Is it really necessary for each weapon in World at War to have its own attachment subpage? The M1897, for example, has just three images of two attachments. I personally think that isn't enough to necessitate its own gallery and not only looks a bit stubby but very empty. It looked a hell of a lot better on the main article as a subsubheading. I can see why a separate page is needed for some weapons, but for others it just looks ridiculous.
In a sleep drived induced attempt to be smarmy, as the Opel Blitz has three separate paint jobs in Call of Duty 2, I expect a camouflage page before Friday.
Danke02:26, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Consistency. We've been doing this for weapons now for a while, there is no reason why it cannot be done for WaW weapons. G3/Attachments has stood at a grand total of 4 images for a while now. Navigation is also less of a problem now, as these attachment subpages now have their own navbox too. The WaW attachment galleries also need to be worked on. Some of them have no images at the moment and are currently tagged as such. In time these pages will be completed with images. 02:29, June 12, 2012 (UTC)The entire thing just seem ridiculous to me, consistency aside, for every game where weapons have an amazing, fantastic, wonderful amount of 2 attachments. It just seems utterly redundant. 02:45, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Is it not redundant to try and be consistent? It also makes the weapon gallery on the main weapon page solely for the weapon itself, which is how it should be. 02:49, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to discriminate against WaW guns just because of how few weapons they have. Per CoD4, we are doing this for consistency and I see no reason to stop now. Redskin-26 15:06, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Per Red and Cod4. They said it all.22:39, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Per CoD4. I couldn't have said it any better. Conqueror of all Zombies 23:29, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I see no issue with the pages. It's still worthy to be a page with a few images.19:40, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
Per Red and COD403:28, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
- I would assume so, it doesn't seem like there is anything to discuss anymore. 16:04, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
Closed - General consensus is that the pages should be left as-is for consistency. Joe Copp 03:25, June 17, 2012 (UTC)