Talk:Antonov An-6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Antonov An-6 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
Given the short length of the article and that this (rather obscure) aircraft is a simple variation of another aircraft with a more exhaustive article, I see little reason why this aircraft is deserving of a seperate article, hence the suggestion to merge. 24.9.10.235 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please see the Mi-8/Mi-17 discussion first. --jno 15:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the discussion and I fail to see the similairities; the Mi-17 is a major export version with different subvariants of its own - the AN-6 is a minor, obscure and limited-use variant of the An-2 and has an article that barely takes up a paragraph. If you're arguing because of bandwidth concerns (to use your own words, oh, please), I fail to see how such a small article can possibly cause a concern, either. 24.9.10.235 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, my god... Mi-17 is not a version at all! It's just a name for Mi-8MT ordered for export! --jno 11:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There, I went back and added the same information on the main An-2 article, picture and everything. That wasn't hard, wasn't it? I will state that I believe the An-3 article should remain where it is; in fact, I think it's a prime example of what this article should look like; now, if you can convince me that the An-6 deserves the same and can demonstrate that there is enough information on the An-6 to greatly expand this article beyond its current scope, then I will be convinced. BTW, according to your logic the Mi-35 (export version of Mi-24) should have its own article, but I can;t find one. Hmmmmmm..... 24.9.10.235 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- An-3 is somehow different design (new engine). An-6 is definetely different variant (extra cockpit). On my POV, Mi-35 should refer to Mi-24 just like Mi-17 should refer the Mi-8 - these are matter of naming only. While An-3/An-6 are derivatives of An-2 and should have their own pages.
- The only "contras" for these page I can see - their tiny sizes... --jno 11:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I still fail to see your argument. The P-51H for example is an extensive redesign of the P-51 to the point where it's almost entirely a new aircraft, yet its still just a subarticle of the P-51 main article. Especially given the obscurity and relatively minor modification of the An-6, I fail to see why it deserves its own article, especially when the main An-2 article already contains the same amount of info as this article. Once again, if you can show me that there's enough encyclopedic info on the An-6 then I'll be convinced otherwise. 24.9.10.235 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, you right. I see no significant reason to create many tiny articles (actually, stubs). All the An-2 mods can be jointed into a single article providing redirect from separate names (An-4, An-6, and, possibly, An-3). Anyway, given more info we always can split it back. --jno 09:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
