Talk:Qantas

FAC Recomendations

OK. With the recent FAC nomination I put in for Qantas, I have had some recomendations (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Qantas) I am willing to make most of these changes myself or for anybody willing to help, I would apprechiate it. If I have no response for supports, opposing or anyone willing to help by November the 2nd, I will start making these changes immediatly by myself. I am doing this so Qantas will be a FA one day soon!

Please reply on my talk page as well as here. Aflumpire 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't Touch

Please do not any major edits to Qantas in the next few days while this is a FAC. I have a limited internet connection at work and none at home for a few days. If any major changes do want to be made in the next few days, please place a comment on my disscussion page. I will notify on this page when I have completed the major upgrades.

Aflumpire 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Go on editing as normal. I just got my internet back and its to late. Sorry everyone. Ill try to get it up to FAC standard in a month or so. Keep looking in this space for more info later down the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflumpire (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Img cover sept.jpg

Image:Img cover sept.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 787-8

The article mentions Qantas are receiving 787-8 and 787-9, the 787-8 are going straight to Jetstar and shouldn't be marked down for the Qantas fleet. --Goldwing 5000 (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Incidents....

In the last day there has been revisions done by people who suggest that some recent events are notable or not notable to be added to the page. Personally I dont think that events such as the rejected landing (VH-OEJ at LAX) where no serious damage or injury occurred are really worth adding to this page. The other recent incident at Darwin involving 717 VH-NXE however, I think is worthy as the aircraft sustained damage and may or may not still be too damaged to repair (I might be baised as I added this incident to the page!) Please add your opinons here instead of undoing peoples revisions etc.... Andrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazkal (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• From what I've read (NT News, Nine News Darwin and ABC NT) when I was in Darwin the cost to fix (Media have stated that Qantas doesn't want to scarp the aircraft so they don't damage there record[1]) which will cost more then the cost of a new aircraft but the problem is Qantas hasn't said much therefore it could be media hype and the incident is still being investigated so we should wait for an outcome before adding it to the article[2][3][4], Same goes for VH-OEJ in LAX. For all we know it could be a tyre issue or something failed in the cockpit therefor it's just if's and could be's. I do believe that the VH-OJM from London to Bangkok should be left if it can be expanded. I've looked for some guidelines for Airline companies but yet to find it but if anyone can point me to the page it would be great! :) EDIT: Photos of the damaged VH-NXE -- Bidgee (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The accidents and incidents that were removed are not notable, not injuries, not serious damage or did not invoke a change in procedures with a wide effect. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Boeing 717 VH-NXE turns out to have been damaged beyond repair then I think it would be significant in the context of Quantas as it would be their first 'hull loss' incident involving a jet aircraft. Given today's incident it might be a case of 'wait and see' 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

VH-NXE was repaired and is flying again. The damaged beyond repair was used by 2 media outlets who didn't check their infromation. For QF30 please see the bottom of the page. Also QF30 will be repaired. Bidgee (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aeroplanes

Somebody has added an asterisk linked to the Airbus A340 page in the middle of the sentence, "Although Qantas did not choose the Boeing 777-200LR, it is rumoured that Qantas is still looking into buying aircraft* capable of flying Sydney-London non-stop." This is Ridiculous.--Goldwing 5000 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The Fleet section also says Qantas does have 1 A380 with 20 ordered, they do have 20 ordered but currently don't have one.--Goldwing 5000 (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd oldest airline

can this be substantiated or qualified or cited? At the moment it flies (no pun intended) in the face of the linked article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. The "world's third oldest airline" refers to an airline that is still operating today. Have a look at the table again. Qantas is thirded by KLM and Avianca. However, according to the reference that is actually cited, Qantas claimed that they are the world's second oldest airline. http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/FactFiles.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvjs (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my interpretation of the sentence as cast that came to that conclusion; the qualifying element being right at the end. I may try a rewriting of that bit.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

