Talk:Project Sunrise (Qantas)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: no copyvio; seems like a useful addition; 'development' section possibly too detailed and overly specialized for most readers

Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The development section was basically copy/pasted when it was split from this verson of Kangaroo Route. The content is good but the page as a whole definitely needs better formatting and dividing into subheadings (which should be fairly straightforward). Washcarso0708 (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Washcarso0708: I actually forgot that the 'feedback' would end up here on the Talk page formatted as it is, but then, where else would it go, right? Probably would've been a tad less terse had I remembered that. Certainly didn't intend to be impolite. The article definitely merits further development (+galley of images, +infobox, +more about the design—which is my jag, mostly). "The flight lasted 24 hours and 24 minutes..." seems ripe for a WP:DYK hook too—if you are of a mind to pursue such trifles and amusements (e.g., ... that Qantas set a new long-haul passenger flight record of 24 hours and 24 minutes with it's Project Sunrise?), or something like that. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

A gallery (or even just a single image) would be great, but there don't seem to be any public domain or free-use images available yet.

As to an infobox, none of the articles in Category:Airline routes seem to have one... I don't see anything suitable in Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Transport. Any suggestions?

When you say "More about the design", what are you looking for (that would belong in this article rather than the aircraft article)? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, to be more specific, I meant industrial design and technologies used in this case scenario (not simply the generic A350 long range aircraft). See this, this, and this for example. I also saw some pretty technical things somewhere about ergonomic research with an Australian university (I can try to dig deeper at some point too, but I'm not really available at the moment). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

PS: There's heaps on the Qantas site too. We could probably just drop this one in an "External links" section. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, nothing seemed impolite. I thought I should inform any future readers as to why the current formatting is the way it is, and that it'll need changing. I'm also eager to find some images (although there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain as of yet), potentially set up an inbox (if theres a good template), etc. Once the page comes together a little more I think it'll make a great nomination for WP:DYK, thanks for that suggestion. All the best, Washcarso0708 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a time limit for DYK nomination (either 7 or 10 days from publication—depending on where you look). Also, once it's nominated, you can continue working on it making all the tweaks and improvements you like until the cows come home (which is about how long it takes to get from a nomination to mainpage anyway... sometimes). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I wasn't all that familiar with how WP:DYK actually worked. I'll work on getting the submission in. Washcarso0708 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems like a steep hill at the outset (because it is, TBH). The Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination tool is quite well made. If you don't have to do a WP:QPQ review (which you won't if you've nver nominated an article), it's actually a cakewalk. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I've found someone potentially willing to upload their photo of the test aircraft to Commons (perhaps tomorrow at some point). Washcarso0708 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a great thread, huge props to all for improving this article out of its infancy - this is great if possible to have that CC0/wikicommons photo, I had the same thought and hunted high and low and could find anything remotely related that was on wikicommons or otherwise CC0 available...I agree this would be a great improvement....lots of great edits in last 24 hours, I'm very impressed DigitalExpat (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you check Flickr? I've found some good (and some not so good) things there in the past. This tool can be helpful (when it works). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Nomination for WP:DYK

As @Cl3phact0 suggested, the recent world record flight should make a promising nomination for WP:DYK (the "Did you know..?" section on the main page). We need a "hook"; I've come up with a couple: Did you know...

• ... that Qantas and Airbus set a world record for the longest flight as part of Project Sunrise at 24 hours and 24 minutes, surpassing a record held for over 21 years?
• ... that a Project Sunrise test aircraft surpassed the record for the longest flight, lasting 24 hours and 24 minutes in the air on a flight from Melbourne to Toulouse?

The source we'd likely go with is

Farrer, Martin (29 July 2026). "Qantas plane flies for more than 24 hours in record-breaking flight". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 July 2026.

I'd love to hear feedback/suggestions before we nominate. Not quite sure how much info to include, since it needs to be short and catchy. Washcarso0708 (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The hook would need to highlight the distance record, because the record for longest time airborne by a commercial passenger flight is held by a Double Sunrise, at over 32 hours. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Is that one a commercial flight? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yep – unlike this week's test flights. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The Guardian article says: "Qantas completed what is believed to be the longest-ever commercial flight when its Airbus jet landed in Toulouse on Tuesday after a flight from Melbourne lasting 24 hours and 24 minutes..

