Zelda II: Adventure of Link was a direct sequel to The Legend of Zelda set a number of years later featuring the same Link, per the manual. A Link to the Past was established to be set in the distant past, in the era when Hyrule was a unified kingdom, a reference to Zelda II’s manual. I could go on, but I assume it would be redundant. Don’t mistake your intellectual laziness for an assumed intention on the part of Nintendo.
Ah, I see the fresh blood likes a bit of sport. Aside from the connections each game has to the others, the order of games has been changed and contradicted on so many occasions that it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there was ever anything more than a "this game came after this game" at a few points in the series' history. Of late, to their detriment, Nintendo has retroactively arranged the Legend of Zelda games into a timeline or apparently a "trimeline" as a way of throwing meat to Zelda fans. If you buy the "This is the timeline for when you got a game over" as being a detailed scheme years in the making, you deserve your timeline.
The point is not that a graphic of a Zelda timeline that's been officials recognized by Nintendo doesn't exist, it's that there never was a Zelda timeline. The legend of Zelda is a legend. When one generation tells a story of Zelda, it's about Link traveling to death mountain and Zora's domain and collecting cuccos and welding the hook shot and fighting Ganondorf. Another generation remembers the hookshot looking differently and Link collecting cuccos but not going to Zora's domain- wait, actually the Zora were enemies the way I heard it! And Ganondorf was actually a pig-looking guy. But another storyteller remembers that after that story, Link didn't defeat Ganondorf when he rose again and the next hero lived on Hyrule's mountaintops and sailed the seas but another storyteller says Link actually had a sword that split him into four.
It's a legend, not an exact accounting. Also, welcome to ZD-i.