KLM have some claim to have been operating longer under the same name - albeit they are now a subsidiary of a parent company. The KLM article doesn't state though when they adopted the name/what they flew as initially, and the statement there isn't sourced. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here in the UK, Qantas are currently running a TV ad campaign with the slogan "the world's most experienced airline", which explicitly says that the "more than 87 years" it's been operating is longer than any other airline. There's no on-screen small print qualifying the claim! 86.132.139.133 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflation of Qantas fleet numbers

A discussion has been created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers in regards to inflated numbers being used for Qantas (and some other airlines). If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do so at that link. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

April Incident

I have removed the 8 April incident twice as not particularly notable against the WP:AIRLINE guideline, I could be wrong can the IP user who keeps re-adding it please explain its notability. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Landing or Taking Off

The picture entitled "Boeing 747-400 landing at London Heathrow Airport" seems to be a picture of a 747 taking off; given the aircraft's attitude and the partly retracted position of the landing gear. I note that his has been recognised before by the photographer but the wikipedia entry itself hasn't been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.223.161 (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where has it been acknowledged by the photographer as a taking off picture? Mvjs (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont think it needs to be acknowledged, nose up, not much flap and landing gear retracting - all thing you dont do when landing. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

QF30 Incident

I do not feel that the QF30 incident meets the notability criteria for accidents and incidents as per WP:AIRLINES. It was not a hull loss or any serious damage beyond economical repair. Not a single passenger was injured. It certainly pails in comparison to the QF1 runway overrun. There are two other discussions on this very page about similar incidents. We could include the numerous 747-300 incidents that have occurred but we don't. Under this rationale, I have removed this from the page. Mvjs (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not notable. It just happened today and as all media does like with the Darwin, NT jet[5] (Which has been fixed and is flying again) which was buckled it only lasted a few days then died off in the media. No one was killed or serious injuries, the aircraft wasn't lost nor did it crashed and is repairable. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I guess I agree with you. It's just the exaggeration of the media. Jackelfive (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment in the Accidents and Incidents section to hopefully prevent it being added again. Mvjs (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Qantas Flight 1 should remain on the page as it was the most serious accident in more recent times. Jackelfive (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 30 has an article created. Nachoman-au (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Please feel free to put in your two cents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 Mvjs (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not nominate AFD's so soon after an article's creation. CapnZapp (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't tell an editor what to do. Bidgee (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just like there was a minor problem with the landing gear but a large chunk of the plane just blew open and debris started flying inside! IT is very serious! They said that some of the ceiling and floor fell in! That is serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Debris could have injured someone but it didn't, I've heard nothing of the ceiling or floor falling in. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If the ceiling and floor fell in people would of definitely been injured (if not killed). People are getting sucked into the media hype. It makes a good story to attack the impeccable (before someone says something, yes, Qantas had fatal crashes before the jet era but there has not be a single jet fatality). Mvjs (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the news and most sites do say that passengers said that some of the floor in the aisles fell in so people could see the cargo hold. Also, in first class some of the ceiling came down but not on people. It is quite serious and I think as serious as the QF1 incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as serious as the QF1 incident. The above comments are you have made are rubbish. The only why you can see the hole is outside the aircraft. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The airlines project guidline says incidents should be included if "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport." Why does a 2.5 x 3m hole in the hull blown out by probable explosive decompression, combined with internal floor and ceiling collapse not count as "serious damage"? Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The incident fails both basic notability guidelines and WP:AIRLINES notability guidelines. Despite current media coverage as the event has just occurred, there is no evidence to prove that this event will have long-term notability, which is the real determinant of including such an event in the section. I have requested semi-protection for this article to prevent the edit warring between anon users. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and unless news coverage continues into the future and over and beyond the context of simply this piece of aircraft falling off, there's no reason to mention it in the article as a major incident. There's no indication that this has resulted in hull loss or that this is permanent damage to the aircraft. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone: I don't have an opinion either way, but I will note that if people keep reverting each other blindly, I'll protect the page, probably to the version you don't like. Work something out here, stop with the "rubbish" comments, and come up with something reasonable. --barneca (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that at this moment the incident is not notable. The image of the hole looks like one panel has come of (original research!) it is todays news and in the general scheme of thinks will disappear of the front pages. It could be notable depends on the cause it could be an explosive device or just some piece of equipment that had an serious unexpected event! I think we should wait from including it as all will be a lot clearer in a few days time. An encyclopedia is not todays news it has an infinite life it and we can wait for reliable information and sources on which to make a judgement. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. My opinion is that this incident is notable, due to the relative infrequency of in-air incidents and the severity of the damage. There was significant damage to the hull of a major commercial aircraft sustained while in-flight. If it were something simple such as an instrument broke off I would agree that it is not notable, but this was a very serious event that could have been much more catastrophic. I fly 4-6 times a week and enjoy reading about these incidents. I would hate to have this piece of history stripped from Wikipedia. Thoughts? Benace (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read this first Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also early days to know what the cause is and it's not the most significant damage since other B747 and even B737 have had worse damage then QF30 so at this point of time it's not notable. Media are using this to sell papers, make money from online ads and to get ratings. Bidgee (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ths incident, however, should be notable enough to include in the article as an incident...but once everything about this incident is known. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed but ATM it's not notable without facts (Since the media are not the AATSB). Best to wait for the AATSB to release it's report (Should be a month or two away) for the facts of the cause and not the media. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you call this incident "Serious"? Yes, it was a 2-metre hole, but remember, this is not a Cessna we are talking about, this is a 747. if you look at the photos that show the whole plane, you can barely see the hole. Jackelfive (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see the hole (2m is big but not major) but the hole in the area outside the aicraft is bigger. and these [6] new stories now makes it more "Serious". Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Strong Keep - This is highly notable because explosive decompression had occurred, similar to United Airlines Flight 811. It shouldn't require the tragic death of a passenger for a catastrophic incident to be included! Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 17:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As per my comments over on the AfD discussion, this incident satifies WP:NOTE and for that matter WP:AIRLINES. It satisfies general notability because despite the glut of media coverage, we are getting through this a range of sources - photographic evidence from inside and out, video footage on board after the emergency descent, numerous first hand passenger accounts, accounts from airport officials and statements from both Qantas and the ATSB, who have presently tagged it as a Serious Incident. Similarly regarding the WP:AIRLINES criteria, there was serious damage to the aircraft. It's not just a fairing falling off, but a significant rupture in the aircraft skin causing an explosive decompression. Even if it's repairable, it's serious damage. Clearly a mention of the incident in the relevant sub-section of this page is quite appropriate. -- Rob.au (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wait for the facts - my personal opinion is that this incident will probably prove be noteworthly, however at the present time, any conclusion that this was caused by explosive decompression is original research as the official AASTB investigation has not been concluded yet. The facts are more important in an encyclopedia than the timeliness of adding the entry. So in a month's time when the report is published, all the conjecture will be removed, and the press coverage will have calmed down enough to review this entry objectively. PS: I take a very dim view of editors that fail to reach consensus on this page before changing the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• This should be put up because it has International media also it is a incident. This clearly needs too be put up.Sparrowman980 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to put the link back now. The article has developed, and is notable. The article was put up for deletion within minutes by an Australian who is interested in Aviation and lives in Melbourne. This plane is just plain lucky it didn't break up and kill everyone. Anyway, the argument AGAINST this link is due to the argument that the QF30 article is not notable. It is, look at the AfD page. It is now just Keep Keep Keep (although that will probably change once Qantas Fans read this paragraph). The incident isn't going away, and is not part of Qantas' history and safety record :). The other argument against the link is that the article only has 2 references. Now it has 18 references, front page / headline news everywhere as well as being a serious incident. Also note that if anyone decides to delete this I won't bother to re-add the link (but everyone knows it will become part of this article within a week!) Buckethed (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted as I found a warning (which is of course not binding) in the actual article. Buckethed (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By ignoring the message and re-adding it you are simply taking part in the edit warring that caused this page to get protected. Your conspiracy arguments are also not based on WP guidelines that justify adding the incident to the page. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• The heading of this article is 'Aircraft Incidents and Accidents'. This is without doubt an incident, regardless of how it's covered in the media. People are applying rules and procedures at the expense of interest and completeness. A three metre hole appears in the fuselage of a commercial jet while in mid air, leading to decompresion and a rapid descent. How can that not be an incident? Maxxy35 (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Explosive decompression of an airliner is extremely rare but very serious. This is likely to be of ongoing interest. The regulators and industry will certainly do a full investigation - treating it just like a fatal accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpixie (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to keep it up?I believe still it is ABSOLUTELY worth it.Sparrowman980 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 is and take the appropriate action. It's looking increasingly likely that it will be a keep. Mvjs (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• In light of expert wikipedian opinion (User:MilborneOne, etc.) articulated on the article's request for deletion page, I decided to be WP:BOLD and re-introduce this incident, now appropriately sourced and linked to latest findings, to the article. It is notable enough to be mentioned, despite local patriots' campaign to hide it from readers. --Mareklug ^talk 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it Quantas?

