Updating the Definitions so they may be clearly understood.


Types of Theorists:

Traditional Zelda Theorists:

Developer's word over their intent has not changed. These theorists generally argue that anything the developers have said is their intent: past, present, and future. Despite plot holes left open in the in-game and other misc. manual text canon, these theorists argue that developers leave things unspecified in order to unrestrict how they make future games. Depending on what an individual is theorizing a relation to be, all storyline elements between games can plausibly correlate to make conclusions. Under this logic, general hypothesis may be made to provide universal explanation/s on why things happen a certain way, and or how they would happen. Traditional Zelda Theorists believe in an overall chronology.

Non-Traditional Zelda Theorists:

Developer’s word over their intent has changed. These theorists generally argue that in-game and other misc. manual text canon contradicts some of the developer's word – providing reason to why they may have changed their intent. Depending on what an individual is theorizing a relation to be, most storyline elements between games can plausibly correlate to make conclusions. Under this logic, general hypothesis may be made to provide universal explanation/s on why things happen a certain way, and or how they would happen. Non-Traditional Zelda Theorists can believe in an overall chronology, or believe certain timeline arks (like the FS series, for example) have been dismissed from relating to other title's storylines.

Independent Zelda Theorists:

Developer's word over their intent hardly means anything anymore, or has become indifferent as the series has progressed. These theorists argue that in-game and other misc. manual text canon is contradictive to developer's intent in many areas – providing reason that they have abandoned fixing things for an overall chronology to be possible. Depending on what an individual is theorizing a relation to be, storyline elements between games - within a timeline ark only - can plausibly correlate to make conclusions. Under this logic, general hypothesis may be made to provide explanation/s on why things happen a certain way, and or how they would happen according to explicit references only. Independent Theorists do not over extend their boundaries of bias’s and rarely let other theorists trends effect their skeptical judgments.

Innovative Zelda Theorists:

These Theorists weigh the checks and balances between the views and trends of what is considered canon by all types of Zelda Theorists. They do not over extend their boundaries of bias’s and rarely let other theorists trends effect their personal judgments. However, these historians may retain there opinions in certain areas (and perhaps even lean more towards certain Zelda Theorist's ideals) but do not let popular opinion impair on their reasoning. Innovative Theorists try to adopt the different logics between all three types of theorists and apply their rhetoric to debate efficiently when the time is appropriate. (Beginner Theorist will adopt this platform first and foremost - usually for a short time to find where their bias falls under more. Senior scholars that have been in more than two of the other catagories of theorists may find themselves returning to this stage to redefine where the series is actually going.)