Talk:Qinetiq

message: 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)
thread_title: Operations - examples

message: 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)
thread_title: minor POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Share price

message: 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)
thread_title: Clean up

message: 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)
thread_title:  QinetiQ companies 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Qinetiq-trans.png

message: 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)
thread_title: New clean up & update (June 2009)

message: 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.
* http://www.eastneybeach.org/cms/index.php/news/37/61 will give a good starting point.
* http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Anger-as-beach-is-closed.6147302.jp Latest in the local paper.
* Today Qinetiq have started to prevent access to land which they may not even own.
Malcolm.boura (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastney Controversy

message: :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)
replies: text: QinetiQ Group PLC is the name format used in the audited annual accounts:  Rangoon11 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Largest single employer in Worcestershire?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hacking Scandal Neutrality? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121206015151/http://special.defensenews.com/top-100/charts/rank_2011.php to http://special.defensenews.com/top-100/charts/rank_2011.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407120625/http://www.oscamtools.com/ to http://www.oscamtools.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified