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.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
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.
Czopek, Madison (March 27, 2024). "Fact Check: Edited Wikipedia entry doesn't prove Israel caused the Baltimore bridge collapse". PolitiFact. Retrieved March 27, 2024. We checked the Wikipedia pages for the Francis Scott Key Bridge and the new page for the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, and as of 2 p.m. March 26 neither included a sentence linking Israel to the bridge collapse. ... We rate the claim that an edited Wikipedia entry provides proof that "Israelis deployed Talmudic network to take out" the Baltimore bridge Pants on Fire!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I partially undid your edit because a small number (5 or less) of highly similar examples easily qualifies as "relevant and limited to a reasonable number". 1 is not a reasonable number. If needed, we should further limit it to incidents in the USA, and specifically involving fracture critical truss bridges. That should be a very small number; the Sunshine Skyway instance is likely the only other one.--Jasper Deng(talk)01:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. see also is really for broader articles or lists that are not already linked, such as the aforementioned list of bridge failures, which does include other bridge collisions. linking any and all ships hitting bridges is a form of editorializing. one could link to nearly any article with any close or tangential relationshp to this article, such as the history of the city, an article on bridge engineering, an article on maritime law, etc. if you cant put such a link in the body of the article, the see also becomes a shopping list of what we as editors may feel is naturally related, when its not necessarily so. see alsos clog up lots of wp articles. its not really helping the project, it can make it unclear to the reader what is really necessary to learn more. 50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various current news media sources are mentioning this Guangzhou collision. As that they see it as a relevant past example, then it should be in our See also. Video of that Guangdong collision is even being shown on TV news coverage of this Baltimore bridge collapse. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GMGtalk14:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The definition is straightforward, unlike some pieces of jargon. Academic sources and the NTSB final report almost certainly will use "allision".--Jasper Deng(talk)01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that does happen, that would be an opportunity to add a sentence like "The NTSC report did conclude that the allision (collision of a moving vehicle with a stationary object) did..." Other than that, even if the word exists in maritime law speak, I wouldn't consider it correct to use allision normal english sentences.2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard "allison" as obscure legal jargon. I very much doubt that anywhere else we say that "the airplane allided with the mountain" or that a car "allided with a parked vehicle." It's an interesting bit of admiralty law jargon that might merit a little bit of explanation somewhere, but "collided" is understandable to all readers. Acroterion(talk)16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. On Wikipedia, we use formal written English, which means we routinely use technical terminology in common use in particular fields. For example, like most college graduates, my mathematical education terminated with integrals and differential equations, but that doesn't give me the right to insist that the article on general relativity ought to be rewritten in algebraic terms (i.e., as the subject is taught in physics courses to people who have not yet mastered calculus). The Key Bridge collapse is a maritime incident, so we should use the correct maritime terminology. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal language is not renowned for understandability to laymen - there's a reason "legalese" is a term, and legalese should generally be avoided outside a courtroom, and not encouraged in an encyclopedia article. This isn't calculus. It seems to me that we're being overly pedantic in our emphasis on that term. Acroterion(talk)17:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a quick mention that the correct term is allision, but that common usage (as in a lot of news articles and discussions) use the term collision as a blanket term including moving objects striking stationary objects. then it doesnt matter which term is used in our article, as long as the first use of "allision" is explained. i am highly literate in english and never heard this term until this week. explanatory note seems entirely justified.50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about splitting the difference: we start off with "allision" and mentioning its meaning, then switch to a more common term for the rest of the article which is also used in WP:RS, such as "struck." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allision should be used in the infobox, as the section pertains to "property damage". It is therefore relevant to use the correct terminology. In the article prose, sure, use whatever other language. Start an RfC if you wish to reach consensus against this. Rowing007 (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the infobox should be more accessible than the article. The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts about the subject, which is best done with plain English. This obscure term in maritime law is not a key fact about the subject, but now that we insist on using it we have to put a footnote in the infobox to explain its meaning. People keep saying this is "the correct term," that is not true, there are multiple correct terms to use for a ship hitting a bridge, and the preferred terms when not in a technical legal setting are collision, strike, and hit. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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: RichFarmbrough14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