Couldn't we use ... that Qantas set a new long-haul commercial flight record of 24 hours and 24 minutes with it's Project Sunrise? (The 24h 24m bit has a nice symmetry that might work well for DYK. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

How about ... that Qantas and Airbus set a record for the longest flight by a commercial airliner, covering 23,075 km in 24 hours and 24 minutes on a test flight for Project Sunrise? At least that remains totally factual. Shame we can't use "almost 24,000 km" for even nicer symmetry, as I guess that would be stretching it a bit too much! Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice. (23,075 is closer to 24,000 than it is to, say 20,000. Depends on how we're rounding.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

PS: You could probably get away with "nearly 24 thousand kilometres in 24 hours and 24 minutes". -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to whether the Consolidated PBY Catalina is an "airliner". I don't think I would consider it one, but I'm not sure how broad the definition is. Washcarso0708 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The 24 - 24 - 24 angle might render that moot (a seaplane flying over Japanese territory during WWII notwithstanding, this isn't really a like for like comparison anyhow). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Why would a seaplane not count as an airliner? ~2026-42264-33 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Lindberg's solo 1927 transatlantic flight (approx. 5,800 km) was "over 33 hours"; the Double Sunrise flights were "between 27 and 33 hours" (approx. 6,630 km), and carried only a handful of passengers (3 on average) and "152 pounds (69 kg) of essential mail." A bit of a stretch to compare either of these to a nearly 24,000 km flight by a modern jet airliner. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Lindbergh's flight wasn't a commercial service, nor was this test. The endurance record set by the Catalinas back in the day still stands for commercial services, and likely will remain so. The time aloft is impressive for the impending Project Sunrise flights, but distance is where it will exceed all others, not time aloft. The contradictory Guardian headline is the stretch here, and not the Double Sunrise as a commercial scheduled airline service with the widely recognized endurance record. While a DYK is nice, lets not muddy the waters. How about just sticking with facts and and recognized records, and not doing any compensatory stretching. It is an impressive achievement, but it isn't a record setter, yet. ~2026-42264-33 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't question any of what you say! Apples, oranges, lemons—I still like the 24 - 24 - 24 angle (record or not, there's a good hook lurking nearby). How would your DYK hook read? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably not the right place for this discussion either—however, the Double Sunrise documentary film makes the claim that, "In 1942 Australia was isolated. A few brave aviators flew top secret flights for up to 32 hours to reconnect Australia to Britain." This hardly seems like a "commercial service". Perhaps we should be looking at the accuracy of the wording in our Double Sunrise article and elsewhere. Apples, oranges, lemons. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking a totally different approach to avoid specifying the record that has been set, how about:

• ... that the most efficient route for Qantas's Project Sunrise non-stop flights from Australia to the UK will sometimes pass over the North Pole? (sourced in the article) Rosbif73 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This conversation might be best continued in an actual DYK nomination (it already looks a lot like the kinds of discussions one finds over there anyway). It's easy to propose a primary hook and several alternatives (e.g., w:Template:Did you know nominations/Anke Gowda). The folks who do loads of DYK work should be able to give helpful advice and guidance. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I was going to suggest you go ahead and make the DYK nom, but I see that per WP:DYKSPLIT this article doesn't actually qualify for DYK unless we can expand it fivefold from the pre-split version (which seems unlikely) or get it to GA status. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that you have misunderstood how DYK works—this may be considered a new article by their rules (I found it while doing WP:NPP). In any case, you could ask there. They're very generally thorough. I won't be making the nomination as I just made a nomination and don't feel like doing a new QPQ review at the moment (which you would be exempt from). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 and Washcarso0708: See discussion at DYK. It appears that the article is eligible (though the nomination should be made ASAP). The hook would need improvement too, but this can be done after the nomination is submitted. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: Is there some reason that you don't want this article on DYK, or are you simply being ultra-cautious about the DYK rules? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way. DYK isn't something I've ever taken much interest in (I tend to do wikignome-type editing). I read the rules, realised that it wouldn't be eligible, and moved on. On the other hand, if I've misunderstood and if the article gets nominated and accepted, I won't have any objections! Rosbif73 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Piped links vs. See also

@Rosbif73: Not sure why you seem to prefer piped links to a stand alone "See also" section for Longest flights (or even if the two need to be mutually exclusive—in this case, MOS implies we could probably use both), but I'm not going to fall on my sword over it either. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not so much that I prefer piped links, it's more that I added the piped link in the lead and then noticed that Longest flights was in the "See also" section. MOS:NOTSEEALSO tells us that [a]s a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. I guess that using a piped link could conceivably justify making an exception to that general rule, but I don't really see the need – though I won't revert again if you feel strongly about this. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this (or anything). You have indeed identified why I thought that both might be desirable (i.e., we are using piped links rather than the term "Longest flights" in the text body). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)