Jump to content

Talk:Qinetiq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operations - examples

[edit]

I am an employee of QinetiQ and do not think that the examples given under operations (Cerberus, SURVIVE) present an accurate picture of the range of QinetiQ's work. A few examples that would be of more interest to the wikipedia user are:

- more than 2,000 of QinetiQ's Talon robots have now been deployed to Iraq an Afghanistan most of which are being used to locate and remotely disable roadside bombs

- QinetiQ's SPO stand-off threat detection system has been sold to the US Transportation Security Administration for use at American railway stations and airports (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article3181926.ece)

- QinetiQ's Zephyr, solar powered unmanned aerial vehicle recently flew for three and a half days - an unofficial world record for longest duration unmanned flight. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2608943/Solar-powered-spy-plane-breaks-flight-record.html)

A significant amount of our income come from services not products so if product examples are used it is also worth making this point for clarity.

Shall I edit the examples?

David J Bishop (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Bishop (talk • contribs) 12:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

minor POV

[edit]

Certain paragraphs sounded like corporate spiel

eg: "QinetiQ solves defence and security problems that involve science and technology. For example...." Reworded this slightly to sound more encyclopedic

Feel free to disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarBreeze (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Share price

[edit]

Article mentions that Qinetiq shares dropped to £2.05. Is it worth noting that they reached £1.88 within weeks, lest people think that £2.05 was where they settled down at? Ojw 16:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some early cashing-in of profits must have taken place. But, it would be of interest to find out who might have profited from the sale: the Executive Chairman, Sir John Chisholm, clearly did. But what about Carlyle Group people such as Sir John Major, George W. Bush and the rest of the Bush entourage, the New Labour cognoscenti and, perhaps, Graham Love and Dame Pauline Neville-Jones?Phase4 20:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyle Group (33.5%), UK MOD (61.8%) Own staff (4.7%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.50 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

A clean up tag has been added to the article without explanation. I have removed the tag until a justification is produced.Phase4 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article reads more like a press release, and I question its neutrality mercator79 08:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QinetiQ companies

[edit]

Is QinetiQ-TIM actually a company in its own right, or is it just a Business Group/Brand name? DI Ramekin 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Qinetiq-trans.png

[edit]

Image:Qinetiq-trans.png 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 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 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New clean up & update (June 2009)

[edit]

A refresh of this article is currently taking place. Please take this opportunity to add any expansions and updated information.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastney Controversy

[edit]

It would not be proper for me to contribute on this topic but I feel that it deserves to be mentioned. It is a dispute with a city council, local residents and beach users which has been dragging on for years, which Qinetiq have recently escalated, and which they could easily have avoided.

Malcolm.boura (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. Consensus is to move, there being no consensus to except this article name from WP:MOSTM. Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


QinetiQ → Qinetiq — MOS:TM: use normal capitalisation for trademarks. ENeville (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - QinetiQ Group PLC is the actual registered name of the company, the capitalised second 'q' is not merely part of the trademark, it is part of the legal name of the company. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "QinetiQ" is used by the company, and in most sources; "Qinetiq" is less common, but still frequently used (and in several results in the first page of a Google News search ([1][2][3]), and it isn't CamelCase, as the capitalisation isn't for separate elements or syllables of the name. Companies House uses upper case for all company names, and it is unclear whether company names are officially case sensitive - is there a way to determine what the official version of the name is? Peter E. James (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QinetiQ Group PLC is the name format used in the audited annual accounts: [4] Rangoon11 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the readability of Wikipedia, not the format of a commercial registration of a name. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) specifies, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"[...] avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS." ENeville (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So from a readability point of view, it makes sense to use the formatting which is generally used for that company's name, which is "QinetiQ". David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - it absolutely makes sense to follow Wikipedia's long-standing MOS guidelines as quoted above, not to make a seemingly arbitrary exception. In any case, much of the media do not use "QinetiQ" as a rule - here are examples from the BBC, PA, the Telegraph and the FT all with the "Qinetiq" usage. Mark this down as a Support for the move. Gr1st (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:MOSTM: "Choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner", and "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". Standard English would write "Qinetiq", and there is no good reason to depart from this, which I think makes it an open-and-shut case. The argument that the formal name includes the second cap is very weak indeed: firstly I don't believe that capitalisation features in formal company naming (I wonder how far I'd get if I tried to register a new company called "Qinetiq Group"...?), and secondly, it wouldn't matter if it did: we should still use standard English. What is used in company accounts is no help: such documents will of course generally follow the client's preference. This encyclopaedia is written in standard English, and we don't have to use something else to please any company. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Largest single employer in Worcestershire?

[edit]

Frankly, I doubt it. Where are the supporting figures for this claim? Worcester County Council, NHS, etc, I suggest, are much larger employers.194.72.120.131 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At peak times there were 5,000 employees on the site - at least when Pale Manor was still included. Nevertheless, such a claim needs a reliable source otherwise it's plain WP:POV. It's certainly the largest employer in Malvern and that should be easily sourceable from the town or district council. --Kudpung (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Per the arguments below, it appears that the lowercase version is used by reliable sources and therefore there is no need to make a MOS exception. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qinetiq → QinetiQ – WP:MOSTM has absolutely nothing against CamelCase as long it is in common usage, which it is. Nearly all journalistic and government literature uses the company's preferred title. I don't know how that last requested move so blindly misinterpreted policy. See also: aXXo. Marcus Qwertyus 03:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per the reasons I gave in the previous discussion, and the fact that this is the most common name. Per InterContinental Hotels Group, NTT DoCoMo, FedEx, MetroPCS, RealD, ACARM-ng, VeriFone.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Common usage. I'm not sure that the previous RfM really reached a true consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per MOS:TM Camel case is a judgment call, and I judge it okay in this case! (reflects general usage)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs)
  • Support (withdrawing support; see discussion below) – if Qinetiq were at all common in sources, we'd choose it because that's more English like. But sources overwhelming capitalize the final Q (which I wouldn't call CamelCase), so we should use that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I agree with Dicklyon that this "QinetiQ" is not CamelCase, because the change in capitalization does not signify a new lexical element. However, given that it's not CamelCase, I don't see how we can justify using it at all. Powers T 23:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    CamelCase is not exclusively for joined compound words, but for all cases of "inner capital letters", or any word that contains capital letter/letters other than the first. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about words; please don't misrepresent my argument. What I said was "lexical elements". In this case, what I mean by that is that the capitalized "Q" is not pronounced as, or intended to be interpreted as, a separate element. That makes a purely decorative (rather than semantic) use of medial capitalization, and thus should not be considered a CamelCase exception to our usual MOSCAPS guidelines. Powers T 02:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lt, MOS:TM says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." It looks to me like "Qinetiq" would be inventing a new style; if it were in use in any moderate percentage of sources (say 10%), then it might be justifiable. But it's not, as far as I can see. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BBC, Telegraph, Financial Times... Looks like it is in use, by some very reliable sources. Powers T 12:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen both used by the Telegraph e.g. [5], [6], [7].
And by the BBC, e.g. [8], [9].
However I'm not sure why we need to look at just two or three outlets when the majority are clearly using 'QinetiQ'.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the fact that both are in use means that ... both are in use, so using "Qinetiq" is emphatically not "inventing a new style", as Dicklyon suggested. In fact, it's an established style that, while less common, better fits our internal style conventions. Powers T 15:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to change FedEx to Fedex? Or MetroPCS to Metropcs? It seems that policy is firstly vague, and that a particular interpretation of that policy is sometimes being rigidly being applied with little interest in what works best for WP readers. FedEx is a much better known company by consumers and Fedex would be far more quickly challenged by readers on the article talk page. This company is much lower profile so it can sit on the current name with less challenge. It is faintly ridiculous nonetheless.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because in those cases the capitalization is used to indicate that a new lexical element is being introduced. The terminal capital Q in "QinetiQ" is nothing but ornamentation; it carries no semantic or lexical meaning. Powers T 17:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Powers, I take your point. We do sometimes take the threshold for things like "in use" at below 5 or 10%; for example, 10% lowercase is good evidence of term not being "consistently capitalized in sources", so we go with lower case; and 10% en dash instead of hyphen is good evidence that in styles that distinguish, the en dash is probably correct. To be consistent, I should probably interpret MOS:TM with a similarly low threshold; "the majority" that Rangoon11 refers to is not relevant here. So I withdraw my support; but I think I'll remain neutral and see what others converge on in this case. I'm not worried about Fedex and Metropcs being issues, as I don't see those in any reputable sources, and the caps are largely required there to indicate the separate lexical elements, unlike the stylized Q in QinetiQ. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The percentage here is unknowable however. I think we would all agree that QinetiQ is by some margin the most "common" name, but trying to ascribe a percentage to that is essentially impossible. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think nobody disputes that QinetiQ is "most common", but that's not what MOS:TM suggests we go with. I agree that it's difficult to quantify percentages, which is why we have criteria like "in use"; judgement is required. Dicklyon (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; more accurate and more common name. I don't see any particularly strong reason, here, for internal wikipedia norms to overrule real-world usage. bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see this as a case of CamelCase but rather stylistic. The general definition of camelcase requires that it be inner uppercase letters and/or a compound word in which the elements are joined without spaces; This case is neither and thus entirely stylistic. I might be on board if there was phonetic reasons (e.g. it was pronounced "kineti cue" not "kinetic") but that's not the case. So, I oppose on basis of MOS:TM--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hacking Scandal Neutrality?

[edit]

They report at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=27c_1367474517 seems to present some very damning evidence of how bad QinetiQ's problem has been with their entire computer network being compromised for years to hackers. The article here seems to go very easy/light on QinetiQ, almost as if it was written by them for damage control. Is there a bit of a biased tone and a lot left out in the section about the hacking scandal? It has been a huge topic within all of the DoD and a major concern, so it's hard for me to read the section in this article as being very neutral.... or is it that is deserves its own article not part of this page? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.97.32.36 (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qinetiq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qinetiq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qinetiq&oldid=1209921569"