FANDOM


the NJR and NAR pages need cleanup. Specifically, all this "sub-line" nonsense. Why are CP's classed as part of the NJR when they aren't even Zoids? BLOX Zoids are counted as sub-lines on this page, but on the other pages are treated as if they are completely separate releases. Further, this page, when compared to the "Zoids" page, has much less content, I would like to see the content on the specific releases pages, not on the overview pages, because doubling-up on info is a bad idea, always has been and always will be. Once this is done, I'll strip the models out of the "zoids" page, and just put in a link here, so that we can start to make that page actually readable. Slax01 00:58, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this back to attention. There really needs to be some cleanup for consistency. The Zoids page no longer has extensive info about many of the releases that are now just listed here under 'sub-categories'. We are no longer doubling up on info, but leaving it out completely. Now, with that said, I don't think it should be re-added to the Zoids page. It looks much less cluttered than the old one. The question is: what is to be done with the sub-categories? Should we create separate pages? I think most of them would end up as stubs, which we don't want...Thoughts? --Azimuth727 21:38, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
I made a related post the other day: http://zoids.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Model_Citations&t=20120303233350 I think a real problem is lack of information regarding the waves. I'm going to go through and add box art for what I can find, and hopefully this will help. As an example, there is no list of the NPR zoids. While most of the pages say something like "minor box art changes" there is at least 1 page where the box art change is significant (diloforce). I Agree an overhaul is needed. Right now it's way too hard to find info, or for people who have info, where they should add it. I think we should make note of zoids for each different kind of box art, not only is it easy to find pictures on google and eBay, but it's much easier to organise than trying to work out which wave a release came from. Sylvanelite 03:03, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
There is a nice blurb on the top of the NAR Zoids page, which mentions the sub-lines and then includes a list of the NAR-exclusive zoids. I added a link to the list of NJR zoids so that you can find the rest. However, this also lead me to notice that there is no list of Blox zoids, not even a page on them. That is definitely needed. I'll gather what info I can... but I'm no expert on the Blox.
I think the NJR page should also be reformatted to resemble more of the NAR page. Once we figure out which Zoids were in the NPR, we can also assemble a list of those. Also, I think the release pages should be moved from "___ Zoids" to "New Japanese Release" and "New American Release," but I don't want to move those without a second opinion.--Azimuth727 19:16, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaand looking at the New Japanese Release page in edit mode, we do have most of the info I was talking about, but it has been commented out, citing a desire for new pages for the individual sub-categories, and placing the lists there. I'm not quite sure why someone hasn't done that... especially since they were just commented out and then left invisible to the rest of the world... Guess I'll work on that too...Azimuth727 19:23, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I commented out those sections, my reasons are as per the comments. I didn't separate the pages because I object to even having an NJR page at all. The reason I don't like NJR (and, OER, NER, OJR, NAR, etc etc) is because they are:

  1. poorly defined geographically (especially pacific and Europe)
  2. poorly defined chronologically (especially the 'waves')
  3. lack citations- due to, (or the cause of?), the above
  4. difficult to navigate (the releases are largely unrelated to the actual product being released- evident by the fact that Zoids and CP's etc are bundled together)

The only solution I have thought up is to, and I am seriously considering making this change, in light of what sylvan's said about unreliable model information, is to restructure all the model pages in the following way:

  1. delete all references to NJR, OJR, NAR, etc
  2. keep all references to official product lines, such as 'Blox' 'neo blox', etc.
  3. keep all information on the actual kits, but simply list them in chronological order that THAT KIT was released on the Zoid's page (so rather than OJR shield liger, NJR shield liger, we can just have shield liger kit#1, shield liger kit#2, etc.)
  4. if one kit is released multiple times, without alteration, simply note that it was re-sold and list the dates (if it is worth noting at all), no need to re-categorise the kit.

