I've bolded engagement with the OP's timeline.
We see the adult versions of characters celebrating, then we see that Link is back in a slightly altered version of his own timeline. We can tell that it’s a different timeline because it’s now before Ganondorf attacked, not after. Not to mention, if it were the same timeline than the Door of Time wouldn’t even be open yet.
I don't know if it's true that we can tell it's a different or slightly altered version of this timeline. Link gets sent back to before Ganondorf attacked, that's true, but the Door of Time is open without the presence of the three elemental stones. This would either require future Zelda to send Link to a different universe (the HH/ZE canon), or future Zelda opened the door like how those Song of Time blocks get sent through time by the melody (the linear solution to this problem). I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it is one or the other, but assuming a different cosmology for this one game because of an open door doesn't seem rational to me.
First of all, the Triforce is never canonically transferred to Link at the end of OoT. That was just a theory made to justify Ganons stupid ex machina in TP. Furthermore, how is the rest of that a stretch? The Ocarina of Time is clearly able to rewind time and displace objects regardless of when they appeared. This is proven by simply watching the ending cutscene with a hylian shield equipped as child link, one you got as an adult. It’s not a stretch at all to assume that Zelda was able to alter the timeline to allow link to meet her before Ganon attacked.
How does he have it on his hand then? In the multiverse, there would only be one Triforce, meaning there couldn't be a complete one in the Sacred Realm. Link also doesn't have the Hylian Shield in the ending cutscene, unless he brings it back with him, which then suggests that this is a different Link traveling back in time than the one that is asleep in Kokiri Forest, because the one in Kokiri Forest didn't have a Hylian Shield. The Ocarina of Time also doesn't have the ability to
delete a person; it may have the ability to move someone from Kokiri Forest to the Temple of Time
and transfer consciousnesses, except this ability is not shown or elaborated on in any of its other uses, and also would require the same process to be done to Navi,
and it would require the assumption of the existence of the multiverse
and it would require the assumption that Zelda's Lullaby has the ability to alter timelines. You could do a similar thing for the linear timeline: Link getting sent back in time by Zelda, to the same timeline, assumes that past Link wouldn't spot future Link
and that
So you’re perfectly willing to say “I don’t buy it” to canon material that’s literally spelled out for you in game, but when calling out that your timeline makes no sense due to the fact that Zelda would have no reason to not mention adult link you say “oh we don’t see that he’s here so he’s clearly not.” Well why not? What reasoning do you have to prove that, against all odds, she never told Link about why his future self isn’t around?
You’re also trying to base your argument on the assumption that you’re already correct, and I shouldn’t have to tell you why that doesn’t work. The fact of the matter is that if you wanted to somehow prove that you’re right, the burden of proof lies with you to disprove why the official timeline is wrong, which you simply haven’t yet, because you can’t. It’s the canon timeline for a reason, and that reason is because that’s literally what the game was telling the player by showing 2 time period, neither of which can physically lead to the other.
She never told future link why his future self was in Termina because she hadn't sent future link back in time yet, and to be like "I will send you back in time at the end of all of this and you will go and get stuck in a timeloop in Termina" isn't super useful to her ultimate goal, which is beating Ganondorf. Same reason Impa isn't like "You will seal Demise but then Ghirahim will travel back in time and revive him" in SS.
I don't assume I'm already correct; I just don't assume the split timeline to be correct just because it was written in HH and ZE. I prefer in-game evidence. And I haven't seen in-game evidence for the split timeline. The only game where it directly appears is the last 5 minutes of Ocarina of Time and there isn't that much evidence that this occurs in a different timeline: no more than a linear timeline. There is nothing stopping the "first timeline," Link travels back in time to tell Zelda that Ganondorf is going to attack (something she already knew was going to happen), and the "second timeline," Link collects three stones, before returning to the castle to find Zelda and Impa fleeing, traveling to the future, completing the temples, and beating Ganondorf followed by a big, Link-less party, from physically leading to another: having Link with Zelda didn't convince the king any more than his daughter's literally prophetic dreams. Also she couldn't have
had those prophetic dreams if the course of action was ever uncertain.
I really don’t care if you disagree or not. The point is that neither of you can be correct because you’re ignoring a plot point that’s been there for 25 years and trying to justify your reasoning by doing the same things that you question the official timeline for doing.
Namely, jumping through hoops to get a conclusion. You said it yourself, your own proposed timeline has 4 separate things you need to make up an excuse for, with not a single one of them being supported by in game evidence. Compare that to the one even kinda good argument that you had against the split timeline, which is easily explained by examining either OoT or MM.
We aren't ignoring the plot point...well OP is. OP, if you've waded through this stuff for any input, you can't just discard the future part of Ocarina of Time. The Zelda timeline, linear or split, has both the party happen and Link meeting Zelda happen within canon (which means Twilight Princess has to occur in unflooded Hyrule).
It is not jumping through hoops to think that Zelda sending Link back in time is actually Zelda sending Link back in time. It is to jump through hoops to say that a) random forest boy with triangle hand convinces king that prophetic dream daughter is correct in thinking that big bad traitor Ganondorf is, in fact,
still big bad traitor Ganondorf and b) the Ocarina of Time can switch timelines, rather than simply sending matter through time. Those are two hoops that I cannot jump through. The 4 separate "excuses" are pretty mild: all are supported by currently unexplained in-game evidence: the time dilation in Termina and its effect on Link, the consequence of the Great Deku Tree's plan, the Palace of the Four Sword (bit of a retcon, but so is the rewriting of the Imprisoning War), and the resurrection of Ganon before Zelda 1 and 2.
You’re ignoring factual data in favor of your theories that have been proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. You’re pretending that you’re looking at in-game evidence for your conclusion when the game specifically shows how you’re wrong. You’re stretching connections between plot points immediately after trying to say that the canon timeline is doing the same thing, only to be wrong about that too.
You might not be a flat-earther, but you sure as hell have the same thought process as one.
I'm not ignoring factual data other than external sources, which I've acknowledged, disagree with me. Ultimately, our disagreement is about the end of Ocarina of Time and the fundamental laws of the Zelda universe, and I don't think there is enough evidence in the ending of that game to justify, on its own, assuming a split timeline. It is
more possible that the Door of Time was opened by Future Zelda than it is that she sent Link to a new timeline. It is
more possible that Zelda's prophetic visions were truly, deterministically prophetic and that a random forest boy didn't convince the already-unreasonably-trusting King of Hyrule that Ganondorf was a bad guy. It is
more possible that Link didn't take the Master Sword out of the Adult Timeline, as we see it in the adult timeline. It is
more possible that Link didn't take the Triforce of Courage out of the Adult Timeline, as we see it in the adult timeline. It is
more possible that two Links coexist. It is
more possible that there is a linear timeline. These are not stretches, they are individual games of probability surrounding each of the pieces of evidence.
I don't follow dogmatic "canon" beliefs if the given evidence says they are wrong. I've analyzed the evidence, and nowhere here do I see a picture of a split, I only see the book telling me there is a split. In fact, all the individual elements that would require this to be a split seem unfounded: Link travels with things that are not there in the timeline he goes back to, and remain in the timeline he leaves.
OP: you have to move TP to sometime after Wind Waker.