DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Qantas

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former featured article candidateQantas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 16, 2013, and November 16, 2020.


Qantas fleet

[edit]

I was wondering about to export Qantas current fleet and Qantas livery in to Qantas fleet page as per Wikipedia splitting there must be atleast 77k bytes but the article size is 150k splitting neededKtdk (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

111.220.64.48 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Mayday and redirect 2023?

[edit]

Hi, not sure how to edit airline articles but can someone add these to the article?

mayday call:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/qantas-flight-from-sydney-to-fiji-forced-to-turn-back-after-potential-mechanical-issue

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-19/qantas-mayday-sydney-airport-auckland-aviation/101869928

https://www.9news.com.au/national/qantas-flight-mayday-call-passengers-no-idea-until-landing/d0cf8bb1-bc9e-46a2-891d-d7981dce927f


mechanical issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/qantas-flight-from-sydney-to-fiji-forced-to-turn-back-after-potential-mechanical-issue Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was hurt in either of those incidents. Neither plane suffered damage. Despite some parts of the media making a meal out of them, I don't think they belong in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for telling! Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing Page Preview

[edit]

When hovering over the link to this page I noticed that the image appears to be of an animal dissection or something similar. I'm not an editor here but it seemed like someone should probably change it. 2A02:C7C:CAAE:5A00:6867:8706:4A2C:72BA (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Which link? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed re-order of sections

[edit]

I propose that the sections "Company heads" and "Corporate affairs" be moved down (and possibly reversed) and located between "Services" and "Accidents and incidents". The rational for this is two-fold: first, that the flow of the article would be more natural (i.e., History, Destinations, Fleet, Design, Liveries, Services, Corporate affairs, Company heads, Accidents and incidents, etc.); second, the general reader, in my view, is probably more interested in the company's history, destinations, and what it does (rather than, say, the information that an investor, financial analyst, or business journalist would be interested in finding – and, with all the respect in the world, if those folks are only looking here for that kind of information, they might want to consider another line of work). Before making a relatively significant change like this, it seemed like getting input from others might be wise. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored section order per above. Propose moving "Cabin" and "Services" up too (e.g., Fleet; Cabin; Services; Design, hospitality, and lifestyle; etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived refs not used in the article

[edit]
  • "World Airline Directory – Qantas Airways". Flight International: 63. 3–9 April 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2014. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  • "World Airline Directory – Qantas Airways". Flight International: 80. 1–7 April 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 February 2018. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
  • "World Airline Directory – Qantas Airways Ltd". Flight International. 149 (4517): 75. 3 April 1996. ISSN 0015-3710. Archived from the original on 1 February 2014.
  • "World Airlines – Qantas Airways Ltd" (PDF). Flight International: 38. 18 May 1972. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
  • "World airline directory – Qantas Airways" (PDF). Flight International: 1394. 28 April 1979. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
  • Learmount, David (5 December 1987). "Qantas safety and monopoly (page 21)". Flight International. 132 (4091): 21 –&#32, 24. ISSN 0015-3710. Archived from the original on 27 December 2012.
  • "Qantas safety and monopoly (page 22)". Flight International. Archived from the original on 27 December 2012.
  • "Qantas safety and monopoly (page 23)". Flight International. Archived from the original on 27 December 2012.
  • "Qantas safety and monopoly (page 24)". Flight International. Archived from the original on 27 December 2012.
  • "World Airline Directory – Qantas Airways". Flight International. 155 (4670): 94. 31 March – 6 April 1999. ISSN 0015-3710. Archived from the original on 20 October 2013.

Sunnya343 (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

[edit]

A series of back and forth edits (starting here) resulted in the partial removal of the entire list of awards. This seems a bit extreme. Qantas have obviously invested a lot of time and effort in research and design, and the outcomes of this (including resulting awards) seem like an aspect of the company's activity and history that ought to be chronicled here somewhere. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: My mistake, this has been partially reversed (although I'm not sure what criteria we're applying for which awards are listed). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Qantas Frequent Flyer January 2024 Edit

[edit]

Hi Editors,

I noticed my recent edit on the January 2024 Qantas Frequent Flyer changes was removed with the rationale "WP:NOTRAVEL applies." I’d appreciate clarification on how this applies here, as the edit documented a factual program update, similar to previous entries covering the 2008 overhaul and Woolworths partnership changes.

The cited article provides a detailed breakdown of these changes and was also referenced by The Guardian, reinforcing its relevance. It is strictly factual and focuses on the updated points requirements and their impact on program members. While many mainstream media reports primarily restated details from the Qantas press release, this analysis contextualises how the changes affect redemption value, a key aspect of the program that has not been widely covered elsewhere.

