT, so that conversation Link had with Malon about him being the only one to tame Epona could possibly have never occurred, according to the rules of canon. Now, that?s a technicality, but it is a valid argument.

The issue of the Ocarina of Time is a bit harder to explain away. Here?s the problem. When Link 2 pulls the Master Sword, he has the OoT in his possession, and when Link 1 is in Termina, he has the OoT in his possession because Zelda gave it to him before he left. Well, there aren?t two OoTs, so what?s the deal? For this to work with only one Ocarina, here?s what would have to happen? Zelda throws the OoT into the moat and Link 2 picks it up. He takes it to the Temple of Time and plays the Song of Time and draws the MS. Zelda, on the run from Ganon, sneaks back into Hyrule Castle Town, avoids Ganon, sneaks into the Temple of Time and the SR, and takes the OoT from the sleeping Link 2?s body. She then finds Link 1, gives him the OoT, and goes back into hiding. Link 1 saves Termina, then returns to Hyrule and finds Zelda. He gives her the OoT, and she infiltrates Hyrule Castle Town and returns the OoT to sleeping Link 2?s body. Or, I suppose, Link 1 could return the OoT to Link 2?s sleeping body. But the problems don?t stop there. This explanation, while technically possible, assumes that Zelda could creep unnoticed into the lion?s den (Hyrule Castle Town) twice, while Ganon was constantly looking for her. It also assumes Zelda knows that there are two Links. IMO, this is too much speculation, but I suppose it IS possible. The other possibility is that Zelda sending Link 1 back in time somehow created two OoTs, but I have no idea how that would happen. Bear in mind that the two Ocarinas issue is a non-issue in the double timeline. Seeing as there are two universes, it makes sense that there is two of everything, except Link. He was removed from the Original Timeline. I just thought I?d add that.

There?s one more minor problem. Once Link 2 gets sent back in time, he assumes the role of Link 1. This means that there is another Link 2 sleeping in the Temple of Time. So, basically, there is a never-ending sequence of Link 1?s and 2?s. Now, there are never more than two Links at a time, so it?s not a huge problem, but one of the single timeline theory?s claims to fame is that it?s ?neater? than the single timeline theory. This potentially creates an infinite number of parallel universes, but whatever. Okay, on to the double timeline theory?

Section 8b-Problems With the Double Timeline Theory

Once again, it?s not bias, but there you don?t have to speculate about the events of OoT as much with the double timeline theory. The main problem with the explanations in Section 6 is that they?re pretty out there. That whole personal timeline reversal thing has never been done before, I?m pretty sure. And also, we have no idea how the hell the Ocarina of Time would be able to do that, but the same holds true for a few aspects of the single timeline theory, so it?s not a big deal. Next, there?s not much said in-game to hint at two timelines. That?s perfectly excusable as I don?t expect to see any conversation like this take place, ?Where?s Link?? ?Oh, Zelda sent him to another universe to relive his childhood,? but it?s still an issue, I guess. Also, the double timeline is quite a bit messier on paper. Certain games are repeated in both timelines, while other games are only in one. Many single timeline theorists don?t like this, as they say it cheapens the feel of each story and would rather have all the games fit into one complete storyline. This isn?t the most well-supported argument, but I can see where they?re coming from.

Section 9-In-Game Timeline Evidence, Alternate Theories, and Other Stuff

As I mentioned at the beginning of Section 7, there are many variations on the single timeline theory, but the 2LOT is the only one that works. In this section, I?ll show you why the three other main variations don?t work, and throw in a few other interesting timeline tidbits.

Section 9a-Zelda?s Time Period is Erased

One theory that some single timeline theorists believe is that Zelda sending Link back in time caused her time period to be erased, and that the timeline just continued on normally after Link finished saving Termina. The problem with this is, the Adult portion of OoT is erased from the timeline. Double-timeliners say that if the events of Adult OoT were erased, it?s like they never happened. The most common argument against this from single-timeliners is something along the lines of, ?Well, Link did the events of Adult OoT, and he remembers them, so it?s like they happened.? This is true, but think of the Zelda timeline for a moment, as a video recording. Let?s say someone decides that he?s going to tape everything that happens in the Zelda universe. He tapes up to the point where Link gets sent back just fine, but since he believes that Adult Zelda?s time period gets erased, he decides to return to the Child Ending of OoT (the point where Link first pulls out the MS) and start taping from there again. He tapes MM just fine, and everything that happens after MM with no problem. Well, here is the problem. Adult OoT is gone from the timeline tape. It happened, OoT/MM Link remembers the events, and he definitely did DO them, but they are permanently erased from the tape. Remember that the tape represents the timeline in this case, so in this scenario, the events of Adult OoT are gone from the timeline. Thus, it?s wrong, because any timeline theory that doesn?t include one of the (at this moment, 14) canon Zelda games, is wrong. This is especially true when you consider this quote from Aonuma. It?s taken from a 2004 G.I. interview that can be found here: http://www.gameinformer.com...9084.htm.

?To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven?t done that yet.? Notice that he said ALL of the stories. Now, on to the next scenario?

Section 9b-Link Does the Events of MM, then Re-Does the Events of Adult OoT

Another scenario that single-timeline theorists often come up with is that after Link gets sent back, he goes to Termina and does the events of MM, then returns to Hyrule and defeats Ganon for a second time. First of all, this directly contradicts OoT?s ending. The entire point in Zelda sending Link back in time was to ?give him back? those 7 years he spent in an enchanted sleep. If he had to re-do the events of Adult OoT, Zelda sending Link back would be completely pointless. But wait, there?s more. Think about this for a second. Once Link re-did the events of Adult OoT, we?re lead right back to OoT?s ending, where? Zelda sends Link back. Once he was back, he?d do the events of MM AGAIN, then return to Hyrule, and do the events of Adult OoT a THIRD time, then get sent back yet again. This cycle would continue for an eternity, and the timeline would never get past OoT, because it would be stuck in an endless pattern of Adult OoT-MM-Adult OoT-MM. Also, to say that Zelda wouldn?t send Link back a second time is complete and utter speculation. There?s nothing to suggest that she wouldn?t, especially when the rest of Adult OoT would happen in exactly the same way, you?d think the ending would as well.

Section 9c-The Unified Timeline Theory

In my opinion, this theory is one of the worst out there. Unlike the others, this one is completely unsupported by any in-game evidence, creator interviews, or anything. The people who favor this theory believe that the timeline splits, but then after time follows two different paths, it somehow merges again. It looks something like this:

Adult OoT
Child OoT Twilight Princess
M?s Mask

The only problem is, there?s no event that suggests the timeline merges after splitting. So, this theory is filled with unnecessary speculation, and that?s something timeline theorists should try to avoid.

Section 9d-In-Game Timeline Evidence

In TWW, there is evidence for the double and single timeline theories, ironically enough. The single timeline evidence is the infamous Legend of the Fairy, as mentioned in Section 4. It may not be canon, but it does seem to reference MM, and putting it in here is the unbiased thing to do.

Now, here?s the double timeline evidence found in TWW:

Someone on ZeldaLegends, said by TSA to be a credible source, told me that the ?Hylian? text in TWW?s introduction is actually just a bunch of slightly modified Japanese characters. As such, they can be translated, and that?s what this person did. Here?s what he wrote:

The Hylian text translated from the pictures tells us the following about what happened to OoT Link before the flood:

"Though the people waited eagerly for the hero of the Legend to once again appear, the hero had put the country behind him, and journeyed into the flows of time, and never appeared."

There are 2 theories on this. One that Link went back in time (as shown in OoT ending), and started a new timeline (as suggested by the creators). The other is that it's a reference to MM.

I personally think it's the former, i.e. it's referring to a split timeline, as that would make more sense given the 'flows of time' line. Alternatively, if it's about MM, then what would Link going to Termina have to do with journeying into the 'flows of time'? As far as we are aware, Link goes to another 'universe' but not another time. Thoughts?

Section 9e-Single vs. Double Timeline Conclusion

So, there you have it. All you ever cared to know about the number of timelines/universes in the Zelda storyline. You?ve seen the theories and the evidence. Decide for yourself which theory you like best, and please feel free to ask questions.

Section 10-Game Order

This section deals with the 9 of the 14 games whose places are all but indisputable. As no official timeline has ever been released, every placement can be debated, but these 9 are pretty much set. The 9 games are, in no particular order: LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, OoT, MM, TWW, and PH. TP is originally included in this set, but there it still has a couple of major flaws to work out. For the ease and neatness of writing, I?ll explain the order using the single timeline theory. The first thing you should know is that the games are divided into 3 sets. Set 1 in a single timeline theory looks like this:

OoT-MM-TP-TWW-PH

Technically, it should look like the following diagram, but hardly anyone writes it this way:

Child OoT-MM-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH

And in a double timeline theory, the first set looks like this:

(Original Timeline) Child OoT-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH
(New Timeline) Child OoT-MM

In most single timeline theories, and top halves of double timeline theories, people simply write ?OoT,? but it is important to know that Child OoT happens in both universes/dimensions, if you believe the double timeline theory. If you don?t, ignore that bit. Also, in a single timeline theory, it is more technically correct to write Child OoT-MM-Adult, but most people don't, so just keep that in mind. So, read on to learn the order of the 9 games that have nearly 100% definite places.

