Talk:Transient luminous event

Proposal
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)


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


 * 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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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 Darkest tree (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)