Talk:Upper-atmospheric lightning/Archive 1

message: This article was created to allow expansion of the  section located in the lightning article.  The knowledge of the phenomena is becoming better known and documented requiring more room to allow proper expansion. As can be seen :ja:レッドスプライト other languages have started separate sprites articles.  EnviroGranny 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! The lightening article definitely needs to be broken up.Joelholdsworth 14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, support is good as editors sometimes get cranky and over-protective when articles break up. EnviroGranny 14:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article creation

message: Forgive the lame reference to the card game of bridge...
I re-read section 2 "Shuttle Challenger" of this Talk Page and found the following comments:
#"saying that a sprite may have been a cause and stating that it was once considered a potential cause are very different things."
#:Yes, we should be careful to say "it was once considered a potential cause" rather than "it may have been a cause".  The first asserts far less than the second and we should not advance a theory if no reliable source does so currently.
#::Even saying "it was once considered" is unacceptable without saying WHO thought that and providing an attribution and reliable source.  That's the crux of the matter here. Dicklyon 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing the bidding 

message: I hate to even suggest this after so much effort has been wasted (um...I mean) spent on the Columbia photo and associated text.  
However, almost all of this text is duplicated in the Lightning article and about half of the content of this article is not about sprites per se but about blue jets and elves.  This suggests that this article is at least a content fork if not a POV fork of Lightning and may not have a reason for independent existence separate from the Lightning article.  Alternatively, it could suggest that this article should be renamed Upper-atmospheric lightning and expanded while the "Upper-atmospheric" section of the Lightning article is reduced to a short summary.
Opinions?
--Richard 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you are correct.  Lightning has separate subsections on sprites, blue jets, and elves, and this article is almost totally duplicative.  I'd support a merge proposal, which is easier than an AfD. Dicklyon 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article over to allow expansion, see the first entry on this talk page.  The Lightning article has become to large and lacks room for expansion.  EnviroGranny 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I see you posted a talk item to that effect on April 21, when you made the new article.  A split proposal would have been a good idea, because now we don't know what the consensus is and might do a merge proposal to find out. Dicklyon 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As I review the article contents, I think I agree with EnviroGranny that there's plenty of scope for a good article here, beyond the scope of normal lightning.  But a lot of work is needed.  Both ligthning and this one are sorely in need of sources to make their contents verifiable.  I marked a section and a bunch of statements that need sources.  I'm willing to help find them if others will cooperate, too. Dicklyon 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what do you think of renaming this article to Upper-atmospheric lightning, then?  My point here is that this article is only 50% about sprites and, if it were not for the Columbia stuff, it would only be 25-33% about sprites.  --Richard 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with renaming it, summarizing the information in Lightning, and providing a link here to get more detail. Generally, when people think "lightning", they are thinking of the stuff that hits the ground, not upper-atmospheric phenomenon. Wikidan829 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD, merge or rename? 

message: I posted this on User Talk:EnviroGranny, but then he objected on my talk page to my posting there, threatened to report me for vandalism, and said to bring it here instead.  So here it is (I removed it from his talk page): Dicklyon 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assume good faith

message: This is a poll to gain group consensus on whether we should "Keep" or "Remove" the image. 
*Keep - The image reflects the occurrence being discussed and is relevant to the specific section of the article. EnviroGranny 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Poll

message: Hi. I've had a nice chat with the photographer, and he denies Wikipedia permission to use the photo. I believe that means it should not be re-added to the article. I also believe the fair-use rationale is invalid; we are not analyzing the work, but using it to illustrate an article. And honestly, given our sources suggest that this isn't even a sprite, the link to this article on sprites is tenuous anyhow. Thanks, William Pietri 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally! Thanks for your research. Can we clean up this mess now? ;) Wikidan829 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm all for it. From his talk page I believe EnviroGranny has been blocked for 24 hours, so perhaps we should give him time to respond here before we call this closed. William Pietri 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed Wikidan829 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission denied to use photo 

message: Based on the SF Chronicle article that someone pointed out above, which said NASA did investigate the photo by hiring a sprite infrasound expert, I added that info and the ref.  And I pruned some other refs.  This little section still has four refs, which should be plenty, and it now says what EnviroGranny wanted to say, I think, which is that NASA took seriously the sprite possibility, if briefly. Dicklyon 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dick, this shows commendable dedication, but in the end I believe that the shuttle section lacks evidence of significance.  Sprites are reaosnably common, space shuttles less so.  A section on danger to high-altitude aircraft, if it could be referenced, would undoubtedly be good. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guy, if you look above, you will see that it's in question whether this separate article for sprites is even legit. Please feel free to add to the discussion above. Wikidan829 13:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  To JzG, as space shuttles are less common than sprites, so are space shuttle disasters. Columbia was a huge event in American history, which I believe is enough to prove significance. Wikidan829 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sprite photo is mentioned in the Columbia disaster article. That should suffice. NASA has considered the dangers to the shuttle from all forms of lightening, as well as hail, jet stream winds, birds, frost, thunderstorms, fog, and just about any other conceivable natural threat. I wouldn't be surprised if there was consideration of crew flatulence. None of these topics need a section on risks to the space shuttle and neither does this article.--agr 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the whole section gone, as it proved to be little to do with sprites. It might still be a good idea to mention that NASA has investigated the threat that sprites pose to aircraft and spacecraft, but preferably not via one of those articles where the SF Comical was hyping the shuttle photo. Dicklyon 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shuttle update