And in point of fact, there is a substantial discussion of the bridge's dolphins, a previous collision, and other matters at CNN that looks like a good source [2]. Acroterion(talk)03:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved my draft to fracture critical bridge and linked it in this article. It is a bare outline that should get attention from someone versed in AASHTO design terminology. At the same time, I have to point out that no bridge, fracture critical or not, would survive the destruction of a pier, and that it could be argued that fracture criticality was an aggravating factor leading to collapse of other sections not directly affected by the loss of the pier, not a root cause. But that would be OR at this point. Acroterion(talk)02:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And DMacks has pointed out that pier redundancy is a concept, which in the long run might be a more relevant factor, but we’ll need for the engineering journals to catch up. Acroterion(talk)03:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re: captions but not about the compass – the image displays information on the Y and Z axes, the compass on the X and Y (and so north isn't to the top right of the image). Is there precedent for this, or could we use a caption that says "viewed to the north-west" or something? MIDI (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid concern about the compass (I guess I'm more accustomed to looking at these sorts of 3D things). What if the town-name labels also including their specific directions (like "north-east" on the Dundalk side)? DMacks (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quasi-isometric overlay on raster Another option would be something like this (like this; it's just a quickly cobbled-together example)—a freely available aerial view of the bridge, with an SVG overlay with or without labels, place names etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent start! The original image was taken 30 March 2007 but it'll certainly serve as a template. (The hexagonal Fort Carroll east by south (EbS) certainly won't remain an involuntary park for long...!) kencf0618 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've refined the image and added place labels and Dali paths (based on AIS data). The background image may be 18 years old but not much seems to have changed (not enough to make it inaccurate, anyway). Again, if this is something that might be useful for the article... suggestions welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I WP:BOLDly put it last night and then ran out of gas. Given its provenance and orientation I would only add where "Up" is for those who don't know how Baltimore/Maryland geography works –I certainly don't! ~Regards. kencf0618 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The overlay image is completely inaccurate. That is NOT the path that ships take out of the harbor. Stop OR-ing (or outright guessing) and wait for sources to cite. It's outright ridiculous to anyone actually familiar with the harbor. -- Veggies (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That is not the shipping channel path and, obviously, not the path that the Dali took. I would have thought "no original research" is something that admins would have ingrained. -- Veggies (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. And was it those sources that told you that the main shipping channel leads you to run aground on the shoals off Sparrows Point? -- Veggies (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not OR to show the shipping channel in one color, and the actual path in another. Both are well documented in reliable sources. The path shown is speculative, and incorrect in both senses, it is neither the ship's path nor the intended path. Acroterion(talk)17:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I added it to the image—again, not meant for mainspace—I based it on news sources. The point was to present "what sort of information would readers/editors like to see on the graphic" and obtain responses/suggestions, as I did with the 2D diagram originally requested at the Graphics Lab. For instance, someone might point out that a certain landmark is more useful to label than another. Someone might want a magnetic North marker, or a bearing marker. Other people might find that doesn't add value.
I would be more than happy to add the shipping channel (from a public domain chart, as you suggested below) instead of an "intended path" if that would be useful (and I agree it would be verifiable).
Iterative image development is hard if you don't upload the image so people can see it and suggest, well, iterations. I clearly erred in not adding a huge block-letter template to the file saying "do not post this on mainspace". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is what happens in my professional Real Life too, no worries. I think everybody can be satisfied with a view that shows the shipping channel (found in the NOAA charts, which are RS for that) and news accounts that show the documented path of the ship into the bridge pier, showing both, which I think makes the deviation more understandable.. Acroterion(talk)18:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to make that change. If you (or anyone else!) have any more suggestions on labels, markers, colors, font size, etc. they're all more than welcome. The file name should probably also be more informative/easier to find. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. The bridge kind of hides the deviation, but I think it helps to make the point of how small a departure from the channel results in disaster. Acroterion(talk)20:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) This image is certainly not "ready for primetime", which is why I posted it on the Talk page for discussion and improvement, not on this or any other article. I thought I had made that clear enough above when I referred to it as "quickly cobbled together".
2) There are multiple published, reliable sources (in the WP:RS sense) for this (NY Times, El Pais, Reuters, local news, etc.) e.g. [4] and [5]. I considered adding the path into the harbor as well, again from AIS tracking (which clearly shows the ship coming in from SSW of Fort Carroll), but thought that might prove confusing.