Section 10a-OoT, MM, TP, TWW, PH

OoT is very widely considered the first game in the series. Miyamoto said this in a rather outdated interview, but as of yet, it hasn?t been disproven. OoT also introduces the legend of the Triforce, and seems a logical place to begin. It also speaks of a terrible war that forced Link?s mother to seek refuge in the Lost Woods. This war raged until the King of Hyrule united the races, and since Link is no older than twelve in OoT, we can easily infer that this war was settled recently. Furthermore, Hyrule is an established kingdom in the other Zelda titles, so this definitely lends some in-game support to OoT being the first game in the timeline.

MM, according to the game information section on Nintendo.com, takes place three months after the child ending of OoT. It also says that the ?lost friend? Link was searching for was Navi, not Saria or the Skull Kid.

TP is third in the known timeline, and that?s pretty much common knowledge by now. Aonuma stated in an EGM article that TP takes place a few decades after Ocarina of Time. Incidences in the game suggest otherwise, but it's a creator quote and unless there is earth-shattering proof it belongs here. Here?s a link to the article, if you feel you need to check it out yourself. http://findarticles.com/p/a...14777258

TWW comes next. You know from the article in Section 5 that this game takes place hundreds of years after Ocarina of Time. You may be wondering how we know that no other games take place between TP and TWW. After all, hundreds of years is quite a long time. Here?s a link to another important article: http://www.nintendo.com/new...1be99e05

In the fourth paragraph, Aonuma says that TP takes place directly between OoT and TWW. The fact that he doesn?t mention MM could be evidence of a double timeline, or it could simply be that OoT is more popular than MM, so Mr. Aonuma felt it would be clearer if he answered the question in that way. Moving on, some in-game evidence will be used to support Aonuma?s statement that no games take place between TP and TWW. We don?t know how TP ends yet, but we do know that the only Link mentioned in TWW besides TWW Link is the Hero of Time. As you learned in the third section, there are many more Links who saved Hyrule from Ganon, so why weren?t they mentioned? Further, Hyrule has been underwater for hundreds of years by the time TWW takes place. Since none of the Zelda games took place entirely underwater, it?s safe to reason that Hyrule has been left untouched since the flood. Also, if TP ends in the flooding of Hyrule, as many have suspected, then TP-TWW will be undisputable.

PH is the fifth and final game in the first set of games in the timeline. During the Nintendo Press Conference at E3 2006, the Nintendo rep who introduced the DS games said that Phantom Hourglass ?picks up right where The Wind Waker left off.? You may be able to find this video on YouTube or some other site, but I was unable to, sorry. Look up the Nintendo E3 2006 Press Conference, if you feel you need to see this in person.

Section 10b-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

In the single timeline theory, this set of games (the 2nd set) directly follows PH, which makes the known single timeline theory look like this:

Child OoT-MM-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

In the double timeline theory, the 2nd set can follow either PH and be a part of the Original Timeline, or it can follow MM and be a part of the New Timeline. The evidence for and against both of these options will be discussed later in the guide. So, the two double timeline possibilities are as follows:

Child OoT-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL
Child OoT-MM

OR

Child OoT-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH
Child OoT-MM-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

Read on to learn why the 2nd set of games goes in that order.

ALttP is the next game in the timeline, and first in the 2nd set. At the time of its release, it was introduced as a prequel to Zelda I and II, and the back of the box said that you play as the ?predecessors? of Link and Zelda. Seeing as Zelda I and II both featured the same Link, the only logical explanation is that ALttP takes place before LoZ and AoL. Also, a screenshot of the back of ALttP?s box can be found here, if you want to see this for yourself: http://zs.ffshrine.org/alb...back.jpg

Now, you may have noticed that the end of the description on the back of the box says that this game is a sequel to Zelda I and II. It was likely supposed to say prequel, not sequel. However, in the beginning of the description, it says that you play as the predecessors of Link and Zelda. This seems like a very deliberate use of that word, and not prone to a simple mix-up. The only word I can think of that remotely resembles predecessors is ancestors, which basically means the same thing. So, it?s very likely that sequel was a misprint, or they were simply speaking of sequel in the order that the games were released. After all, ALttP was made after LoZ and AoL. And that brings me to my next point. Keep in mind that the original SNES version was translated very poorly. Some passages, such as the one about Ganon being "completely destroyed" are mistranslated, and/or made up by Nintendo of America. That particular quote led some people to believe that ALttP was last in the timeline. However, that's not the case, so when looking for ALttP quotes, look at the GBA version, or better yet, the original Japanese translation, which I believe can be found on zeldalegends.net. The final interesting bit of information is the line you see at the end of a complete game. ?And the Master Sword Sleeps Again?FOREVER!? Nintendo storywriters may have just been trying to be dramatic, but it?s interesting to note that the Master Sword is not featured in LA, LoZ, or AoL.

Link?s Awakening comes next in the timeline. At first glance, the manual, (found here: http://www.kasuto.net/zelda...ual.html ) makes it sound as if LA can follow either ALttP or AoL, as it says you recently defeated Ganon. And, at the time of this game?s release, Ganon was dead by the end of ALttP and AoL, so it would seem to fit nicely after either story. However, upon closer inspection, you may have noticed a few things. It says that the land of Hyrule only enjoyed a precarious peace. However, if you consult the manual for AoL, (found here: http://www.kasuto.net/zelda...al.html ) it says that ?many seasons? have passed since Link defeated Ganon. That seems like a fairly long-lasting peace, not a precarious one. The LA manual makes it sound as if only a few weeks have passed since Ganon?s defeat. There is also some in-game evidence that suggests an ALttP-LA connection. All of the Nightmare Forms that Dethl took on at the end of LA were things from Link?s experiences. One of the forms he took on was Agahnim. ALttP Link was the only Link at the time of LA?s release who had seen Agahnim. Also, neither ALttP nor LA Link has a Triforce mark on the back of his hand. AoL Link does. And, since consistency is a big issue when debating the timeline, it?s important to note that in every game where a Link has a Triforce mark on the back of his hand we either see it, it?s mentioned by one of the characters, or both. That?s not the case in LA. Also, both LA?s manual and the in-game text of ALttP refer to Link as the ?Legendary Hero,? in caps and all. LoZ/AoL Link didn?t even have a title. So, the only conclusion is that LA directly follows ALttP, and both games feature the same Link.

LoZ comes next in the order. There isn?t much to say about this game, except that Ganon dies at the end. He isn?t sealed or incapacitated, he?s been reduced to a pile of ash. It goes here primarily because if you?ve read all of this section so far, you?ll have noticed that there?s really no other place to put it.

Finally, we have AoL occupying the final spot in the known timeline. Hopefully I don?t have to explain why it comes directly after LoZ. Its other name is Zelda II, after all. Anyway, AoL/Zelda II would seem to be last because of the closure it provides. Ganon is dead and gone, and the Triforce is finally fully assembled. Also, as with LoZ, there isn?t really anywhere else it could realistically go. AoL's manual talks a lot about Ganon's minions trying to sacrifice Link to revive Ganon, and it also explains why the series is called the Legend of Zelda, instead of The Legend of Link, as many people have wondered about. When the events described in the manual took place is up for debate, but they are explained nonetheless. There's an AoL FAQ/Walkthrough that takes the AoL opening story straight from the manual. This is the link to it so check it out if you want: http://db.gamefaqs.com/cons...ii_e.txt
(It's a good walkthrough as well.)

So, there it is. You now know the order of the nine ?main? games, whose places are all but indisputable. Here are the three possibilities:

Child OoT-MM-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

OR

Child OoT-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL
Child OoT-MM

OR

Child OoT-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH
Child OoT-MM-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

But what about the five remaining games that make up the 3rd set? Read on to learn more about them.

Section 11-Uncomfirmed But Interesting Speculation, and Common Timeline Misconceptions

Let it be known, right away, that some speculation IS necessary when trying to figure out the timeline. This is because hardly anything is explained as to what went on in the world of Zelda between say, TP and TWW, or PH or MM and ALttP, or LA and LoZ. In some cases, there are gaps of hundreds, or even thousands of years between games that come next to each other in the timeline. So, it is necessary to speculate some, in order to connect the dots. However, too much speculation can be bad for a theory, and the goal is to come up with a theory that includes all the games, but uses as little speculation as possible. So, nothing in this following section is fact, just speculation. However, some speculation becomes so popular and widely accepted that it is treated as fact, as you?ll see in the misconceptions part of this section. Keep in mind that since all of this is unconfirmed, the section about the FS trilogy won?t mention the Oracle games at all, and vice versa.

