Xykeb Zraliv– 2. Tomorrow I saw the Soul of the Bridgekeeper reduced to ash, and I saw the Bridge created by two-thirds. TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
Okay, so I know these forums never get resolved, but I may as well bring this up anyway. I know we haven't made any decisions about the timeline information in general, but Weedle brought up something on the Triforce article that I figured I may as well put here so we can resolve it as soon as possible, either way.
Basically we have the timeline now, and for the purposes of this discussion we'll assume it's official. Weedle believes that we should list the appearances of a given article's subject by chronology based on the timeline, as opposed to listing in order of the release of the games.
Personally, I don't care that much and am neutral on the issue, but I think this should be brought up so we have a concrete rule on this.
Minish Link– "I know what happens on either fork of the river...Even though the people on either fork know nothing about one another." TALK– SANDBOX — EDIT
I guess that's a fair point. I'm pretty neutral on it myself, although I will say if we decide to do chronology as opposed to release it will be a lot of rearranging things, considering the amount of things we have ordered by release. I think it works fine as is, but I wouldn't be opposed to changing it.
Organization by release date is a perfectly okay substitute if there either is an overarching timeline of the series that's not actually been released to the public (such as the Mario series) or if the series in question wasn't intended to even have a timeline to begin with (ie, several of the Looney Tunes shorts). However, in the long run in regards to timelines, it's not really that reliable, so I'm more in favor of the chronological approach. However, if the majority want to keep it at release order... well, there's not much I can do to prevent it, anyways. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 20:54, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
Organizing chronologically would be all well and good in most circumstances, but how do we handle games that occur in separate timeline branches? I wouldn't necessarily be opposed if we came up with a good way to do that, but it strikes we that most solutions would not make as much intuitive sense to the reader as simply ordering by release.
I do have a pretty good idea of how to handle that part: Namely, we subdivide the history/biography section up to four sections or less. The first section pertains to every game and/or event officially confirmed to take place before Ocarina of Time (ie, Skyward Sword; Minish Cap, and Four Swords in terms of games). The second section pertains to the timeline branch where Link loses to Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time (Called Timeline A for convenience's sake, which includes the events of the Imprisoning War, Shipwrecked, the Tragedy of Princess Zelda, and the events of A Link to the Past, the Oracle subseries, Link's Awakening, the first Legend of Zelda, and the Adventure of Link). The third section pertains to the Child timeline (likewise called Timeline B, which contains the events of Ganondorf's arrest and subsequent execution, as well as the games of Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, and Four Swords Adventures). The fourth and last timeline would be the Adult timeline where Link succeeds in defeating Ganon (called Timeline C, which contains the events of the Great Flood, and the events of The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks). Note that the subheadings are pertained only to those who are directly afflicted with the split timeline (ie, the characters in question appear in more than one timeline), so one-shot characters or Vaati (who hasn't appeared in any timeline other than Timeline B) will of course be exempted from this design. This method also works in effectively applying events that technically are not demonstrated in the games themselves (eg, events that are mentioned by characters or supplementary materials only and aren't actually playable such as the Imprisoning War or the Great Flood) and separating them from events that are directly relating to the game being played (as in, the events that you actually play through in the game, such as the Endless Day in Oracle of Ages, or heck, the plot of the games that you play through). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:34, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
I for one am adamantly against listing thins in anything but release order. Unlike series such as Metroid and Metal Gear, the Zelda series does not have an overall story. The story of each game is almost completely independent to that of the other games. Even the games the heavily reference others don't actually have any story based connections, The Wind Waker mentions Ocarina of Time in it's prologue but the more important aspects of the back story aren't covered in any other games. Hell even the sequels are pretty story independent. Basically I am saying there is no need to, the Zelda series does not feature one huge over laying story, there is no end to it in mind, it is multiple stories with recurring themes strung throughout. Apart from a handful of characters every game features a completely new cast. It's not like the Metal Gear series where what happened to a character in one game directly effects how that character is in another game. Aside from that this official timeline still has many holes in it and having three strands would just make the page really confusing. Many many fans don't even know about the timeline of the Zelda series so dropping all these adult and child references on pretty much every page would be quite unsightly in my opinion. It also must be considered that if this is to be done for some pages it must also be done for all pages, that is minor characters like Beedle would have to deal his appearances chronologically and don't even mention items where there is pretty much 0% chance of the being the same weapon in multiple games yet by consistency we would have to list them in chronological order. To boil it down this would be much more trouble then it's worth and the nature of the series means it really really isn't needed.
