I'm starting a new thread explaining how the "defeated" timeline is NOT a what if scenario. Just a heads up for that. (I'm in the process of writting it , but I've been busy with other things lately) I accually considered a third split before, but I thought it wasn't a good idea before the OFFICIAL TIMELINE came out...
I would only made small changes, but in general I like it, I have seen many Fan timelines that make not much sense (and some very good), and I think the nintendo timeline is a good one, so if it is going to be official I have no big problems with it
I never cared much about theory in Zelda games so nothing in the timeline bothered me. From what I've seen though it seems like it was unwise to release their timeline because I think it's discouraged theorists to be creative. I think people should just look at the "official" timeline as Nintendo's personal theory on how the legend of the series occurred chronologically. It seems to me like some fans know more about the timeline anyway so I don't get why the timeline is treated as authoritative.
I will not accept the "Downfall" part, because there is no in-game evidence. If I could fix this timeline and make as little changes as possible, this will be the results:
In short: Link never fails, FSA Trident is the same as other Tridents, Four Swords Trilogy takes place between TP and ALttP (with no other games between them) and the Seal War takes place after Ganon escapes from the Four Sword.
eehhhh i've never been much of a time line girl my self.. the whole idea of trying to make since of the zelda games just implodes my mind a lil bit. So i really don't botherr with it. I liked it better though before they put it out because now there dosn't seem to be any more mystery about the game anymore and that was one of the things i loved.