Talk: Termina

Typos

Fixed spelling mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaati@legacy41957747 19:06, February 24, 2007 (UTC)

oops- sorry. I didn't see you had already fixed it. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Parallel Universe Discussion

"He found Termina to be separate universe parallel to Hyrule." That's what the page says. There is no evidence to back this up. We do not know where Termina located. It may or may not be a parallel universe to Hyrule. It could be a different part of Hyrule (in terms of the world). I've been watching this statement change back and forth for some time. What's not fact should not be stated here- it should be moved under a "theorys" section for this page. Unless someone can quote where it says it's a parallel universe. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 07:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"When Hyrule was created by the three goddesses at the beginning of time, there were certain side effects of its creation which Din, Nayru and Farore did not anticipate. As the three holy women breathed life into the world and chased away Emptiness, their potent breath slipped through tiny cracks in the folds of space and created millions of alternate worlds in the process. One of these worlds became the land known as Termina."
From Zelda.com. The site isn't always 100% correct, but as far as I know it's pretty widely accepted that Termina is a parallel reality, and it would also explain the parallel characters. Jimbo Jambo 07:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Page six of the Majora's Mask manual:
"This is kind of a parallel world that is similar to and yet different from the land of Hyrule, which was the setting for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Termina is a myterious place, and the people Link meets here may look vaguely familiar at first glance.
Clock Town rests at the heart of this world."
Seems pretty clear cut. The manual is canon. Or at least more canon than Zelda.com. Matt ^(Talk) 09:45, February 10, 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. There have been a few manual instances, but I'll assume it speaks the truth for now. It's kinda sad how you can't trust Zelda.com, huh? Just making sure everything is straightened out. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 16:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While neither source has incredible credibility, they do both say the same thing, and I assume they aren't written by the same people (and it would explain the parallel characters), so even given its tenuous support, I think it's safe to assume that this is what Nintendo had in mind for Termina. I'd like to cite these two things, but I'm not sure how to site a manual, and the website citation thing unfortunately doesn't put the quote on the page like the normal template, which is what I'm hoping to get.... Jimbo Jambo 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Characters

"This is kind of a parallel world that is similar to and yet different from the land of Hyrule, which was the setting for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Termina is a myterious place, and the people Link meets here may look vaguely familiar at first glance." Since the lesson of Majora's Mask is Freindship (you don't miss someone untill they'r gone etc.), wouldn't that mean that the Terminians don't look like the hylians & link is just making them look like that sycologicly becuase he misses them? -- կրակ ^(խոսել) -- 23:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Link

Terminian Link

In Majora's Mask, when you play the Elegy of Emptieness, the spirits of the people eased into your masks turn into figurines used to hold switches down. However, there is a Link statue to. See the image to the right. Could this imply that, when link entered termina, he replaced an innocent Terminian? -- կրակ ^(խոսել) -- 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're actually speculating that when an outsider arrives in Termina, he replaces his terminian counterpart... I think this is a separate theory that we may or may not consider... Anyway that statue is very interesting and needs a mention somewhere on the wiki! We may say that it possibly is a Terminian Link, but that the living terminian Link is never found... Or that it may just be a joke.--Kombatgod 10:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that theory, but I'm not sure how much support it has from the community. Sounds like this should go to a Mastermind forum before ending up on the page. — cipriano^talk 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Elegy of Emptiness just leaves a copy of a soulless husk behind, which is almost exactly how Igos du Ikana describes it. The transformation masks do not contain the spirits of the fallen, but rather the bodies, because you've already allowed the spirits to pass on using the song of Healing. Zora Link looks like Link, because it's a combination of Mikau's body and Link's soul. Mikau's Elegy statue doesn't look like Link, because it has no soul. This explains why it's terrifying to behold, because it's an empty husk. This is also why Link's elegy statue looks so strange; it's just his body only then without a soul. Which would make "Ben" quite literally a soulless monster, but that's neither here nor there. Dekler 14:15 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Terminian Race

