Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 days ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 March 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph of entire collapsed bridge including uncollapsed sections on both sides be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Ship owner, etc
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- CCTV footage being public domain in the US has never been established by legal precident, and even so that would only apply to completely automated fixed cameras, not remotely operated PTZ cameras like the one that took that footage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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) |
- If this applies to you, feel free to copy to wherever you keep your barnstars. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
- See no harm in adding now. It's hardly going to be a question of notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Done Now added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- for info, use {{cite tweet}} to cite tweets. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The NTSB Media briefing will be available here at 14:30 EDT / 18:30 GMT. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Should this be added to "External links"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure who added it or when (might well have been after you made your comment), but we currently link the NTSB landing page for the investigation which seems the correct move here. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems to currently include the video. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure who added it or when (might well have been after you made your comment), but we currently link the NTSB landing page for the investigation which seems the correct move here. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
- Now resolved 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Related Similar Collapse
In addition to sunshine skyway a reference to the Tasman Bridge Disaster should probably be added to the related links as it has similar parallels. 2602:46:3B06:701:E4C0:1671:D8E2:D8CC (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- We already link the page List of bridge failures. I don't think we need to list every similar collapse. glman (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Counterpoint: I'd state that link is actually irrelevant as most of those failures are not ships hitting bridges. The tasman disaster was an ore freighter driving right into a pier. 2602:46:3B06:701:E4C0:1671:D8E2:D8CC (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I added a link to the Tasman Bridge Disaster to See Also before checking here. I think it is relevant enough to have its own link, but if the consensus disagrees, feel free to remove it. EvanSheppard (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the Tasman Bridge disaster is appropriate for inclusion; it's by far the most obviously comparable accident imho 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Upon further reading, I concur. We need to watch it though; those sections tend to begin accumulating links that aren't needed. glman (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed they do. I'm not entirely convinced by Cosco Busan oil spill's inclusion though I see the argument for inclusion. I don't think anything else immediately springs to mind as particularly suitable for linking there. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed it for now. I agree, while it involves contact with a bridge, it is an entirely different situation and result. glman (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. The Cosco Busan spill shouldn't be linked here, it's an example of what you said about "accumulating links that aren't needed". EvanSheppard (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed it for now. I agree, while it involves contact with a bridge, it is an entirely different situation and result. glman (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed they do. I'm not entirely convinced by Cosco Busan oil spill's inclusion though I see the argument for inclusion. I don't think anything else immediately springs to mind as particularly suitable for linking there. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Upon further reading, I concur. We need to watch it though; those sections tend to begin accumulating links that aren't needed. glman (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the Tasman Bridge disaster is appropriate for inclusion; it's by far the most obviously comparable accident imho 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I added a link to the Tasman Bridge Disaster to See Also before checking here. I think it is relevant enough to have its own link, but if the consensus disagrees, feel free to remove it. EvanSheppard (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Counterpoint: I'd state that link is actually irrelevant as most of those failures are not ships hitting bridges. The tasman disaster was an ore freighter driving right into a pier. 2602:46:3B06:701:E4C0:1671:D8E2:D8CC (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that List of bridge failures is relevant here. Most of its entries have nothing to do with ships, and this bridge don't "fail" so much as being destroyed. A putative "List of ship-bridge allisions" might be worth starting. [Edit: typos] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The "Hops and Bodge" sounds like a pub somewhere in Suffolk? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- We don't currently have a more-specific list, and the List of bridge failures does have multiple relevant entries. And there are multiple ones, so I don't support editors' cherry-picking certain ones as being "most like this one" (WP:ORish). All or none; a specific list, or a genral list with the material scattered in it if we don't have a specific one. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It failed; that it did so after (and due to) being hit by a ship doesn't change the fact it is no longer being a bridge. The title of the existing list might want reworking to avoid these concerns in future, though. As for starting a new list covering notable(!) ship-bridge collisions, that seems a good solution both for this article and in general. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
See also
