This article is written in
Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
10:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
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". — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
12:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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? — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
20:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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
Wikipedia: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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. -
ZLEAT\C20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply