for those of you that haven't heard of it, here's what it is. "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the most correct." They used occam's Razor to prove that copernicus, galileo, and newton were right about planetary movement. IT CAN BE USED HERE! I don't know about anybody else, but to me two timelines where you have to place games is much more confusing than one, which is hard enough by itself!
The problem is that you haven't noticed a few things:
-First: Splitting time is a consequence of traveling to the past, according to Hawking,(something he considers impossible)
-Second: The Ending of OoT clearly implies a Split Timeline, as well as the whole game itself.
-Third: If you accept that OoT is the Seal/Imprisoning War, something deduced by using Occam's Razor, there is no way of ALttP and TWW to be in the same Timeline, since in ALttP Ganon tries to break the Sages' Seal and is defeated by Link, while in TWW, the Sages' Seal is already broken and Ganon has attacked Hyrule.
-Fourth: If you read that infamous interview, it doesn't matter which translation you use, the creators (Aonuma and Miyamoto) have implied CLEARLY a Split Timeline.
Look to the future:
Has it occured to anyone that this video game series is still open? That it could be INTENTIONALLY open?! that it might be on purpose that it would take at least two games to make satisfying explanations of what we already have?
Of course we know it's open. But knowing what Nintendo has done until now, I find seriously improbable that TP, PH or other game will "fix" the Timeline. Mainly because NoJ tends to forget about older games. Starting with Sleeping Zelda.
it is foolhardy to try and say that the blue sword or the magic sword of LoZ are the master sword or the
four swords-whatever-from the minish cap. You can not say that it was a sword that didn't exist. it's like if nintendo said in 1993 that LA went after the Oracle series,(which it might not)
It didn't exist by 1987, but it does in 2006. You are contradicting yourself. If we find a White Sword in LoZ and a White Sword in TMC, is there any reason to say they aren't the same? Canon changes with time, and while they didn't think of Minish when they created LoZ, when they created them on TMC, it's clear that they also existed in LoZ, mainly because of the Rupee thing.
Think of this reasonably:
Think of what we call "canon." I will go so far as to seperate it into two categories:near-canon and a
bsolute canon. LoZ, AoL, and TWW are all examples of near-canon. LoZ and AoL were very early games. I hope I don't offend anyone, but games of this time period were not well made. The plots were very much thrown together and were basically just there to make sense of what you were playing. A lot of them even seem to have very similar, if not the same basic plot. I can not in my right mind use the first two Zeldas as absolute canon any more than I can TWW(my utmost apologies to its fans; I really like WW.) the plots of said games are simply too obscure. Even if Tww's plot is barely so. I think that these reasons are, or are at least part of why the developers of zelda have, it seems, tried to ignore these problems entirely.
I don't understand your logic here. How is TWW's plot obscure? The plot is pretty clear. I can tell you of more games with obscure plots: OoX, FS, FSA... But TWW.... no way.
I have seen very strong opinions from 4 or 5 people that are arguing their case, and some points are similar, but the opposing sites do not entirely contradict. it's funny because I have seen this exact thing happen multiple times, although with different people and about different points, but it is all essentially the same every time people who know a lot about a particular subject get talking.
Is there anything that makes as different to the rest of humans? The answer is no.
as for the sleeping zelda: I agree with SteveT; does the sleeping Zelda really have to be another Zelda?
Did you read my article, by chance? It wasn't about WHO the Sleeping Zelda was, but about WHEN she lived. I don't think SZ has to be anyone else apart from SZ, and the article wasn't about that.
anyway, MY timeline, from my knowledge and logic:
(TMC) OoT/MM -> TP -> Ww ->-> ALttP -> (Oracle series) -> LA ->->->-> LoZ/AoL
games in parenthases COULD go where I have them, which is in my mind the most logical place for them. if there are any other games, I have not played them. and to my knowledge are floaters, and could easily be put in many places.
The only problem of your timeline is that it forces the SW to be something different to OoT, something absolutely illogical.
Anyway, welcome to LA
Don't think I am like this everyday, it's just I didn't want this topic to turn into something like this, arguing about Split and SW.