I've noticed that Terminians are not counted as a race. Is this because of a assumption that Termina was populated by Hylians or is the answer more involved than that? PureLocke 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Whereas the term "Hylian" refers to a certain race, Terminan might simply mean "inhabitant of Termina" which means that the Gorons in Snowhead would also be considered Terminans. Dekler 14:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Termina's Creation

Zelda Universe Info

The official Zelda Universe site has some interesting info that i think should be included
The Termina section found here [1] explains the creation:
When Hyrule was created by the three goddesses at the beginning of time, there were certain side effects of its creation which Din, Nayru and Farore did not anticipate. As the three holy women breathed life into the world and chased away Emptiness, their potent breath slipped through tiny cracks in the folds of space and created millions of alternate worlds in the process. One of these worlds became the land known as Termina.
It is possible that we would know nothing of Termina's existence if Link had not been led there by the mischevious ac
Sakon's section found here [2] confirms that Termina is real and continues to exist after Link's adventures.
Sakon is the name of a common thief who plagued the merchants of Clock Town. He would likely have long ago been forgotten, but Link foiled his plans on one occasion and the story has been a favorite tale in Termina ever since.--Fierce diety 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Giants

Anju's Grandmother says the giants created Termina, not the goddesses. Is there any kind of canon contradictory evidence, because if not, we should assume the giants created Termina instead of the goddesses by accident. Nare 02:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Anju's Grandmother merely states that the Giants are Guardian Deities who at one point lived together with all of the tribes in the center of Termina, before the Imp caused the people to spread in four directions together with the Giants. She specifically said that the Four Giants made the four worlds, which is a reference to the Zora, Goron, Deku and Ikana tribes that have established themselves in each of the four wind directions after the Four Giants have each walked a hundred steps. There is no canonical proof for who was directly responsible for the creation of Termina, although the Triforce does show up at places in the Ikana region. Dekler 13:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Skull Kid

According to Anju's grandmother the world existed long ago. The mask on the other hand is implied to have been stolen relatively recently. So, the world was not created by the Skull Kid. It got transformed. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Anju's Grandmother is a product of that transformation and the world that she knows is informed entirely by what the Skull Kid and Majora's Mask created. We cannot take her testimony as impartial fact. TriforceTony (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