In reality, we don't loose much information (in fact, do we loose any?) and I think at the end of the day the wiki actually becomes much easier to navigate and is much more reliable from a content perspective. Feedback is appreciated, as I intend to make this change in the near future. Slax01 08:46, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Slax and Azimuth. The formatting needs to be made consistent across the waves, and it would be ideally better to use official stuff rather than fan-names. While I realise NJR, NAR, etc, are good for people who already know what they mean, it's pretty difficult to work out what they mean from an "average joe" point of view. As an example, all of the following are used, with no consistency or citations:
  • New English Release
  • New United Kingdom Release
  • New European Release
In addition to that, there seems to be next-to-nothing differentiating NER and NPR, aside from release location. For example, when I was editing the Diloforce page (which you should realise by now is my favourite page) I noticed my model's box was different to both the releases mentioned. From what I've read on the wiki, there is no way to tell if I've got an NPR or NER version. I took a guess and said NPR because I live in the pacific region, but I got the model from eBay, so I don't know where it originated from. Zoid.us, zoidspoison, and blue-salamander all list only the NAR and NJR variants. Anyway, that's just one of the problems with using regions as the category.
Getting back to sub-lines, I do think we would be better off splitting things up as much as possible. There's no reason for 5 different Zaber Fangs to appear under the generic NAR page, with a link saying "See the list of NJR Zoids for non-Hasbro-exclusive releases" for the main NAR release wave. Sylvanelite 11:45, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no official names, or at least I've never seen any. I don't agree with abolishing these names though, although things like New English / UK /European Release need consistency. From everything I can tell, there are clear model lines based on box-art design and the kits released. You can look at a box and say "That's from the NJR vs the NAR." While there may not be official names, these are the accepted names.
That said, I'm not opposed to finding new names and/or redefining the releases. Given that they seem to be the same except for location, the NER and NPR could be one release.
What I'm most looking for, whatever we decide to do, are just a few things:
  • Inclusion of all information
  • Consistency in the inclusion of said information
  • Ease of navigation
I like having the list pages as I think they help with my third bullet; however, I'm not opposed to having them renamed or reorganized as per consistency.--Azimuth727 16:09, March 6, 2012 (UTC)


I still don't see the need to use NJR or NAR though. As it currently stands, you can only pick up a box and tell it is from the NJR or NAR by reading that Zoid's page. You can't get that information from the releases page. So what value do the release pages actually add to the wiki? Given the inability to provide clear geographical, product, or time information, there is no real value to those pages. Removing them would reduce the clutter on this wiki and make navigation easier. Further, if we do remove those pages, what point is there in keeping the NAR NJR etc references on the individual Zoid pages? Simply listing each model variant in chronological order will do a perfectly adequate job. Hence the above comment Slax01 22:02, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts in regards to the above points:

  • No official names - How about Brand + date. E.g. "TOMY 2001" or "Hasbro 2003"?
  • Box art recognition - We should add sample box art to release pages to assist. Picture make pages 1,000,000% better.
  • Accepted names - At very least, the current pages should have NAR, NJR, etc categories added. That'll "future proof" any info, so that there is an automatic "list of ..." in the category page. Even if we don't rename things, this is still a good idea.
  • NER consistency - IMO easiest way to do this would be a name change. A TOMY-brand release would probably be ok.
  • NER merge with NPR - It would certainly help with consistency.

Some things of my own to add:

  • Sub-lines should be split into their own releases. It's either a release or it isn't.
  • Battle Story - It's impossible to navigate battle story on the current wiki. If we line up the release waves with the events of battle story it could help with navigation and consistency at the same time. (OJR and NJR)

