Talk:Transient luminous event

Weather Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Transient luminous event was copied or moved into Upper-atmospheric lightning with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was nominated for merging with Upper-atmospheric lightning on 18 February 2009. The result of the discussion was Merge to Upper-atmospheric lightning.

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 this article into Upper-atmospheric lightning Darkest tree (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting the content of this article and simply making it a redirect to Upper-atmospheric lightning. The upper atmospheric lightning article has much more information about the same phenomena. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this has been ignored(?), but I would agree with the redirect. Vsmith (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, almost a year and no objections, and I agree with the redirect also... —Will research for food (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.61.18 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would strongly recommend that before redirecting this article, that it be carefully scanned for any useful information, and make sure it is transcribed into the other article, so nothing is lost. Once that is done, a hopefully non-controversial redirect could legitimately take place. As an alternative, the article could be sent up to deletion with the up-front recommendation to merge and redirect, where the merit of such an action can be debated by a wider audience. I do have once concern though. According to the other article, the preferred or more common name of the phenomenon being described is this article: "The preferred current usage is transient luminous events" - so I wonder if we have the redirect suggestion backwards, per the Article Naming Policy. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should be redirected to Upper-atmospheric lightning. I don't think any of the content on this page isn't repeated practically verbatim in Upper-atmospheric lightning, but it's worth a careful check before the redirect is carried out. Regarding the naming of the phenomenon and T-dot's suggestion that maybe we have it backwards, that comment makes sense, but I think in keeping with WP:NC it would be better to keep the plain-language article title on Upper-Atmospheric Lightning, which is certainly a more accessible name for most readers than "Transient Luminous Event." Also since the Upper-atmospheric lightning article is so much better developed, it seems this one could be safely redirected to it.204.108.16.159 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, redirect is a good idea. It shouldn't be controversial as long as all the content from this page is in the Upper-atmospheric lightning page, which it looks like it is.Darkest tree (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe now to declare consensus, given the above and lack of any further objection in 8 months. I'm going to start implementing the merge. Please also see the discussion on Talk:Upper-atmospheric lightning#Notification: Discussion to merge/re-direct to this article... Darkest tree (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.