I completely agree the image should not be in the article in its current state. I'm not even sure it is useful at all while this is still a current event, which, again, is why I posted it here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The path is off by about 20 degrees, the shipping channel is on the other side of Fort Carroll. While the angle of view makes the context a little clearer than a 2D elevation view, the angle leads to error - if that path was followed, a ship would hit the north pier of the bridge or hit Fort Carroll. Reference to a chart (which may be available in the public domain) would be better. Acroterion(talk)16:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline section (removal/reintegration)
FAO @Reywas92 but also others: I've taken the list timeline out of the page for now; this info can be better used by working it into the prose. The list doesn't cite any sources, and there's new info introduced in it not otherwise sourced in the article. That needs fixing, but I presume it's all verifiable information. Rationale for moving to talk page is that editors can pick from the list here and reintegrate into the prose with inline citations.
00:39 EDT /UTC-4 (approximate): The MV Dali gets underway from her berth at Seagirt Terminal in the Port of Baltimore. The pilots release the tugs shortly thereafter.
01:25 (approximate): Multiple alarms go off; Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) ceases recording electronic system data. Bridge audio is recorded using backup power.
01:27:04: Pilot gives order to drop anchor and issues additional steering commands.
01:27:25: Pilot makes general radio call over VHF that Dali had lost all power and was approaching the Key Bridge. MDTA units have been dispatched to shut down Key Bridge.
The NY Times and others refer to the timestamps of realtime video feeds such as this one [6] which show a splash and collision from 1:28:45 to 1:28:50 and bridge collapse by 1:28:55, which is slightly at odds with VDR audio starting at 1:29:00 – SJ +02:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these just seem to be "something some dude posted on twitter" without a lot of indication why it matters. I'm not sure that kind of thing rises to the level of encyclopedic relevance, although I understand that PF is probably trying to get ahead of the curve here. I'm going to assume that there is a twitter conspiracy somewhere about Oppenheimer winning Best Picture because Oppenheimer himself was a Jew. I would prefer a general piece about conspiracy theories and not PF checking individual tweets. Twitter is truly the very bottom rung of social discourse, that makes 4chan and comments on PornHub seem like philosophy in comparison. GMGtalk11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, atm all of the relevant articles seems to be "people wrote crap on social media", at least going by the headlines. We could have a sentence saying basically that, but... meh. There could be interesting non-conspiracy info in there, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have a different mission, and I'm sure they hopped on random tweets before and had something in place when it blew up. Just not sure that's a level of proactiveness that jives with the mission of WP. GMGtalk11:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, the ship was Chinese, with a Ukranian captain, the crash, planned by Mitch McConnell, was intendended to distract the public from Sean "Diddy" Combs, and the bridge was racist. Don't tell me this doesn't make sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I see is potentially a sentence or two like Following the collapse, a variety of conspiracy theories about the bridge and the collapse itself were posted to social media.[Ref][Ref][Ref] Some included doctored images or images and videos of other unrelated events presented as being from the fires, such as footage from the 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion.[Ref] mainly based off this article. Though there are a decent number of conspiracy theories, I don't believe we would need a standalone section. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the content in principle. I just think it needs to percolate to the surface a little more and get more general coverage not specifically dedicated to debunking individual tweets. Conspiracy nutters are nutters with too much time and red bull. If we're using a bar that is too low, we're probably making an argument that could be applied to literally a million articles. Compare something like COVID where the conspiracy theories were clearly a topic in their own right and received widespread coverage as a topic unto itself. GMGtalk10:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. I don't see anything grammatically wrong with the current title, and it sounds more natural. The title is distinguished from the name of the bridge by the word "collapse". Station1 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:CONCISE and WP:NCE. There's a clear precedent that we follow the "YEAR (IF NECESSARY)LOCATION AND/OR OTHER DESCRIPTORTYPE OF EVENT" format for naming articles that cover events. List of bridge failures shows that similar events which have their own article (rather than a subsection of the bridge article) follow this format too. MIDI (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as "Collapse of (insert name)" would better refer to an institution or a system, while "(Insert name) collapse" better suits a structure that collapsed.YBSOne (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the above. Plus "to distinguish the name of this article from the name of the bridge proper", uh, this is distinguished in the current title by having collapse at the end. MisawaSakura (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: The suggested title gets to the point more directly. The article is about the collapse. The reader shouldn't be forced to read all the way to the end of the title, past the four-word name of the bridge (which is not well known to most people), to figure that out. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the above, especially WP:CONCISE, as there is no discernible ambiguity in the current title. The rename also seems slightly dramatized, which might sound nice as the title of an art piece ("The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", for example), but this is a factual article. NomadicNom (talk) 20:39, 30 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.
