Timeline: Difference between revisions

The meta-debate over the goal of timeline theories is important since the type of evidence available depends on an answer. If the goal is to discover the true timeline, quotes from Nintendo employees involved in the creations of the games are valuable, if rare, evidence for one theory over another. If, on the other hand, the goal is to simply create the most satisfying timeline without regard for the "official" timeline, such evidence is less important. These issues will be discussed further in the evidence section below.

Much of the timeline debate has consisted in a fan presenting a possible timeline along with arguments for the specific placements of the game chosen by the fan followed by criticisms and discussion by other fans. Another approach is to divide the issue into several smaller questions which can be debated individually. Any position on the more focused questions is in the service of achieving an overall timeline, and any overall timeline must take a stand on many of the more focused questions.

Fans are divided on the question of how many timelines there are and on which games should be included. Most timeline theorists do not include the Philips CD-i games in the Zelda timeline at all since these games were not produced by Nintendo and are considered non-canon. Some fans also argue that other titles should be left out of the timeline such as {{Zelda| FS}}.

Whatever the relative merits of separating various games into separate timelines, it is usually agreed that if a unified timeline can be satisfactory it would be preferable to separate timelines. Theorists differ on how optimistic one should be about developing a unified timeline which actually is satisfactory.

The question of whether the timeline is split must be separated from the question of how many timelines there are. Given that some Zelda games, especially {{Zelda| OoT}} include a time travel element, many have suggested that the timeline in {{Zelda| Series}} is unified but splits into a fork.

Though the present article does not purport to offer an definitive position on the timeline, the usual arrangement has {{Zelda| WW}} and its sequels occurring on the adult timeline. The child timeline, on the other hand, is usually said to lead to {{Zelda| MM}} and {{Zelda| TP}} (though some have deviated on this claim).

The question of the order of the games in the series is the central question in timeline debates. The question can be broken down into smaller ones. Which game is first? In a split timeline, which games occur on the "child side" and which on the "adult side" (see the section above "Is the timeline split?")?

Much of the debate centers on how to connect relatively uncontroversial grouping of games. However, the groupings themselves can be debated. For instance, fans are divided on whether other games fall between {{Zelda| MC}} and the other games in the "Four Sword" series.

In addition to its importance to timeline theory, the question of how many Links/Zeldas/Ganons there are is interesting in its own right. For example, while it is uncontroversial that the Link from {{Zelda| OoT}} is the same as the Link from {{Zelda| MM}}, many fans debate over whether the Link in {{Zelda| LA}} is the same as the Link in {{Zelda| ALttP}}. Likewise, fans debate over the repetition of other characters such as Zelda, Ganon, and Impa as well as enemies such as Volvagia and Twinrova.

Though it is uncontroversial that there must be more than one Link and more than one Zelda in {{Zelda| Series}}, matters are not so clear in the case of [[Ganon]]. Fans divide on whether there are multiple incarnations or one Villain who has been sealed, released, killed, and revived multiple times. The issue is further complicated by the split timeline theory and the possibility that the beast form [[Ganon]] might not be entirely destroyed when the human form [[Ganondorf]] is. (Spoiler Alert!) While Ganon's human/Gerudo form, [[Ganondorf]], was killed by the Master Sword in both {{Zelda| WW}} and {{Zelda| TP}}, the possibility that these events occur on different sides of a split timeline (see above) do not preclude these two iterations of Ganondorf from being the same entity. Furthermore, if {{Zelda| LoZ}} and {{Zelda| ALttP}} Occur on opposite sides of the split timeline, since only the beast form Ganon appears, some fans have conjectured that only the human form was destroyed in earlier games.

Unlike Zelda and Link, one can reasonably theorize that there has thus far been only one Ganon; however, even if there are multiple Ganons, the question of how many there are remains. The assumption that there is only one Ganon would place a serious constraint on the placement of games in the timeline since any placement would have to make sense of Ganon's subsequent deaths, revivals, etc. Such a constraint may be welcome since it would rule out many timeline possibilities; however, the constraint also limits the ability of theorists to move games around in light of other evidence. Theorists are divided on how these considerations should be weighed. (see item/character tracking below)

There are arguably no two games in the series feature the same Zelda. However, both {Zelda| LA} and the Oracles games mention Zelda though she is never (or only briefly) shown. In these cases one can question which Zelda incarnation is being mentioned. The more popular and more puzzling question is that of the Zelda mentioned in {{Zelda| AoL}} backstory. The {{Zelda| AoL}} backstory features a curses Zelda purported to be the first Zelda. Fans debate over whether this Zelda appears in any game, and if so which one, as well as whether this backstory has been "retconned."

In many cases, it is clear that the Link in one game is the same as the Link in another game as in the case of {{Zelda| WW}} and {{Zelda| PH}}. There are other cases where the Link in one game is clearly different from the Link in another as in the case of {{Zelda| SS}} and {{Zelda| OoT}}. However, in several cases such as {{Zelda| LA}}, {{Zelda| OoS}}, and {{Zelda|OoA}}, the game suggests that Link has already saved Hyrule thus leaving open the question of which incarnation of Link these games depict. While one might consistently maintain that these Links have saved Hyrule in events which have not been depicted in any game, most theorists assume that the Link in the gameboy (color) titles is the same Link which appears in one of the other games.

Whatever the number of Links, another interesting question arises concerning the relationships between the various Links. Are the various Links part of a bloodline, reincarnations of the same entity, or simply separate individuals all chosen for a similar purpose? This and other questions of [[Zelda lore]] are intimately tied with timeline theorizing. (See section below on relation to other Zelda theory)

(Spoiler Warning!) At the end of {{Zelda| WW}} [[Old Hyrule]] has been flooded. [[Link]] and [[Tetra]] sail off to find a new land to call [[Hyrule]]. This [[New Hyrule]] is depicted in {{Zelda| ST}}. Thus it is fairly uncontroversial that there are at least two Hyrules. However, some timeline theorists believe that there may be more than two. If the timeline is divided, for example, there would be alternate Hyrules existing in the separate timelines. Alternatively, some fans speculate that more than one kingdom of [[Hyrule]] arises over the ages thereby explaining differences in the physical and political geography of Hyrule in various games in the series. (see "Relation to Other Zelda Theory" below)

"Retcon" is short for "retroactive continuity" and refers to any alteration in the canonical facts in a fictional world.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity</ref>] The possibility of retconing elements of the Zelda universe makes timeline theorizing especially difficult since any apparent contradiction between games in the series might be interpreted as a change in the canon story. When a timeline theorist argues for a specific placement based on a story conflict which would arise if the games were placed differently or criticizes another timeline theory based on story conflict, the possiblity of retcon reduces the effectiveness of such arguments.

Fans debate the extent to which the series has been retconned; however, most agree that a timeline theory which necessitates fewer posited retcons is superior to a theory which posits a larger number of retcons. (see "Weighing the Evidence" below) The most common story elements suggested to be retconned are the [[backstory]] elements which appear in instruction manuals and other sources but not within the games themselves. (See "Instruction Manuals/Official Literature) below)

A prominent issue in timeline theorizing is that of how to fit the various backstories into the timeline. Roughly, a game's "backstory" refers to story events related over the course of a game, especially at the beginning, which are not actually a part of story actually "played out" by the character over the course of the game. The backstory may be essential for understanding the historical context of the events related in a game and/or the character's motivations, but it is not part of the narrative which the character/player experiences over the course of the game. It is worth noting that the line between backstory and the rest of the story in a game is often blurry.

The [[unification war]] mentioned in the Ocarina of Time backstory is also a point of contention.