Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mapsax (talk | contribs) at 01:46, 2 April 2024 (→‎Reference to Maryland Route 695: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Collapse

I am not a contributor but am watching this article in real-time and wanted to say thank you to the dedicated folks on here who are working to keep the flow of information accurate as stuff rolls in, and moreover just helping remove the absolute nonsense/trolling happening DiscoSkittle (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been contributing myself, no worries! Dellwood546 (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PAST TENSE ERROR. Until it is deemed irreparable or is demolished and cleared, the bridge in this article should not be referenced in past tense. Only a portion of the center span collapsed. The bridge is a crucial route in and out of the Baltimore Harbor and part of the Baltimore bypass. It will be repaired post haste. Over 11 million vehicles cross this span annually. Like the Oakland Bay Bridge, which collapsed as a result of the 6.9 magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake in October 1989, it will be repaired. The collapse is part of the bridge history, not the end of its history. Please fix the article or I will. Thank you. Imflyboy2 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dude, if people can't cross over it, is it a bridge? 2601:407:C500:FFC0:F95F:4E2E:C5BF:394 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I have a broken computer, it's still a computer even if it's incapable of computing. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I believe the argument is facile, not that the conclusion is incorrect. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is a bridge that used to have a central span. Some statements can be rightly made using the past tense. 35000 cars a day used to cross it, and maybe they will cross again in a few years, but it doesn't feel right to say that they cross using the present tense.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it cannot compute, what is it doing?
Updates From: Ibmood (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting around uselessly. It's still a computer though. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this! I'm incredibly grateful to everyone who's edited the page and added info about the collapse — I just hope editors don't forget about The Baltimore Banner. Regularnewsfreak (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse into Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was that there was no support for the proposed merger. As there is a clear consensus and the topics are being actively edited, it seems best to close this speedily per WP:SNOW to minimise complexity and confusion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough right now to warrant an individual article. As more details emerge, splitting it into an article can be discussed, if notability can be established. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support NOTNEWS. QueenofHearts 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Too kneejerk and it's 4 am here. Retracting my vote. QueenofHearts 08:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I argue about the ten-year test a lot, but this will absolutely be discussed in 10, 20, even 50 years. Oppose. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also... I suspect this event will make this Francis Scott Bridge the clear and obvious primary topic, but that's for another day. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This major structural failure will have a story and investigation of its own much like the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse. Wait until more developments occur.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every accident has a story and investigation. Notability is determined by whether it's studied retrospectively in secondary sources. Your !vote is in violation of WP:DELAY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot assess the second criterion at this time, because there's literally no time for a retrospective secondary source to have studied it. Your linked section is a recommendation, not a requirement, and notability is virtually guaranteed here. Your objection is not sustained.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Counterpoint - WP:RAPID Rob.au (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that link redirects to a section on the bridge's article about the collapse, that doesn't seem like a very useful comparison for your !vote --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The scale of this disaster has not yet been fully realized, due to this, the notability of said events cannot be determined for some time. Dellwood546 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As stated above this is a major bridge collapse with multiple people in the water that will lead to the shutdown of an Interstate. Fallingleaves43 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've move protected the article. As there is an open discussion about merging or not, the collapse article should remain at its current title. Further redirection to this article will result in administrative action being taken. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given that there is a massive failure that led to this situation, and that there may casualties from this situation, I believe it deserves its own article. NesserWiki (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – this already has significant coverage, with BBC, CNN, AP, NYT, CBS, and more on it, some being updated live as a "developing story", with enough substance for an article already at this moment. This isn't a WP:NOTNEWS situation, and given the "developing story" note, we should get more info soon to flesh out the article and make it likely not worth a merge. At the very least, we should wait and see what happens over the next several hours. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - looks like it is very notable. Needs seperate article. ShakyIsles (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Everything so far indicates this is a major bridge collapse. Johndavies837 (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as we can expect the collapse article will be very notable and become huge in size. Already reported in numerous news sites world wide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sufficient notability for a standalone article. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge is not a culvert and the footage appears to show a total structural failure. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - AFAICT there were more than two dozen people on the bridge at the time of the incident -- seven users of the tollway and "at least 20" workers according to a quote in the BBC link given above by Skarmory. It seems certain that there will be ramifications for the safety of such structures worldwide. Seems obvious to me that a separate article is justified. Ged Haywood (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per LilianaUwU and others. We may not fully understand the nature and depth of all the ramifications at this stage, but there is no possibility that it does not reach the notability criteria. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LilianaUwU. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pier protective structures

