What is and isn't canon

Due to members at the GameFAQs forums disagreeing with how LionHarted and I interpret things such as developer statements, they have suggested I tell what I think is and isn't canon. This is also a place for all of you, the members of ZU, to express what you see as canon. Hopefully the folks down at GameFAQs will agree with our opinions. As you all put up your opinions, I will begin to form the Canonical Order of ZU, which will state what is and isn't canon for all of the Zelda Universe forums. When this is done, I will post it and will continue altering it based on new opinions. So, allow me to state my interpretation of what is and isn't canon.
____________________

My method works like that of Star Wars. Anything stated about Zelda in an official method is canon. However, they are on different levels. These will be First Canon, Second Canon, and so on. Canon of a lower number can override canon of a higher number, since it will be more official. I will now explain the different levels of canon.

First Canon: Any text found in the games and manuals, along with official artwork and maps. Since it is coming straight from the games and does not change, it is the highest level of canon. Text is then divided in two ways in certain conditions. When the older games (LoZ, AoL, and ALttP) are being discussed, then the Japanese version of the text is of higher canon than the English version. This is because of translational errors and the tendency of NOA (Nintendo of America) to add things to make what is being said sound cooler. There may be other instances when it can be used, but as of now I have no way of getting translated manuals for Ocarina of Time. First Canon material can override any other source of canon.

Second Canon: Any conferences, interviews, or official statements by Nintendo representatives (Shigeru Miyamoto, Eiji Aonuma) who are on the development team are Second Canon. Because the developer's opinions and views of the games can change at any time, their statements cannot be valid over a long period of time. This is just because of a human's tendency to change its mind. However, before a game is released, they are considered the highest canon when pertaining directly to that game. Right now, those games are Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass.

Third Canon: Anything on the Zelda website, Zelda.com. This is basically because of some research I've done there pertaining to the earlier games, and I found a few things that slightly contradict in-game text.

Fourth Canon: Anything said by Nintendo employees on the development team. One example would be the controversial statement at E3 by an employee who said that Link would go through three age zones (you know what I mean) in Twilight Princess.

Fifth Canon: This is anything found in the mangas that tend to pop up around the release of a game. Because they are just the author's way of telling the story, they can't be very official. However, they are still valid, as they can offer some ideas of how things happen. If nothing, and I mean nothing, of higher canon goes against something found in the mangas, then the manga's interpretation of events can be true. However, this is very unlikely, and I have only found one such instance, and that is the origins of LoZ Link. (He's from Calatia, from what I understand. This fits nicely with how I see things, anyways, so it's very plausible.)
____________________

So, there you have it. This is how I interpret everything we're told about the Zelda games. This is a very simple system to understand, and I hope you will all agree on my order of canon. If many of you disagree with how it goes, then I will change it if I see fit. At this time, post your comments and/or how you would arrange the sources of canon.

Originally Posted by Master of ALttP

First Canon: Any text found in the games, along with official artwork, art style, and maps.

How about the manuals? I'd say they're first canon too.

Yes. Add the manuals to First Canon. Then bump "official statements" down to Fourth.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Yes. Add the manuals to First Canon. Then bump "official statements" down to Fourth.

Then what's Third Canon? What's Second Canon? I've got two forms of official statements up there.

Edit: Is that what you mean?

What evidence actually is there to show developers changed their minds? There are only two people who have officially made statements about the Zelda storyline, Aonouma and Miyamoto.

Miyamoto has told us that he has nothing to do with the storyline development, he gives ideas at the beginning and at the end. His quotes have shown to be inaccurate.

Aonouma is a different story. So far, nothing that he has said has actually contradicted the storyline of the games that he was in development of (although the split timeline is still debatable). Hence, it is unfair to blame Miyamoto's mistakes on Aonouma.

Originally Posted by Master of ALttP

Then what's Third Canon? What's Second Canon? I've got two forms of official statements up there.

Switch employee statements with Zelda.com statements.

Originally Posted by jhurvid

What evidence actually is there to show developers changed their minds? There are only two people who have officially made statements about the Zelda storyline, Aonouma and Miyamoto.

Miyamoto has told us that he has nothing to do with the storyline development, he gives ideas at the beginning and at the end. His quotes have shown to be inaccurate.

Aonouma is a different story. So far, nothing that he has said has actually contradicted the storyline of the games that he was in development of (although the split timeline is still debatable). Hence, it is unfair to blame Miyamoto's mistakes on Aonouma.

I don't need evidence other than the fact that people change their minds. Would they really spend money to have an interview where they say they changed their mind on something? No, they would not. It also because of the inaccuracy of things, like you said. LionHarted, what did you say about Aonuma not being part of the Four Swords team and his placement of Four Swords? Oh, right, because Aonuma wasn't there working on it, he wouldn't know for sure where it goes and he was just trying to sound like they were working on the timeline very closely. That quote also could have lost its meaning some time ago, due to Aonuma changing his mind on things. If you can't understand that, then too bad. And I'm not saying anybody made mistakes, because both of them are the greatest people I know of. I could only wish to have the jobs that they do. They haven't made mistakes, they have only misinformed us. It is translators who have made mistakes, because Japanese is a very difficult language to translate properly.

manga's aren't official, just read one, then play the corresponding game, the two stories are far too different to have the manga considered canon. And well, even if you did read the manual's from the early zelda's in japanese... you'de still run into alot of the original translation errors (though not as obviously wrong) that the original NOA did.