Here is what I propose for the time-being: Add "NJR, NAR, etc" to the current Zoids pages as categories. That gives us automatic navigation and protects us from losing info later. Sylvanelite 12:03, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Do all of the releases have a separate date so that would work? If so then the brand + date would work. The box art would then be necessary, since that's basically what we're identifying the releases as.
Categories are a very good idea, but we shouldn't add them until we decide what name to use. I say don't add the categories just yet.
So would things with official release names still be referred to as that? I think they should be, there's no point in creating a name for consistency when an official one already exists.--Azimuth727 18:44, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the wiki navigates as follows: 'general Zoids page'->'Releases' (NJR etc)->Sub-lines. A page for a specific Zoid is listed in chronological order using the names of the 'Releases' page. In my opinion, it should read as follows: 'general Zoids page'->Sub-lines, with the page for a specific Zoid still listing the current info, just removing the NAR, NJR, etc headings. Sylvan's naming system appears fine for use on individual Zoids pages models that don't otherwise have a name. We can then add NAR, NJR categories to each Zoid's individual page. This will automatically reproduce the information we currently have.
The advantage of doing this is the removal of inconsistent product categorisation. For instance, some sub-lines, such as blox, are put under the NJR, while others, such as neo-blox, are full blown releases. seems to make sense to me?
Final aside, if we use categories, we are free to allow users to create (within reason) any release method they want- NAR, OER, whatever, just add categories, it won't interfere with the overall navigation of the wiki. Slax01 21:55, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Most of the releases are better-defined than people seem to think. The way to tell between an NER and NPR box (if you don't know where it was sold) is that all NER boxes (as far as I know) have a simplified form of the green/purple NAR design with a TOMY logo and a distinctive yellow circle saying "Action Figure Model Kit" on the front (see the bottom left of these boxes). If it has a Hasbro logo, it's NAR; if it has a TOMY logo but no yellow circle, it's NPR. The NER also had far fewer Zoids than the NPR - for example, some Z-Builders and action figures were included in the NPR, but none in the NER. There's probably other differences, but they're hard to find with my limited access to NER Zoids info. In my opinion, the least-defined release boundaries are OAR/OER and where the NJR ends.

As for lines vs sub-lines, some of them (in Japan at least) should be easy to distinguish or cite if necessary. For example, the 1/24 Zoids are pretty much universally considered an OJR sub-line. NJR and Blox are fuzzier (as something vaguely citable, both Blox and Neo Blox are separated from the NJR in the Zoids Dictionary). To me, one logical method would be to group lines/sub-lines by backstory - i.e. Blox is a sub-line of the NJR, but Fuzors isn't. It doesn't seem logical to separate Whitz Wolf and Savinga into separate lines. However, it would mean small releases like Cyber Drive and Neo Blox become completely separate lines. Just something to think about. 131.217.255.209 04:24, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

@Azimuth:
Do all of the releases have a separate date so that would work? - I'm not sure, it's a suggestion, but I'm not sure if it's definitive. Finding release dates is hard at the best of times, and I'm no expert when it comes to models. Here is a link to the Zabat page on blue-salamander http://blue-salamander.com/zoids/?n=Main.Zabat it has dates, but I find that site seems to be inconsistent (or is it just incomplete?) when it comes to NER and NPR Zoids (as are most sites) I also have to treat it with scepticism, because there is no way of telling where the site got that info from (it could have gotten it from this wiki!). Anyway, (reliable) release dates should be added to the wiki even if we don't use this naming scheme, it's just another piece of information this wiki lacks.
So would things with official release names still be referred to as that? - Yes. If it's official, it stays.
@Anon:
First off, thanks!! It's great when people with extra info post on the wiki, it makes guiding these decisions a million times easier.
Some other questions come up though: The different NER box art, does that apply to silver-packaged Zoids as well? (For example, the original Diloforce question, but also: demantis, grounchar, megaleon, etc). There is currently no information about the silver vs green box art for NER and NPR Zoids on the wiki. The only mention of silver packaging is on the NAR page, for the action figure sub-line, which doesn't apply in this case.
I should also clarify as well: the NER cleanup is a different topic to the NPR/NER similarities. For example, this article we are posting on makes no mention of anything called "NER" at all (UK is used instead). The Shield Liger and Gordos page are just two examples of where NER is used (one "English", the other "European"). If we are to keep NER, we need to decide what it actually means.
To make matters even more complex, there are even more releases than mentioned in the overarching releases. Here is our NJR Zabat [1]. Here is a different "NJR" Zabat: [2] (for those that can't tell the difference, the first is Japanese, the second is Korean). While I've got no problem saying "Here is the Korean New Japanese Release of the Zoid", it quickly gets out of hand. Sylvanelite 11:43, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
Basically, weasel words. We could add this to every article: "No model changes from the NJR. Minor box art changes." and we would instantly cover 90% of the waves. The thing is, nobody can verify what the box art changes were, or if someone has a notable box art change, they won't add it because it's already mentioned. These statements add no real value to the wiki whatsoever, yet are on almost every page. Take the above korean box art. The NJR Zabat is mentioned, so nobody adds the Korean info. This in turn makes it look like the NJR is a good definition of a wave, because it's covered all the Zoids. All it's done is delete the Korean Zoids from existence. This kind of thing should be addressed in the cleanup. Sylvanelite 12:15, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Now, if everyone is done welcoming / bickering I'd like you to look at this, as it is a major issue. I encourage you to respond, but please read the whole above conversation and take a peek at what we're talking about. My personal opinion at where we stand now goes something like this:

  1. - Find a name for that properly defines a "release" and that is consistent across all or most lines. I don't have a problem with sticking with the accepted names (NJR, NAR, etc.) but the NER needs to be checked for consistency across all pages. From what I can tell, these names describe each release properly.
  2. - Create categories for each release, including "sub-releases," which will have their own category.
  3. - Clean up the Release pages. They should include all relevant information (release dates, trends, sales, locations, etc.), and a link to the category page that has the list. Sub-releases will no longer be sub-releases and will have their own pages.
  4. - If necessary, change the model section of all affected zoids pages.

Remember this is my opinion, is subject to change, and is only a proposal of what is to be done. Play nice.--Azimuth727 02:37, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with all that. Seems like all common-sense stuff. I don't have anything more to add here, so I'll leave it at that for now. Sylvanelite 08:26, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Azimuth, we do need a definition, so I've whipped up a quick test of a good definition off the top of my head. Feel free to add to this test if you like.
Essentially, there are three separate issues, so far as I can tell:
1- What IS a release? -a good definition should:
A-have citable basis for including a product in that release (ie: boxart, geographic sale region, etc)
B-that basis should be consistent among all 'releases' pages (ie: if NAR is based on boxart, then so too should be NER, NJR, etc)
C-provide useful information to the readers (if a definition doesn't fulfil this criteria, but does meet the other two, then it should be a category, not a page).
2- Does it fit with official media? -for instance, are we splitting battle story releases up on the basis of slightly different boxart? Are we grouping together zoids with different registration numbers? Do sublines fall under one release and not another on an arbitrary basis?
3- Is it navigationally appropriate? -releases split information up. They therefore have a big navigation effect. Any definition of 'releases' should take this into account.
my answers to my own questions, on our current system, are: 1- our releases currently do not have a definition, and if they did have a definition, I am not satisfied that definition would be the ideal definition. Especially with regard to question 1C. 2- Fairly well, with some exceptions, notably, sub-lines appear arbitrarily grouped. 3- Finding info on Zoids based on the current releases is difficult as it is not possible to know which release a Zoid belonged to without first looking up the Zoid, but naturally, you can't look up the Zoid from the release page without first know which release it belonged to (hence my navigation template and list of zoids page are both in alphabetical order, NOT release order). further, the distinction between sub-lines and releases appears arbitrary.
My proposed change: delete all references (other than categories) to releases, other than official product lines (named as such). Each individual Zoid's page will remain relatively unchanged.
Answering my own questions: 1-definition of release becomes black-and-white (it either has the release name or it doesn't). 2- this method, all releases must fit with official media by definition. 3- removing the current releases removes superfluous hierarchy, categories can be used to relay the current information, navigation improves. Sub-lines like Genesis and Fuzors or Blox, etc, are much more easily identified by an uniformed viewer than are minor identifiers like the color used on a logo on the box.
I accept my method may not be the best method, but I no-one has offered an alternative at this stage.