One Universe Theory

I know this idea is probably held by so few as to be almost obscure, but might it be worth mentioning the idea that Termina may not, in fact, be in another universe? Hyrule Historia does not actually state flat-out that it is one, and in both HH and the game's manual, Termina is simply called a "parallel world", which could admittedly refer to another universe, but is not definitively the same thing. The resemblances between the Terminans and Hyruleans could also simply be explained as a quirk of development (which it really was anyway- Nintendo simply re-used OoT's engine and character skins for most of the game's content), rather than a "parallel counterpart" scenario. Plus, the "alternate universe" scenario generates a few plot holes, such as how Link supposedly fell into a portal to reach Termina, but just rode Epona back into the Lost Woods; how the Skull Kid could supposedly move between the worlds even before acquiring Majora's Mask; and why the Triforce symbol would appear in the Ikana area (as, even taking into account the mysteries and theories about Stone Tower, there shouldn't have been any kind of way for information about the Triforce to reach Termina from another universe). Thoughts? Setras (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Termina has always been another world. Because of its uncanny resemblance to Hyrule, it's called a "parallel world". But that resemblance was actually canny for say, it shares many elements from Hyrule, the legends and myths. They even know what the Triforce is. Link fell into a whole that lead him to another world, like it lead him to an alternate dimension. It may be one of the reasons why we also called it a "parallel universe" or "parallel dimension". It's never been another universe because it actually exists in the Zelda universe. Imagine what would happened to Hyrule if the Moon fell. My guess is that Termina is located somewhere on the planet, below the continent of Hyrule, because Link fell into a whole that lead him to Termina.
Anyway, Termina is another world, like Labrynna and Holodrum. The world of Mario, the Mushroom World is another universe. Worlds like the Dark World, Twilight Realm, the Sacred Realm are dimensions. I could go on but, I think I made my point. ^_^; --Prince Ludwig (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And made it well, at that. :) But what I mean is, Hyrule and Termina are in the same dimension (or whatever term you'd prefer to substitute), existing on a supercontinent connected by a land bridge in the Lost Woods. The term "world" can be used to refer to a different universe/dimension, but it can also simply be an illustrative term (like how the "Old World" and "New World" both exist on Earth, but are regarded as different regions altogether). And yes, the Moon falling would likely take out Hyrule and the rest of the world, too, and probably do- we never see the rest of the world's destruction, but this doesn't mean it doesn't take place when the Moon falls. Setras (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Plus, the "alternate universe" scenario generates a few plot holes, such as how Link supposedly fell into a portal to reach Termina, but just rode Epona back into the Lost Woods; how the Skull Kid could supposedly move between the worlds even before acquiring Majora's Mask; and why the Triforce symbol would appear in the Ikana area (as, even taking into account the mysteries and theories about Stone Tower, there shouldn't have been any kind of way for information about the Triforce to reach Termina from another universe).
Regarding the first two points, we don't know how exactly Link returned to Hyrule. He could have used the portal that brought him to Termina. As for the Triforce symbol, I guess one can take it as a true reference to the Triforce, but it could also be a cameo. Anyway, it is possible that since the two worlds are connected with at least one "wormhole", that other people have entered Termina in the past. The two worlds don't have to exist in isolation in this scenario. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose Link could have used the same portal, but I'm dubious about that, as the "portal" existed within the Catacombs, which in turn could only be accessed via the sealed door in the Clock Tower. The door was sealed all throughout the game, so I'm not sure if it would suddenly open at that point; and even if it did, the scene after the final battle seems to show Link riding directly into the woods, rather than going back through the tower.
The Triforce, meanwhile, was probably admittedly supposed to be a cameo, but by now it has spawned so many widely-accepted theories that this would really be moot anyway. This brings us right back to the question of how information about the Triforce could reach Termina, and really, this wouldn't prove one way or another if Termina was another universe or another country- either way, outsiders entered and colonized it. Setras (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Termina does not exist" Unsourced Theory

This theory has almost zero evidence to back it up, and seems incoherent. Is it supposed to be a part of a larger theory about the Hero's Spirit or a timeline theory? The manual says that Termina is a parallel world to Hyrule, so I think that rules out it not existing. Ganondorfdude11 06:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no implication in the game or HH that the MM events were just a dream. I think it should be deleted. Zeldafan1982 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with both of you-however, this theory is actually very common, and some people simply take it as fact. It has support, and seems possible-not to say that it is probable. I think that the theory should be kept, as whether it is true or not in our minds doesn't determine whether we keep it or not. —Darkness^(Talk) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The support a theory has in the community is a factor, but I don't think it should be the only one. If it is something completely baseless (according to canonical sources of course) then it shouldn't be kept. What are the evidence of the game being a dream? A theory should be based on something and/or provide an explanation on stuff that are left unexplained, otherwise it is without merit. It may be good for a fanfic but it shouldn't be in a wiki, at least in my view. Zeldafan1982 23:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The only "in-game evidence" is that:

• Link returns to the same area that he began his adventure in the end.
• Link fell down a "hole", so it's possible that he died or was unconscious, leading him to have a hallucation.
• Termina could be called a "shadow" of Ocarina of Time's Hyrule, with most characters' models and in some cases names being reused, so it could have been a dream.

The evidence against it is that:

• No canon sources claim that it is true, or even suggest it. So, it is not (canonically) true.

