Jump to content

Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maanshen (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 27 March 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ship owner, etc

More appropriate for talk page of the article on the ship, though still FORUM-y

The following discussion 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 Dali seems to be owned by Stellar Marine LLC, not sure where they're based. It seems to be managed by Oceanbulk Container Management SA, which is located in Athens, Greece. — Hippietrail (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Unsure where Stellar is coming from, I don't see any detail on the company. Balticshipping seems to be saying that the Dali is both owned and managed by Oceanbulk. [1]https://www.balticshipping.com/vessel/imo/9697428 Surreal12 (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The place I found that info had the flag of the Marshall Islands, but didn't mention the country otherwise. I'm pretty sure that's another popular country that ships are "flagged as", so that might only represent where it was flagged before being Singapore flagged as it is now. The 2015 video I linked to below clearly shows "Majuro" on the stern, which is the capital of the Marshall Islands. — Hippietrail (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've just seen it. Found them as well on the Marshall island corporate registry. Annulled in 2019, could possibly explain why I'm seeing Oceanbulk as the owner. Surreal12 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing....now I'm getting sources saying that a company name Synergy Marine Group manages the ship, and others saying they own it. This is from the guardian and cbs news atm.
[2]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/francis-scott-key-bridge-baltimore-collapse-container-ship/
[3]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-collapses-after-boat-collision Surreal12 (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd hunt in Singapore news. First thing of interest I found says "Dali is listed on VesselsValue as owned by Grace Ocean Investment and registered in Singapore. That seems to be a Hong Kong company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippietrail (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News reports are starting to mention Grace Ocean Investment though at least one is saying it's a Singapore company... — Hippietrail (talk)
They're all saying Grace Ocean is Singapore based now. There seems to either be both an HK and a Singapore company with this same name, or perhaps the same company is based in both cities? Can find good links for both that are unrelated to the current news, but so far can't find anything linking HK & SG. — Hippietrail (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2024 (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.

Images

Please can we NOT add copyvio images. There is one non-free image, which I think is useable for now. The NTSB will almost certainly open an investigation, which will lead to reports / news stories from them which will have useable imaged. For now, we need a bit of patience. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been said that the bridge collapse image is from CCTV, which means that it is PD-US. Can anyone confirm this? Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed from a 24/7 livestream of the ship. I am the original uploader of the image and can attest to this. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only public domain if the owner of the CCTV was the federal government, or another entity which releases its works to the public domain. -- Beland (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Teamwork Barnstar
Awarded to all who worked constructively to create and improve the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse article. Well done, everyone. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this applies to you, feel free to copy to wherever you keep your barnstars. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NTSB investigation

It doesn't seem to have hit mainstream sources as of this moment, but (as you'd expect) the NTSB has launched an investigation. Should that get a sentence in the article now, or wait for a news source to pick it up? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See no harm in adding now. It's hardly going to be a question of notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the following sentence to the end of the aftermath section: "The National Transportation Safety Board launched a go team to investigate the accident on March 26." Please use the tweet in my comment above as a source (I'm unsure how to cite a tweet on Wikipedia).

@Martinevans123: I've gone ahead and proposed a brief addition, please feel free to workshop it. That goes for anyone else reading this, too. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for info, use {{cite tweet}} to cite tweets. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NTSB Media briefing will be available here at 14:30 EDT / 18:30 GMT. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain photo available

A photo, in this article might be public domain because it is produced by the government which this site says is public domain. A.FLOCK (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.FLOCK I don't think so. c:COM:US#US States does not list Maryland as among the states whose government works are in public domain. The cited source of the image shown on MarylandMatters.org is the Fire Department of the City of Baltimore. The Terms of Use of the fire department's website links to the TOU page of the City website, a portion of which states "Any service marks, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property contained in or displayed on this site, and the contents of any linked sites operated by third parties, are the property of their respective owners (which may be the City)." There is no indication that images created by employees of the city government, including the fire department, are in public domain and can be exploited even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not assume that Maryland state or local government products are PD. However ... NTSB has released a B-roll drone video which might be. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag in collapse section

The material in question seems like it is indeed OR, as I searched specifically for the speed and the ship's name and got no good sources. What I did get was this Sky News piece which contains similar information (including the specific speed 8.7 knots) from which it may be possible to craft a suitable replacement for the disputed sentence. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

The speed dropped from 8.7 knots to 7.6 between resumption of electric power and the collision. Ref to follow if I can. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Will this do? Its highest registered speed between the port and the bridge is 8.7 knots, it starts to slow down around 1km from the bridge. Its last registered speed is 7.6 knots between 100m and 200m from the bridge. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Body pulled from river but not immediately apparent if it was one of the six missing

CNN reports; https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/26/us/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-tuesday/index.html

May be relevant 209.7.245.122 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Can we subdivide this section into two, splitting things that happened in the hours after the incident from the more long-term implications, such as the planned change of port for exported motor vehicles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that would be a problem. Did you have a preference to the name of the section headers? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She vs. Its

