Talk:2023 Alaska high-altitude object

Proposal to merge the high-altitude object 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.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. Rainclaw7 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

---

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)

Oppose All of the objects have individually received coverage in reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Weak support They are related, although some may argue they deserve their own articles 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, if they were to be merged, I would suggest that the name be changed. It's not just Alaska 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• Too soon Maybe they can/should be merged in the future, but it’s too soon. Let’s wait at least a week to see how notable each incident is. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose We don't know everything yet. Let's just wait until further information is given to us. Tanline666 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support The media coverage largely discusses these together and they absolutely do not all need separate pages per WP:NOPAGE. Having coverage in RSes does not necessarily overcome WP:NOTNEWS. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The Canadian event has a separate level of significance as it has been a unique event for Canada.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose for now per Tanline666. WP:TOOSOON. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose there is nothing at present that connects these objects and as it stands each meet WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This feels like rushing. While WP:RAPID is about deletion, the same principles apply. I started List of high-altitude object events in 2023 to help navigate between the event articles. CT55555(talk) 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• NOTE there is now a list article at List of high-altitude object events in 2023 -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ahunt. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, too soon. Also, do we really need two separate merge proposals? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Please stop cluttering up all these articles with merge tags. — Omegatron (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 13 February 2023

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus not to move as unambiguous. No consensus on alternative proposals; those may be explored further in a future RM. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Alaska high-altitude object → February 2023 Alaska high-altitude object – WP:AT/WP:PRECISE there was a high-altitude object back in January over Alaska; that topic is covered at 2023 Chinese balloon incident. This article should be titled to avoid ambiguosity with the other much more famous incident, the Chinese "weather" balloon that overflew much of North America, including Alaska in January. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose, too early and this title is sufficiently unambiguous to work until our sources can be evaluated for a WP:COMMONNAME. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)

    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 • c 21:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - 2023 Alaska high-altitude object shoot-down is a better name (since there have been two different things in Alaskan airspace, this year). 2001:2020:347:DFC6:7411:F93:57A6:B01F (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

2023 balloon incidents

2023 balloon incidents {{disambiguation}} .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

conflicting information from sources

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)