Slax01 09:08, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

EditingEdit

Overhaul has commenced as per the new table. Not by any means complete, as sub lines are going to be shifted to main lines. Once this table is complete, I'll merge it into the other page. All info on that page will be shifted to suitable pages and will not be deleted, but may be modified to fit with the current pages. Slax01 06:42, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Disappearing Lines? Edit

I'm slightly confused. What happened to the Video Game Exclusive zoids? I remember them being here before. Also, can anyone tell me what the Hasbro PVC figures are? It says there's only 3. Finally, the Gashapon Minis / Hasbro Battle Champions seem to be missing completely.--Azimuth727 14:41, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

I removed a few of the things with "limited", "exclusive", "unreleased" and "unknown". They were too vague to make into articles, but still exist on the Zoids_Toy_Lines page. Video games does seem like it can be added back though. Sylvanelite (talk) 22:33, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I'll re-add the video games and make a page for it. I'm also guessing the PVC figures are the Battle Champions, since they were released in 3 sets of 6. The Gashapons are also missing, and I feel that they're not a "limited" or "exclusive" line so they deserve their own page.--Azimuth727 01:11, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Pictures Edit

While most of the releases have their own logo, several of the remaining ones use just the traditional zoids logo. Look at the Hasbro Battle Champions package, it's just the logo with text saying "Battle Champions."
BattleChampsPackage

My question is: What do we then put as the picture in the table?--Azimuth727 18:49, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'd just put the "Battle Champions" text as the picture. Sylvanelite (talk) 22:50, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

That seems logical. Might be tricky to find enough resolution... but I'll see what I can do. I wish I still had the packaging around...Azimuth727 23:43, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I added one to the article. It's low-res but just readable. Sylvanelite (talk) 07:45, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Clean Up ConsiderationsEdit

Hasbro Holotech very small, consider placing with Hasbro. Z-builders another possibility.

Kept Bio Zoids and Genesis together for this reason. 

Call Zoids (1983) just plain Zoids. It was first, does not need date. Then keep Zoids (1999) as is. HMM stay as is, then HMM Chapter 2 come eventually in same pattern. Kotobukiya gave it that name but date of HMM Death Stinger could work too. 

Yamato, D-Style and Revoltech not Zoid-exclusive lines, consider small seperate section for them. HyugaLion (talk) 23:36, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for OrganizationEdit

Going over format of entire Zoids Wiki now, lines have problems.

These lines are very disorganized and several are innapropriately titled. The Limited Zoids page shows what is possible through clean up.

Zoids 1983 could be 3 different lines based on current system; wind up, battery operated and Dark and possibly more if you want to get technical. But clearly we do not need this many different articles, so keep the subjects (not Title) of this page as-is and structure the many Hasbro Stubs (see below) accordingly. 

As such, changing Zoids 1983 to "Zoids" (Only if japanese is absolutely not permitted ever; Mechanical Biological Zoids is better) and then changing the current "Zoids" page to Zoids Franchise Overview is good course of action. Why? This is more specific for the overview page and better for the model line since the Zoids (year) format conflicts with other Line articles. Or this current title "sticks out like a sore thumb" so to speak.

Zoids 1999/Kiju Shinseiki page change to "Zoids Zoic Androids" as seen in ENGLISH on Seismosaurus and other boxes. No denying that. As said before, the Zoids (year) format does not follow all the other Zoids lines. 

Hasbro Zoids change to Zoids by Hasbro. This should include Holotech, Build Customize and Build Customize Mobilize too. Why? Because official Hasbro NEVER treated these as seperate lines. See the commercials on NC0 dvds, paper advertisements or Hasbro's own website http://web.archive.org/web/20040204020917/http://www.hasbro.com/zoids/pl/page.mainbrowse/dn/default.cfm  for this. If anything, Hasbro used "Premier" or "Supreme" to differentiate parts thier assembly Model Kits. 

To keep these Hasbro articles like this is pointless for organization. Do we have new page for every varient of Sheild Liger? No. Every small section of the Mechanical Biological Zoids line? No. Every different series of Zoids books? No. Every different dvd and Blu-Ray set? No. These additional pages based on a slight packaging difference is messy, unofficial and does not follow the organization of other articles. 