Section 11a-The Four Swords Trilogy

This miniseries has caused a great deal of confusion to people interested in the timeline. Nearly all timeline theorists know that the order for these three games is TMC-FS-FSA. TMC explains the origin of FS?s main villain and the Four Sword, and the events of FS are discussed in FSA?s intro, so there isn?t really any dispute there. However there are many possibilities as to where these three games go in the timeline. It?s even possible the games may be separated by other games. Certain games may fit between TMC and FS, or FS and FSA; we really don?t know. However, that?s not to say we aren?t without ideas. There are many theories regarding the placement of this trilogy. The two simplest ones say that either the trilogy goes at the beginning or end, uninterrupted. The other theory where the trilogy goes uninterrupted says that the three games go directly between PH and ALttP, if you believe in the single timeline theory or that the 2nd set of games occurs in the Original Timeline. If you believe that the 2nd set occurs in the New Timeline, then the uninterrupted FS trilogy goes between MM and ALttP. That being said, there are also several theories where the flow between the FS games is interrupted. Some believe that TMC and FS go at the very beginning of the series, while FSA comes directly before ALttP. Others believe that TMC comes at the very beginning and both FS and FSA directly precede ALttP. And, for the record, no one is sure what the Lightforce is. It could be a completely new relic, it could be the Triforce of Wisdom, or it could even be the entire Triforce. Nobody outside of Nintendo knows for sure. Read on for the evidence for and against these theories.

Many people believe that either TMC or TMC-FS starts the timeline because they read this article: http://www.gameinformer.com...9084.htm

Now keep in mind that this article was written when FSA, not TP, was the next game to be released in the series, so TMC hadn't been created yet. Any information regarding TP, or TWW 2, as it's called in this article, can be ignored. The important part is question number 6 and Eiji Aonuma's answer. He says FS is first, but most people who have played TMC should be able to figure out that it comes before FS, as TMC explains the history and origin of Vaati, FS's main villain. His exact words for describing FS?s place were ?oldest tale.? People disputed that as meaning first, originally, but oldest does mean first. Was the oldest person in your family the first one to be born? Yes. However, that doesn?t necessarily mean that this article is entirely accurate. Some people also like to put TMC first because its ending seems to begin the green-capped hero tradition. It?s up to you to decide if that?s substantial evidence or not. Now, as you may have read in Section 3, there is some strong evidence that FS and FSA Link are the same. So, for this article to be accurate, the entire FS Trilogy would have to take place before OoT. Even though this is a popular theory, it is likely not correct. If FS and FSA Link are indeed the same guy, then you can consider that quote from Aonuma disproven by in-game evidence. Ganon is sealed in FSA, yet he is introduced in OoT. Furthermore, he is not mentioned at all in either TMC or FS, so something had to have happened either before TMC, between TMC and FS, or between FS and FSA. This is certainly a possibility, but any events one could come up with would be made up completely from speculation, which should be avoided. This is also a problem with putting the FS trilogy at the end of the timeline. It works except for one thing. Ganon is dead at the end of AoL, but sealed inside a magical prison at the beginning of FSA. That means Ganon would have to have been brought back from the dead, then sealed sometime between AoL and FSA. As that is never remotely suggested in either TMC or FS, any explanation would again be 100% speculation, which hurts a theory?s accuracy and credibility. I?m not saying it?s impossible for the whole series to be before OoT, or after AoL, just unlikely.

Now, as for the rest of the theories, they all revolve around ALttP. Many people have speculated that FSA and ALttP are strongly connected. It makes sense, too. ALttP is the first game in the timeline that features Ganon wielding a magic Trident. FSA explains how Ganon acquires the Trident. Also, unlike some other maps, FSA and ALttP have a nearly identical overworld; however, that will be explained in greater detail in the Geography section.

So, as of now, the most common placement of FSA is directly before ALttP. The most common, and in my opinion most logical, placements for the FS trilogy in a single timeline theory look like this, in no real order:

TMC-FS-Child OoT-MM-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-FSA-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

TMC-Child OoT-MM-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-FS-FSA-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

Child OoT-MM-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-TMC-FS-FSA-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

Small Note: For the double timeline theory, if you believe either TMC or TMC-FS comes before OoT, those games are part of both the Original and New timelines, as they occurred before the timeline split.

Section 11b-The Oracle Series

Just to refresh your memory, here?s the known single timeline once more:

Child OoT-MM-Adult OoT-TP-TWW-PH-ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

The two Oracle games are the only others that don?t have a definite placement. However, it can be narrowed down quite a bit. In the beginning, we see that all three pieces of the Triforce are in the castle. They?re in the same room, but separate, for once. We also learn, by completing a linked playthrough, that Ganon is dead at the beginning of the Oracle games, and needs to be revived. So, this means that the Oracles must come after a game where both the Triforce is whole and Ganon is dead. Only three places in the timeline meet these criteria. The Oracles can go either between PH and ALttP, between LA and LoZ, or after AoL.

Ask OmegaDevastator or Hardcore_Gamer7 about the Oracles before ALttP placement, me for the after LA placement, and me or Impossible II for the after AoL placement. I personally am leaning 65% toward the after AoL placement, 5% toward the before ALttP placement, and 30% toward the after LA placement, but that's just me. Ask those guys to explain the finer details of their theories, and then decide for yourself. So, read the three explanations, courtesy of OmegaDevastator, me, and Impossible II, in that order.

Section 11c-Oracles Before ALttP

Here's what Omega Devastator has to say about the Pre-ALttP Oracles placement:
First of all, the Oracles can go in various places. They really don't have a lot of bearing on the timeline. But wherever you put them, you have to assume a lot of things happen in the timeline before and after the games.

A couple of other points first to tie it all in:

1. Whether the Imprisoning War is still considered OoT or not, Ganon has to somehow get sealed in the Sacred Realm again. The full Triforce must also be there. As FSA is most likely after TWW, (in his opinion) Ganon is reborn then. Now between this and ALttP, Ganon gets unsealed from the sword and resealed in the Sacred Realm. Now, whether you think OoT is the Imprisoning War or not will probably make or break this theory for you.

2. In the Imprisoning War, Hylian Knights fought Ganon and did their thing. I will say this happened in OoT as well just for arguments sake. Now in LoZ and AoL, there is no clarity as to whether there are Hylians in Hyrule, or just humans. Hylians were first introduced in the series in ALttP, and It seems to suggest that there are none of them in LoZ or AoL. This is because it seems they have all died out. Now in ALttP, in the English Translation the old woman says that they have all gone now leaving magical items and those Hylian stones that you can read with the Book of Mudora. In the Japanese version, there is no real clarity as to whether they have died out completely, or that only their descendants and a very small fraction are still around. I'm sorry I don't have direct quotes but anyone can add them in if they wish. However, the whole thing seems to suggest that they are pretty much gone. If not during ALttP, then soon after. Hence why the book of Mudora exists so you can translate the language. Now in OoS, if you play it as the second in a linked game, a member of Din's dance troupe will say, "We're not really dancers, we're Hylian Knights!" Hylians still exist in these games and I'm gonna say this now before I get some prat spurting crap about "how Capcom ruined Zelda." I really doubt that Nintendo would have allowed Capcom to make a Zelda game without knowing the series' mythology and key elements so that they wouldn't make up random crap. So if the Imprisoning War featured Hylian Knights (for now I'm going to say the war, or another war happened after my placement of OoA/S) and the game that followed this mentioned Hylians becoming "extinct" if you will, then since OoA/S features these people, it should go before.

3. The Master Sword in OoA/S. Now even I think it's merely a cameo, but it still exists in these games. Whether you put it down to a cameo or not changes the placement. I'm going to use it as a "point" just to help my part of the timeline to flow better. Nothing more, nothing less.

Section 11d-Oracles After LA

And here's what I have to say about the Post-LA Oracles placement:

There is one main piece of evidence supporting this. It works not only because the Triforce was united at the end of ALttP, and Ganon also died in that game (he wasn't just sealed away) so the two conditions are satisfied; there?s something else as well. AoL?s intro/legend says that the Royal Family ruled using the Triforce for many years, until it was lost. Well, the Triforce is in the Royal Family?s possession at the end of ALttP, and it?s lost by the time LoZ takes place. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

Section 11e-Oracles after AoL

And here's what Impossible II has to say on the Post-AoL Oracles placement:

There are a couple of different things to note when explaining that the Oracles must come after LoZ and AoL, so I'll do one at a time.

The first thing is Ganon. At the start of the Oracles, Ganon is dead. At the end of the Oracles, Ganon is dead. He only really "dies"/is defeated without being sealed three times during the series besides at the end of a linked Oracle playthrough. The only time we are 100% certain that he is dead is in the original LoZ, because AoL says that Ganon is dead as can be, but it also clearly says that he can be revived. Ganon's being dead can't be from TWW, because the Oracles were made earlier and the story wasn't really planned in reverse. Ganon had to be dead from something else - besides that, if the Oracles were before ALttP, then Ganon would have to somehow die after FSA, and then he'd have to come back to life and be sealed in the Sacred Realm/Dark World before ALttP. It also seems more likely that the Oracles are after AoL than after LA because we don't actually know what happened to Ganon in ALttP. He can't have been completely dead, because he lives in LoZ and there is nothing to suggest that he came back to life (without dying again immediately) in that time.
Also, in the Oracles, Ganon is revived as a soulless shell, while in every other game he's sentient. He dies after that, so the Oracles can't be stated to have any major bearing on the timeline (not enough that they need to be placed somewhere else).