Five vehicles
"At least five submerged vehicles, including three passenger vehicles and a transit mixer, were detected using sonar. ... The bodies of two of the construction crew were recovered from inside a pickup truck." Was the pick-up truck one of the passenger vehicles? Was it the fifth vehicle? Was it a sixth vehicle? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the archive link does not connect for me, but I've registered with WaPo, so no problem. The report says it was a "red pick-up truck", but little else, only: ""Based on sonar scans, we firmly believe that the vehicles are encased in the superstructure and concrete that we tragically saw come down," Butler said. So I'm still really no further on in understanding if this was one of the five vehicles mentioned or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The collapsed part of the bridge includes the three spans under the metal truss, and three more to the northeast (left of the images in Dundalk, Maryland). The right side of the images is Hawkins Point, Baltimore.
I don't think it necessarily has to perfectly align 1:1 for the similarity between the images to be parsed by readers. That'd be fine. — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely appreciate that you went as far as modifying the graphic to match the panoramic lensing of the photography. Thank you. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At present "Danish shipping company Maersk has chartered Dali since its delivery in early 2015", which may well be true, but not cited as such. There is the ref from 2015, but that does not specify the period; and I have not seen a ref regarding the length of the current charter. Anyone have a source for this? - Davidships (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To your point:
"We can confirm that the container vessel “DALI”, is owned by Grace Ocean, and operated by Synergy Group. It is time chartered by Maersk and is carrying Maersk customers’ cargo." 26 March 2024, emphasis added
Sounds like classic WP:SYNTH – just because it was chartered by Maersk when it was first launched, and also when the incident occurred, doesn't mean that it was one continuous charter (like our article says). I think any re-wording should avoid implying that it wasn't a continuous charter, however. I've done a quick job at it for now. MIDI (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tupsumato. We should keep in mind that, if I remember correctly from when I had access, SeaWeb (as with many other maritime sources) uses "shipmanager" for what WP terms "operator". - Davidships (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Size graphic
Dali's size, though considered large, is less than that of the largest container ship. (added text: It is recognized that bigger ships can cause bigger disasters, such as the 1,300-foot vessel in the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction.
Like the similar graphic in the NY Times source, the graphic places the size of the ship in context: it's large, but not even close to being the largest and therefore portends even larger catastrophes ahead (I've added another sentence to the caption, for context). Maybe you can find additional observations in the source that could be added to this article. Separately, I'm the creator of the graphic and don't understand which accessibility issue you're referring to. I can modify the graphic if needed; let me know specifics. —RCraig09 (talk)04:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the part about TEUs should be removed. It's unnecessary since shipping capacity has nothing to do with the accident, and at first glance it could leave one with the impression that there are ships over twice as long as the Dali. -- Jfhutson (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Pemilligan and Super Goku V, the already-cited NY Times source mentions the ship size vs disaster size issue (I didn't put the "...portend..." language in the actual caption).
— Jfhutson, shipping capacity has to do with weight, which implies momentum, which determines destructive force, which caused the accident. Separately, the graphic is clear re TEUs and we should judge graphics on their clear content—not "at first glance". Separately, the length X width size, and TEU capacity, are differently color-coded. —RCraig09 (talk)15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting chain of logic, but I think it is original research unless you have a reliable source talking about how increases in capacity contributed to the disaster. Regarding "first glance," the original comment on here also mentioned that the graphic is hard to read, and I would agree. Including the capacity information contributes to that, and using two scales makes it hard to interpret as well. I would suggest that even after the first glance (and clicking to enlarge the graphic), it takes a fair amount of effort to understand. An easy way to simplify it and make it easier to read would be to remove the capacity element.