Based on that, it would seem that the theory is untrue. However, ALL theories aren't completely "solid". I would keep it for now, and see if anyone else has something to say. —Darkness^(Talk) 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I will add two relevant quotes from HH: "Link borrowed Epona from Lon Lon Ranch. And after several months of wandering looking for his past friend Navi, he was lost in a mysterious forest. In the forest, there was a way to the parallel universe called Termina." [...] "After the adventure in Termina, his subsequent whereabouts are unknown."
If one reads those and the two pages about MM, there is no way he would think that the events could be a dream. So, the point is that if the developers describe the events as being real (or perhaps more accurately the Hyruleans since it is supposed to be a "telling of tales passed on through the ages by humans" as it says on page 68) we should take them as such, otherwise the resulting interpretation would only be suitable for a fanfic. Zeldafan1982 00:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Termina Entry Point

I do not know if it is worth noting or not, but I remember when I played Majora's Mask that Link did not appear on the map until after going through the twisted hallway (hallway right after the Deku Butler's son). Since this is the case, is it safe to say that until that point you were still in Hyrule and that that hallway is the "gateway" between the 2 universes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Mirror's Link@legacy41970981 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Termina Retcon

I would ask that the recent additions to the Termina page be removed, specifically the snippet that states that the land of Termina is a creation of the Skull Kid's imagination and the power of Majora's Mask. This is nothing but conjecture on the part of the Encyclopedia's writers, and outright contradicts the game itself. How could the world be a fabrication of the Skull Kid's, when there is a cutscene of him 'in' Termina along with Tatl and Tail long before he first obtains the mask?. This is shoddy work done by Zelda Wiki, and should be rebuffed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heronexus12 20:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia is an official book both licensed and promoted by Nintendo itself. And not only that, they consider it canon as proven by the retcon in the timeline which fixes the placement of Link's Awakening and the Oracle games and is reflected in the official website for the series, in both Japanese and English. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). - Chuck * ^(Talk) 01:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily contradict the game. Termina is still a parallel world in Encyclopedia's narrative, just one that was altered by the power of Majora's Mask. The cutscene in question is also Tatl's retelling of events, which can be reasoned as hearsay or flawed from a developmental standpoint (which is to say they didn't develop the assets to frame the cutscene in for it to not include things created after the Skull Kid changed the terrain). If we really want to get down to it, we know that the inhabitants of Termina are fabrications and we don't know for certain that Tatl and Tael are exempt from that. What we know from that cutscene may very well be fabricated memories from when the Skull Kid created new "friends".
And as Chuck already said, even if it were a retcon, it is now officially sanctioned as canon by Nintendo. It wouldn't matter if it contradicted the game anyway as it's clearly not an error so much as an alternate telling of events at worst. TriforceTony (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain the fact that Termina clearly doesn't "vanish" as soon as the spirit within Majora's Mask is defeated by Link. Or the fact that the Deku Butler is explicitly shown to be right in front of his son's corpse, which is in the portal between Hyrule and Termina, grieving for him. If the notion about what Hyrule Encyclopedia says about Termina's inhabitants is true, and that they are indeed fabrications (which, personally, I don't think there's any evidence for, outside of Hyrule Encyclopedia), this grieving the Deku Butler is doing shouldn't be even happening. So forgive me if I seem to be in full agreement with the original complaint. Just call me Al (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you point out where it's stated that Termina vanishes or that it must vanish after the Mask's defeat? That they are fabrications doesn't mean they aren't real and don't have feelings, emotions, or memories, just that they didn't exist until a certain point. TriforceTony (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In response to your question, TriforceTony: 'Termina's existence was tied to that of Majora's Mask. When the evil in the Mask was defeated by Link, Termina disappeared soon after he left.' This sentence in the article is based upon the following."While the hero's pure heart allows the world of Termina to momentarily revel in its salvation, as soon as he departs, that world ceases to exist."  ('Encyclopedia' (Dark Horse Books) pg. 37)
I agree with Just call me Al and Heronexus12 that, even though this explanation is currently "canon" as a result of the 'Encyclopedia', it seems to create more problems than it solves when taking into account the canon as presented in 'Majora's Mask':
(1) The idea that Termina ceases to exist at the end of the game runs counter to the themes of the game, which are about "friendship" and "moving forward". All those credits' scenes of the characters moving forward with their lives become pointless, not to mention the theme of the inexorable march of time which is itself a major theme of the game. Majora's Mask is very powerful, but not so powerful as to be able to influence time itself [edit: by binding Termina's time to itself]; if it were, then Link's victory by abusing the power of time would never have been possible: that the "Song of Time" works at all in Termina demonstrates that it is under the Goddess of Time's protection and is subject to her laws, and by extension the Goddesses', rather than Majora's.
