I have this feeling like everything that happens in the timeline nowadays is my fault. I know some people like to blame me. -_- In this case, I never had time to release my intended version 1.6 of my timeline document, which had some important things I needed to fix and details I needed to add (IIRC, from more retranslations and the like) before ST came out and forced some bigger changes.
One of those fixes was clarifying that the person who mentioned TMC being the story of how Link got his cap wasn't actually Bill Trinen. It's just a nitpick, as it doesn't actually matter who it is all that much - but it wasn't Trinen. And it's probably because of me saying it was that everyone thinks so, it wasn't until much later that I found another version of the video that actually showed the person. (I assumed it was Trinen because I had seen videos of him demonstrating other games at the same event.)
Er, I just dropped in because of that, but while I'm here, may as well make the same points I seem to make over and over anyway.
1. In the BS of MC there is shown what is quite obviously Link saving Hyrule from Ganon. And in OoT, Ganon/dorf is trusted by the king.
It's not Ganon. It's most likely a Moblin. And regardless, the backstory mentions nothing about Ganon or any ruler behind the evil. The stained glass couldn't possibly literally show what happened, it's just trying to represent the fact that a hero fought off a bunch of assorted monsters. One of which was a pig-like beast. All the monsters were sealed away, and released by Vaati in TMC. Ganon wasn't in there. If anything, this implies that TMC occurs before evil had a king, as it's just kind of random monsters.
2. Just because it shows how 1 Link got his hat, that doesn't mean ****. I mean, in practically every game that has a new Link it tells why Link got his clothes. In OoT, he is dressed like a Kokiri, in WW and TP he gets the Hero's Clothes, in ST he wears the clothes to get past the royal guards, etc.
This is true, but you're arguing, as so many against the pre-OoT placement do, against what is really a straw man argument. The point isn't that the hat literally was invented by Ezlo and that's why all the other Links wear it. The point is that TMC is "the story of how Link [the main character of the Zelda series, not any previous specific Link we know] got his cap", even according to Nintendo. In fact, the context of the statement was as an example of how TMC delves deep into the lore of the series.
It's meant in a metaphorical sense. We have a backstory of a past hero NOT wearing a cap, which we haven't seen before. Then we have a capless Link at the beginning of the game. Then, in a symbolic moment at the end of the game, literally the final thing we see before the credits, Ezlo gives Link a cap as a memento of their adventure. There's supposed to be a clear arc to these events, where we see the introduction of the cap into Zelda lore.
Also, technically, OoT Link's hat is different to any other Kokiri's. Not that it really matters. The point is that this is the first story of a cap-wearing hero named Link.
3. At no point in the game is there proof that it is first(and yes I have beaten the game).
The problem with this is that people tend to see the evidence they're looking for, and not evidence for the alternatives. There may be a lot of things you aren't aware of. Some of these are minor or circumstantial points, but they arguably have more plot/character relevance than any of the evidence for any other placements.
For example, every human sprite in the game has distinctly long, pointed, Hylian ears, except for Beedle's, and he's actually implied to be a foreigner. That would suggest that the Hylian blood is yet to weaken, because in many later games, Link and Zelda have much longer ears than most people you see.
But whether that's important or not... What is significant evidence is NoA's **** up in the credits, where they were supposed to say that this was Link's first adventure. It implies that as long as the Light Force is around, Link will keep having adventures. Again, it sounds like a sort of metaphorical concept. Why even say something like that unless you mean to refer to Link as a character, and not the specific thing? Especially right after you just showed the (metaphorical) origins of Link's signature hat? I mean, TMC wasn't made to have a sequel, it was made to be a prequel to FS, which has a different Link anyway. And the light force would be around for a lot longer than that Link's lifespan.
you can legitimately argue that Minish Cap isn't first because of King Gustav. in OoT hyrule is supposed to be around 10-13 years old (the backstory), and King Gustav is supposed to have ruled hyrule hundreds of years ago or something similar. either way i doubt hyrule would have been saved twice with in a 10-13 year period, by two completely different child heroes.
This is a common misconception, too. I never got the impression from OoT that Hyrule was a newly formed kingdom, considering we hear about its ancient origins. Rather, we know that there was a war that divided the kingdom and the races, fighting over the Triforce's power. That doesn't mean that Hyrule hadn't also been a kingdom BEFORE that war, it just means that the king united (or reunited) the races.
In fact, this could be taken to support the pre-OoT placement of TMC, because the outcome of the war before OoT is that other races ally with Hyrule and form a united kingdom. Those races are hardly present or not at all in TMC, almost suggesting that this is a time before they populated the kingdom itself, and they weren't yet allied with the Hylians. On the other hand, though, there may be evidence that Hyrule and the races were united long before OoT, due to the presence of the temples protected by each race. Either way, though, nothing suggests that Hyrule did not exist prior to the war before OoT.
Also, regardless of where TMC may actually be placed, if Pinecove
is destroying your argument with little ability to counter him, you're definitely doing something wrong.