Z-builders DOES stay the same however. Based on official Hasbro on http://web.archive.org/web/20040204020917/http://www.hasbro.com/zoids/pl/page.mainbrowse/dn/default.cfm and other advertising again. Action Figures COULD go either way, based soley on the website but based on commercial advertisements, paper advertisements (including year catologues) and marketing technique (blister package/whole Zoid seen vs box/assembly Zoid not seen) it is more appropriate to keep as its own article. 

Academy to 'Zoids by Academy for a couple reasons. First, 2001 Academy would be its own line based on Academy officially. Second, Academy covers multiple Tomy lines, which by current standards would constitute a multitude of very small pages that would conflict with official Academy (they kept cycling old Zoids through even while different types came, unlike Tomy) release format. We do not need a "Academy Genesis Line", "Academy Customize Parts Line" or an "Academy Fuzors 2005" AND "Academy Fuzors 2010" page do we? Zoids by Academy' is better or "Academy Zoids Products" but the latter does not sound very good, I think.

Follow suit with Zoids by Yamato and Zoids by Threezero as to be more proper. These are not Zoids model lines. "Hard" definition or no, by treating them as Zoids lines (which they are not) you open a can of worms for Leoshop Zoids (at least some), Wonderfestival Zoids, Resin Kit Zoids, specific Limited lines and much more. 

Revoltech:Yamagutchi  and D-Style go to Zoids in 'Revoltech:Yamagutchi Zoids 'and Zoids in D-Style to OR Revoltech: Yamag Zoids Models and D-Style Zoids Models clarify these are not lines exclusively catering to Zoids, nor are thier Zoids kits consecutively released in those mixed-series lines. Title could sound better but regular D-Style and Revoltech: Yamagutchi are wrong as articles. Unless you want to cover the non-Zoid sections of the line, which on Zoids Wiki you do not.  

Anyway, these changes are the  based on official information and overall Zoids Wiki format, NOT size of the articles. 

HyugaLion (talk) 00:57, May 5, 2015 (UTC)


The Limited Zoids and Video Game Zoids pages are very streamline articles, very good for organization even if missing some information (I will fix that). They fit with the same organization of Zoids Prints and Zoids Anime.

Following suit, Resin Kits could actually be a consideration, at least for the ones that Tomy alotted as Mail-In orders. I forget the name of the company (will find on Archive) but there were four I believe, all done by the same group. Or they could simply get thier own section under Limited page. Thoughts? HyugaLion (talk) 00:57, May 5, 2015 (UTC) 

OverhaulEdit

Model release pages will be changed to better reflect the standard of the Academy and HMM Pages. This means:

designation numbers 

faction seperations

Line information in paragraph form

No more dates in the title Dates will be changed to company name like Academy's or Line's Title like HMM. It's ridiculous to keep 1983/1999 on so many Zoids that did not come out in 1983/1999. Designation Numbers will replace this to absolve release date confusion. 

Type of models. This means instead of the inconsistant "Includes Zoids from:" different lines section of the table, there will be "Battery Operated" "Wind Up" "Pre-assembled Figure" "Static Assembly Kit" "Custom Parts" and so-on


Also this page's table will be changed, if not deleted. The mess of Hasbro "Lines" based only on Slogan changes is bad and a number the "Releases" aren't even main releases, they are short supplimentary lines or simply sporadic series. HyugaLion (talk) 22:22, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


I can't work out what exactly you want to do. If it's just removing dates from the page titles, go ahead, I have no problem with that. However, that does not in any way constitute deleting the table on this page entirely. Just a heads up, designation numbers won't work for the majority of pages, since most of the problem pages don't have their own (unambiguous) numbers.

It is also not something that should be confused with the past overhaul. The previous overhaul was quite extensive, it touched every Zoid page on the wiki, that's why it was called an overhaul. I don't think we need to do anything on that scale again.

