Talk:Lightning/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Lightning. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nitrogen

This article does not have a part about lightning and the nitrogen cycle. Where can I find such information? Or just add some information in the article.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just google "lighting and hydrogen" and you will find stuff like this. Richerman (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000 should do his own research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White909090lightning (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not accurate

The article talks about the religion of the Bantu tribes. There are hundreds of Bantu languages and ideas need not be the same for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White909090lightning (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Colors used to denote polarity in undermentioned illustration are not conventional.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Leaderlightnig.gif/220px-Leaderlightnig.gif

The negative leader from the cloud is presently red, conversely the positive leader from the ground is blue. Automotive transport convention and almost universally RED signifies POSITIVE, and BLACK or BLUE signifies NEGATIVE. The negative color choice seems to be fairly flexible but the red for positive is almost set in stone (in my experience.)

I have not checked yet if there is an article on wire color coding. A short note for anyone who may start one. In 3 phase electricity one convention is to use RED, WHITE, and BLUE for live (above ground) phases and BLACK for the NEUTRAL. Considering the USA standard for 2 phase supply 115VAC - NEUTRAL - 115VAC (where the 2 115VAC lines have 230VAC potential between them) use RED for 115VAC, WHITE for NEUTRAL, and BLACK for the other 115VAC line, and considering the use RED and BLACK in DC systems, persons working on unknown systems should be aware of these possible pitfalls. Ecstatist (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Bolt from the Blue

Currently the page both describes a 'bolt from the blue' as a name for clear-air lightning [which I believe to be correct], in the main text, and as a name for anvil-to-ground lightning in the anvil-to-ground photo-caption [which does not make sense to me]. I'm not going to make the edit unless there's actually two trends to the usage, but I think it's likely to be a joke or error of some kind. 65.95.145.103 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is both. "A bolt from the blue", a metaphor for something coming out of nowhere, originally comes from a lightning strike from a blue sky. However, in the science community, it is also used to describe anvil-to-ground lightning. The reason for this is that anvil-to-ground lightning is a lightning bolt which develops "over" the thunderstorm cloud (in the blue), and travels generally straight down through the cloud and then strikes the ground, creating an anvil through the cloud. "Cloud to Ground" lightning isn't Anvil lightning. That strike comes from the cloud itself, not above it. You may be confusing the two. If you'd like to make an edit, you can word it so that it educates the reader that the term is "also used to describe".... I am not part of the science community, so you better check my facts, however, I remember studying this subject in college, and that's exactly how I remember it.-Pocketthis (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No action was taken, so I made an edit to improve, and clarify the anvil strike caption.-thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Strobe effect of GIFs may cause reactions in epileptics?

Return Stroke DUBIOUS or even FANCIFUL

Why lightning?

External links modified

Lead image

External links modified

Speed

Magnetic pinch

Crown flash

Article Needs Organization

New section - protection

Electrification - why?

Suspicious and Weird Ommission

"Alharrkentye" listed at Redirects for discussion

Number of pictures

"Stepped leader(meteorology)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Early theories of lightning

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

The very point: piezoelectricity in atmosphere!

21 March 2023

'Place on Earth with most lightning'

Extraterrestrial

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Port and_lighthouse_overnight_storm_with_lightning_in_Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 16, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-01-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Lightning is a natural phenomenon formed by electrostatic discharges through the atmosphere between two electrically charged regions, either both in the atmosphere or one in the atmosphere and one on the ground, temporarily neutralizing these in a near-instantaneous release of an average of between 200 megajoules and 7 gigajoules of energy, depending on the type. The three main types of lightning are distinguished by where they occur: either inside a single thundercloud (intra-cloud), between two clouds (cloud-to-cloud), or between a cloud and the ground (cloud-to-ground), in which case it is referred to as a lightning strike. Lightning causes thunder, a sound from the shock wave which develops as gases in the vicinity of the discharge heat suddenly to very high temperatures. It is often heard a few seconds after the lightning itself. Thunder is heard as a rolling, gradually dissipating rumble because the sound from different portions of a long stroke arrives at slightly different times. This photograph shows strokes of cloud-to-ground lightning hitting the Mediterranean Sea close to Port-la-Nouvelle in southern France.