There is no 'u' in Qantas! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CupO'Shit (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The word Qantas derives from the acronym for "Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited". Although the name was originally QANTAS, it has since been changed to Qantas, as it is no longer used as an acronym Mvjs (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you consider it to be an acronym? It is. (PS, I did not vandalise the page, I only added a simple question. All other changes were not mine.)--Dmol (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The name was changed from QANTAS, an acronym for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited to simply Qantas, no longer representing Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited. Mvjs (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is one of the features of the English language, the word has long since lost its use as an acronym and over the decades has just become a word in its own right like Radar or Laser or even Scuba. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Qantas does not fly to North Korea

on the map of destinations it has a spot for North Korea. There is no way Qantas would ever even consider flying there, so this is an error someone please fix it.

I think it's supposed to be Northeastern China, perhaps to signify Beijing and Shanghai. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Qantas declining quality?

I think that an article about how Qantas may be declining its quality (with offshore maintenance of aircraft) should be included. I remember seeing in the news that a Qantas aircraft that was checked by Malaysian Airlines was found to have about 95 defects that the MA engineers had not picked up. I know that the media may be bashing up some articles - I saw an article title regarding the Qantas domestic flight which the landing gear door wouldn't close saying that a Qantas door opened in flight - but hydraulic failures, explosive decompressions don't happen every day and I know that some incidents are only brought to media attention because of the recent incidents but Qantas is definitely beginning to decline in its quality and regarding those safety scares all Qantas says is "There was no safety issue at any time".Wjs13 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not all QF aircraft are serviced overseas. The 747-400 involved in last Saturday's diversion to Manila was serviced in Australia as confirmed by Qantas head of engineering, David Cox. All the talk of poor safety and maintenance standards by engineering union officials are just to mislead the general public. Most of the overseas maintenance organisations maintain aircraft for other leading airlines such as Lufthansa & Singapore Airlines which use the similar facilities without being accused of being unsafe. These organisations are also certified to meet Qantas and met CASA regulatory requirements. It's true that the heavy maintenance checks are conducted overseas but this has been done since the B707s and roughly less than 10% of the maintenance is done overseas. The other 90% is conducted in country! - Planenut (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Airbus A330-300 Domestic

On the fleet list, it says that the Airbus A330-300 flies non-domestic routes. However, I've been on-board a recent flight that operates daily to Sydney from Adelaide on the A330. I'm going to modify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.134 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this wasn't a domestic leg of an international flight? Mvjs (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did fly on this QF82 flight that operated between international terminals. But this still does count as a flight flying domestically, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.134 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's still classed as an International flight (If it's operated in an International terminal) and what you added is original research. Bidgee (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the general structure for this list is to list the ultimate destinations of the flights, not simply a domestic leg that continues onto the final international destination. Mvjs (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent incidents