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- It was the first incident I thought of when I heard about this in the news this morning, since it also resulted in fatalities. And the collision, IIRC, led to the bridge collapsing when the train went across it eight minutes later. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'd be more open to including it should the death toll of this collapse end up being confirmed and also a high proportion of those in danger (on the bridge or ship). As of now we don't have any fatalities confirmed in this one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one from the ship died, but that is not the same story for at least some of those on the Key Bridge. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'd be more open to including it should the death toll of this collapse end up being confirmed and also a high proportion of those in danger (on the bridge or ship). As of now we don't have any fatalities confirmed in this one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was the first incident I thought of when I heard about this in the news this morning, since it also resulted in fatalities. And the collision, IIRC, led to the bridge collapsing when the train went across it eight minutes later. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Barges and container ships are watercrafts, and this happened about a month after Lixinsha incident, and the collision and collapse were similar, so I think it's fair to mention it. コーナーリバー (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Temporal proximity is a weak argument for inclusion. If you can get consensus for this inclusion here I would be fine with reincluding it, though I think we need to be strict with inclusion in the see also section due to the need to minimize the amount of examples.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- We need to keep the See also section short, and not allow it to become bloated with lots of incidents with a tenuous link to this event. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and I agree that the proposed link should not be added. glman (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- We need to keep the See also section short, and not allow it to become bloated with lots of incidents with a tenuous link to this event. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Temporal proximity is a weak argument for inclusion. If you can get consensus for this inclusion here I would be fine with reincluding it, though I think we need to be strict with inclusion in the see also section due to the need to minimize the amount of examples.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
There was an ongoing discussion for see also links but it was archived mid-conversation, which is a little off-putting. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The see also list is excessive and unnecessary. List of bridge failures is sufficient as per MOS:SEEALSO, which states "relevant and limited to a reasonable number". Flibirigit (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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).
- 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)
- Seeing two sets of figures currently –I'm waiting a bit. It's notable that she was dragging anchors all the while. That's a lot of momentum...! Stay tuned for the sheer kinetics of it all... kencf0618 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
- That source says: "
Baltimore City Council Member Phylicia Porter told CNN’s Boris Sanchez on Tuesday afternoon a body had been recovered from the river, but later said she misspoke.
" The report makes it clear that two people were pulled out, but that six remain missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)- Prior to the article getting updated there was a report about a body being found, but the councilwoman who said that would retract it and clarify she misspoke. Sorry about that. 209.7.245.122 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. News reports often get updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Prior to the article getting updated there was a report about a body being found, but the councilwoman who said that would retract it and clarify she misspoke. Sorry about that. 209.7.245.122 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Collision vs. Allision
Having looked it up, I understand why the word "allision" is being used and it's technically correct, but: 1. I doubt it will be familiar to most readers, so a "note" explaining the term might be appropriate. 2. It is being used interchangeably with collision in the article, which rather defeats the purpose of using the technically correct term; if it is going to be used, I suggest we commit to it. 68.202.117.200 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one the Planet has heard of the Term "Allision". Please use Plain English! 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:E50C:57E2:3DAF:C0DE (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that using a technically correct term is appropriate here. The lay-language word seems to have a different technical meaning...better to be right and have readers learn something than wrong (this is not simply a WP:JARGON where a common word would equally suffice). As part of that, and beause I suspect most readers won't know this word (I didn't until I read the WP articles related to this disaster), an explanatory note is a great idea. DMacks (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a native speaker of English language, and none of my family speaks English, so the Internet is the only place where I can learn new words (except very expensive private teacher). Using "allision" in the article was very useful for me. When dictionary in my phone couldn't translate the word, I googled it, and increased my English skills :) 91.188.184.192 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a native English speaker, and it's a new word to me too! Wikipedia isn't the place for plain English (there's even an entire wiki dedicated to that) so I think the technical term is superior. Orangesclub (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree, and note that it is linked to the meaning (a redirect to Admiralty_law#Allision). LizardJr8 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a native speaker and have never heard the word. Maybe a parenthetical could be added by someone better versed in admiralty law since I'd imagine 99 percent of people reading this article have never heard the term and may stumble on it Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it's the case that a common word would not suffice, why are news sources not using the word allision? Everyone knows what it means when you say collision. If we are going to be pedants and not use collision, even then we can say strike or hit or contact. Learning new words is great, but that is not the purpose of this article. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a native speaker of English language, and none of my family speaks English, so the Internet is the only place where I can learn new words (except very expensive private teacher). Using "allision" in the article was very useful for me. When dictionary in my phone couldn't translate the word, I googled it, and increased my English skills :) 91.188.184.192 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