-- Jfhutson (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding size vs. disaster, you put in something about big ships causing big disasters, but left out anything related to this, from the same article, "The Dali’s size was not necessarily a factor in Tuesday’s accident, and investigators continue to search for sources of the cause. Even for a ship half the Dali’s size, Mr. Rodrigue said, “I suspect the outcome would’ve been the same.”" It seems like, unless we have another source contradicting that, that having this graphic creates a false impression that size is important in this disaster. If it's true that '70s size ships would have created the same result, I don't know why we're comparing the ship to ships built in the '70s at all; it has very little relevance to the subject of the article. -- Jfhutson (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insights, Jfhutson. Many Wikipedia articles have content describing the subject's impact,(no pun intended) related occurrences, etc. Here, there have been numerous news articles about which other bridges are vulnerable, which ship types are the greatest threat, similar collisions and disasters, etc. Here, capacity is specifically shown (textually) in the NY Times chart that inspires the present graphic, so no original research is involved in creating my graphic. The value in showing capacity is not so much in showing dangers of 1970s ships or how capacity contributed to this particular disaster, but in showing that even medium-size, medium-capacity ships can cause huge disasters. It may be a judgment call on whether a two-scale graphic is too hard for readers to interpret; it doesn't take too much effort for anyone who can read a single-scale chart in the first place. Separately, "accessibility" is not the same as "hard to interpret"; I will enlarge more of the text in upcoming Version 3, but basically I maintain the size-and-capacity focus of the NY Times source. —RCraig09 (talk)21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of observations from my POV: While I see that other articles use similar scales (Seawise Giant being one), the comparison of one object's length to another's height seems illogical. Just because both properties use the same units, doesn't mean they should be directly comparable. The style of File:Bateaux comparaison2 with Allure.svg may be useful. Also, my eye is drawn straight to the "world's largest" item. It shouldn't be; the subject of this article should be the focus. MIDI (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MIDI, I don't understand the relevance of the Seawise Giant or "comparison" charts, as the chart here uses different scales on left and right (blue and red) sides. In Version 4 I shortened "Largest container ship" to "World's largest" on the right side, and enlarged MV Dali a bit on the left side, to emphasize this ship a bit more. More generally, the purpose of this graphic isn't to zero in on the collapse itself, or the ship itself; its purpose is to put the ship's size and capacity in a larger context as enhanced by the textual caption. It's all about contextualizing, in view of the slew of "related" news articles I mentioned in my 21:13, 1 April post. —RCraig09 (talk)22:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mention of Seawise Giant is to acknowledge that other articles use similar comparison methods (i.e. there may be a precedent) but my point is that we shouldn't compare a ship's length to a building's height; I don't think we should include non-comparable items in the diagram. MIDI (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get your meaning now! The NY Times source used the Empire State Building to give real-world, intuitively understandable context to how long ships are, rather than just presenting a number. I purposely excluded an Eiffel Tower that was in the source, but included a football field so that the ship lengths were "bracketed" by things concretely perceptible. —RCraig09 (talk)16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename article, not a collapse: it was knocked over
It can be said that a bridge's main job is to not-collapse. Bridges do collapse from time to time, it's their main way of failing. Could be from design mistakes (catastrophic wind oscillations) or materials/construction mistakes (leaky concrete allowing corrosion of rebar), maintenance failures (not detecting or paying attention to cracks). But a perfectly good bridge that gets hit (right at one of its two supports) by a massive ship, that bridge did not collapse, it was knocked over. No aspect of its design was meant to handle this failure mode. Notice other articles people mention here are sometimes called things like "bridge disaster", so there is precedent. Wikipedia is here to collate yes, but also educate, and not just parrot popular opinion: this bridge did not collapse. 207.237.14.175 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your precedent claim, article about similar bridge events should generally follow this section of WP:NCE. Francis Scott Key Bridge is the where and the collapse is the what. Calling it a disaster would make it vaguer as to what happened. Maybe those articles had a better reason to be named disasters. But in this case, the bridge collapsed. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But in this case, the bridge collapsed." sorry, that's nonsense. In this case people call it a collapse is true; that it was a collapse is not true. When a person makes an argument, you address the argument, and not simply repeat a phrase that they are arguing against as if you've added something. 207.237.14.175 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly concur with Jasper Deng on this and oppose the renaming proposal. I couldn't have said it better why the proposal makes no sense. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said the disaster "demonstrates that migrants go out and do risky jobs at midnight", and criticized their treatment by "certain insensitive, irresponsible politicians in the United States".
