Thread:Byfield/@comment-3361105-20140113225720/@comment-3361105-20140113233358

You could assume - or you could read it. But, yes.

There isn't any intent to make it possible to indicate that something is a textless version of a variant cover at the moment.

Any attempt to do so with the current coding would put it in a category it doesn't belong in, or remove it from one it does belong in.

And the application of that kind of categorization would just be a back-end "look at all these textless covers that happen to be variants" when our typical use for textless images is character images anyway.

That back-end category would not very well suit that use.

If you read Help:Image Template Hub, it explains the use of ImageType2 - which is a second image type - but like I said, it would only shove textless covers into a category meant for non-textless variant covers if you were to use both image types at once.