No offense, but this timeline isn't very good. For the split MM should be on the CT.
I don't see any evidence for putting LoZ/AoL right after CT OoT. And not after TP. Nothing makes sense like that. State of triforce, Ganon etc. And why is FS after LttP? FSA implies that FS is directly before FSA. Ok that bit about no mention of Ganondorf and the MS is some of the absolute stupidest logic I've ever heard.
You said before when I said "why isn't Vaati or the FS shown in TP" you said it was because TP had nothing to do with Vaati or the FS. Yet you continue with the same logic the, you, yourself, disproved. Oh and that bit about Toon Link? I've never once heard that as evidence. Once again. Every single bit of evidence for tMC-OoT can be used for tWW-tMC.
Oh that bit about not hearing about a flood? Why would they mention a flood if the game has nothing to do with the flood? Also the land is completely surrounded by water. If tMC was meant to go first they would have made it obvious. But they didn't. An explanation for the hat in new Hyrule. And an explanation for the tunic.
There is absolutely no reason to believe in tMC first except for assuming the hat and the lack of Ganondorf mean something. You can believe OoT = first because of the tunic and the lack of Vaati and have just as much evidence. Then there is the flooded land in tMC. The Triumph Forks. The implication of tMC-FS-FSA/LttP. The oracles.
No one has ever claimed the design of Link as evidence. Stop making it out as such; it's annoying.
there is actually quite a bit of evidence for it to go first, you just dont want to believe it so you dont even consider it.
now see the whole TP not mentioning Vaati and MC not mentioning Ganondorf thing is not the same thing.
my point is that the whole reason there is a new Hyrule is because of Ganondorf, but there is no mention of Ganondorf causing a flood, being defeated by the hero of winds thus causing the hero of winds and tetra to find new land.
let me explain this a little better because you seem to not be getting it and that is my fault because i didnt explain it clear enough.
you say MC goes after WW/PH for whatever reasons you have. this would mean that the Hyrule in MC is the new Hyrule. the reason there is a new Hyrule is because Link, the hero of WINDS, defeated Ganondorf allowing the traditions of Hyrule to live on. why is there no mention of Link defeating Ganondorf? why is there no mention of the hero of winds? now you say my logic contradicts itslef, but it doesnt. Vaati literally has no connections to anything in TP. Ganondorf is the whole reason why there needed to be a new Hyrule in the first place, therefor he should be mentioned somewhere along with the person who not only founded the new Hyrule, but defeated Ganondorf who was the reason the old Hyrule was flooded, but this isnt mentioned anywhere. i would think its a pretty popular story but, no, its not mentioned anywhere in YOUR timeline placement of the game that was created RIGHT after WW.
Vaati has absolutely no affect on anything that happened in TP. he didnt cause the magic wielding tribe to go to the twilight realm. he didnt help ganondorf until later on in the adult timeline (which TP is not in). he had no contact with the master sword. he wasnt a factor in anything that took place in TP so it makes sense that hes not mentioned, but if MC goes where you say it goes, then it makes no sense that Ganondorf isnt mentioned because he had a direct affect on everything in that game.
if Ganondorf never existed then MC wouldnt take place according to your timeline. without Ganondorf the world wouldnt have been flooded and a new Hyrule wouldnt have been sought out. do you see my point? whether or not the game is about Ganondorf, Ganondorf is the reason that game would exist on your timeline, but hes not mentioned at all. neither is the hero who found the new hyrule or the princess who found the new hyrule or any texts on the great sea. based on the logic i just presented, the logic you think is so terrible, it makes no sense that MC goes after WW but does not mention anything in WW except for the triforks which would be the only connection and IMO a very lame connection because unless you actually take the time to translate the text, you wouldnt even know that the game mentioned the triforks
this next explanation is based on MY placement of MC.
now if Vaati never existed then TP would still take place because as far as we know, Vaati had no connections to Ganondorf prior to FSA. whether or not Vaati existed doesnt affect if Ganondorf exists. TP would still take place as normal. the game doesnt need to mention Vaati because Vaati has no affect on anything in that game whereas in your palcement of MC, Ganondorf would have had a huge affect on prior events thus i believe there would be some sort of in game quote, text, etc.. that would explain this but theres nothing.
if you honestly still argue with me that this makes no sense and isnt a good argument im not replying to any of your stuff anymore. the argument i presented DOESNT go both ways. i just explained why. if you dont understand then im sorry because i cant make myself more clear.
and for the record, i never once said that someone was saying the design is the reason for a placement. all i said was that certain arguments made against MC being first are just as bad as that one. chill out, homes. and also, for the record i have heard people base their placement of MC cus of the graphics.