Photograph credit: Maxime Raynal

Recently featured:

Archive
More featured pictures

Proposed major restructure

I consider the structure of the page to be a mess. There are section headings such as "General considerations" which gives no clue to the section content, and there are sections which belong with other sections (e.g. "injuries and deaths" and "effects on animals" are clearly talking about the same things.

My PhD was on the topic of lightning and I have written several papers on these topics. Therefore I share my expert review of the structure of the article below, and propose my idea for new section headings. The proposed new structure should be able to accommodate all existing content, but to me would be more useful for people coming to the page, and presents a more logical order. I very much welcome criticism and suggestions. I will come back to check responses in due course and will (eventually) find time to make changes.

Review of the structure:

• Electrification

 → to “Electrification of a cloud”

• General considerations

 → “The typical cloud-to-ground lightning flash culminates” are facts that should be with other discharge or frequency info
 → Remove “Lightning primarily occurs when warm air is mixed with colder air masses,[26] resulting in atmospheric disturbances necessary for	polarizing the atmosphere.[27]” Most storms form this way, lightning or no.
 → “Lightning can also occur during dust storms, fo” is probably all covered elsewhere or can be

• Distribution,frequency and extent

 → generally correct, but jumps all over the place and could do with being made more coherent
 → I don’t	think “extent” in the section title means anything

• Necessary conditions

 → Most of this could be wrapped into electrification of a cloud I think (the electric field part is the culmination of the electrifcation

• Flashes and strikes

 → I suggest change to “Components of lightning discharge” or “Lightning discharge”
 → Are we missing a section on “triggering”?
   → If we get the structure in order then we could ask a relevant expert to chip in to such a standalone section or it could come at the beginning of this section

• Types

 → I think the	postive and negative aspect could be covered in a discharge section the CG-CC-IC part could be covered in the “distribution” section as it is relevant there, and is basically the distribution within the cloud system.

• Effects

 → The chemistry part of this would be better focused initially on the dissociation of air molecules as a result of the extreme heat in the lightning channel. Other things follow that, such as N and O atoms reform to	Nitric Oxide which then goes on to have various chemical effects in the atmosphere, which would hopefully be found by following a link to the chemical's wiki page, but can be mentioned that it indirectly goes on to affect ozone and methane concentrations and nitrates

• Radio

 → might be better as Electromagnetic radiation this can begin by saying that in addition to the light (EM rad) that we	see, there are many other frequencies produced too and these propagate through the atmosphere, and can be detected – then	link to section on detection ozone and nitrogen oxides should be merged with nitrates into a atmospheric	chemical composition subsection in effects
 → “High energy radiation” can be merged with Radio into an EM rad effects section. Don’t need to go into loads here about detection as that should have its own section

• volcanic, fire (pyrocumulus part) and human-related sections

 → are all	“drivers of electrification conditions in clouds”. I think maybe there needs to be a section on that which would include	meteorological stuff like cumulonimbus etc
 → alternatively something like “Conducive atmospheric conditions”, or a section each for “related meteorology” and “aerosol influence”.

• I think extraterrestrial probably does warrant its own section, otherwise it would go in a distribution section

• Scientific study

 → Silly section title? Surely the scientific information is either of general	interest in which case it should be built into relevant sections, or it’s not, in which case it doesn’t belong on the page.
 → Properties bit can be integrated into previous sections and is largely covered
 → Detection and	monitoring – I think this deserves a section in its own right.
 → I think the	artificially triggered part could stay in detection section, or it could have its own mini section
 → magnetism looks to be something to go in effects sections
 → solar wind etc is to go in the currently non-existant triggering sections
 → Lightning and climate change I think would be better of joining the fire lightning section (wildfire part) in a “Lightning in the Earth system” section which would allow expansion beyond the direct	effects (i.e. temperature, energy, dissociation of air moelcules)		to talk about large-scale influences. e.g. that it can modify climate, forest and grassland ecology, landscapes). The lightning and climate change section also needs a content improvement to cover more of the literature (sorry, I think I might written this some years ago)

• I think having a section on culture and mythology is good

• injuries and deaths section should be in effects on animals sections

Proposed section structure:

1. Electrification

1a. Charge separation and formation of an electric field

1b. Conducive meteorological conditions

1c. Influence of aerosol

2. Discharge

2a. Triggering

2b. Lightning strike components

3. Effects (this would be focused on immediate, direct effects in the vicinity of the lightning channel)

4. Detection and monitoring

5. Distribution and frequency

6. Effects within the Earth system (probably need a non-expert to decide best title here, maybe just “wider effects in the atmosphere and ecosystems”)

7. Culture and Mythology

8. Extraterrestrial (maybe comes before “culture” section or maybe a subsection in “distribution”) DecFinney (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"lightning prediction" is probably a worthwhile new section that could come between the distribution and earth system effects sections. DecFinney (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Please, please do jump in and get started with this. I've made a whole bunch of improvements myself tonight, overlapping with a few items you've mentioned here, but it would be wonderful to have your expertise in further improving it, especially merging and improving all of the sections detailing the mechanics.

I've done quite a bit of reorganisation of 'effects'. I don't agree that the 'climate change' bit should be merged with that, since everything currently in the 'effects' section deals with effects lightning has on other things, while the climate change stuff addresses the topic of how climate change might increase/decrease/intensify lightning activity, which thus doesn't fit in there.

I don't like the section title 'electrification', but I don't really like 'electrification of a cloud' either, I feel that it's not friendly or understandable enough to the lay person. It should be more simple like 'process' or 'mechanism' or 'mechanics' or something. We absolutely should have the full process from formation to strike laid out in clear detail within one section. That stuff is all a big mess as it is. I'd really appreciate your expertise in sorting it out. It would be nice if this could please include clear description of strike vs stroke terminology. Update - as detailed below I've grouped things under a new 'mechanics' section, feel free to use 'electrification of a cloud' if you feel it best as a sub-section within 'mechanics'. I intend to leave all of the mechanics stuff for you to sort out properly.

The 'general considerations' section is indeed an awful mess, I agree that that stuff needs merging/deleting/whatever you think best.

I did a lot of tweaking to 'Distribution,frequency and extent'. I think by 'extent' they refer to duration of a strike, which is mentioned.

I agree about the 'scientific study' section. I've moved the detection and climate change bits into their own sections, deleted a bit about thunder that was just repeating what was described better earlier (very good description under effects), and just left a few bits for you to merge elsewhere or delete as you see fit, allowing this scientific study section to then be gone entirely.

I don't really agree about moving the bit at the end about deaths into the effects section, the effects section is describing what types of impact lightning can have, whereas that bit at the end is just a bit of very mildly interesting trivia and wouldn't really work there, especially since we can only go four headings deep. Actually, I just went ahead and deleted it and added a see-also link to the separate Lightning strike page, since that has a ton more such info.

The 'Human-related phenomena' section is a bit iffy.

The 'volcanic' section probably wants moving/merging into the discussion on mechanics earlier on. Or, perhaps better would be to delete this and just use a see-also link to avoid unnecessary duplication of work since we have an entire separate article on it, as linked to in the introduction. Update - done just that, deleted and linked instead!

The introduction briefly discussed the main different types (CG/CC/IC) only for this to be redone later on in the 'types' section, which wasn't ideal. I also felt that going from the introduction directly into the "heavy" 'electrification' section wasn't ideal for most readers either. So what I've done is moved the 'types' section up front, though renaming it 'forms' which I like a lot better, and merged the intro of that section with paragraphs 2&3 from the article intro. I've also then grouped all of the stuff relating to the mechanics of how a lighting strike works under a new 'mechanics' heading following it. Discussing types/forms first like this I think does a better job of easing readers into things. The one downside is that some parts of types/forms does use technical terms that aren't explained until later in the mechanics section. I'm undecided what's best to do about that, just leave it and expect readers to wait until they've read some of the next section before they will fully understand, add a note along the lines of 'details of the mechanics are covered in the next section, don't fret!', or to split the types/form section in two, moving the more involved details to a 'forms continued' or 'form details' section after 'mechanics', or moving those bits into mechanics somewhere...

I think the distribution/frequency stuff might be slightly more interesting and less "heavy" than the topic of detection, so should come before it as it is now.DiscreetParrot (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great stuff. I'm pretty content with your proposals, at least to see it take shape. Details can be discussed down the line. I have made a bunch of edits and would welcome proofing of them if/when you have time.