Then we have the Triforce, which is in Hyrule and most likely Hyrule Castle in the Oracles. The only time in the series when the entire Triforce is in the possession of the Royal Family is after AoL. It is united in ALttP, but there is nothing to suggest that Link kept it or brought it with him, and the opposite seems more likely. It is united in TWW, but it most likely returned to the Sacred Realm after that - certainly nobody had it between TWW and the next game, and nobody was able to take it, so it returned to where it came from (perhaps in time for ALttP?).

So there it is. Those are the facts, those are the opinions, and that's the evidence. Decide for yourself which theory you believe.

Section 11f-Some Common Timeline Misconceptions

As I said earlier, sometimes speculation becomes so popular and accepted that people treat it as fact. For example, at one time, the theory that ALttP, the Oracles, and LA all featured the same Link and went in that order, was extremely popular, and considered fact by many, including myself. However, YamiiMatt showed me a couple interesting pieces of evidence to disprove that theory. He showed me the first one, I found a couple on my own, and a few others helped contribute to this little blurb as well.

1. ALttP Link knows Zelda at the end of his game, whereas Oracle Link doesn't know Zelda at the beginning of his game. Therefore, they cannot be the same.

2. ALttP Link set out on a journey because he wanted to, of his own free will. And it says so in the manual to LA. Oracle Link had no idea he was being sent on a quest when he went into the castle and saw the Triforce.

3. Impa doesn't know Link in the Oracles. If she was Zelda's personal nursemaid, you would think she would know the hero who saved Zelda and Hyrule in ALttP, if those Links were the same.

4. Impa notices a Triforce mark on Oracle Link's hand. ALttP Link doesn't have one.

5. Impa says Oracle Link is fated to become a hero. ALttP Link is already a proven hero by the time the Oracles occur.

6. Zelda did not send Impa to find Link in the Oracles, she sent Impa to escort either Nayru or Din back to Hyrule. Obviously, that plan did not work, so Impa turned to Oracle Link for help, as he had the triangles on the back of his hand.

Note: Number 6 isn?t really evidence, but a while back, lots of people claimed that Zelda sent Impa to find Link, so she did know him, but that?s not the case. She sent Impa to find Nayru and/or Din. Impa stumbled upon Link purely by chance.

7. I know that Oracle Link ends his quest on a boat, and that LA Link starts his quest on a boat, but the boats do not look like they are exactly the same. LA's boat is longer and the sails are placed more towards the front of the boat. I think if the creators intended LA and Oracle Link to be the same, they would have made sure that Oracle Link's boat looked exactly like LA Link's boat. They do look similar, but not identical.

There are two other important things to mention about the Oracles. One is that some people think they can't be at the end because of the cryptic quote at the end of ALttP, "And the Master Sword Sleeps Again... FOREVER!" It's up for debate whether Nintendo was just trying to be dramatic, or if they intended for the MS never to be used in a game that follows ALttP in the timeline. But this is the problem. The MS is unlockable in a linked Oracles playthrough. However, I personally believe it's just an Easter Egg, because it really isn't explained at all how Patch, King Zora, or some random guy underneath the clock shop would come to acquire the Legendary Blade of Evil's Bane. Patch actually forges the MS, depending on which game you play first. That can?t be canon. Also, in a linked playthrough, finding the MS isn't necessary to complete the game. In every other game featuring that sword (ALttP, OoT, TWW) it was necessary to find the MS to advance the plot. That's not the case in the Oracles. Since the MS in the Oracle games isn?t consistent with the Master Sword in the other games, it?s safe to say that it?s not canon.

The second thing is the appearance of the three Oracles in the town square in TMC. Some people say that this proves TMC can?t be before OoT, but I disagree. Now, I'd personally go with treating that as just a non-canon cameo, which Capcom happen to love, by the way; just look at how many cameos there are in the Resident Evil series. Also, since it just says they're descendants of some Oracles from Holodrum and Labrynna, it's perfectly possible that the three Oracle ladies from OoA and OoS are descendants of the three that you see in TMC, and that the three you see in TMC are descendants of some other Oracles. But, in the end, I believe it's just Capcom demonstrating their love for putting characters from Capcom games into other Capcom games.

Section 12-Geography

The Geography of the many lands that feature in the Zelda universe is an extremely important factor in trying to figure out the timeline. Now, there are a few games that don't take place in Hyrule, so their maps have little to no bearing on this subject. Those games are LA, MM, OoA, OoS, TWW, and PH. Though TWW technically takes place in Hyrule, its geography doesn't affect the timeline much because Hyrule is flooded and we only ever see a map of the islands, not the Hyrule of OoT or ALttP itself. Now, there are two generally well-accepted "sets" of games. Those two sets are OoT-TP-TWW-PH and FSA-ALttP-LoZ-AoL. Now, stuff like LA coming after ALttP isn't included in those sets simply for the ease of explaining the geography. That doesn't mean it's not well-accepted, though. Anyway, here are links to all those maps, except for FS's, which I'll explain in a second. TP?s map also isn?t there, obviously because the game hadn?t been released when this was written, and the creators have said that TP takes place in Hyrule from the very beginning, so proving that it takes place in Hyrule is a waste of time.

Section 12a-The Many Hyrules of the Zelda Series

LoZ
http://db.gamefaqs.com/cons...orld.png
AoL
http://db.gamefaqs.com/cons...a_ii.png
ALttP
http://db.gamefaqs.com/cons...orld.gif
OoT
http://www.zeldax.net/oot/ootmap.jpeg
FSA
http://www.zhq2.com/copperm.../map.jpg
TMC
http://151.11.129.208/publi..._map.jpg

FS's map isn't included because it really doesn't fit in with any others. We know it takes place in the same land as TMC so it's safe to say that it takes place in the same Hyrule as TMC, because I don't think it would be possible for the Four Sword Shrine to just jump from land to land. So, the explanation is that FS's map just shows some major landmarks in the land of Hyrule, because as you'll have noticed in LoZ and AoL's maps, the land of Hyrule is extremely vast. Now, on to the more interesting stuff.

Section 12b-Notes on the ?Changing? Geography of Hyrule

It's been highly suspected that OoT and ALttP take place in the same Hyrule. There is strong evidence to support that. Here are some interesting pictures, courtesy of Impossible II.

ALttP's map turned clockwise (looks somewhat like OoT's map):
http://www.zeldalegends.net...lted.jpg

OoT's map turned counterclockwise: (looks somewhat like ALttP's map)
http://www.zeldalegends.net...lted.jpg

Compare the first map to the OoT map given earlier, and the second map to the ALttP map given earlier. They look quite similar. However, there are a few inconsistencies, so here's more from Impossible II.

In some games (OoT, FSA), the map of Hyrule is made to distinctly resemble that of in another game (well, ALttP). Rotate ALttP?s map slightly (around 45 degrees) clockwise and it bears a striking resemblance to OoT?s map. FSA?s is based on ALttP?s. There are minor differences with both, but I don?t think they can become major arguments. There is the Lake Hylia/Eastern Hyrule issue in FSA, which I will get to later, and of course the positioning of Lake Hylia in OoT which is a little off from ALttP. For the most part I think these are for gameplay reasons ? for example, Nintendo wanted Gerudo Valley to lead right into Lake Hylia.

There are also the huge differences in map design and layout between the games, which create some inconsistencies. In ALttP, the map actually represents the entire overworld and you?re always in a specific place on it. In OoT, maps are a bit more general ? Death Mountain is an actual mountain, and quite tall, while in ALttP it all had to be on a 2D map and so it took up a lot more space. This also, of course, creates issues with the positioning of Kakariko, which is generally at least ROUGHLY at the foot of Death Mountain, or somewhere near it. It moves from the west to east of the map in OoT because of the way Death Mountain is structured, and again for gameplay reasons. You can also argue that at some point the town was simply destroyed and rebuilt further to the west. This is probably a fair assumption, so we?ll leave it there and get started.

From ALttP to OoT (release order, not chronological), the desert moves from southwest to west, Lake Hylia moves from southeast to south/southwest, Zora?s River moves from northeast to east, Eastern Hyrule is replaced mostly with Kokiri Forest, the Lost Woods, and the nothing in the south-east of Hyrule Field, and Death Mountain is a bit more firmly in the northeast rather than taking up a considerable amount of the northern map, also shifting the position of Kakariko in the process. This is at least in part a result of a 3D and actual map/overworld, and also for gameplay purposes; having Kakariko at the foot of Death Mountain.

The biggest inconsistency is the Lost Woods. No matter which way you look at it, the Lost Woods are not in the same place on the two maps. So, again, here's more from Impossible II.

