D.

My take on the Legend of Zelda Timeline. It's real. And garbage. From a certain point of view. Look, many of the major games claim to be direct sequels of another game in some fashion or another. This was especially obvious in the SNES-GameCube era. SNES references events that show in Ocarina. Windwaker and Twilight both claim to be sequels to Ocarina despite not being related to each other at all. So they're related to each other. It's not just a retelling of the same story over and over as some folks claim. The best way to look at the series is a body of myth and legend. (It's in the title, after all) Each game is only truly concerned with being consistent with itself, even if it is somehow connected to the broader series. This is why Zorra are fish monsters in some games and hot fish people in others. It depends entirely on the narrative we are being told. In fact, later narratives (familiar with both versions of Zorra) even make an attempt at reconciling the two versions as distinct subspecies. So don't look at the Zelda series as a strict canon. Each game is canon to itself. If it carries an understanding of other games, it may not be fully compatible in the details. These are myths and legends, and the narratives are not reliable in a historical sense. So does the Zelda timeline ACTUALLY split into three at Ocarina of Time? Well... What we know for sure is that three games claim to be direct sequels of Ocarina. Some of our best scholars have put together a theory on how that's possible. Are they right? Maybe. Who's to say? Is it fun to talk about? If that's your thing, yes. Does it matter if the games are contradictoy. Nope. Not one iota. As long as each game keeps trying to be the best Zelda game it possibly can be, external inconsistency isn't a problem. In fact, it's a key feature of the myth making that the series engages in.