This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofAlaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
2023 Alaska high-altitude object is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
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.
When this article was created, this was the only high-altitude object detected in North American airspace this week that was not determined to be a balloon. However, we now also have the 2023 Yukon high-altitude object and 2023 Montana high-altitude object. Additionally, these three pages share a location (North American airspace), subject (a UFO), and progression (USAF/RCAF aircraft deployed to monitor, airspace closed). Two also share the same outcome (object shot down by a USAF F-22).
To reduce duplication and make it easier to add future objects if they are detected, I propose merging the Yukon and Montana object pages (and pages for any future objects detected while this proposal is pending) into this page and renaming this page to 2023 North American high-altitude objects or something similar. Rainclaw7 (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why the Alaska article has place of primacy. You could even say that the other January Chinese "weather balloon" was a high-altitude object, that was also shot down in North American airspace, so the justification doesn't seem to wash. Instead, you could start a list article about list of 2023 high-altitude objects impinging on North American airspace; and maybe sometime later everything would merge there, but not right now. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Alaska article is the proposed merge destination because it's the largest article with the most content of the three. And if the proposal was fully implemented, this would not be the Alaska article anymore. It would be an article with proportional coverage of all recent high-altitude objects that are not confirmed to be balloons with a name that reflects that. Rainclaw7 (talk)
Support These events are grouped together by people and the media, and it makes sense to have them in one place where they can all easily be seen. Furthermore, it makes is simpler to add more in the future, as we don't know if these have stopped occurring. Cazzy82 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only thing that apparently connects these objects to each other is temporal closeness. But each object is different. Their owner is unknown for the moment. If in the future it were known that these objects have the same owner, then we could consider merging them, but not at the moment. In addition, these cases involve different countries and different press coverages. --Salvabl (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The primacy issue is a distraction. There should only be one unifying page; it doesn't matter how that happens technically. These are obviously part of an overall event which is far more notable than the individual components, and the most important element of any of these pages is that they were part of the larger event. Future information is very likely to arrive at the pattern-level and wiki's job is to reflect the shape of the source ecosystem. In theory there could be both a "February 2023 high-altitude objects" super-page and separate pages for each event but at the moment every sentence on the current pages comfortably belongs on a single page. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2023 (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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose These things are more associated with where they were destroyed than all or any of the places they passed along the way. If we didn't know that first one was Chinese, somebody would have named it after the Carolinas. The lack of "balloon" here should be clue enough for the average reader. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is using a descriptive name, and it is not unambiguous. Even if it is the common name it still is not unambiguous, so it still fails WP:ARTICLETITLES and must be renamed regardless. If it is the common name, it would take a parenthetical disambiguation, or we could use WP:NATURALDAB which is what this proposal would be in that case. This article uses a descriptive name, so it doesn't concern COMMONNAME right now. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title matches the guidance at WP:NCE. I don't object to a better name if our sources ultimately settle on one, but this is too early to claim a WP:COMMONNAME. I also agree with InedibleHulk above that these events are more closely associated with where they were taken down for the most part (the first incident being the only notable exception). Between this rename and the various merge proposals, I feel like people are trying to move too rapidly to something that is literally changing from day to day. Let's let things settle for at least a few weeks before jumping to move/merge things. —Locke Cole • t • c21:42, 13 February 2023 (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.
The linked Bloomberg News source says "additional debris was retrieved after sea conditions on Friday allowed for the use of divers and underwater unmanned vehicle operations." [1] However, all other sources say no debris was recovered. [2][3][4] I suspect Bloomberg News might have made a typo and meant to refer to the Chinese balloon. Thoughts? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