If sourcing is a concern, I’m happy to adjust the wording or supplement the citation with additional references. I’d appreciate any guidance on how best to align this with Wikipedia’s content policies. Thank you. RedemptionStrategistAU (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTRAVEL is not concerned with the factualness of content (that's a topic in a different policy), or notability per se, rather it is a component of Wikipedia policy about what content is considered encyclopedic, and this policy in particular runs through a list of things that are considered to be not encyclopedic. In this case the editor highlighted the section on travel guides. In this case you appear to be referring to the addition of a single sentence, ie. "In January 2024, Qantas announced changes to its Frequent Flyer program, including increases in the points required for many Classic Flight Rewards". I would tend to agree with the other editor that the changes to the program seem to be user guide content in nature and don't rise to discernable non-guide significance in this article. Does it really impact what the airline is today? Does it impact the airline's history? The airline's place in the world? To me - no, it doesn't. To be honest, to me the entire QFF paragraph with its current wording has WP:PROMO issues and could use a re-write, if it isn't just pared back to the main article link. I note you made virtually the same addition to the Qantas Frequent Flyer page - your reference here to the Woolworths connection is relevant only on the other page. -- Rob.au (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Appreciate the clarification regarding WP:NOTRAVEL and noted on the Woolworths reference, apologies for the confusion.
I don't seek to add back in the citation that was deleted, however I would like to raise some queries about how relevance is applied in this entry.
Given Qantas Loyalty is a major part of the airline’s commercial strategy, contributing significantly to revenue, I believe that major changes to the Qantas Frequent Flyer program (the first in six years) meet guidelines for inclusion. While I take your argument that more detailed frequent flyer specific details belong on the dedicated page, structural changes with broad financial and consumer impact seem relevant for brief mention here, as seen in other airline entries.
I'd also query that there are inconsistencies in how promotional versus substantive content is being determined in this entry. Currently, topics with a clear marketing angle are included, many of them citing the Qantas Newsroom. Examples are: Qantas’ Cellars in the Sky award, the launch of a Qantas branded leisurewear line, and its 25-year partnership with Neil Perry. I question the relevance of covering Qantas decision to switch its inflight magazine provider from Bauer to Medium Rare a decade ago. These inclusions appear to fall under WP:PROMO, as they primarily highlight brand initiatives rather than providing encyclopedic value. If these types of updates remain, it seems reasonable that a structural change to Qantas Frequent Flyer would also meet the threshold for inclusion.
From a citation perspective, some might argue that Qantas-sourced information on Frequent Flyer changes should be prioritised over third-party sources. However, per WP:PRIMARY, company-issued statements are not independent and often present a promotional slant. Since Qantas' coverage is not impartial and lacks external analysis or consumer impact perspective, third-party reporting aligns better with WP:NPOV and provides a more balanced reference. This is consistent with the existing entry, which already includes multiple citations from third-party commercial aviation and travel websites. This is consistent with the listing already citing multiple third party commercial aviation and travel websites.
I agree that the QFF section could be improved, particularly given the significance of Qantas Loyalty within the airline’s operations. I have updated the membership figure today using Qantas' Annual Report as the most recent, direct source and am open to further refinements to ensure the section aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and relevance. RedemptionStrategistAU (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been awhile since I've reviewed the entire article, and you raise some good points I agree with. I had a bit of a walk through the talk page archives and the edit history of the page, as well as looking at the article pages of a few of Qantas' major competitors, and my view is that the "Services" and "Design, hospitality, and lifestyle" sections have significant issues with respect to WP:PROMO, so for now I've added maintenance tags accordingly. I can see this tag has been applied a few years back and at some point just got removed without any discussion and an unenlightening edit summary. I don't particularly think the awards are notable either, but this does seem to have been the subject of some discussion already, and similar appears on other articles, so I'll accept that is what it is even though I agree with you.
I don't agree with you on the point of the FF program changes having "broad financial and consumer impact", and I'll note that other airline articles I looked at generally have separate articles for them and only have a very brief mention of each airline's FF program. In the case of Singapore Airlines, the body of the article doesn't mention it at all - there's just a link to the KrisFlyer article in the Infobox. So I stand by my original view that if it has a place, it's on the other article, not the main airline one. Rob.au (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, we could add that PROMO tag to "Awards" and "Liveries" sections too. The fact is, most companies now invest in making their products and services better through good design (or at least that is the stated intention). They appoint chief creative officers, chief design officers, etc. Design is part of differentiating one company or brand from another (amongst other things), and is often rewarded with various awards, so it's not clear how we can discuss this activity or the recognition of successful outcomes without inadvertently promoting it in some way. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Same could be said for "Promotions and sponsorships" sub-section (vis-à-vis the PROMO tag). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already noted above that I'm not a fan of retaining the awards section, I just accept that there appears to be a consensus among Wikipedia editors that those have a place on airline pages, so I'm not going to die on that hill. If someone else removed that section, I certainly won't put it back. Re the "Promotions and sponsorships" my thoughts are the same. Re the liveries section, I understand your argument, but I don't agree - the article focuses on special liveries that have some level of Wikipedia:Notability, not generic branding, so I don't feel it crosses that line. Granted, the "Retro roo" part is a weaker argument, and the sponsorship liveries are probably not WP:N level. Rob.au (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cite parameters

