Talk:Chandigarh Airport

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Chandigarh workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Chandigarh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Chandigarh or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New Airport

The New Airport opened in April 2011, and some new flights have actually been placed on this page. Shouldn't the destinations information on this page be shifted, and the tenses changed therefore? --MJLRGS (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge... Trinidade (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Since both pages basically describe the same airfield, I propose the merger of the Chandigarh International Airport with Chandigarh Airport. The airfield will obviously continue to be under the MoD, with only a larger international terminal and its associated aprons and taxiways being under the AAI as a civil enclave. ICAO and IATA codes too wil remain the same. Hence it makes no sense to have to separate articles. Trinidade 15:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge I see no point in having two articles for the same airport. A new terminal is not a new airport. Mangalore Airport got itself a new terminal some ~13km away from Bajpe, but it still is the same airport. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Chandigarh International Airport into Chandigarh Airport. The airport has not been renamed yet ([1]) and it just happens to be having a new international terminal.— Abhishek  ^Talk 12:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chandigarh International Airport. 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/20170428052950/http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/Mar2k17annex3.pdf to http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/Mar2k17annex3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170428050942/http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/Mar2k17annex2.pdf to http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/Mar2k17annex2.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/Mar2k17annex4.pdf

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) 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Chandigarh Airport 1.jpg
• Chandigarh Airport 2.jpg
• Chandigarh Airport 3.jpg
• Chandigarh Airport 4.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding adding direct destination

@LeoFrank:@Andrewgprout:Chandigarh Airport - Airlines and Destinations - Vistara - It operates direct flight from Chandigarh to Kolkata via Delhi without changing anything as UK 707 and even airline’s website mentions the same. Please refer to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content - Body -> Airlines & destination — Point 7) List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Since UK707 operates IXC-DEL-CCU without any change of aircraft, flight number and passengers getting off plane. Also, you should look at FlightRadar24 data to confirm the same https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/uk707

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/uk706

Update : UK706 operates - CCU-DEL-IXC & UK707 operates - IXC-DEL-CCU using A321N.

649pardeep (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure how or why but flightradar24 is not a reliable source (if I'm correct). Plus according to the source I given (https://www.airvistara.com/in/en/where-we-fly), there's no direct flight to Chandigarh but instead they make a stopover in Delhi. And, if you missed this: However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Vistara hub is in Indira Gandhi International Airport so yeah. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply: You can verify FlightRadar24 on other platforms that FR24 is indeed reliable source. I agree with that point too but in this case UK707 and UK706 - there is no change in aircraft, no change in flight number & passengers does not disembark from plane. As per that point - airline continues with same plane to other destinations that is right but here in this case there is no change else you can reach out to Vistara twitter team for the comment. 649pardeep (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

We can't rely on WP:OR FlightRadar24 to demonstrate anything. I do not see how FlightRadar24 will demonstrate passengers do not disembark anyway. (The fact the plane doesn't change doesn't tell us what passengers do unless the timeframe is too short for disembarkation. In the past and I expect this is still the case, even on a direct flight you were force to disembark at Melbourne when travelling between KL and Auckland. Either because Melbourne required it to try and help their duty free outlets or as a safety measure during refueling.) And I'd note that you'd need to look at the FlightRadar24 over weeks for this to be even useful. Ultimately though, even if you do somehow do all that, it's still be OR, so useless. A tweeted reply isn't a reliable source either. Also while the guidance gives the fact these often involve plane changes as one reason we exclude such information, it doesn't say it's the only reason, and in particular does not say we can include the information if the plane doesn't change. I think you need a very strong reason why we should ignore the advice not to include flights between from one spoke city to a domestic hub and then onwards to another spoke city. I have almost no experience in the area but IMO if you can demonstrate the passengers cannot disembark in Delhi, this is probably enough since it means this is basically a flight between CCU to IXC. However you'd need good sources for that, not OR from FlightRadar24 (or travel agencies etc), nor a tweeted reply. And to be clear, I mean "cannot" rather than "do not". The fact some passengers do not disembark is a different thing since the advice on the Wikiproject that it inflates the destinations, often changes, etc still applies. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I had travelled last year during my visit to India and my family does travel with same same schedule and vice versa. I personally experienced on this flight and I know that is also not accepted to prove. Idk what else other then reaching out to Vistara through email since verified tweet from airline is not accepted or FR24. 649pardeep (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion declined: There are now more than two editors involved. Since the dispute primarily seems to concern interpretation and/or application of a WikiProject style guide, it is likely relevant to bring it to that WikiProject if outside help is required. See also the dispute resolution policy. — LauritzT (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@649pardeep: Nobody here is questioning the reality of flight UK707. The question is - should it be reflected in Wikipedia the way you want. For it to be added you would need sensible references clearly detailing what you want added without synthesis, original research and personal experience. And more importantly have a good reason to not take the WP:AIRPORTS advice detailed in bold by Cornerstone2.0 above about the caution needed with apparent direct flights via hubs. Wikipedia is not a directory it is not necessary nor desirable to list every possible flight in these lists. I honestly wonder whether this is the best way to generally reflect the flights (its sphere of influence) available from an airport but this is the way that has developed over time and this is what we currently have. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrewgprout, I believe the airline's schedule should hold as a good reference for this claim. UK707 does show up as a direct flight. FYI, Vistara lists only direct flights in their schedules. But, there is a point here to note, though I think this reference is sufficient for the inclusion of CCU in the list, the route seems to be effective only for a short period of time, ie, till 30th April.

If the route still comes up for a longer duration, then the schedules page should be sufficient to hold this claim.

I've just copied the snippet here.

36 UK 0707 Chandigarh(IXC) Kolkata(CCU) 15:25 19:35 Daily Delhi 18-APR-2022 30-APR-2022

Cornerstone2.0 tracking websites cannot be used as reliable sources as they do not give the right picture of a route operated by an airline, ie, if it's year around, it's one-off, seasonal or some special flight.

— LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: Ahh, got it! :)) Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Chandigarh Airport → Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport – The official name of the airport has been changed to Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport. – Vsa111 (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

– Vsa111 (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Merge - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/sitharaman-to-rename-chd-airport-today/articleshow/94494154.cms 649pardeep (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with this suggestion. As the airport has a new name, it makes sense to rename the page as Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport Shushruth s (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence this is the WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, given the verbosity it's unlikely it ever will be. See WP:OFFICIAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well said. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Airport renaming

@LeoFrank The airport is renamed with effective November 2, see cited source that you've removed. Please self-revert.

References

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Necrothesp Andrewa LeoFrank The airport is renamed SBSIA. Airport Authority of India as published the notification (which holds 51 percent share in IXC). Here is the article to support my claim. https://www.aai.aero/en/node/301823 649pardeep (talk)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Chandigarh Airport terminal.png
• Jet bridge at Airside of Terminal at Chandigarh Airport.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Of the support in this discussion, one cites the rules of WP:COMM, which is the community portal (?). I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. The next is a comment from a confirmed and blocked sockpuppet about official names, and the only support that's left basically says the same thing as before. In contrast, opposition to the discussion centers around the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and data showing that the current name is still considered common in searches. There is therefore clear consensus against the move that is grounded in policy and data. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Chandigarh Airport → Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport – WP:COMM common name in use now Anubhavklal (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/punjab-govt-gives-approval-for-shorter-route-construction-to-shaheed-bhagat-singh-international-airport-from-chandigarh-510279 . https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/indigo-flight-cancelled-after-bird-hit-during-take-off-from-shaheed-bhagat-singh-international-airport-101687383107982.html . Anubhavklal (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: As per WP:COMM rules.

Jõsé ^hola 07:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Just another Indian government attempt to make everything more verbose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have already shared the links of recent news articles to prove the common name usage. Thsnks to Indian government for what it is doing. There is nothing wrong in it. And Wikipedia is not a forum to oppose or support the government. Anubhavklal (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Two articles do not a common name make. Its own website, and another article still use the old name. Common names do not change overnight and names like this only ever tend to be used officially in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Official name but do keep the old name in the lead to bypass people that may oppose it, if it is not yet the common name. Fayninja (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:OFFICIALNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Closer's note: Struck as comment by blocked sockpuppet. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support : Enough time has passed since the name was updated. Too redundant to keep old basic name of the airport anymore. –JayB91 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Necrothesp. Google Trends data from when the airport was renamed to now does not show a change in the common name, and google hits for the old airport are still many times higher, even when lookng at only results from the past year. – MaterialWorks 17:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.