There are three potential Lost Woods theories, from three different people (me, a friend, and Zelda Legends):

Old Lost Woods was destroyed/burned down, Goddesses create a new Lost Woods where the ruins of old Hyrule Castle were to protect the Master Sword (which, according to the JPN ALttP manual, the Goddesses told the Hylians to forge and would have had reason to want to keep protecting).

The magical/warping properties of the Lost Woods caused the forest to grow through a warp, which happened to lead to a different part of Hyrule (ALttP NW), and the original Lost Woods was destroyed or burnt or something.

There are two Lost Woods. In this theory, we're seeing the map in each game from a different perspective, so theoretically ALttP's Lost Woods were always there in OoT. They were just north of Hyrule Castle, but we couldn't see them or go there, presumably because of the clouds on the map blocking our view.

Note: Hyrule?s borders typically prevent us from seeing the entire land. Sometimes Hyrule is surrounded by water, sometimes by clouds, and sometimes by mountains. No definitive explanation for this has been discovered yet.

So, all this seems to suggest that ALttP and OoT take place in the same Hyrule. FSA's map and ALttP's map are nearly identical as well. Now, comparing the maps of LoZ and ALttP, you'll notice some similarities, and many people, including myself, believe that LoZ and ALttP take place in the same Hyrule as well. Now, that leads us nicely to AoL's map. It is also huge, and looks quite different from LoZ's map. However, you'll notice that in AoL, Death Mountain is toward the southeast of the map. In EVERY other LoZ game that featured it, Death Mountain was in the uppermost area of the map. The fact that it's at the bottom here seems to lend support to the idea that the land of Hyrule is enormous, and that AoL just takes place in a different part of this gigantic land. This means that the northernmost part of LoZ takes place in the southernmost area of AoL. Also, the Hyrule of TP is enormous as well. TP Link?s adventure starts many miles away from Hyrule. That should give you a good idea of how humongous Hyrule really is.

So, thus far we've established that TMC and FS take place in the same land, and that OoT, FSA, ALttP, LoZ, and AoL do as well. So, that got me to wondering, is it possible that TMC and OoT/FSA/ALttP take place in that land as well? Thanks to a find by OmegaDevastator and Valiento, I believe the answer may be yes. Pull up TMC's map and ALttP's map. Overlap their maps at Lake Hylia. You'll notice that Hyrule castle and Lake Hylia, and even the desert areas, are in the exact same spots. That strongly suggests that TMC takes place in an area of Hyrule that's slightly to the south of where OoT and ALttP and FSA take place.

And here?s some evidence from WeedWacka that shows how the Hyrules of TMC, OoT, and ALttP relate to the Hyrule of LoZ.

OoT, ALttP, and TMC all overlap pretty well onto the original LoZ map. I've sculpted each of the maps (in a general way) using the LoZ map. It's not perfect, but it's close.

LoZ:http://i44.photobucket.com/...lda3.jpg

ALttP: http://i44.photobucket.com/...LttP.jpg

OoT: http://i44.photobucket.com/.../OoT.jpg

TMC:http://i44.photobucket.com/.../TMC.jpg

A) Location of Kakariko Village during ALttP's time. Now destroyed.
B) Some of the remnants of the Lost Woods from ALttP.
C) Desert Colossus/Desert of Mystery.
D) The Source (ALttP & TMC)/Zora's Domain.
E) General areas of the Ruins from ALttP.
F) Lake Hylia.
G) The extent of the Lost Woods and Kokori Forest in OoT. The G may be a little lower than needed.
H) Rough location of Hyrule Castle in TMC and OoT, perhaps in ALttP, too.
I) Kakariko Village in OoT's time.
J) Death Mountain area. The J is poorly placed. Also, Mt. Crenel from TMC would be a little to the southwest.

And though I didn't label it, the Marshes from TMC would be part of the green portions east of where I labeled the Desert/Colossus

Like I said, it's not perfect, but the major landmarks can fit. And changes in the course of the river and the two giant lakes that appear can be explained by many, many years passing and any wars with Ganon that may have happened (after all, he was very much in power over a ruined Hyrule in the original). Or does this seem like a very big stretch?

To me, it seems perfectly logical. But you, the reader can once again decide for yourself.

Section 12c-Geography Conclusion

So the final conclusion is that there is likely only one Hyrule. It can get flooded, unflooded, and many of the games take place in different parts of it, but there may be only one Hyrule after all. Having only a single Hyrule creates fewer headaches, so it?s definitely a good thing. Keep in mind, though, that PH almost certainly takes place in a new land discovered by TWW Link and Tetra, so for the single timeline theory and the double timeline theory where most of the games occur in the Original Timeline, submerged Hyrule may have to be rediscovered and repopulated. Also, whether Hyrule is just a country/continent or the whole planet is up for debate. I personally believe it's the country because of Zelda's quote in OoT about Ganondorf wanting ??to conquer Hyrule, nay the entire world.? The fact that there are other places you can visit, like Holodrum and Labrynna, lends support to this theory. One final thing must be considered, however. Both OoT and ALttP have a compass rose on their map, so that would seem to mean that the rotating of OoT Hyrule to fit ALttP?s map doesn?t work. However, this can easily be attributed to a lack of foresight by the game designers. During the time OoT was being developed, nobody really cared about the timeline at all. The developers didn?t even show that they cared about the timeline until TWW was released. So, this is the one main piece of evidence against every Hyrule being the same. It?s up to you to decide if you think that it overrules the contradictory evidence in the rest of this section.

Section 13-The Seal War/Imprisoning War

The Imprisoning War is the cause of probably the biggest debate regarding OoT and ALttP. Is OoT the Imprisoning War that ALttP's manual mentioned?

Here's a link to the manual of ALttP: http://www.zeldalegends.net...nual.txt

Now, it is the original SNES English version, so it's poorly translated. A lot of stuff was thrown in or changed. Go here to see the changes that were made from the JPN version to the NTSC version: http://www.zeldalegends.net...nslation

Hopefully you read the basic story in the first link, because if you didn't this section won't make much sense. You can read the comparisons later if you feel like it.

Section 13a-Introduction to the ZeldaUniverse Zelda Wiki Page

Those of us on GameFAQs and those of us on Zelda Universe haven?t always seen eye to eye when it comes to the timeline. Our two forums put different value on different things when trying to figure out the timeline, and that naturally leads to conflict. Our biggest gripe is that many of them refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of a double timeline, but that?s their right, I suppose. Anyway, ZU is a very big Zelda Timeline community, so they naturally started working on their own Timeline FAQ. It?s shorter, a little different, and a little less neutral than ours, but still very good. In particular, their section that deals with the Seal/Imprisoning War is very comprehensive. One of ZU?s most influential posters, LexLionHart, collaborated with one of our most influential, Darken Poltergeist, to write this section. So, without further ado, here it is. This is what Lex and DP have to say about the Seal War. Remember, the rest of this section is taken from the Zelda Wiki page I mentioned previously.

Section 13b-ALttP/TWW Related Arguments

Both ALttP and TWW can be placed, with little doubt, a number of centuries after OoT, but there is hardly any direct connection between the games themselves. Which comes first? How can both relationships be preserved? What has been changed by the release of FSA? This is the staging ground for the most brutal, least productive debate in the timeline. A controversy that most theorists have given up on. Is the answer even out there?

Section 13c-Could Hyrule ever recover from the flood?

This is a relatively new subject of debate, as far as timeline theorizing goes. Up until recently, it was almost universally accepted that OoT and ALttP were undeniably linked, with OoT perhaps serving as a retelling or "retconning" of the Seal War legend in ALttP. Upon TWW's release, however, this connection was largely put into doubt. After all, in TWW's ending, Hyrule is completely washed away, apparently for good. This led many to speculate that perhaps TWW is meant to be the last game in the timeline. This suggestion has largely been debunked, however, as TWW retains very strong ties to OoT (though connections to TP may also be present, unbeknownst to the general public). There is also Aonuma's word on the subject, who went on the record as saying TWW takes place hundreds of years after OoT, not mentioning other games.
With TWW separating OoT and ALttP, theorists came up with several suggestions. Some claimed the sea waters eventually receded, or the mountain tops came together, as evidenced by FSA's overworld map featuring a coast line not seen in either OoT or ALttP. Both of these theories are supported by a quote from the Deku Tree, which describes a "single island" realm as his biggest ambition, and the purpose for the spreading of the forests across the Sea. Another theory claims Link and Zelda succeeded in finding another land similar to the Hyrule of old, and called it Hyrule as well. Both of these theories have their fair share of criticism, however, as some find it unlikely that, whether the old Hyrule came back or a new one was founded, the locations and their names, geography, and the legends would all remain largely intact. As a result, these skeptics have either settled for leaving the issue alone until it's cleared up, or went with a Double Timeline that leaves TWW and PH as the last games in one timeline, with the rest of the games, including ALttP, in the other.
If indeed Hyrule is destined to rise again, it will not be readily apparent until at least PH. However, even that has been put into question, as Aonuma promises PH to be a side story of sorts, and will not really continue TWW's story. In fact, he has gone so far as to say PH may be the first of a sub-series on the Nintendo DS. So, if Nintendo does have plans to bring back Hyrule, it might not be for a while. Of course, we also heard word about a Four Swords sub-series in the planning for the DS, so this may be the beginning of that. Only time will tell.

Section 13d-Does ALttP's backstory reference more than one event? And, does ALttP's it reference OoT?

Of all the tales spoken of in ALttP's manual, one of the most heavily scrutinized and debated is that of the Seal War. This legend tells of Ganondorf the Thief's accidental entry into the Sacred Realm, followed immediately by him laying claim to the Triforce, and becoming Ganon, the Demon King, which further resulted in transforming the Sacred Realm into the Dark World. The legend then goes on to relate Ganon's invasion of Hyrule (whether it was his minions, his evil power, or Ganon himself that invaded is still up for debate), to which the King of Hyrule responded by calling upon the Knights of Hyrule and the seven Sages. It is said the Knights perished during the invasion so as to give time to the Sages to cast a seal on the entrance to the Dark World, sealing Ganon within.

This legend, to many, bears an uncanny resemblance to the events of OoT, and not without reason. Sometime before OoT's release, an interview with several developers involved with the game's creation were quoted as saying OoT's story is not really original, and that it's meant to be a representation of ALttP's Seal War. Miyamoto also mentioned that Ganondorf in OoT is the same Ganon we see in ALttP. Though even back then some differences were apparent between the Seal War and OoT, it was universally agreed, at least as far as creator intentions went, that OoT was meant to be a retelling of ALttP's seal war at best. Even skeptics agreed that if anything, they at least drew much inspiration from that legend to create OoT's story.

During this time, before later arguments spawned by OoT's time travel mechanics, TWW's flood, and FSA's sealing of Ganon were brought up, it was easy to see why OoT made a great prequel to ALttP. OoT marked what seemed to be Ganondorf's first appearance and rise to power, as well as his sealing, during which he swears to exterminate the descendants of Link, Zelda, and the Sages, a clear allusion to ALttP. Another characteristic of OoT that suggests its status as a prequel was the prominence of the Hylian race throughout the game, which is said to have diminished by ALttP's time in said game. It also appeared to be the first time the Master Sword and the Triforce were laid hands on. The whole game, storyline-wise, seemed like an elaborate effort to set-up for ALttP. Any differences between the Seal War and OoT were chalked up to be due to the creators' creative freedom, and perhaps an effort to "retcon" the Seal War as the events of OoT.

However, a big problem with this connection, an increasingly large number of people argue, lies within those differences. Though the core result between both events is largely the same (Ganon is sealed in the Sacred Realm by seven Sages), the details sometimes don't match up; some even seem to contradict one another. An often-debated example deals with the Triforce. In ALttP's Seal War account, it is assumed Ganon gained the whole Triforce, though arguments have been made that suggest he may not have gotten it all at once. The description depicts him making a wish, but never says whether the wish was granted, just that evil power began flowing into Hyrule from the Golden Land. In OoT, he only gets the Triforce of Power (which he remains with until TWW, where he completes the Triforce, but does not get to wish on it). Then there is the actual battle against Ganon himself. In the Seal War, the Knights of Hyrule protected the Royal Palace, which is somewhat suggested to have happened while the Sages formed the seal, while in OoT, the Royal Palace has already been destroyed and replaced with Ganon's Tower by the time the Sages cast their seal. It could be argued, however the battle in which the Knights perished took place before Link awakened from his slumber. Lastly, there is the Master Sword, which is mentioned in ALttP's manual, but is never given to a hero, unlike in OoT. Given the Sageless retelling of OoT's events in the introduction to TWW, however, this may simply be shrugged off as a similarly incomplete retelling of the casting of the seal, especially given the lack of detail in general surrounding the sealing itself as portrayed in the manual.

Whether the OoT-ALttP connection holds water to this day is a subject of intense arguments that can last for days at a time. Skeptics of the connection rarely hesitate to bring up unmatching details between both accounts of the event to justify their views, with more conservative theorists defending it, stating that despite the differences, the Seal War and OoT are too similar to be different events. And that's not taking into account TWW and FSA, which have proven to add even greater headaches into the process of preserving the connection.

Section 13e-Does ALttP's backstory reference FSA?

Curiously enough, the "Seal War" mentioned in ALttP's backstory is never referred to by name within the context of ALttP itself. While it has been generally accepted that the introduction of ALttP, which mentions the key events that surround the Seal War--1) the door to the Golden Land being discovered and opened; 2) evil power flowing from the Golden Land; 3) the door to the Golden Land being sealed--the references to the "war with the demons" (pure translation from the Japanese version) make no mention of the Golden Land, Triforce, or Ganon at all. They do, however, reference Seven Sages, magic portals to the Dark World, and the extermination of the Knights of Hyrule. There is some degree of contrast to be had, here, because the Seal War story mentions only one doorway to the Sacred Realm-turned-Dark World, while the demon war story mentions multiple magic portals.

A few theorists have decided that, since FSA includes these three elements--seven Maidens who can serve the purpose of sealing, portals to [a] Dark World, and the extermination of the Knights of Hyrule--FSA can actually assume the role of "demon war". Of course, how it is that Ganon makes his way from the Four Sword seal into the Golden Land to prepare for ALttP is a matter in question, but in a pre-ALttP placement of FSA, this is inevitable. It is important to note that those who believe that FSA represents the demon war do not believe that there was any war or Sages' Seal necessary for Ganon to be stuck in the Sacred Realm in ALttP, because the game itself says that after he rediscovered the Sacred Realm, he couldn't get back to the Light World.

Section 13f-Could TP bring a solution?

TP is truly a unique Zelda game in many respects, one of which includes its decisive placement in the overall timeline, a matter often ignored in older games. For instance, in the past, most other games have been loosely placed by the creators based on one other game (such as FSA taking place sometime after FS or TWW placing centuries after OoT), or were not even placed at all (As is the case with OoA/OoS). Though some game placements have been determined to go in a certain order beyond a shadow of a doubt (such as the Four Sword series), they were nevertheless the products of theorists, rather than the creators.

TP, however, marks the first time a Zelda game has been specifically placed between two other games (it has been confirmed and reconfirmed to place decades after OoT, but a long time before TWW). While some people do not consider this placement significant, others argue that this placement could have been intentional so as to provide clarification to several issues. This line of thought stems from interviews with Aonuma and Bill Trinen (a member of NoA's localization team), both of whom state interest in making sense of the timeline through future games.

Indeed, many of the timeline's greatest hurdles involve OoT's ambiguous and unclear ending, and TWW's cause for the flooding of Hyrule, which have bred ceaseless arguments regarding whether a single or double timeline is correct, and should a double timeline be the case, which timeline the Four Sword series and the older games follow. Some theorists thus claim TP is in a prime position to clear up these issues, and help determine once and for all the true direction the timeline is taking (it should be noted the other issue that would show the timeline's current direction involves whether Hyrule unfloods or not after TWW). One such way the game would go about achieving this is by including much clearer references to OoT throughout the game than TWW did (which would be plausible, given the game's proximity to OoT), while either ending with the flood spoken of in TWW, or at least setting up for it.

Already, elements suggesting a close relationship to OoT such as the appearance of the Master Sword, a very similar shield design, and the return of the Gorons have all been shown. As for TWW, it has been revealed that Ganon will indeed appear in the game, and as a result, it is speculated the Twilight Realm may actually be his evil power leaking into Hyrule, which may be the precourse of his eventual escape as told in TWWs introduction. However, it remains to be seen whether this Link will have any connection to the Heroes of Time and Wind, as well as whether we will find out what truly happened to the Hero of Time after MM, if the game figures into TP at all.

Also, the rest of their FAQ can be found here:http://www.zeldawiki.org/in...Timeline

Section 14-Forumlating Your Very Own Theory

It?s here at last, the moment you?ve been waiting for! Now that you know nearly everything there is to know about the timeline, you?re ready to formulate your own theory. Decide what you agree and disagree with from the past sections of the guide, and follow the steps in the next three sections.

Section 14a-Choosing the Number of Timelines

The first step is very basic. You may want to skim sections 5-9 again to decide whether you believe in the single or double timeline theory. If you believe in the single timeline theory, you can go directly to the next section. If you believe in the double timeline theory, you have to decide whether you believe that the 2nd set of games follows PH or MM. Once you?ve done that, you can move on to the next section. Putting the 2nd set of games after PH requires a touch more speculation, as you have to explain how old Hyrule became unflooded and repopulated. Now, it?s entirely possible to come up with an explanation, but keeping speculation to a minimum could be difficult. By putting the 2nd set of games in the New Timeline, you avoid this problem altogether, though the games are split about half and half between the two timelines, which bothers some people. But, for an example of an explanation, a far from perfect but in my opinion very good one, read this, courtesy of jhurvid.

