Timeline: Difference between revisions

A thorough review and assessment of the myriad of timeline proposals would be both impossible and outside the scope of the present article; however, the debate can usefully be broken down for the uninitiated.

Since {{Zelda| AoL}} was a direct sequel to {{Zelda| LoZ}}, timeline theorizing could only begin after the release of {{Zelda| ALttP}}. Given that the internet access was not prevalent until later in the 90's and that {{Zelda| ALttP}} was uncontroversially placed as a prequel to previous games in the promotional material, it is likely that timeline theorizing did not rise to popularity until after the release of {{Zelda| OoT}}.

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.