@Cutlass: Please self-revert, because "its" was the first usage (this is the first revision that introduced one or the other). @Acroterion and Ace of Aces12: as they were also involved here. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ship damage

Since this has been edit warred over: @Cutlass and Obankston: You ought to discuss the inclusion of it here. Whether the ship is salvageable is going to be an important piece of information to have in this section and thus the section should be kept, unless it better fits in the ship's article. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "edit warring?" There was only one revert, and that was by Obankston. CutlassCiera 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFTOPIC
@Kingsif: It's obvious that I mean that I expect that information to become available, and that this section would be a good place to put it when it does. Nowhere did I suggest actually putting it in right now. All I wanted to do is start a conversation over whether to have this section. Don't attempt to close discussions that pertain to editing the article that haven't had their fair chance to occur, and certainly not without actually reading through the whole thing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious, not with the amount of IPs coming here starting threads to share their theories, not at all. And don't accuse people of not actually reading without evidence, especially when your opening statement is literally one sentence. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an IP. No reasonable editor would read into my comment like that. If you had read it properly, you would've understood that. So by contraposition, that is evidence that you did not read my comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you were an IP, and my comment has no reading into anything. I have to assume you are not reading my comments properly. My whole point - which reading above and below you can very easily piece together - is that there are lots of non-regular users coming to this talkpage wanting to chat speculation, and as I see it, your opening comment is a massive invitation to do that. I never thought that was your intention. Would you like to stop making accusation after accusation. Kingsif (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call the kettle black. You're the one bringing unfounded charges of OR and were the one closing this section. My comment that I'm not an IP is to imply that you should've had a second reading into why I'd make that comment instead of just assuming I am trying to invite OR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read I never thought that was your intention. again and WP:CALMDOWN. Kingsif (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're not in a position to tell others to "calm down". In fact I have no calming to do. Don't get yourself involved in this discussion any further unless you actually are going to be helpful, which you're not by continuing to discuss this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the edits linked and this whole discussion before I interacted with it all – hence I also denounce Jasper Deng for making flagrant assumptions of bad faith (accusing users of closing without reading, edit warring for one revert) within minutes of that, and this must be noted, as he has continued to act in such a manner – it's clearly something that does not need to be discussed. The "disputed" text in the article did not mention Whether the ship is salvageable, simply repeating information from the sources that stated the known damage and what is known to still function. It doesn't really matter whether that is included or not, as most of the "need-to-know" information contained within it is already present elsewhere, but it's not harmful. At the time I closed the thread, the editing around this "disputed" content had ceased, so the purpose of the thread to discuss it was fulfilled. I did not simply leave or archive the thread because Jasper Deng had written the opening request in a way (highlighting salvageable, suggesting necessary future information) that can more than easily invite FORUM and OR responses (users joining in after the original resolution to discuss their views on whether the ship is salvageable). Archiving would prevent this, but closing with a note also helps prevent similar threads from being opened. So I would advise such a close once more, now that the thread's purpose has been met. Kingsif (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jumping the gun again I see. The editor who wishes to keep it, Obankston, has not responded yet and has not had a fair chance to do so. And you clearly are failing to WP:AAGF (if I had assumed bad faith, it would've involved hauling you to WP:ANI or otherwise requesting administrative action immediately). Once again you are clearly misreading my comment, not in bad faith, but still misreading it, and therefore your closure was not justified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Outright saying you think someone did not read a thread before deciding to take BOLD closing action, is assuming bad faith closure. Accusing the two other users of edit warring over one explained revert is either assuming they are going to continue, or assuming that addition and reversion were both made in bad faith. They're far from the worst examples of assuming bad faith, but they have not been helpful. Kingsif (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It is possible to not read comments thoroughly and do it in good faith, which is what you did right here. Let this conversation proceed between the original disputing editors and disengage, immedaitely; your comments are not helpful the slightest.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Folks, can we turn our attention to editing the article and coordinating changes? This interpersonal sniping is taking up a lot of time and space and emotional energy. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be included or not? I don't think so as nobody on the ship was injured, and as indicated as well in the article that a bridge did in fact fall on the Dali. It's also not included in the similar Summit Venture collision with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. CutlassCiera 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed 100%. @Obankston: Can you please comment here? The content will not likely stay if you don't help build consensus for it. I really think it would be much easier of a question if we did not already have an article on the ship itself. I would argue that the current section meets WP:DUE, but this is going to ever-change because sources on both are popping up very quickly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

2024 Lixinsha Bridge collapse

I think this incident was also a collapse caused by a barge colliding with a bridge support, and it also happened this year. So I think we can add it. コーナーリバー (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree. The linked examples involve a container ship (which is much larger than a river barge) causing the disaster. The bridge in the Lixinsha case had only one span fall, as opposed to the entire main span plus three approach spans.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I respectively also disagree with the Big Bayou case for the same reason, even more so as that bridge didn't collapse.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse&oldid=1215785424"