[edit]

@Trappist the monk why are you repeatedly (and against WP:BRD) removing perfectly valid url-status parameters from citations? Danners430 tweaks made 21:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came to Qantas because of this broken template which placed the article in Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter. I fixed that.
As part of my normal cleanup, I also fixed MOS:CURLY violations, hyphenated an ISBN and |accessdate=, and deleted unnecessary |url-status=dead parameters.
You reverted me and in your next edit, rebroke the template (in a different way).
So, I came back and fixed that template. In doing so, I refixed the MOS:CURLY violations, rehyphenated the ISBN, an again deleted the unnecessary |url-status=dead parameters. I also fixed another template that I had not previously noticed.
|url-status=dead is unnecessary. Examples, first without |url-status=dead:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://example.com |archive-url=https://archive.org/ |archive-date=2025-08-26}}
Title. Archived from the original on 2025-08-26.
and now with |url-status=dead:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://example.com |archive-url=https://archive.org/ |archive-date=2025-08-26 |url-status=dead}}
Title. Archived from the original on 2025-08-26.
Compare the renderings of both templates. Note that the renderings are exactly the same. |url-status=dead serves no real purpose other than to clutter the article wikitext. That means that |url-status= should only be used when it can make a difference in the article rendering: |url-status=live, |url-status=unfit, |url-status=usurped. There is a special-case exception: |url-status=deviated. It does not change the default rendering (|archive-url= links |title=) but serves as a flag to editors that while |url= may be 'live', it no longer supports our article's text.
Have I answered your questions?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a couple of points to make. Firstly, if there’s a specific reason you’re making the edit, perhaps that should be in the edit summary. If you’d said something like “fixing typo in parameter” we’d be a lot closer to understanding what was going on. As it is, both of your edits had an identical and rather generic edit summary, so nobody has any clue what’s going on beyond tweaks to citation templates.
I obviously have no problem with fixing genuine cite errors (that one eluded me on this occasion). But why does the ISBN need hyphenated? Is there any mention in the MOS that it should be, or is this something that needs incorporating into a template update?
As for the usage of the parameter, I have to disagree - it does have a use beyond the rendering, that being to inform editors unambiguously that the source has been manually tagged as dead. No bot that I know of tags sources as dead, so the presence of that parameter with that value tells an editor that someone else has already been here and it’s known that the source is indeed dead. If the parameter is missing, it’s entirely possible that the source is still live, and a diligent editor has added the archive as part of their editing, but neglected the status parameter.
Put simply… not having the parameter introduces ambiguity for editors, while having it there removes any ambiguity. Danners430 tweaks made 22:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The unambiguous indicator that |url= is dead, is the presence of |archive-url= because, when present, |archive-url= always links |title= unless that default condition is overridden by |url-status=live. |url-status=dead in the presence of |archive-url= is just redundant clutter because is does nothing. See my examples above, and for completeness, this, which uses |url-status=live:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://example.com |archive-url=https://archive.org/ |archive-date=2025-08-26 |url-status=live}}
Title. Archived from the original on 2025-08-26.
Note the difference. Here, |url-status=live selects |url= to link |title= (overrides the default) and serves to unambiguously indicate that |url= is live.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above - many editors, including myself, add archive links to cites as a matter of course, regardless of whether the source is live or dead. Occasionally when we do that, we (including myself) forget to mark the URL as live. I’m sorry, I fundamentally disagree that the simple presence of an archive url in the cite is enough to unambiguously mark the url as dead. That’s not to say I think the templates need changing, this is about information for editors. Danners430 tweaks made 06:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters hack

[edit]

I added a couple of sentences about the Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters hack, but it was reverted by User:Jetstreamer.

In 2025, a cybercrime collective known as Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters (combining members of Scattered Spider, Lapsus$, and ShinyHunters) demanded payment to avoid publishing personal information from about 5 million Qantas customers, which had been extracted from a Salesforce database. Qantus declined to pay the ransom, and the data was leaked in October 2025.[1]

I think it's appropriate to add, since this article is about everything to do with Qantas, the company and airline. This incident has been widely reported, at least in Australia, and has affected millions of people. It's easy to imagine that somebody may have consulted the Qantas article to refer back to it (as I did), and the text I added gives links both to the relevant hacking groups and a news report which gives more details. ghouston (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC) ghouston (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas retiring

[edit]

Qantas is retiring A380 in 2025 111.220.64.48 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2025

[edit]

Change "Shybed" to "Skybed" under Awards for the 2003 Good Design Award Squawk9889 (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kelly, Cait (11 Oct 2025). "Hackers leak Qantas data containing 5 million customer records after ransom deadline passes". The Guardian.