Talk:HAL Tejas

Wikipedia policy
We have a clear WP:CONSENSUS here, supported by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, that these deals are in the past. Wikipedia's policy is unequivocal. Any deals still open may be added to the subsection currently headed "Potential operators", provided they too are supported by WP:CITING SOURCES which are reliable and directly support the claim. There is no need for either side to pursue this discussion further. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A propos of this, the US bid is an exception, in that it appears to be still officially ongoing. If nobody objects, I will move it to "Potential operators". &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. The US bid stood out to me as I could not find any sources stating it was officially rejected. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I think that meets the consensus view of how to handle this here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

is the plane count correct?
well I highly doubt that the number in service in not up to date, also about the mark 1a. I could be wrong please someone check Experience31 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To change this we need to be able to cite a reference. Do you have one? See WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Designer
this edit asserts that chief designer is not appropriate as the Designer in the infobox. I do not think that view is tenable. All aircraft of any size and complexity have a team of designers, led by a designated Chief Designer. For example the Supermarine Spitfire had many such, working variously on the wings, the fuselage and so on. R. J. Mitchell was its chief designer and unquestionably gets the credit as "the designer", but others such as Joe Smith and Beverley Shenstone contributed substantial design work too. So I'd suggest we restore the Chief Designer to the infobox here. I agree with the editor concerned that a project leader is not appropriate. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The Designer parameter is chiefly for aircraft with only one designer, and rarely two. That has been the standard since the aircraft infobox was developed in the mid-2000s (decade). There are some rare exceptions, such as R.J. Mitchell and the Spitfire, but this isn't intended to be emulated. BilCat (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, is that relevant here? The article currently states that "Kota Harinarayana was the Programme Director and Chief Designer of Tejas". What other designer do you have in mind? Secondly, where do you get your assertions about lone-wolf designers from? You are wrong that the Spit was a rare exception, I chose it as an example only because it is well documented. With all major aircraft manufacturers and projects one talks of the "design team" (or in the Soviet Union the "design bureau"), and it is customary to reference the head of the team as "the designer". This has been the setup for every company I can ever remember reading about - Supermarine, Blohm & Voss, Junkers, Airspeed, de Havilland, the list goes on and on. Is there some consensus here for aircraft infoboxes to break with convention? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * BilCat means a singular designer, not a head or chief designer. This is not new or anything; it has been in the aircraft infobox going back to the mid-2000s. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm also referring only to the mention in the infobox, not in the articles text. This is probably better discussed either at WT:AIR or Template talk:Infobox aircraft type. (It's your choice as to which venue you'd rather use.) If the consensus changes to allow chief designers and/or project heads to be added to the infobox, then that's fine with me. BilCat (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks both of you, I get it now. There is clearly much abuse of this parameter out there, so I have opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox aircraft type. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Bias against Tejas and non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section
It has come to notice that the Failed bids tag is deliberately added to aircraft's from Non American/Germaany/British nations. There are no failed bids tags in General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet or In Eurofighter Typhoon page its called Sales and Marketing. These aircraft's participated in Indian MRCA competition and failed to win. So why no mention of many such failed bids in any of these pages? Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II don't have it either. Only pages for Tejas, Mig-29, Gripen, Rafale have such a failed bids section. Admins care to explain why this bias? Mifiin (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Add to thatBAE Systems Hawk that don't have failed bids section.Mifiin (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Add to that Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Lockheed C-130 Hercules Boeing AH-64 Apache don't have section called "Failed bids" Its astonishing the kind of bias being pushed against non U.S/UK/German aircraft's. That too by Admins.Mifiin (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See Eurofighter Typhoon procurement for lots of detail on "failed bids".
 * Same for General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operators - for both these articles it's due to article size, requiring sub-articles.
 * Details of failed bids is in the Future and possible users section of Boeing AH-64 Apache.
 * An aside, but you seem to misunderstand the role of "admins". Please read Administrators which goes into detail of how administrators have been granted the ability to perform certain functions, they do not have any more say in standard article content than any other user.Mark83 (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC) * edited Mark83 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to summarise my point - the fact that there are failed bid sections in some US/British/European aircraft articles shows there isn't a systematic bias as you claim. There is inconsistency, but that's a discussion that could be had without another ill-tempered rant from you. I realise you have challenged other users for using that word, so just to confirm I am happy with that characterisation of how you've chosen to go about this. Mark83 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But still after all that lengthy explanation. As pointed out, even after months "None of the American or British fighters have "Failed Bids" section added". Exposes the deliberate Bias existing in Wikipedia. Mifiin (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No one really cares. BilCat (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For sure. None of you Admins care, because the likes of you are here to spread your bias. Tejas is a success. And we dont care a damn about the likes of you sitting here and spreading propogadanda.Mifiin (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting disruptive. - ZLEA  T \ C 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Especially since, as is noted above, most of those articles have separate Procurement or Operators articles that do cover failed bids. That isn't because of biases, but because the articles became to long to manage easily. At 200 kb, this article is twice the recommended length, but the relevant sections aren't that long, so it would need a different solution. Such a solution would be different than that employed on US or British fighter articles, whereupon the OP could return to cry "Bias!" again. BilCat (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not Bias, it's because countries don't want to buy the Tejas. RXFire1 (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as if the likes of you are the ones sitting and deciding on decision. Procurement of military gear take years of negotiations. Probably decades. Take any such procurement. Its common in military. Your opinion is zilch. Tejas is a success. Its variants are also getting build. The complete military aviation Industry in India has taken off. The likes of you can only peddle lies and propaganda. Today we literarily don't care a damn about what you propagate though Wikipedia.Mifiin (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No need for personal attacks. If you can't be civil with editors who disagree with you, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is too big!
As this article is too big (and has some unnecessary technical details), hence, I'm planning to trim it down. If anyone has any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Echo1Charlie The variants of Tejas include Mark 1, Naval, Trainer, Mark 1A and Mark 2. Some details of these variants are duplicated into two sections including Development and Variants. A lot of details are in the Development section and I think these details should be moved down and included only in the Variant section under different subheadings. Thank you. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
Change the following line from the Operational History, subsection Failed Bids, under the Argentina heading. The line as directly quoted from the section "including possibly substituting the ejection seat with one ingeniously developed and manufactured in India." to a more neutral and accurate "including possibly substituting the ejection seat with one indigenously developed and manufactured in India." That is all. 12.176.170.162 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ - ZLEA  T \ C 18:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)