What would you replace the multitude of Hasbro pages with? Consolidating them is not an option, as it's been proven not to work. The majority of "Hasbro" pages, were made before the overhaul, and essentially weren't touched during the overhaul, the problem being lack of concrete citations meant the people doing the overhaul couldn't actually fix the problems at the time. Re-doing this again without those citations would be a waste of time.

There is a LOT of history as to what was done during the overhaul and what wasn't. If you want to see what the releases looked like before they were a table, here is the old article for comparison. We haven't deleted it since it might still contain valuable info (although nothing links there any more). But it's utterly incomprehensible.

"Includes Zoids From" is arbitrary, it was put in there because the old releases pages used inheritance substantially, so we added that as a kind of easing over for people who might be familiar with the old terms.

"lines based on slogan changes" is NOT bad. It makes no iota of difference if something a major release or minor, slogans are citable, and that's more important than trying to see if something was a big line or a small one, or released with a snack or from a vending machine or whatever. There's a ton of obscure releases, and no person know 100% of them all, so we simply are forced to use the method that gives us the most reliable citations. Sylvanelite (talk) 12:38, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, now I see what those "Zoids From" mean. I guess they can stay and the Zoids type can be moved into sections (see table ideas below)

  1. Designation numbers would be for the Zoids pages since Zoids have thier own designation numbers on thier boxes. Sorry if that was not clear.
This is especially important for Academy, Hasbro (yes I am calling Hasbro ONE release because that is what it is) and Zoic Android line Zoids models because they use the same numbers. Take Liger Zero, RZ-041 refers to the first Liger Zero made by TOMY and under that section both Academy and Hasbro versions get mentioned. Only the boxes changed, the mold and color stayed exactly the same. Why have a whole different section for one sentence "Academy and Hasbro also released this model in thier respective lines." It is much more streamlined for these lines. 
2. This overhaul will also affect all the Zoids Pages. Infact, it would be more forwardly cited since this will now be using designation numbers easily spotted on pictures the boxes. So just to be clear this is a new Overhaul. 
3. The many many Hasbro slogans mixed in with no dates and no uniform release structure makes this release page a complete mess.This is why little tiny sectons based on Slogan is VERY BAD.
What should I do with Academy? Have a dozen pages based on box changes? What about Zoic Androids? There would be at least 3 different lines based on the title of the line. And then the first TOMY line would be divided 6 different ways based on thier motors. Then there is HMM which had several different series as well. Should it be HMM Chaotic Century, HMM Standard, HMM 30th Anniverssary as well? No, a one or 2 word difference does not make a new line. Like I said before, even Hasbro itself classified Zoids as "Supreme" and "Ultra" and so-on. See the link in the above section. Should we make a dozen new pages based on that? I do not think so. 
Keeping Hasbro's designation # release as one uniform page with addition notes on regional differences is MUCH better and more streamline in citation. If there is a deiscrepncy between region in # then NOTE IT. Just like the Saicurtis/Gojulas on the Academy Page! That would make Hasbro like the Academy, HMM and Tomy release pages. If you like the slogans so much then keep notes on them. Heck, put the Slogan changes into different sections like the Academy page's different Fuzors lines. Or if you really love those tiny little diffences so darn much, you can go make 40 new stub-pages for Academy, Tomy and HMM. Zoic Androids starts somewhere after Gun Tiger if you're interested, and HMM 30th anniversary would be all of three models; Iguan, Gojulas and Z-Knight. 
4. As for the Table, yes, deleting it would not be so good but it should still be re-done and maybe split. A split should make it more like the List of Zoids page.
One Table for Injection Kit lines; HMM, TOMY, Academy, BLOX and those types of lines. "Anything with Sprue Trees" so to speak. Then another table with Pre-Assembled Figures; Three Zero and Yamato for example as well as some others. And lastly table for Static Figures like Art Statues, Keychains and Gachapons.
As one gigantic table the page looks awful and is not very easy to figure out.

Also I cannot change Zoids 1983 to simply Zoids. If you could do that it would be appreciated.HyugaLion (talk) 00:51, August 25, 2015 (UTC) 

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.