The way this is worded and included in the article sounds very biased and more like left wing moderators of Wikipedia using the quote to try to make a political statement.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a statement made in an official capacity by a head of state of a country whose nationals were disproportionately affected and IN DIRECT reaction to this disaster. I do not see a valid reason why this should be censored off. Borgenland (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "across the Patapsco River near Boston, Massachusetts" to "across the Patapsco River near Baltimore, Maryland". The bridge is 400 miles away from Boston, Massachusetts. It's in the Baltimore metropolitan area, Maryland. 2.26.209.19 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And see my discussion of the location description up this talkpage where I make more or less the same point as MIDI was trying to make about pedantic insistence on misleading precision. Acroterion(talk)10:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you've seen one city starting with B in a state starting with M, you've seen them all. Could just as easily have been Biloxi, Mississippi, or Bemidji, Minnesota. —Mahāgaja · talk10:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section on impact force is poorly written. For starters, momentum and thrust are not equivalent and are not comparable. If an equation is given with the calculated result, all the input parameters and assumptions should also be given. Nyth6315:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyth83: Where is it ever implied that they are the same? The force of impact is compared with the force of thrust of the Saturn V rocket by the source and the article. Writing out the calculation is going to be WP:UNDUE weight and in any case WP:SYNTH as the source didn't explicitly write it out either.--Jasper Deng(talk)20:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little more research once I was able to sit down at my desk computer and rewrote that rubbish. The whole word salad about momentum was irrelevant anyway as kinetic energy is the correct parameter. I found the correct physics reference in the NYT article and added it. Nyth6312:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harbor pilots are trained, and continue to train, on simulators. Rest assured that all the relevant physical factors shall be plugged in. Given that it was not a salvageable situation, the harbor pilot industry now has its Kobayashi Maru. What we have access to now are engineers with the basic kinetics in hand. kencf0618 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StreamTime EL
I'm removing the StreamTime LIVE video link from the external links section because it's already a reference per WP:ELRC, though I can understand if it's reinstated due to its significance. It would need the cite YouTube template if it returns, I assume. Mapsax (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change
Maryland Governor Wes Moorecalled the event a "global crisis" that had affected more than 8,000 jobs.
to
Maryland Governor Wes Moore called the event a "global crisis" that had affected more than 8,000 jobs. Confessfletch (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read this article with great interest, but when I reached the section titled Casualties I was surprised at the emphasis on the nationalities of various persons killed, injured or missing in this accident.
Relevant details of the casualties appear to me to be confined to the role each person was playing at the time of the accident, their gender and perhaps their age. Whether each one was a US citizen or not, might also be notable. The exact nationality of each person is not notable so such information has no place in an encyclopaedia. I suggest the Section titled “Casualties” be amended to eliminate the inappropriate emphasis on race and nationality. Dolphin(t)06:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nationality was included as there were appropriate references to them in RS. Furthermore, at least two foreign governments have made official statements regarding the disaster which will appear disjointed if the nationalities were blurred out. Borgenland (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Carroll, Joint Command, and Citation Prompting
I've just called Joint Command (and added them to External Links –I believe they qualify as a primary source...?), introduced myself as a Wikipedia editor, and asked there's any usage of Fort Carroll or if they're just avoiding it. She said she wasn't 100% sure, but thanked us all for the work we do! Joint Command of course is focused on what they're doing, which is incidence response (no mention of repair at this stage ), and neither the Maryland Department of the Environment nor for that matter Preservation Maryland has anything to say about Fort Carroll, which is something like 300 meters from the Key Bridge and its collapse. I can't imagine it won't be involved given its proximity and status as an involuntary park. That said I'm not going to go running around prompting citations from the relevant entities. Is there Wikipedia policy on this? kencf0618 (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<smile> You're using "despite" correctly. The problem is the structure of this very long sentence. If we say, "Despite a collision..., anonymous former agency officials have stated...", we are (most easily understood to be) saying: the officials spoke despite the collision.
Replacing "despite" with "while" is somewhat better, but doesn't fix the main problem, which is this: the sentence plops the source of the information ("anonymous former agency officials") between the two vital parts of the information (roughly, "there was a 1980 crash" and "yet MTA officials focused on other threats"). There are two ways to solve this conundrum: put the source before the information, or after it.
Option 1: "Anonymous former agency officials said the Maryland Transportation Authority did not consider studying the possibility of a collision with a ship the size of Dali, despite the 1980 collision of a ship about one-third its size that lightly damaged one of the bridge's piers. Instead, they said, MTA studied how terrorists might attack the bridge and how to detect structural flaws like the ones that caused the I-35W Mississippi River bridge to collapse in 2007."
Option 2: "The Maryland Transportation Authority did not consider studying the possibility of a collision with a ship the size of Dali, despite the 1980 collision of a ship about one-third its size that lightly damaged one of the bridge's piers, anonymous former agency officials said. Instead, they said, MTA studied..."