(2) Why would either Skull Kid or Majora create an entire reality purely to destroy it when it lacks serious real-world consequences? Skull kid wants his revenge against the real people who banished him, so that isn't satisfied if the consequences are almost entirely fictitious [edit: at least as far as reality is concerned], and in Majora's case if it were made clear in-game that Majora's destruction would extend to Hyrule, for example, then maybe, but that isn't clear, and anyway Majora is very invested in the destruction being caused after ages of languishing prior to being found by the Happy Mask Salesman. Otherwise, Majora would not have been so desperate to defeat Link, let alone make the moon declare "... I shall consume. Consume... Consume everything" (which again implies that Majora cares about destroying more than Link, Skull Kid, the Happy Mask Salesman, and the fairies).
(3) The fact that the giants remember and are willing to forgive Skull Kid, contrary to what he himself believes about them, also demonstrates that they have a reality beyond Skull Kid's imagination. In fact this may be the most d*mning piece of evidence against the explanation put forward by the Encyclopedia. Their existence, not to mention the aforementioned motif of time, imply that there are greater forces at work in Termina that are outside of Majora's influence or control.
(4) The explanation put forward by the Encyclopedia is almost exactly the plot of The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. From a purely authorial standpoint, it seems silly on its face to reduce the plot of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask to a copy-paste of the plot of 'Link's Awakening'. This isn't to say the plot of 'Link's Awakening' is bad, far from it, it's just been done already (and I doubt it is Nintendo's intention to make them analogous adventures when Nintendo has made remakes of both games). Regardless of how or when Termina came into being (any possible explanation seems as good as another), it's very obvious even in the game itself that the world of Termina continues on after Link leaves it and it isn't "just" a dream in the way the world of the Wind Fish is.
Edit:(5) Al already mentioned this, but the story of the Deku Butler and his son seems to even more thoroughly contradict the explanation offered by the Encyclopedia. There is no way the Deku Butler's son could have been both a Terminan, like his father, and victimized by Skull Kid prior to him meeting Link (and had his form used to turn Link into a Deku Shrub) if Termina itself is a fabrication. The whole explanation falls apart completely.
Overall this explanation is lacking and, akin to how The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia overturned the one put forward by Hyrule Historia, likely to be overturned itself (at most as soon as Nintendo decides to reference Termina again in future games on account of its popularity). As a compromise, I suggest the article include both the explanations by Hyrule Historia and The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia as co-equal possibilities, list which volume gives which explanation, and leave it to the readers to decide if either or neither is plausible. After all, it allows the article to be more complete by including both possible explanations. - Webspidrman (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to try to keep this concise, but I have to start with how the canon (therefore, the timeline) works because that affects pretty much everything about this situation.
The nature of the canon is that it can and will change as necessary, so any details that we know of as fact at a given point in time can change. Nintendo have been explicitly clear about this as the intended direction of the series; these changes are literally baked into the concept with that intention. What that means is that any content that is later revised is not meant to be "co-equal", because the truth of the situation has been changed. In order to present the most accurate narrative of the timeline, we follow with these revisions (specifically when they're sanctioned by timeline updates, which happen regularly with the release of a main series title). I'll cover how we can still honor and document previous revisions of canon later.
Point 1 draws a lot of external inferences. Whether it contradicts the themes of the game or not largely revolves around an individual's interpretation of the value of terminal life and the right to happiness if even for a short time. That's a personal issue and very different from whether or not the revisions to the canon are true. As for the Goddess of Time, that's a concept that exists outside of Termina and it's evidently not an issue that the forces of time (including the ability to manipulate it) continue to function in a parallel, temporary world.
Point 2 is largely just conjecture, but the destructive nature and the conjured fantasy for destruction and mayhem are very much in-character for both the Skull Kid and Majora's Mask, no external material needs to support that. The idea that the Skull Kid wants to kill his real friends who served as the basis for the Four Giants isn't supported any more than the idea that he is fearful of the rejection and isolation from his friends but subconsciously knows that he can still be forgiven and this reflects in the events that play out in the ending. What interpretation you take from this game is neither here nor there as far as documenting what the canon says.