Originally Posted by vacumgod

manga's aren't official, just read one, then play the corresponding game, the two stories are far too different to have the manga considered canon. And well, even if you did read the manual's from the early zelda's in japanese... you'de still run into alot of the original translation errors (though not as obviously wrong) that the original NOA did.

That's why the mangas are last canon. They aren't official by many standards, but they can give ideas as to how things occur. This being LoZ Link's origins and why no hero appeared to battle Ganon when he claimed the Triforce of Power.

Originally Posted by jhurvid

What evidence actually is there to show developers changed their minds?

Last time I checked they are just humans. That's enough evidence for me. Besides I bet they've made some inaccurate statements at some point (yes even Aonouma).

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Switch employee statements with Zelda.com statements.

Yeah, do it!

Originally Posted by Uncle Meat

Last time I checked they are just humans. That's enough evidence for me. Besides I bet they've made some inaccurate statements at some point (yes even Aonouma).

My point exactly.

Yeah, do it!

Did it.

I pretty much agree with your order, MoALttP. I tend to hold the later games higher than the first ones because of the issues of translation and the fact that the series was still young. It's difficult, though. Even what is presented as highest canon, can still have valid objections to it. You have to remember that the series is made over a long period of time by many people. There are bound to be tons of contradictions.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

I pretty much agree with your order, MoALttP. I tend to hold the later games higher than the first ones because of the issues of translation and the fact that the series was still young. It's difficult, though. Even what is presented as highest canon, can still have valid objections to it. You have to remember that the series is made over a long period of time by many people. There are bound to be tons of contradictions.

Well, yes, and that's why I'm working on other sub-canons to put in there. These pertain to a game's age and the amount of information put in it. I just don't want to make it too biased for timeline discussion.

Originally Posted by Master of ALttP

Well, yes, and that's why I'm working on other sub-canons to put in there. These pertain to a game's age and the amount of information put in it. I just don't want to make it too biased for timeline discussion.

I wasn't objecting, I was just commenting, like you want.

Edit: I agree with what you have.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

I wasn't objecting, I was just commenting, like you want.

Edit: I agree with what you have.

I know you weren't. I just woke up two hours ago, so I'm very tired still. For some reason, I always wake up at 7:00 in the morning. It's like I have an internal clock. I need an asci smoothie. Those'll wake you up real good. Sorry, off topic.

I understand your point about Aonouma not working on TMC or FS but to say that he has changed his mind on the storyline before is simply wrong unless it can be proved. Also, how do you know that it wasn't Aonouma who decided game placement for FS in the first place? Did FS have any importance in the timeline until Aonouma gave it importance by making FSA? You're making a whole lot of assumptions that Aonouma didn't know what he was talking about when he made his own games and you make further assumptions that Aonouma 'changed his mind'.

It's not making the timeline more accurate to justify ignoring developer explanations without proved reason. We can prove Miyamoto was wrong but there is no evidence to prove Aonouma is wrong. To assume so is just single-mindedness.

Originally Posted by jhurvid

I understand your point about Aonouma not working on TMC or FS but to say that he has changed his mind on the storyline before is simply wrong unless it can be proved. Also, how do you know that it wasn't Aonouma who decided game placement for FS in the first place? Did FS have any importance in the timeline until Aonouma gave it importance by making FSA? You're making a whole lot of assumptions that Aonouma didn't know what he was talking about when he made his own games and you make further assumptions that Aonouma 'changed his mind'.

It's not making the timeline more accurate to justify ignoring developer explanations without proved reason.

It's not wrong, and neither is it right. We can't tell, so it is plausible. I am saying that there is a very good possibility that he has changed his mind and hasn't told us about it. It's plausible. Do you watch Mythbusters? If it's possible but still somewhat unlikely that something happened, then it's plausible.

You obviously stand by what has been said and you fail to see all possible variables. Just because it hasn't been said doesn't mean it's not true. A lack of evidence does not constitute as evidence. Okay, I'll go play some FSA and prove that they take place right after the other. I don't care if they have different geographies to them, because Four Swords was made by Capcom.

Aonouma is human. Humans make mistakes and change their minds. (I'm glad I'm not human...)

Proof of this is when someone said that TWW came only a century after OoT. That is no longer how it is, and for good reason.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

Aonouma is human. Humans make mistakes and change their minds. (I'm glad I'm not human...)

Proof of this is when someone said that TWW came only a century after OoT. That is no longer how it is, and for good reason.

Proof of this is that somewhere in the game, the term "centuries" is used to describe the adventures of the Hero of Time.

Originally Posted by Master of ALttP

Okay, I'll go play some FSA and prove that they take place right after the other. I don't care if they have different geographies to them, because Four Swords was made by Capcom.

The differences in geography aren't that distinct. It's the map detail that's different. The mountains are still to the north, the lake is still to the east, the frozen region is still to the southwest, and the fields are still in the middle.

I still question whether or not they involve the VERY SAME Link, but, oh well. Although this quote from the intro makes it more than likely....

Originally Posted by FSA

And so peace was restored to Hyrule. Or so everyone thought...