I have decided to put forward an idea to include stock images of weapons in their attachments, Camouflages, Variants (and in the future, Kits for MWR) pages.
My reasoning is that even though the stock images do not have any changes, they are still counted as a "camouflage" or an "attachment" or a "variant"; ie No Camouflage is still a Camouflage, No attachment is still an Attachment, Normal Variant is still a variant etc
As well as putting these pictures in would allow for comparisons between what the weapon originally looks like and what it would look like with the camouflage/kit/attachment applied or another variant.
There would be no extra work with making the pictures since the same pictures would be used on the main page of the weapon (to showcase the model/FPS view). I'd also be glad to spearhead the collection and manufacturing of such pictures Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 04:33, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
Yes this is okay. It makes it easier to compare than having to go back and forth between pages or having two tabs open. It is not much of a big deal to have one extra gallery square for the original weapon.I have to admit I sit somewhat on the fence. On the one side, I see the advantage of having a "base" gun on the galleries to allow for easy comparison. On the other hand, the galleries were always meant for just keeping the attachment and camo images off the main page. Ideally, we need to see how many people are here for comparison shots and not just seeing the camos/attachments themselves. 05:03, January 4, 2017 (UTC) 22:56, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
I don't find such a thing necessary, and it doesn't really make sense to count the bare unmodified setup of a weapon as "camouflage/attachment/variant". I do admit that in only the case of the menu/gunsmith models in third person for BO3 and IW (and not for other first-person images) it could come in slightly handy, since these models come with very slight visual changes, but at the same time it's not hard to compare the base weapon model of the main page with an attachment image in a subpage with just a few mouse clicks away.
- Not counting the base weapon as "nil" in the galleries is a bit of a fallacy though. Isn't Zero still counted as a value? The line break still counted as a character? The state of "Off" being the state of inactivity/base? These examples are very hard grained and may be too much of a hard logic to apply to a simple gaming wikia, but in all stances, "off", "zero" and "new" is still considered a character or value. With this, it'd make sense to say the stock image is "0", the Red Dot Sight/Desert Camouflage/First Variant is "1", etc. Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 05:17, January 10, 2017 (UTC)
- Except that in this case it isn't a matter of numbers/character/etc. Is the base weapon equipped with a custom camouflage? Clearly not. Thus, it wouldn't belong to the camouflage subpage. Same goes for attachments and variants. 09:16, January 20, 2017 (UTC)