For point 3, no, that's not the case. Termina is informed by the memories of both the Skull Kid and Majora's Mask (the latter of which draws from ancient cultures), so details outside of the Skull Kid's personal memories are complemented by Majora's Mask. Aside from that, one's conscious interpretation of the world isn't the full story for how someone perceives that same world. As I mentioned above, it's still likely that the Skull Kid has a subconscious desire for forgiveness following the rejection from his friends, and this doesn't mean that his friends have been brought into the world. While it's likely that the Skull Kid had friends outside of the world, the memories belonging to anyone inside the world (including past memories from before the Skull Kid obtained Majora's Mask) are complex but ultimately fabrications. This is why Tatl and Tael have memories of Termina and the Skull Kid from before it could have possibly existed; their memories of the event were crafted to be that way. Fabricated memories as a trope are nothing new and come as a natural consequence of characters that only just recently started existing.
Regarding point 4, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that most Zelda games share narrative elements. Tropes are going to be rehashed and reimagined, and whether that cheapens the story isn't really something that we can concern ourselves with because our immediate goal is to document the current "truth". We can still make note of previous revisions of the canon however, with the Note template. That template allows us to put extraneous details into a note which functions similarly to a citation without muddying the main body of text and further confusing details. In the cases where previous revisions contradict what is currently canon, we can offer the previous "truth" as it was known at the time that way. However, I'm not certain what Encyclopedia changes about Hyrule Historia specifically. As far as I can tell, it only adds more details to the story. TriforceTony (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! :) I agree with you that the heart of the matter is that we are interested in presenting the "truth" as Nintendo sees it; the trick is discerning which sources Nintendo considers to be more authoritative and in which instances. What is worse is that the game was recently remade as The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D but without any allusions to this new understanding of the game. Even though I did stress some thematic and contextual elements to strengthen my argument, I think the main problem I and the others have pointed out is that the new explanation appears to be factually in conflict with the game as presented.
To answer your question about Hyrule Historia vs. The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia, according to Hyrule Historia Termina is a pre-existing parallel world that Link goes into and which is subject to the power of the Goddesses; this is neither here-nor-there as an origin story for Termina. The 'Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia' explanation is that Termina is a fabrication based upon the memories of Skull Kid and Majora to entrap Link. This latter explanation proves problematic for a number of things. An example of a "factual" problem this poses is the Deku Butler's son, a Terminan (like the Deku Butler) who is killed by Skull Kid in the forest prior to him encountering Link in the same forest and whose soul and form were used to turn Link into a Deku Shrub. It necessitates Termina existing prior to when the Encyclopedia says it exists. You're clearly very creative (please take this as a compliment, because it is intended to be), so maybe you can think of an explanation for that, but on top of the things I and the others have already mentioned the Encyclopedia appears to stand on thin ground without another source external to itself supporting its version of events.
In any case, this whole predicament serves to illustrate the problem of relying wholly upon one non-game source for a correct interpretation of the story-line which is, after all, not only an explanation external to the game it describes, but conflicts with all other sources and possibly the game itself. A similar situation would be if the Encyclopedia were to declare that Ganondorf is not killed by but rather kills Link at the end of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker; even being an "official" Nintendo source such an explanation would contradict the in-game canon that Link survives and participates in The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass; in such a conflict the game(s) should take precedence, no? This is similar to how the official Zelda website has contradicted events depicted in the games in the past and was seen as being in error by members of the wiki due to being of a lower level of canon.
I agree with you that Nintendo intends for the placement of games relative to each other to be flexible. My understanding of how Nintendo intends for us to interpret their universe going forward is that, though the time-line and overall story is deliberately changeable, a single source such as the Encyclopedia should not be expected to be infallibly authoritative to such an extent that on its own it is allowed to completely overturn the narrative of any one canon story, because to do so is giving the individual author(s) of the volume, rather than Nintendo as a whole and their intentions, too much power, in the same way upholding fan-fiction as canon over official material is giving the fans power over Nintendo. In other words, canon materials are not always in agreement or have equal support in all cases from Nintendo: a non-game source that stands alone on an issue is more likely, albeit not definitively, to be in error.
In any case, it sounds like we are already in great, if not total, agreement. I cannot speak for the others, but my main issue is that Ecyclopedia's explanation is not given enough context, standing alone as it does and in very clear contrast to canon as established elsewhere. Would it be appropriate to treat this situation similar to how we treat information found in game manuals that contradict the events depicted in the games? Do we use footnotes in those cases, or something else?
Anyway, I hope you don't interpret my (insufferably loquacious) writing as hostile in any way. :) I appreciate (and am relieved) with your engagement with the thread since this matter has been weighing on people's minds for some time. The sitatuion is obviously not ideal, it seems to me that we are on the precipice of a practical solution, at least. (I promise to write less in response from now on. Ha!)