I got rid of general considerations, scientific study and human-related phenomena. I also moved the fire lightning section as that was not about an effect of lightning but a way that lightning forms.

I think we my edits we roughly have the sections needed to contain any content that should exist on the page. Names of sections and subsections needs some time and thought but we can keep tweaking them. I'm content for now.

The only thing is I wonder if a subsection on "lightning prediction/forecasting" should be included? Perhaps as a subsection under "distribution etc"? or maybe on its own following that section? It seems to me relevant to other sections and surely often of interest to people, yet there is not a word on it. I would be able to draft it in due course, but just raising it now for initial feedback on what's needed.

I would say almost every section could be made more concise, better worded, more complete, have superfluous or minor facts removed, and given overview paragraphs. This will take some time, I'd like to get a rough section structure that contributors are happy with and then I think we'll need discussion topics for each section to decide what is important to include in them and how to make it approachable to a lay audience. I'd be interested to know which sections others think are the priority -- personally, I think there is way too much in "Forms" (and it's the first section). I'd be happy with a paragraph or maybe 2 at a stretch, details about positive/negative CG/IC flash frequency and strength relative to one another could be in Distribution, Frequency and Properties section? DecFinney (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Just taken a look at your edits, and I'm very pleased with them, thanks! Your 'formation' heading is much better than 'mechanics', and that paragraph you rewrote in forms is so much better now. Things are shaping up great. 👍

Regarding prediction/forecasting, no problem with you adding that if you like, note that there's a related page here: Lightning-prediction_system

I absolutely agree that forms could do with slimming down; various details could perhaps do with being merged somewhere into formation or something. DiscreetParrot (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read over "Forms" and made the following notes. I will try to do something about these at some point:

1) What does this mean?... “Different common names used to describe a particular lightning event may be attributed to the same or to different events.”

2) Propose moving or removing from this section: “The typical cloud-to-ground lightning flash culminates in the formation of an electrically conducting plasma channel through the air in excess of 5 km (3.1 mi) tall, from within the cloud to the ground's surface. The actual discharge is the final stage of a very complex process.” I think the info is mainly elsewhere, the number seems suspicious, surely the height varies so why state something so arbitrary. The plasma point belongs somewhere else, and I think is written elsewhere in the page.

3) Condense 6 bullet points on +ve charge mechanisms into a sentence. Is there a more recent review?

4) Citation needed. “As a result of their greater power, positive lightning strikes are considerably more dangerous than negative strikes.” DecFinney (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have enacted some changes to address the issues I raised above:

1) removed. With a follow-up read it still didn't make sense to me.

2) I've moved the fact about a typical flash length to a paragraph in return stroke description that refers to other flash characteristics. I do not have the reference material so I assume the Uman reference is for this fact as well the sentence that discharge is complex. I have left the reference with the factual statement. I have deleted the second sentence as I don't think it adds anything - we have a whole section attempting to describe what IS known about the process.

3) Nag and rakov is still the most cited relevant article when I look on google scholar. It has 145 citations on there. Other reviews since 2013 do not seem well cited so I did not pursue them. Looking at the paper, these 6 options are just hypotheses so I think a bit too much info, especially so early on in the article. If someone wants to keep them then they should refer to fig1 in the reference and move the info later in the wiki article. For now I have made the comments more concise, trying to not to introduce to many new terms to the reader.

4) I can't find any primary evidence that positive flashes are more damaging. I can believe they are given the higher power, but I think that should be left to be inferred unless there's actual evidence. The best I can find is on the NOAA page below. But I don't know what it's based on. 'm not going to include it, but will leave a note that a citation is needed.