Section 14b-An Explanation

Once again, if you believe the single timeline theory, you may just skip this section. Bear in mind that this is not fact, just a theory, albeit a very good one. So, here?s what jhurvid has to say about the connection between TWW and ALttP, which lends support to any theory where both of those games happen in the same timeline/universe.

One thing I have read about perception of the timeline is that TWW is incompatible with ALTTP because both games follow as sequels to OoT but apparently TWW can't be a prequel to ALTTP. Not only will I explain why this may be wrong but also to explain why the OoT-ALTTP connection is totally inconsistent without TWW.

It all begins with a simple question. Who knows the location of the Triforce in OoT? This is simple; the Royal Family have handed this knowledge down from generation to generation.

From OoT, ?I'm going to tell you the secret of the Sacred Realm that has been passed down by the Royal Family of Hyrule. Please keep this a secret from everyone... [...] That's right... The Temple of Time is the entrance through which you can enter the Sacred Realm from our world. But the entrance is sealed with a stone wall called the Door of Time. And, in order to open the door, it is said that you need to collect three Spiritual Stones. And another thing you need...is the treasure that the Royal Family keeps along with this legend... The Ocarina of Time!?

So do the Royal Family maintain this knowledge even towards ALTTP? Nope.

From ALTTP, ?Triforce grants the wish of the one who touched it. As long as that person is alive.. .That, surely, is why it was placed in the sacred land, and its location passed down only among those chosen. However, it looks as though that was interrupted somewhere... Then, the one who again discovered the sacred land was the thief called Ganondorf.?

So in order for OoT to lead into ALTTP, we need an event that can establish the loss of the knowledge of the Sacred Realm. Without speculation, we have such an event; TWW's Great Flood. The Great Flood was the event that "interrupted" the knowledge of the location of the Sacred Realm that had been handed down by Hyrule's Royal Family. Of course, there is evidence that the Great Flood was responsible for much more than this.

From the Seal War Legend, ?Hyrule, where many Hylian relics have been left, is an area very much tied to myth. One such example is an old saying about the Triforce. ?The golden power lies somewhere descended from the heavens. He who claims it as his own shall have their desires granted by the gods." The people, seeking the Golden Power, began searching for the Sacred Realm. Many reports began to surface; lying beneath the relics of the desert, inside the graves of the race of people in the high mountains, but no one ever found it.?

The general implication from this text is that Hylian civilisation had died out long before the events of the SW, leaving only relics and myths as to explain Hyrule's history. The term "golden power" for example was never used by the people in OoT. In fact, the true name of the Triforce was only revealed in ALTTP when the Sages' Seal was broken and the transformation of the Sacred Realm by Ganon had been revealed to all. Furthermore, the people in OoT did not need to search all of Hyrule for the entrance to the Sacred Realm because legends of the entrance had indeed passed to them.

From OoT, ?Do you know about the Temple of Time that we have in the northeast part of town? Legends say that the Temple of Time is the entrance to the Sacred Realm... Did you know that?

Legends say that the Temple of Time is the entrance to the Sacred Realm...?

Then there is Hyrule's geography. TWW's Great Deku Tree explains to us how the land of Hyrule can be raised up from below the waves by connecting all the islands as one where human civilisation can rebuild itself.

From TWW, ?Every year after the Koroks perform this ceremony, they fly off to the distant islands on the sea and plant my seeds in the hopes that new forests will grow. Forests hold great power--they can change one tiny island into a much larger island. Soon, a day will come when all the islands are one, connected by earth and grove. And the people who live on that great island will be able to join hands and, together, create a better world. Such is my dream. ...But the one you are chasing is trying to prevent that dream from ever coming to pass.

Link... Already, your fate is tied to the fate of this world. You must proceed with great care.?

Now in the backdrop of the Palace of Winds in TMC, we can see two islands below.

http://img124.imageshack.us...dsy3.png

This begins a definite continuity that shows Hyrule physically expanding from below the Great Sea. As time goes by, Hyrule expands and connects with other islands to form larger islands.

-TMC shows Hyrule as a small area of land, with other islands around it.
-FSA shows Hyrule as a larger island.
-ALttP shows Hyrule as FSA's map but with mountains instead of sea borders.
-AoL shows Hyrule as part of a much larger land-mass, (unofficially called Calatia).

Finally, there is the FS saga itself. Have you ever wondered why the Triforce or the Sacred Realm have never enterred the storylines of the games; why Vaati and Ganon never sought to take the ultimate power when they had the opportunity to? This distinctive detail connects with the fact that after the Great Flood, no one knew where it was or exactly what it was. The SW scripts labels the finding of the Triforce as an accident; the Sacred Realm was stumbled upon by Ganondorf and his group of thieves. After this event, such understandings became known to the Sages and the Royal Family. This is not to definitely say that FSA leads into ALttP, because I don't think it does. However, the events are explainable when positioned between TWW and ALttP.

So, there you go. Do you put the 2nd set of games after MM to avoid speculation completely, or do you speculate to try to make the games fit? Or, do you simply put all the games into one timeline? Once you?ve decided, move on to the next section.

Section 14c-Placing the FS Trilogy

You can look back to Section 11 if you don?t remember all the possibilities for placing this series. Basically, you have to decide whether you believe that both FS and FSA Link are the same, and then the rest should take care of itself. If you believe that, you just have to decide if you like TMC better at the beginning, or grouped together with FS and FSA. If you believe Aonuma?s GI article, and that FS and FSA Link are two different people, then you simply must decide if you think FSA goes directly before ALttP, or somewhere else.

Section 14d-Placing the Oracle Games

Refer to Section 11 again if you need to be refreshed on the three possible placements of the Oracle games. Once you?ve placed them, you?ve got your own personal theory!

Section 14e-Your Timeline Theory

Once you?ve done all of this, you have your very own timeline theory. There are something like forty possibilities, so some of you will come up with the same theories, but that?s perfectly fine. Once you have your theory, you can present it and discuss it with other people who are interested in the timeline. Just be sure you know the finer points of your theory, and can back it up with evidence. With that, you?re almost finished with this comprehensive guide. Just read the final section to learn the ?cardinal sins? of discussing the timeline.

Section 15-The ?Cardinal Sins? of Timeline Discussion

I don?t know if any of you remember TIMELINE-TWAPPED from the good old days on the GameCube TP board, but it never really caught on. I created it because of how successful TSA?s GANNON-BANNED (www.gannon-banned.com) was in reducing general ignorance about the Zelda series, but since most people who were ignorant about the timeline hadn?t read this guide, it ended up being rather pointless. So instead, I just took the offenses of TIMELINE-TWAPPED, and made them the ?Cardinal Sins? of timeline debating. Before I list the offenses, I must say this. People will make these mistakes. However, don?t jump down their throats about it. Just politely correct them, or point them to this topic. If you come off as an elitist ***, the person who made the mistake will likely give up on the timeline before getting into it, because they won?t feel welcome. So, without further ado, here are the main things you should avoid doing or saying about the timeline.

Section 15a-The Offenses

1. There is no timeline/storyline.
And this is taken directly from the GB site, so credit to TSA:
16. There is no storyline: This one should have been here a long time ago, I just didn't have proof to back it up. If you head on over to Miyamoto Shrine, you will find a link on the left for "Interviews". Click it, and then click the 2003 Super Play interview. In that interview, Shigeru Miyamoto says that there is a large document that relates the games to each other. In addition, in a recent GameSpy interview, the new head of Zelda, Eiji Aonuma, said he cares very much for story and is going to make more sense of Zelda's story in the future. And oh yeah, at Camp Hyrule 2004, Bill Trinen, the NOA Localization guy, commented that there is indeed a Zelda Timeline, that there has been one for as long as he has known, but it was due to some previous localization "issue" that it became so skewed. However, he said Eiji Aonuma and all the Zelda teams in Japan and the US are working to make the timeline clear to fans, and are actively working to tie it all together with each new game.

2. TWW is the last game in the series.
This was also taken from GB.com, just not worded the exact same way.
Just because Hyrule is flooded doesn't mean this game is the last in the series. Recall what the King of Hyrule said about Link and Tetra being able to find a new land. It doesn't matter that he told them not to call it Hyrule; they may have anyway. Also recall that he did not tell the gods to keep Hyrule flooded forever, so the waters could recede. Bear in mind that this rule does not apply to a double timeline theory where TWW/PH ends the Original Timeline. If someone puts TWW at the very end of the Original Timeline in their theory, but their theory also contains ALttP, LoZ, and other games from the 2nd set, then they?re wrong.

3. The FS trilogy and the Oracle games are not part of the timeline.
I don't know why so many people think this. Yes the games were made by Capcom, but they were supervised by Nintendo to fit into their own game series. Eiji Aonuma even called FS first in the timeline prior to the release of TMC, and FSA was actually made outright by Nintendo. Furthermore, in TSA's aforementioned recent interview with Aonuma, Mr. Aonuma said that the FS series is very important to the overall timeline.

