References or Story?

[Xixor]

I've been wondering, how do we tell the differences from re-using characters,
past Zelda references, and hidden 'eggs,' from parts of a story that actually matter?

One example I can just think of is in Minish Cap, with the infamous 'Triumph Forks' appearing
on the titles of the books (or statues? I forgot.) This is commonly accepted to be an Easter egg,
but how do we know?

Another example (still unsolved?) is between Twilight Princess and Majora's Mask.
Majora's Mask and the fused shadows look very similar.



So what do you think? Are there any references between games?
Are they Easter eggs or important to the timeline? How do we know?

 

[Locke]

I know that re-use of characters is not important to the timeline, as we actually had a developer tell us that. References to unique concepts from other games are much more difficult to evaluate. I don't think they should be used as primary evidence to support a timeline, but should become collateral connections if one already connected the games using better evidence. However, they shouldn't be ignored if they don't support one's timeline either.

One could try to look to other sources to find evidence on the importance of the references. For example, MC was originally supposed to go before OoT, so a mention of Triumph Forks wouldn't have made sense as a reference to its place on the timeline, but could only be an easter egg. But these explanations are hard to back up, and there are always counter-arguments (Maybe the Triforce wasn't as well-known as it had come to be in OoT, and this book is the source of the Fishman's mistake).

So I think once someone has completed a timeline theory, he should look at all the smaller references and include them as supplementary evidence, make 'pet' theories, or identify any inconsistencies they present and develop explanations for their presence.