Edit: Why is there a table of references now on the bottom? *sigh* I can't seem to get rid of them.

Edit: Never mind. The references are there because you referenced them. Makes sense. Webspidrman (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia isn't canon

While the Zelda Encyclopedia was a fun read it had some very glaring inconsistencies such as the Kokiri being related to Hylians, The Hero's Shade being a Stalfoes, Vaati was sealed in the Four Sword alongside Ganon at the end of FSA, Holodrum and Labrynna as parallel worlds, and of course my biggest gripe Termina isn't real. There's too much evidence pointing at the fact it is real from the flashback of Skull Kid meeting Tatl & Tael, NPC that don't have similar models to OOT like Kafei, and if Termina really was created through Majora's power it should have faded away immediately after it's defeat instead of when Link left. And even more evidence supporting this is the credits where we see what happened to all the characters in the game the biggest outlier being the Deku Butler grieving over his son's body which is locating in the tunnels from the beggining of the game. Finally the cherry on top is the disclaimer in Encyclopedia they were clearly in fanfiction mode when writing a lot of this stuff and weren't afraid to admit it. Meanwhile Hyrule Historia which was supervised by Aonuma and Creating A Champion which was done by the BoTW delevopment team dosen't have warnings like this and aside from a few minor error like the images for Darunia and Nabooru's Medallions accidentally being swapped these books are accurate and consistent with the games. So in the end I believe anything said in Encyclopedia should be taken with a very hefty grain of salt and while Hyrule Historia and Creating A Champion are fine what's seen in the games themselves should trump what's in any book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssj4vegetto 07:43, 8 January 2020

I absolutely agree with this, and support the motion to change the article. The current version of the article is rendered informationally incomplete by supporting The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia's account of events as superseding all other interpretations when there are so many reasons to take its interpretation of events with as you say "a very hefty grain of salt". This line you highlighted from the Encyclopedia is especially note-worthy: Where necessary, the writers of this book added their own interpretations and expanded upon the games' stories. We should not grant the authors of The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia privileges that they did not claim themselves. To maximally inform readers, articles should treat the accounts of all "official" out-of-game sources equally, whilst still pointing out if they are localizations or when they create contradictions with the games or each other, and allow the readers of the article to form their own opinions about which out-of-game sources (if any) to believe. The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia's interpretation of Termina should not be privileged over other interpretations, but even more so when it appears to contradict the survival of Termina as it is depicted in-game.Webspidrman (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The Encyclopedia just has way too many errors and inconsistencies to be taken at face-value. (Really, just look at the Errors section, it's longer than the entire rest of the article combined!) Just my two cents, but I don't feel anything from it should be taken as canon unless it's supported by at least one other valid source; but if the Encyclopedia is the only source, then it should be regarded as Trivia. - {{SUBST:User:Nick O'Demus/sig}} 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)