Talk:IndiGo: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do:

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, a contentious topic. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. 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.

The two Airbus A321-200 of IndiGo are the cargo version Airbus A321-200/P2F.
IndiGo does not operate the passenger version A321-200.
The Airbus Orders&Deliveries document states, that IndiGo has two “A321ceo”, because the document does not differentiate here into the passenger and cargo version. WikiPate (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a ref for that? – Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Indigo-active-a321.htm

The only shown A321-200 are P2F – the cargo version.

IndiGo states its passenger aircraft types on its own official website:

“IndiGo operates the Airbus A320 CEO & NEO, the A321 NEO and the ATR 72-600 aircraft.”

https://www.goindigo.in/travel-information/en/aircraft-and-routes.html

No A321-200 for passenger transport stated.

The Airbus Orders&Deliveries document shows passenger and cargo aircraft. Regarding IndiGo: Two stated “A321ceo” minus the two A321-200P2F cargo planes equal zero for the passenger version. Another example of a cargo plane in the document is the A330 of Wizz Air. WikiPate (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that is useful to cite. – Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the fleet section not list the 777s they have flown since last year? Mirza Ahmed (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No wet-leased aircraft in lists per WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST.–Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looking good ^^ ~2025-38811-01 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:BRD. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@~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)[reply]

I simply stated WP:NOTNEWS [1] and still believe the added information is irrelevant to the article.–Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]