Talk:Yermolayev Yer-2

Comment
Data quoted from http://www.aviation.ru/okb.php#yer by the owner of aviation.ru

I have completely revised and expanded this article and put it in the new WPAVIATION format.Petebutt (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested table
Hi there, I was looking at this article (which I think is very good), and was wondering if there was a neater way to present the list of variants on this and other military aircraft articles. I experimented, and drew up the table below based on this list in this article - what do the prinicpal editors think, is this better than the straight list?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
DB-240, Yer-2/ACh-30B, Yer-2/AM-37, and Yer-2/M-40F → Yermolayev Yer-2

The content of these article can easily be explained in the context of the main article, and the main article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. These are all minor variants, none of which entered production. As an aside, all of these are incorrectly titled, as the Manufacturer's name is missing. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * None of these are worthy of their own articles and should be merged into this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you view them not worthy just tag for deletion, all of the contents of the pages come from here. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The content was COPIED from the Yer-2 article in the first place, so it isn't a merge (unless there is more content), just change to re-directs--Petebutt (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)!!


 * Some of them have their own infoboxes, and/or their own specs lists, so they do have some new content overall. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Specs are essentially irrelevant as the policy is for specs for variants should be written into text (where different). Info boxes similarly are irrelevant as any info in them can be incorporated in the text / variant section.--Petebutt (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My point is mainly dealing with attribution, in which the user added to the information he copied. He didn't simply copy text from the main article. We both agree that the split articles shouldn't exist, and that's the main point here. - BilCat (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These should all be merged, as none are notable or that unique in and of themselves, and the small amount of added content will easily fit into the parent article. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)