If the games were truly independent of one another and did not have an overall story, it would have been done in a very similar manner to the Final Fantasy series, where all of its "sequels" were completely divorced from the previous and/or next game. Since there are several instances of at least two games being dependent on one another (eg, Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, with Wind Waker directly referencing Ocarina of Time in both the prologue and in certain instances in the main game itself), constant references to a timeline, and the Hyrule Historia, then like it or not, it really does have to be done in chronological order now. Another thing, many many fans also are unaware of the split timeline theory, or heck, even the Multiple Ganon Theory, yet that didn't stop them from getting articles. Now, the appearances of minor items that really don't have any implications of being the same item can retain the appearances section, but any characters and/or key items will have to be done in chronological style. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:30, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
As I've said, I'm neutral on the issue, but I have to say that I'm not liking your attitude. We don't "have" to do anything. This is still an open discussion. You've stated your view and given your reasoning. That should be enough. XykebYvolixZraliv 00:41, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
There are a few instances of games being related, but the relations are usually loose and I would not characterize them as necessitating chronological ordering. Also, getting an article, as in your Multiple Ganon Theory example, is not really related to this. Making an article about something not widely known is a positive because it will inform those who don't know about it; formatting an entire wiki based upon something not widely known is a negative because it will confuse those who don't know about it. Upon reflection, I must say that I agree with Oni on the issue, pending more persuasive reasons for this to occur. Additionally, the method for handling timeline splits, while not egregiously unacceptable, still strikes me as unwieldy compared to the current system.
The way the page is currently formatted has each section giving information relevant to its possible timeline placement. Organizing this information by release is really the only sensible way to do so. However, all of that information is now redundant since the actual timeline is known, so what would we even put in those sections? Nothing we did would be coherent or relevant if we're going to wrote down the games in order of their release. Also, what would we do if we wrote down the games in chronological order? Unwieldiness of the split timeline aside, each individual section would wind up being nothing more than a watered-down plot summary. Furthermore, this ignores the events that take place between games.
I suggest scrapping the game sections entirely and replacing them with one header for each major thread of the timeline. In this format, each section would list, in paragraph form, the major events of each thread -- one for each game up to OoT, and one for each post-OoT split. The events of a game could be encapsulated by saying, "The events of [this game] occur, and [results]," or something like that.
I'm not sure how I read through all of this and missed that. My mistake. If that's what this is about, order of release makes much more sense, mostly because the split timeline complicates things quite a bit. Release order seems more intuitive to me, though that could just be because I'm used to it.
I also very strongly recommend we keep the current release order system. Though there is an official full timeline now, it is barely ever relevant or at all helpful to look at a page's subject in that light. Each story is entirely self contained, with the exception of very few things, like Ganondorf, the Seven Sages and their seal, etc.. A single incarnation of an item/character/location very rarely appears in more than one game, and almost nothing appears in more than two. For example, it's useless to lump MC Zelda and OoT Zelda together because they have nothing in common that they don't share with every other Zelda. Not only does a timeline format gain nothing for the vast majority of pages, but people looking for info about the character/location/item from a particular game would be utterly lost without game-based sections (how do you explain the mechanics of the Bow in a Child Timeline section that consists of three totally different games?). Even if you kept game based sections but arranged them in timeline order, the vast majority of pages would still have no benefit for the reasons I've stated, and these pages would become EXTREMELY confusing to the many people who do not know the timeline order.
Additionally, release order is not only straightforward and well known, but it has been and forever shall be the same. Official timeline order has been changed in the past, and it could get changed again. They knowingly screwed up the then-confirmed OoT/ALttP connection with WW, and later fixed it with a very nonsensical third timeline split. In fact, now that they've announced a full timeline, it's extremely likely that they'll find themselves stepping on their own feet again. They've always said that individual game stories come first, and the overall timeline consistency is secondary. We too should keep the games referred to first as individual games, and as pieces of a timeline only secondarily.
However, the history of things which ARE directly affected by timeline connections, such as the Triforce and Ganon(dorf), is a somewhat convoluted subject which is sure to be of interest to those of our readers who actually have seen the timeline. I recommend that in addition to game sections, these articles should be given a new chronology section. This section would go over all the timeline branches and summarize what happens to the thing in each of them. I think this could easily be accomplished in one paragraph per timeline segment (prequel/adult/child/dead Link). All our pages' formats would remain in the user-friendly game/release order sections, with the timeline specific information being neatly listed in its own section for the pages that need it. Just off the top of my head, only a few pages would need a chronology section: Ganon/Ganondorf, Triforce, Sacred Realm/Dark World, Seven Sages/Seal of the Sages/possibly Ancient Sages, Hyrule/New Hyrule, and maybe the Master Sword and Four Sword. All the other recurring Links/Zeldas/Magic Items/etc. appear in only two games if I'm not mistaken, a connection which I think can be easily explained in the relevant game sections, just like we've always done on this wiki. All 4,500+ other pages I didn't list could remain in their current format, which I strongly believe to be a vastly superior format for getting across the information they contain.
No offense to anyone in favor of timeline based organization, I want to include timeline explanations also, but the VAST majority of Zelda information is entirely non-timeline related. First and foremost, our format needs to be designed to convey all that non-timeline information, which is best organized by game/release order.--FierceDeku 05:13, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
The organizing-by-timeline-thread thing was meant for the timeline page, not pages in general (I had brief a case of stupid and thought we were talking about something else), so just disregard that suggestion which is rather stupid in context. That aside, I fully agree with your defense of keeping things as they are while adding a brief section/paragraph for what happens to someone/something over the whole series when relevant.
We should keep this as is because it is impossible to determine how games relate to each other from their respective timelines because they are not relative to each other. I think we can close this issue.