4. There is only one Link.
TWW should have debunked that from the moment you popped in the game disc, but in case it didn't, consider this. Why does Link keep forgetting who Zelda is, and keep changing his appearance? Is it because he has a bad memory? No. It's because there are multiple Links. Some come in pairs, but I already discussed that in the 3rd section. There are multiple Zeldas too, by the way. Keep in mind, if there was only one Link, all the games would have to fit in between Child OoT and Adult OoT, including TWW, which was said to take place hundreds of years after OoT. Therefore, there are many Links.

5. Oracle Link and LA Link are the same.
I already explained this in Section 11, so reread it if you forgot, or show that section to someone who believes this.

6. TWW did not feature Link. It was some other imposter/character.
Okay. It's true that TWW did not feature the Hero of Time Link from OoT, but that is not the only Link. He keeps getting reincarnated. Ganon, on the other hand, seems to keep breaking out of his seal, or getting revived.

7. Every Link is different, and each game takes place in a different universe. Miyamoto even said so!
Yes, he did say so. A long time ago. That has since been retracted. And anyone who has played OoT and MM should know that the claim of each Link being different is not true. The Links went in pairs up until FS and TWW.

8. MM did not happen. It was just a sort of dream.
This was a gem from ToS. Just because Aonuma said Termina was a "wonderland" doesn't mean it didn't happen. If it didn't, where did Link go during the dream? He was definitely traveling through the Lost Woods looking for something when the Skull Kid attacked. The events of LA didn't "happen" but Link sure as hell was shipwrecked in a wooden boat. But you don't see people not including LA in the timeline. So include LA in this rule as well. If someone says LA didn?t happen, please correct him or her.

9. TWW took place one hundred years after OoT.
This is a very minor offense. It?s really hundreds of years after OoT. The one hundred years thing was a mistranslation.

10. Not Backing Up a Timeline Theory.
This is just one of my personal pet peeves on this board, and it's annoying, to be honest. Nothing in the all of the timeline business on this board annoys me more than when someone puts out a crazy whackadoo theory with nothing to back it up. Someone posted this as his timeline theory once, with nothing to back it up. TP-OoT-Oracles-MM-LoZ-AoL-ALttP-FSA-TMC-FS-TWW-LA. Now that theory is about as wrong as can be, but he didn't have anything to back it up. Honestly, I'm fine with unorthodox ideas. Just look at my explanation for the double timeline theory. So, if someone puts OoT at the end of his or her timeline, fine. They just should have some damn good evidence to back it up. The keyword there is good. "LIek ooT iz tEH lazt cuz GanNnOn dIEZ at da eNd" isn't good evidence. Now, if someone puts out a crazy theory, but does back it up, you'll just have to argue with them, maybe convince them that they?re wrong, or maybe learning something new. That?s what discussing the timeline is all about. Discovering new things to figure out the timeline.

11. Completely Disregarding Creator Quotes or Interviews That Haven't Been Disproven.
This isn?t too much of a problem on this forum, but every now and again we get posters from other forums, some of which put no value on quotes from the creators. I joined a couple of these sites, and when I inquired as to why they don?t use creator quotes, one guy said, and I quote, ?I don?t trust them to come up with a logical timeline.? So, he basically told me that he thinks he knows more about the timeline than the creators who, well, uh, created it. All this being said, it?s fine to disregard creator quotes if, and only if, you can disprove them using either a more recent quote or in-game evidence. But completely disregarding creator quotes from the get-go is a huge mistake

12. Using Rampant Speculation to Justify a Timeline Theory.
As I mentioned before, some speculation is necessary, but you should try to keep it to a minimum. A few months ago, a poster on the GC TP board created a topic that proposed three timelines, and said he had evidence that it was possible. I was intrigued, so I read his topic, but was then sorely disappointed. He said that Dethl, the final boss from LA, was some all-powerful evil monster who existed centuries before OoT occurred, and he created 3 timelines at the end of his lifetime. He then went on to explain how Dethl had a hand in orchestrating major events in nearly every game. Now, it was all very interesting, but extremely unlikely, with nothing in any game remotely suggesting this. Further, he couldn?t understand why I didn?t like his theory. So, the moral is, keep speculation to a minimum.

13. Using Small, Unimportant Details to ?Prove? a Timeline Theory.
I?m surprised by the number of people who do this. There are many examples of fun little Easter Eggs hidden throughout the various games, but many people dig too deep for timeline clues. For example, in MM, the title of the song that the band plays in the Milk Bar is, ?The Ballad of the Wind Fish.? Coincidentally, that?s a title of one of the three songs you can play in Link?s Awakening. Some people believe that this means MM must take place after LA, just because of a song title. More than likely, it?s just something the music guy threw in for fun. So, look for details, but don?t use anything this small or insignificant to ?prove? a theory. They?re fine as the icing on the cake when they go along with major pieces of evidence, but by themselves, these little details don?t prove anything.

Section 15b-Cardinal Sins Conclusion

I'll add more offences as I think of them, or if they are suggested. Again, please don't take this too seriously. It's just to try to help the rampant timeline ignorance on this board. GANNON-BANNED did wonders in helping get rid of basic Zelda ignorance, so I'm hoping this will too. Also, remember to explain to someone where they went wrong, and encourage them to read this topic.

Guide Conclusion

So, there it is. That?s pretty much everything you need to know to be a Zelda timeline expert. I think this has just about covered everything, but more will be added if necessary. Once again, I'd like to thank everyone who helped me in getting Version 2.5 up and running, and I'd also like to thank anyone who read this entire extremely long FAQ. I'd also like to apologize for any headaches it may have given the readers. Compiling and writing it gave me quite a few . But, now that you've got a wealth of timeline knowledge, see if you can't use it to help contribute to the good of this board, or any other Zelda community you?re a part of. Once again, please feel free to ask any question, comment on any of our many theories or explanations, or post one of your own theories. Just make sure you don?t commit any cardinal sins!

Finally, I'd like to apologize to everyone that this FAQ coversmany pages. In case you don't know, GF's character limit for posts is just over 4,000, and this FAQ was over 128,000 characters. GS's character limit is 20,000, but it didn't like my format, so I couldn't post the guide there. I apologize. And a special thanks goes to Aurabolt 10. GF didn't like my format either, until he fixed it for me, so I owe him alot. So, after a long wait, the Timeline FAQ is updated.

Enjoy!


« Last edited by SPV999 on Dec 31st 2006 »

well, Wow. that revealed alot to me... but go figure. I have have a reallly simple mind and its hard to hold my attention.

Holy F***in' crap! That is one of the longest posts Ive ever seen. You sure devoted a lot of time to a post. Im not sure I can read the whole thing. But good for you

« Last edited by cheesemonkey on Jan 5th 2007 »

Here is my theory on this subject...(Single timeline)

1. TMC- Origin of the FourSword and Link's infamous tradition of a green hat.No refrence to Ganon's existance is presented but features Vaati's transformation to the one eyed beast.

2. OoT- Once confirmed to be the first in the series soon after release but then it was also confirmed that TMC came out BEFORE OoT. This shows Ganon's true origins which now sets the basis of the most common antagonist.

3. MM- undiputed sequel to OoT. Starts out after Link turns back into a child and is looking for Navi.

4. LttP- Ganon breaks from the seal put on him in OoT with Aganhims assitance of kidnapping the maidens.

5. OoS or OoA- Either order they happen, they end the same. Some people think they are two diffrent Links at the same time. Evidence from the game shows that they are the same because some characters recognize you from before. Deffinetly after OoT because Twinrova returns to revive Ganon. They succeed but Ganon dies again.

6. LA- at the end of OoS/OoA, Link leaves on a boat. In the begining of LA, Link is sailing and is stranded on a mysterious island. The whole thing is a dream at the end but the shadows he fights show that he did see Aganhim and Ganon(and possibly Vaati?).

7. LoZ- Link returns to Hyrule to find that Ganon is back and he has a triforce on his hand again. Link defeats Ganon again as well.

8. AoL- Ganon's followers try to resurect him with Links blood but Ganon is dead the whole game. It is confirmed that this game came a few years after LoZ.

9. FSA- Link draws the ancient foursword to help Zelda. He firsts defeats Vaati and finds himself face to face with Ganon. Link seals Ganon in the sword and places it back in the shrine.

10. TP- A new Link with no history of heroism faces Zant who revives Ganon. Gaanon is defeated by Link and Zelda and the Twilight World is sealed.

11. FS. Link draws the sword again and releases Vaati and defeats him again. It happens after FSA.

12. TWW- When Link drew the sword in FS, Ganon was probaly also released. He returns after Hyrule is flooded and turns into stone, sinking with Hyrule.

13. PH- Definetly after TWW but not much is known. This games stroy might change everyones perspective!

Geography theory: 1.The reason that Hyrule changes up so much might be because Link and Tetra find a new land in PH but call it Hyrule. 2. They find 2 new lands for each of them and call them Labrynna and Holodrum. Both theories could change this timeline.

« Last edited by cheesemonkey on Jan 6th 2007 »