Folding Stock Implications or Nuke AKMS/AKS-74

BUR #36984 has been rejected.

create implication aks-74 -> folding_stock
create implication akms -> folding_stock

Notorious firearm tag nonsense continues;;; I was having (admittedly contentious) thoughts on the necessity of folding stock but came to realise that it's more beneficial than not: thanks to it we don't need separate tags for SVDS, RPKS[-74], Zastava M70B2, FAL Para etc while retaining the ability to search for them via parent model tag + folding stock

So why should akms/aks-74 be exempt?

The conservative non-contentious measure is to just have them imply folding stock

P.S. the reason I'm excluding aks-74u, pp-19 bizon, pp-19-01 vityaz in the implication is because it is possible to fit them with stock adapters that do not fold, of which there are (admittedly imperfect) examples on danbooru in post #3084535 and post #3180252; similarly, the reason for excluding h&k g36, fn scar, sig mcx, adaptive combat rifle and other weapons which include a folding stock by design is that, conceivably, they could be depicted with a fixed stock (or without one entirely), whereas the folding stock is what makes an AKMS/AKS-74 + I think implicating folding stock to those other examples goes against 'tag what you see, not what you know' in cases where the stock might be obscured or cropped etc

This is kind of like implying individual tank models to tank turret and caterpillar tracks. Or serafuku to skirt, maid to apron, cat girl to cat ears, etc. It's implying a thing to the individual parts that make up that thing. This is usually a bad idea because one can imagine scenarios where the individual parts either aren't present, aren't visible, or aren't drawn correctly.

Even if the AKS-74 is defined by having a folding stock, there are cases like post #6307946, post #918600, post #8561183 where you can't see enough to tell that the stock is capable of folding. Even in the normal case, an uninformed viewer can't usually tell that it's a folding stock if they don't already know.

It'd make more sense to have folded stock for when the stock is actually folded.

evazion said:

This is kind of like implying individual tank models to tank turret and caterpillar tracks. Or serafuku to skirt, maid to apron, cat girl to cat ears, etc. It's implying a thing to the individual parts that make up that thing. This is usually a bad idea because one can imagine scenarios where the individual parts either aren't present, aren't visible, or aren't drawn correctly.

Even if the AKS-74 is defined by having a folding stock, there are cases like post #6307946, post #918600, post #8561183 where you can't see enough to tell that the stock is capable of folding. Even in the normal case, an uninformed viewer can't usually tell that it's a folding stock if they don't already know.

It'd make more sense to have folded stock for when the stock is actually folded.

With the first point I agree entirely, indeed that is my stated reason for omitting many other guns, the crucial difference with these two is that the stock is the specific and only feature that differentiates them from the parent model (and it's very visually distinct in both cases) — if the stock is not present, visible or drawn correctly then a priori these two tags are inapplicable, you have to fall back upon the generic parent (AKM/AK-74 in this case), so for instance post #918600 makes dubious use of the tag because without seeing more of the stock you can only guess that it's an AKS-74, I think these cases should just be tagged AK-74.

Addressing the second point, the visual tells that a [side-folding] stock can actually fold are some form of pin or other vertical assembly that facilitates the folding or like a claw joint which fixes the stock, both are very minor details that artists rarely include (and only seen at particular angles) — so at least with the AKS-74 this implication does mean tagging what we know and not what we see, however this is already the majority of cases with folding stock anyway and I don't think that will change because even if you specify that the tag should only be used if the depiction allows you to positively confirm that the stock indeed articulates (most prominent are bottom/top-folding examples: Skorpion vz. 61, AKMS, MP40 etc) inevitably there will always be cases where people will see a weapon they know has a folding stock (SIG MCX, H&K G36 etc) and apply the tag even if it's not at all obvious in the image that it actually can.

This is the main reason why I was questioning whether it should even be a tag, but the concern is that in its absence people might start creating a bunch of specific model tags like for the MP5A3/A5 and so forth which I think should be avoided as much as possible, it's already bad enough that there's various mpi-kms-72s, mpi-kms and other miscellaneous kbk wz. 88 tantals.

As for folded stock, that's a good idea and would be a more useful tag (I'm surprised that doesn't exist already), I might see if that would make up an O.K. post count if/when I get distracted from the *_footwear crusade

To be clear, folding stock or not, if I had my way I'd just alias AKMS to AKM and AKS-74 to AK-74 and be done with it, but I realise that would snub gun enthusiasts and they are visually-distinctive enough that there may be a not insignificant amount of people that might like to be able search for them in particular, though I bring up once more that we don't extend this 'separate tag for stock configuration' courtesy to any other (certainly any other popularly-depicted) firearm including, famously, the MP5, we don't have G3K's or anything else like that — except for these two.

AK-74M is another mess because, yes, it's a distinctive and identifiable model, from the factory, but firearms are so often modified these days — and artists commonly depict unorthodox configurations as they please (and why shouldn't they, they're more visually-interesting) — and an AK-74 can be modified with accessories such that it is indistinguishable from an AK-74M in similar configuration; the tag is applied arbitrarily — how can one be sure that post #8398249 or post #8703485 or post #5804289 or post #6492991 etc feature an AK-74M? One might say that tagging the M is justified if the dovetail optics mount is visible (which is on the rarely-seen left side of the receiver) but the AK-74N has that, too, and likewise takes all of the same accessories and which we do not bestow a unique tag upon.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #36984 (forum #336286) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.