>>> "Positive flashes are also believed to be responsible for a large percentage of forest fires and power line damage." https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/lightning/positive-and-negative-side-of-lightning#:~:text=Positive%20lightning%20makes%20up%20less,greater%20damage%20than%20negative%20lightning. DecFinney (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Upward Streamer Photo

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

This edit request to Lightning has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This information,

"The process of going from charge as ions (positive hydrogen ion and negative hydroxide ion) associated with liquid water or solid water to charge as electrons associated with lightning must involve some form of electro-chemistry, that is, the oxidation and/or the reduction of chemical species.[23] As hydroxide functions as a base and carbon dioxide is an acidic gas, it is possible that charged water clouds in which the negative charge is in the form of the aqueous hydroxide ion, interact with atmospheric carbon dioxide to form aqueous carbonate ions and aqueous hydrogen carbonate ions,"

listed at the bottom of the electrification section, is not supported by the reference source. The reference article details electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen gas over time periods far greater than could occur in a lightning strike. The unreferenced commentary in the latter part of the section does not seem to make sense from a chemical standpoint as CO2 forms carbonic acid in aqueous solutions regardless of electrification. Beyond chemical inconsistencies the information is at best tangentially relevant, so I think it should probably be deleted. Thanks Jameshoww (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jameshoww i dont think this was addressed? the text appears to still be there.

During my restructure i moved it to formation. i have not had time to review that bit of content carefully yet. my impression is it related to "inductive" charging. that is compared to the likely primary charging by "non-inductive" charging. i have now included the term "non-inductive" in the earlier paragraphs which sets us up to have a paragraph to acknowledge other theories of charging. the Yair2008 paper is probably a good source to take from for that.

would you be prepared to have a crack at an edit? im happy to then review it. i will get to this but it's some way down my plans for the page at the moment. DecFinney (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

sorry. i forgot where i was at. i have posted a proposed edit in relation to moninductive charging in my discussion on "major content review" DecFinney (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I appreciate your good faith. Just wrong format. I know I sound like a stickler- but rules are rules, and I am not qualified in lightning-related subjects. I would suggest posting as a regular talk page post.

intro sentence query

This sentence seems a bit odd, so noting to get peoples' opinions. It's not got a reference.

I think in think would be clearer in a different order. currently its not clear that EM radiation is from blackbody radiation, nor that blackbody radiation is related to the heating. I propose the following ordering... 1. fast moving electrons generate high temperatures 2. black-body radiation results in a range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation being emitted. 3. this include brilliant flashes of visible light.

"This discharge may produce a wide range of electromagnetic radiation, from heat created by the rapid movement of electrons, to brilliant flashes of visible light in the form of black-body radiation." DecFinney (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think useful information regarding known and unknown aspects of the cause of EM radiation can be gleaned from the following. I'm even more sure now that this sentence is not sufficiently precise, but I've not taken in enough to redraft it, as yet.

(This looks like a very useful reference for many parts of the wikipage anyway) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037015731300375X?via%3Dihub
(highlights how some aspect of radiation are known and some not) https://ww2.aip.org/scilights/explaining-high-frequency-radio-waves-generated-during-lightning-strikes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016003257907457
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2444182-lightning-can-make-energy-waves-that-travel-shockingly-far-into-space/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/26/when-lightning-strikes

DecFinney (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

also https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-temperature for what generates the high temperatures of lightning DecFinney (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I am adding a sentence to the leader which makes a statement about temperature in relation to resistance to electron flow. This will then set up both the black body reference and the thunder sentence.

"Whilst the electrical current of lightning doesn't have a temperature, the resistance of the air to the flow of electrons rapidly heats the air to temperatures of around 30,000°C.[1]" DecFinney (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think a more subtle reference to EM radiation is needed. I am adding:

"Lightning leads to emission of electromagnetic radiation, partly due to black-body radiation resulting from the temperature increase [1], and partly due to other reasons that are still actively research.[2]" DecFinney (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Major content review and improvement

Now that a substantial restructure is complete, I am making an initial review of content, section-by-section. I will note proposed changes in this discussion.

in Formation: Atmospheric phenomena in which lightning occurs

Add paragraph: "As well as the thermodynamic and dynamic conditions of the atmosphere, aerosol (e.g. dust or smoke) composition is thought to influence the frequency of lightning flashes in a storm. A specific example of this is that relatively high lightning frequency is seen along ship tracks."

in Formation: Charge separation in thunderstorms

To end of paragraph beginning "The differences in the movement of the precipitation cause collisions", add sentence: "This is normally referred to as the non-inductive charging mechanism." This is a pretty key term to note, as its thought to be the primary cause of charging in storms.
In the final paragraph of this section, add: "These positive-negative-positive charge regions are typical of mature thunderstorms, and referred to as the tripolar charge structure.
Change "The result is that.." to "Typically". Charge structures can differ.
This section is combining both microphysics aspects and large-scale charge separation. Maybe that's ok, but it's possible the large-scale separation might be better explained in the establishing an electric field section.