Either way, we should add when the anonymous officials said this and to whom:
Option 1a: "Anonymous former agency officials told the Washington Post after the collapse that the Maryland Transportation Authority..."
Option 2a: "The Maryland Transportation Authority did not consider...one of the bridge's piers, anonymous former agency officials told the Washington Post after the collapse. Instead, they said, MTA studied..."
OK, I see the problem now: the length of the compound sentence structure is producing fuzziness. I have a habit of using lengthy compound sentences, and I'm sure I've written many things on here that often produce such confusion so thank you for saying so. Also on Wikipedia, it is preferable to have inline citations after every sentence so that it is clear what references the content is summarizing (which can complicate issues of composition). However, I think it actually would be best instead to just split the phrase at the beginning into a separate sentence since the Washington Post citation also does not mention the 1980 collision and simply note that the agency did not consider a collision with a larger ship.
As for the anonymous sources in news reports, I didn't think it was really necessary to name the publication where the source was quoted when considering that the anonymous sources were identified in the summary of the citation as former agency officials. Describing the anonymous sources in that way doesn't cast doubt about their credibility while just saying "Anonymous sources have said" without mentioning the news organization would. However, if you feel it is preferable to mention the publication, then we should do so.
Option 3: "In 1980, a collision with a ship roughly one-third the size of the Dali lightly damaged one of the bridge's piers. After the bridge collapse in 2024, The Washington Post reported that former agency officials have stated anonymously that the Maryland Transportation Authority did not consider studying the possibility of a collision with a larger ship, and instead spent decades studying how terrorists might attack the bridge after the September 11 attacks or for structural flaws similar to those that caused the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse in 2007." -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! I would tweak the first sentence so that it doesn't sound like the bridge ran into the ship: "In 1980, a ship roughly one-third the size of the Dalistruck and lightly damaged one of the bridge's piers." As for the anonymous officials, naming the publication and saying that they spoke to it affords them greater credibility than saying that they spoke anonymously (perhaps on social media or a comment board?) and the Post reported it. Also, we should make the initial verb active, and make parallel the things the MTA studied. So: "After the bridge collapsed in 2024, unnamed former agency officials told The Washington Post that the Maryland Transportation Authority did not consider studying the possibility of a collision with a larger ship, and instead spent decades studying how terrorists might attack the bridge after the September 11 attacks and how to spot structural flaws similar to those that caused the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse in 2007." Look good? PRRfan (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to use active verbs and not use passive voice where it's not needed. This is mostly an improvement over the current revision except for "how to spot structural flaws". Per the source cited, the agency wasn't "studying... how to spot structural flaws" but was "inspecting for structural flaws". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Thanks. Let's make it: "...spent decades studying how terrorists might attack the bridge after the September 11 attacks and looking for structural flaws similar to those that caused the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse in 2007." PRRfan (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I say formalism and linguistic snobbery is a good thing! If people made greater effort to be more literate and expand their vocabularies, then they would be better able to articulate their own thoughts with precision and communicate with greater impact. Because most people don't these days, we all collectively live with a dumbed-down cultural life and public discourse, and Wikipedia should be in the business of countering this disappointing downward trend and attempt to raise the bar from our current pathetic cultural standards. But I digress... :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, are we in agreement on the following?
"In 1980, a ship roughly one-third the size of the Dali struck and lightly damaged one of the bridge's piers. After the bridge collapsed in 2024, anonymous former agency officials stated to The Washington Post that the Maryland Transportation Authority did not consider studying the possibility of a collision with a larger ship, and instead spent decades studying how terrorists might attack the bridge after the September 11 attacks or inspecting for structural flaws similar to those that caused the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse in 2007." -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost! Not to be tendentious, but why say "stated to the Post" rather than the simpler and less stuffy "told the Post"? PRRfan (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the present tense unless we definitively agree on using the past tense for the bridge's main article, which should really only happen after the bridge is declared decommissioned. That the bridge cannot be used while it is damaged does not make it an object of the past. It still exists in the present. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.jpg)
![[4]](https://ep00.epimg.net/infografias/2024/03/puente-baltimore/en/en-escena/en-escena-escritorio.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://ep00.epimg.net/infografias/2024/03/puente-baltimore/en/foto_en/foto_en-tableta.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
