Talk:IndiGo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | IndiGo has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 12, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IndiGo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence, realise) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | It is requested that a photograph of Head office, Emaar Capital Tower 2, Mehrauli - Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana – 122002 be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Haryana may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Suppression of information relating to December service disruptions
Hello, there has been attempts to suppress information regarding December service disruption on wikipedia across many accounts. This is convenient since IndiGo is in big trouble over the fact, however that does not mean that you get to suppress news. @MSG17 you removed a lot of content claiming "no description in edits" which is verifiably false and then made additional edits to make your edit difficult to revert. @Jetstreamer you didn't even bother to provide reason for reversion. I am leaving this public comment in case this is escalated, until then, I recommend you people and all your friends to discuss changes here before making them on the main article.
Anyone with authorization, can please feel free to recommend protection status relevant to this kind of nonsense. ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I did not remove the content, I moved it to a new article (2025 IndiGo disruption) so that the disruption could be covered more in depth. I should have clarified this in the edit description, for that I apologize. MSG17 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Looking good ^^ ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would recommend you have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:BRD. Danners430 tweaks made 12:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Greetings, I don't sense any good faith coming from you, considering the circumstances I think all my edits have been constructive much like you justify your own reversion of my content that many people use. I also reverted only when necessary, for example to preserve information because otherwise there would be no detail of these incidents. You did not bother to check the talk page before reverting mine. I will not participate in discussion with you personally unless it is regarding improving the article. Have a good day. ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Then you will fail WP:DR. If you refuse to participate in good faith discussions, you shouldn’t be on Wikipedia. This site is built on consensus, not soapboxing. Danners430 tweaks made 12:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Then justify your reversion instead of pointing at the book. I already told you I will not interact with you unless it is regarding the article. ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Quite simple - I’m restoring the version that existed before you started adding the disputed content. Like I said - have a read of WP:BRD. I would also suggest WP:AGF. Danners430 tweaks made 12:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Disputed by whom? @MSG17 claims they forgot to mention moving of content and @Jetstreamer simply silently reverted an edit that I didn't even make. Do you have any issues with it? If so can you please mention? ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- It’s disputed by MSG17 and Jetstreamer. And you obviously haven’t read what MSG17 said above - they split the information out to another article. For the umpteenth time - I am restoring the version of the article that existed before this dispute started. You are the one adding the disputed content - so engage with those editors who are disputing it before restoring your preferred version. Danners430 tweaks made 12:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, understood, (and Jetstreamer hasn't disputed it) missed that while you were throwing WP:CIVIL, WP:GF and WP:BRD at me. Well, I apologise for my part but stand by the fact that there were more constructive ways to address that, no offense. ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- It’s disputed by MSG17 and Jetstreamer. And you obviously haven’t read what MSG17 said above - they split the information out to another article. For the umpteenth time - I am restoring the version of the article that existed before this dispute started. You are the one adding the disputed content - so engage with those editors who are disputing it before restoring your preferred version. Danners430 tweaks made 12:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Disputed by whom? @MSG17 claims they forgot to mention moving of content and @Jetstreamer simply silently reverted an edit that I didn't even make. Do you have any issues with it? If so can you please mention? ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Now, given you seem to have focussed in on me - perhaps you could also look at the other editor who is replying to you above my message? Danners430 tweaks made 12:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Quite simple - I’m restoring the version that existed before you started adding the disputed content. Like I said - have a read of WP:BRD. I would also suggest WP:AGF. Danners430 tweaks made 12:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Then justify your reversion instead of pointing at the book. I already told you I will not interact with you unless it is regarding the article. ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Then you will fail WP:DR. If you refuse to participate in good faith discussions, you shouldn’t be on Wikipedia. This site is built on consensus, not soapboxing. Danners430 tweaks made 12:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Greetings, I don't sense any good faith coming from you, considering the circumstances I think all my edits have been constructive much like you justify your own reversion of my content that many people use. I also reverted only when necessary, for example to preserve information because otherwise there would be no detail of these incidents. You did not bother to check the talk page before reverting mine. I will not participate in discussion with you personally unless it is regarding improving the article. Have a good day. ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- @~2025-38811-01 I’ve already left a notice on your talk page about edit warring. You quite correctly started this discussion - so now start discussing instead of edit warring. Danners430 tweaks made 12:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
I simply stated WP:NOTNEWS and still believe the added information is irrelevant to the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Disruption
Pinging @3Daxial2424 - per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. So that paragraph still requires sourcing, which right now it isn't. Also courtesy pinging @Johnj1995. Danners430 tweaks made 10:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Danner. I previously added a citation for the paragraph but someone suggested me to link to the main article. I article about the disruption has further links to support the information. 3Daxial2424 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Really both are ideal. What I would personally do, is have a sub-heading in the Incidents section about this event, and summarise in a couple of sentences what happened, with citations. Then place a "Main" hatnote in the section with the link to the main article. Danners430 tweaks made 11:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I will do that soon 3Daxial2424 (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- While you are working on that, I will add the article to the see also section. Feel free to remove it after you, or anyone else, adds that. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I will do that soon 3Daxial2424 (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Really both are ideal. What I would personally do, is have a sub-heading in the Incidents section about this event, and summarise in a couple of sentences what happened, with citations. Then place a "Main" hatnote in the section with the link to the main article. Danners430 tweaks made 11:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm surprised that 2025 IndiGo disruption is even a standalone article. I'm proposing its merger to here. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I kind of think it does merit a standalone article, as described below. Danners430 tweaks made 11:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Proposed merge of 2025 IndiGo disruption into IndiGo
- 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.
- Consensus seems to be to keep it separate and let it survive or be deleted on its own merit --10mmsocket (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
This is just a bit of history of IndiGo. There's no need at all for it to be a standalone article 10mmsocket (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I feel as though it's significant enough to merit its own article, as it's a well-covered event in the airline's history. The article is well written and well sourced, and just needs a "main" hatnote in IndiGo. There's precedent for such articles existing too, such as 2022 Southwest Airlines scheduling crisis - indeed the IndiGo crisis resulted in a larger number of cancellations than SouthWest's meltdown. Danners430 tweaks made 11:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: The article is well sourced, and the incident is significant enough for its own article, considering the news coverage. Merging it here while giving it its due weight would result in a very large section just devoted to the disruption. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The stand-alone article will end up deleted for failing WP:NOTABILITY and per WP:NOTNEWS.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think letting it fall on its own (lack of) merit is a good point. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2025 (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.
Spelling error in the "Services" section.
In the "Services" section, the sentence which describes IndiGo Stretch, has the word "flight" spelled as "fligts". Please make the appropriate corrections. ~2025-42880-93 (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Done please use {{Edit semi-protected}} next time Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