in Formation: Electrical discharge as flashes and strikes

is "as flashes and strikes" needed in this heading. I guess it makes it more approachable?
This paragraph seems to be slightly off point. I would remove and replace with a paragraph that one acknwoledges that this section focuses on CG strike as it has been more widely studied, but aspects of the description will be relevant to other kinds of flash. And then a bulleted list of components might be helpful, along the lines of that at the start of the Formation section?
Positive flashes have already been described in the new structure so remove "...which are explained later in the article"

DecFinney (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Completed: point 1 above of Atmospheric phenomena in which lightning occurs, and points 1-3 above of Charge separation in thunderstorms. DecFinney (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Completed kind-of: I considered point 4 above in Charge separation in thunderstorms. I decided that the non-inductive charging process is kind of dependent on the large-scale considerations as well, so didn't seperate the microscopic from macroscopic processes. Instead, I adjusted the section intro bullet points to better refelct the content of that subsection. However, if someone wants to split microscopic and macroscopic processes I would not object. DecFinney (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have taken my major review of the content as far as I care to at this time, finishing with some fairly substantive edits to the detection section. I will now look to draw in other experts to review and improve the page. DecFinney (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

👍🙂 Thanks for al of the good work you've been putting in. DiscreetParrot (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your initial engagement with my review, it really motivated me to see it through.

I'm happy that the page has been improved somewhat. I hope some other experts will be motivated to critique it further, but we'll see.

Questions for you:

1) Do you know how to tidy up this Talk page? i.e. archive some threads. I've put quite a lot of material on here, which I would now say does not need to remain.

2) Do you have any opinions about how the page should be improved next? (perhaps one for a separate discussion) DecFinney (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem. :)

1) Yes. To manually archive a discussion you have to open both the talk page and an archive page in edit mode, copy and paste to the archive page, save it, then delete the original. Archives are "subpages" of the talk page URL, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lightning/Archive_1. A talk page can have more than one archive subpage. You can move discussions to an existing archive if you feel that's most appropriate (ignore the 'do not edit' warning which is really about not changing existing archived content rather than adding to the archive), or you can create a new archive by visiting the corresponding URL and then using the 'create' option (top-right). An archive page's contents should start with the {{Archive}} template. You should have a read of this: Help:Archiving_a_talk_page

The widget at the top of the talk page can be set up to give a list of links to all existing archives. It seems we actually already have three archives for this talk page but they're not currently being listed for some reason. (Now fixed).

It's also possible to set up talk pages for automatic archiving. In fact looking at the source content of this page, it already is set up to automatically archive discussions after 100 days of inactivity. Though it seems to be configured to leave at least four discussion threads unarchived.

2) Not at the moment. DiscreetParrot (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Lightning/Archive 3

Nitrogen

Not accurate

Colors used to denote polarity in undermentioned illustration are not conventional.

Bolt from the Blue

Strobe effect of GIFs may cause reactions in epileptics?

Return Stroke DUBIOUS or even FANCIFUL

Why lightning?

External links modified

External links modified

Lead image

External links modified

Speed

Magnetic pinch

Crown flash

Article Needs Organization

New section - protection

Electrification - why?

Suspicious and Weird Ommission

"Alharrkentye" listed at Redirects for discussion

Number of pictures

"Stepped leader(meteorology)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Early theories of lightning

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

The very point: piezoelectricity in atmosphere!

21 March 2023

'Place on Earth with most lightning'

Extraterrestrial

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Proposed major restructure

Upward Streamer Photo

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

intro sentence query

Major content review and improvement

Improvement of figures

Proposed restructure

Reference to be added

Related Articles

Related Articles

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/signature-antimatter-detected-lightning

https://web.archive.org/web/20230728171126/https://www.sciencenews.org/article/signature-antimatter-detected-lightning

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037015731300375X?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016003257907457

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2444182-lightning-can-make-energy-waves-that-travel-shockingly-far-into-space/

non-inductive charging mechanism