Why is there nothing on the recent incidents on Qantas flights, even though they make 15 minutes of Australian news every day? There should be a section added on the recent maintainance issues and emergency landings. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Other then Qantas Flight 30 the other incidents are not notable and it's a bit of an over and misleading statment to say that it makes 15 minutes of news each day. Bidgee (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was reported on the news for fifteen minutes each day, that still in no way makes it appropriate for Wikipedia, infact it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Mvjs (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A section on "media hype" might be good, highlighting the media attention following the March explosion that Qantas received (and continues to) over every minor delay.--Nick??? 03:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not notable and Wikipedia is not a news site also media hype has nothing to do with Qantas as a airline. Minor delays are just that and do not belong on Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a section on media hype given the amount of news theres been recently absolutely minor things, and the absolutely long shot style links between a minor event picked up during routine inspection and major events (such as Alaska Airlines Flight 261)Harvyk (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hype is just that (Hype) and doesn't belong here! Flight 30 is the only notable incident thats happened the rest are not since minor incidents don't belong. Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added in a section on current media relations. I agree that hype does not belong here, however at least in the Australian media we have seen an unusually high amount of mainly sensationalist reports. Whilst the contents of the reports are unimportant the fact that the media (especially news limited) seems to be on a crusade against Qantas is. As such I have written a section on this fact referencing the articles.Harvyk (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

and I removed it based on that Wikipedia is not news, only minor incidents making it not notable since it hasn't changed anything in the airline industry, and media hype doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia. Bidgee (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not adding in the hype, I'm placing in a section on the fact that the media is having a really good go at Qantas right now. At this point in time the media is virtually reporting on every minor incident as if it was a major event, and yet basically ignoring all other airlines in the process. This is tall poppy syndrome on behalf of the media. I agree that my writing may not have been at the highest quality (I'm certainly not a copy writer or anything like that), but I encourage someone else to fix up this section. I think it's something that should be noted, given that it's media "events" like this that can ruin a company.Harvyk (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the section across to Qantas Flight 30, as that was the catalyst and a undesirable result of the incident.Harvyk (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, there's been another 8 minutes of Qantas hubbub on the news today. When was the last time in history when ELEVEN (yes ELEVEN) planes have been grounded in 3 weeks? Yes, Wiki is not news, but don't you see this as significant? Surely there should be a (tiny tiny) section with a concise list of events. Just look at the 2008 South Ossetia war page - perhaps a list of events, in dot points, such as on that page, would work? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes wiki is not news, but this many events and this sort of media attention is highly unusual. How many times has you plane been delayed? I once had a delay of 4 hours due to a fault with a plane, and yet that never made it to the news, and yet a half hour delay caused by something been picked up in a pre-flight inspection is headline worthy. This is what should be included the fact that unbelievably minor events are headline worth right now.Harvyk (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but a delayed plane is not notable. I've been stuck before (24 hours is the longest) but its just not notable even if I sourced it well (If I didn't it would be breaching WP:OR, WP:NPOV just to name a few). Bidgee (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RECENT, why not wait a month or so. If the media is still going on about it then it's worthy of inclusion. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I personally couldn't care less if a Qantas plane was delayed for 12 hours, that's is now news, it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, and it shouldn't be a headline in the media either, however the news outlets right now seem to think it is. I don't want to have a listing on every thing that has gone wrong with a Qantas plane over the last few months, as with exception to the QF30 incident, every single other issue is so unbelievably non-newsworthy it's beyond a joke. The important detail is that the newspapers feel we should be told about even the most minor details right now, regardless of the facts. The articles which these newspapers are writing are poorly written, they are often making major mistakes, sometimes even contradicting themselves in the same article, and ensure that emotive words such as "plunged" and "feared for my life" makes it into the headlines. For a period there news limited was running a negative story on QANTAS every day, if there was no event (such as a delayed plane) that day they'd remind it's readers about QF30. What I think needs to be included in wikipedia is the fact that the media is currently having a field day at Qantas's expense, with little research done (such as the type of plane in an incident changes sometimes multiple times, sometimes to types of planes which Qantas doesn't even own). This is something which is damaging the QANTAS brand, and that's according to Geoff Dixon.59.167.251.161 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)