We all agree "allision" is technically correct, but is "collision" technically incorrect? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Per allision, "collision" is when both objects are in motion whereas "allision" is when one is stationary. Presuming the bridge was attached to the rigid pylons going down to the river bottom, the bridge was not moving. Therefore "collision" is incorrect. DMacks (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article text currently has 12 "collision"/"collisions" and 5 "colliding". Is a global swap appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
"Allision" is unnecessary MOS:JARGON
Could we please stop using this word when reliable sources are using "struck," "hit," and "collided?" I've removed it a few times and it keeps coming back. From the MOS page linked above, "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." --Jfhutson (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this. I'm a nerd and I've never seen this word used. It does not appear to appeal to a general audience and is unnecessarily introducing area specific jargon. GMGtalk 14:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that none of the similar articles listed in "See also" use this word. We might want to include it if it was used in an official investigation report by NTSB? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Queen Isabella Causeway collapse uses the word once. The other articles don't use it. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- But "allision" is the correct word. Part of Wikipedia's remit is to inform, even where the reader was unaware. I would suggest that [[:wikt:allision|allision]] is used, which gives a link to the Wiktionary entry for allision. 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Would you use it in place of every existing instance of "collision"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Only needs linking on first use. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Queen Isabella Causeway collapse uses the word once. The other articles don't use it. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- See #Collision vs. Allision above (was archived while still in active discussion). DMacks (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- We don't have to use collision, since the dictionary definition does indeed say two moving bodies (though I would submit that many English users will use it to mean striking a stationary object). Most sources use "struck." That will require some rewriting, but is much clearer than "allision." -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- This distinction is a necessary one in physical mechanics. Is it of any consequence in assigning responsibility in maritime vessel accident claims? Experience suggests it is important in UK motor vehicle accident claims, even if the word "allision" is never used. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does anyone reading the sentence, "the ship collided with the bridge," read that to mean that the bridge was moving? On the other hand, probably 90% of the people reading "the ship allided with the bridge" are assuming there is a spelling mistake. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Or possibly 99%? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The issue here is that this is a somewhat exceptional event. Allision is the correct term, why use a simpler, yet possibly misleading term 'collision'?. I don't think many sources on aircraft crashes due to a microburst are using the term 'microburst'. We have the artucle to allision linked, I think we should start there before changing text here to be simpler. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Misleading readers into thinking the bridge was moving? Are suggesting just a piped link like collision, or what? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I stand by stating that I prefer the accurate terminology over a simplified one, since it is accessible to everyone, both casual readers and experts. We don't refer to the 'port' side of a ship as the 'left' side, even though the latter is simpler. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Quite agree, proper terminology might be preferred in an encyclopaedia. But again, referring to the 'left' side of a ship might actually confuse anyone?? I'm still not quite sure what you mean when you say: "We have the artucle to allision linked, I think we should start there before changing text here to be simpler." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if Allision is considered too complex a word for readers, we should improve the definition of the world on the page for Allision. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is not that it is too hard to understand, it's that it's completely unknown to the readers and its use adds nothing to the reader's understanding. Port and starboard are much better known and they avoid ambiguity. Sometimes a technical term is helpful to explain what happened; "microbursts" are a good example. It's a phenomenon with a WP page. An "allision" is not some special phenomenon but a term of art in a narrow area of law for something everyone already understands and can explain in plain English as a collision or strike. "Allision" adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the accident, and something is taken away by using a technical word that the reader doesn't know. -- Jfhutson (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, port and starboard are much more widely known. But they are themselves defined in terms of "left" and "right". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is not that it is too hard to understand, it's that it's completely unknown to the readers and its use adds nothing to the reader's understanding. Port and starboard are much better known and they avoid ambiguity. Sometimes a technical term is helpful to explain what happened; "microbursts" are a good example. It's a phenomenon with a WP page. An "allision" is not some special phenomenon but a term of art in a narrow area of law for something everyone already understands and can explain in plain English as a collision or strike. "Allision" adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the accident, and something is taken away by using a technical word that the reader doesn't know. -- Jfhutson (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if Allision is considered too complex a word for readers, we should improve the definition of the world on the page for Allision. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Quite agree, proper terminology might be preferred in an encyclopaedia. But again, referring to the 'left' side of a ship might actually confuse anyone?? I'm still not quite sure what you mean when you say: "We have the artucle to allision linked, I think we should start there before changing text here to be simpler." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I stand by stating that I prefer the accurate terminology over a simplified one, since it is accessible to everyone, both casual readers and experts. We don't refer to the 'port' side of a ship as the 'left' side, even though the latter is simpler. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Misleading readers into thinking the bridge was moving? Are suggesting just a piped link like collision, or what? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The issue here is that this is a somewhat exceptional event. Allision is the correct term, why use a simpler, yet possibly misleading term 'collision'?. I don't think many sources on aircraft crashes due to a microburst are using the term 'microburst'. We have the artucle to allision linked, I think we should start there before changing text here to be simpler. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Or possibly 99%? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does anyone reading the sentence, "the ship collided with the bridge," read that to mean that the bridge was moving? On the other hand, probably 90% of the people reading "the ship allided with the bridge" are assuming there is a spelling mistake. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:JARGON is pretty clear on this; it's a maritime legal term, and doesn't belong on this Wikipedia article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- No preference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've made a start. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Long term
Some sources:
- https://www.tradewindsnews.com/containers/how-baltimore-bridge-disaster-threatens-to-leave-key-global-shipping-markets-frozen-in-time-/2-1-1617929
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68672373
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
- I'll dig into the MOS once we've settled into the investigations. kencf0618 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
- What do you mean by "edit warring?" There was only one revert, and that was by Obankston. CutlassCiera 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
OFFTOPIC
|
---|
|
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)
- 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)
- Personally, I would say include, but not as a standalone section. Preferably added right after
A section of the bridge came to rest on the tip of the bow of Dali
with the "After the collision" part removed. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) - Alternatively, send it to the MV Dali article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- This tip of the bow irks me. Firstly tip is redundant when that's what bow means. Secondly, it's obvious from the daytime photographs that the bow is clear, protruding to the east.
- So it should say something like a section of the truss lies abeam the ship just aft of the bow or a section of the truss lies across the bow section.Martin Kealey (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Ship damage", under "Allision and bridge collapse", there is a note saying a non-primary source is needed. I believe this note can be removed, since the source is about the company's claim, not about wheter or not the claim is true. Minaspen (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done Edit requests need to be more specific than this, and you are not correct per WP:SECONDARY.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SECONDARY is preceded by WP:PRIMARY, which says
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia [...] to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
This applies to the text in question. The request is perfectly specific (albeit since made superfluous). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SECONDARY is preceded by WP:PRIMARY, which says
Pillar protection
I'm surprised there is no discussion about pillar protection which is quite common in other bridges that straddle some of the busiest water ways in the world. Most bridges are over-engineered to withstand or have protection for support pillars - some generic basic discussion is highly informative
Rwat128 (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- We need WP:RS that cover this. We can, once we have it, certainly refer to the increase in size, bow strength and tonnage of the larges ships compared with when the bridge was specified and built. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC).
- When it is available, it would hopefully address the great amount of flare in container ship bows to allow as much of the ship's length as possible to carry containers. In the 1970s few ships other than aircraft carriers had such dramatic flare. A protection scheme envisioned at that time would not necessarily be sufficient, mass and speed issues aside. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Timeline
In the Collapse section of the article the timeline of events seems out of sorts. 00:44 left port, 01:26 power loss, 01:30 mayday call to DOT of lost of control and allision possible, 01:28? collision with bridge occurred, 01:30? calls to 911 begin. Straykat99 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The cited source says "shortly before 1:30" as does the article, which is vague in our context. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC).
- No doubt exact times will be given in the NTSB report when it is published. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The ship too?
I can understand a creation of an article on the event, it may or may not be kept in the long run. But isn't MV Dali overdoing it? WP:BLP1E is about people, but IMO the spirit applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Although there is no guideline for it, the long-standing interpretation of WP:GNG within WP:SHIPS is that large commercial ships are considered notable even if they have not been involved in any major incident such as this one. See also WP:SHIPOUTCOMES. Tupsumato (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus will be what it will be. I note the article has a few pre-event sources, but in my view it's a WP:SUSTAINED etc fail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
GOP gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman blames Baltimore bridge collapse on diversity
GOP gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman blames Baltimore bridge collapse on diversity
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/03/26/phil-lyman-baltimore-bridge-collapse-diversity/
Karenthia A Barber, the Maryland Port Commissioner, is the founder of an organization that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Mn06hithere227 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Oh, my giddy Aunt!" (as they say in the Home Counties). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't. It gives undue weight to nonsense. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Bridge and Tunnel articles
- Mid-importance Bridge and Tunnel articles
- WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Mid-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class Engineering articles
- Mid-importance Engineering articles
- WikiProject Engineering articles
- C-Class Maryland articles
- High-importance Maryland articles
- C-Class Baltimore articles
- Mid-importance Baltimore articles
- Baltimore task force articles
- WikiProject Maryland articles
- C-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States