It would be nice to have some background on the discussions in the design phase over what type of protections should have been provided for the piers in the event of stray shipping. From the photograph it all looks pretty vulnerable Lawrence18uk (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY! Whoever designed and built that bridge with only a pair of tiny bumper pilings protecting each footing from ship strikes is in for some SERIOUS lawsuits! At the least there should have been twice that many per footing, with the outermost ones closer to those footings. As it was, they were both too small and way too far away from the footings to offer any protection. 97.107.37.1 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future

Discussions to watch for in the near future as well as things that might be pondered. There might be positive results from such a preventable tragedy. A 95,000 gross-ton vessel traveling at 8 knots is a force to be reckoned with. "Benjamin W. Schafer, a professor of civil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins University", stated "No bridge pier could withstand being hit by a ship the size of the Dali"[1]
1)- The ship left the docks with tug assist and two harbor pilots. One of these would have been the senior pilot that is highly trained.[2] At a point, the tugs broke away.
2)- Tug boat requirements: Possibly staying connected until open water or meeting a ship in open water until docked.[3]
3)- Aside from future laws or rulings concerning bridge engineering and safety, there will be updated emphasis on bridge protection systems for future bridges, as well as retroactive fitting of at least certain bridges.
4)- Bridge protection, such as Delaware Memorial Bridges' 80 feet in diameter stone filled dolphin cylinders, may be considered. That project began in 2023. Two of the cylinders have been completed but construction has stopped until July 2024 due to the sturgeon reproduction season. Completion is expected by September 2025.[4].
5)- Bridge designs may lean towards a longer span over the ship channel. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ How a cargo ship took down Baltimore’s Key Bridge
  2. ^ I’ve captained ships into tight ports like Baltimore, and this is how captains like me work with harbor pilots to avoid deadly collisions
  3. ^ Could tugboats have prevented the Baltimore bridge collapse? They would have helped, experts say
  4. ^ Work on the Delaware Memorial Bridge collision protection system is going smoothly

Extend Protect the article temporarily.

This would prevent vandalism, and also partially prevent edit wars, particularly from new users. Robloxbob222222222 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent it to the requests page, without response for now. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The collapse page and the bridge main page should be extended protected. Right now, there is going to be a sea of new edits due to the event being fresh in many minds right now. That might cause vandalism and/or edit wars. Robloxbob222222222 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the length of the trussed section?

What is the length of the trussed section? When the bridge was completed, or designed, there must have been engineering drawings of the truss structure. How long is it? N2e (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest continuous truss bridge spans once said 366 meters. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 11:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Useful information at the present time would be information on the dimensions and elements of each truss- thickness and type of beam (L, I, U, box etc) and total weight of each truss section.71.230.16.111 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Pillar is a biblical-era term. How about pier? There are websites with common bridge terms. Yes I know the AP used that term. That doesn't make it good usage. 217.180.201.232 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any English words are "biblical era", so I'm not sure what you mean there. And it being an old term doesn't make it bad usage though. Can you link some of these websites so we can assess standard terminology? Timtjtim (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that Pier, Column and Pillar are all effectively interchangeable. Pier (architecture) [Description] and Column and Bridge [Structure types] Timtjtim (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I HATE "pier" because it also refers to a completely different structure on the water that the ship conceivably could've run into, making it confusing --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.modot.org/common-bridge-terms
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pillar
https://mgerwingarch.com/m-gerwing/2018/12/16/architects-glossary-post-column#:~:text=It%20may%20be%20that%20direct,or%20post%20becomes%20a%20pier.
Seems like people who know agree with me and don't care whether you HATE pier or not.
Pillar is not commonly used for this. 217.180.201.232 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll note that Wikipedia has already determined that the usage of pier is primarily used for the structure jutting out into the water, whereas pier (architecture) has to be found through the disambiguation. It's ambiguous, given that running into the first usage of a pier is a totally reasonable thing for a ship to do, whereas a pillar is unambiguous --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing Wikipedia to make Wikipedia more accurate is not good practice. Referencing people who know and use the terms daily and professionally is the right way to make Wikipedia better. If you want to make Wikipedia a big vat of circular references that are meaningless, what you said is the way to do it. What was hit was a bridge pier and calling it a pillar is not using the best and most common term for what it is. And, by the way, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_(architecture)#Bridge_piers 72.46.123.51 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pier, Column and Pillar not really interchangable. In common usage, Pier (and also Piling) was used to support something in water, wet or rough ground, etc, whereas Pillar (a fatter post) and Column (a skinny post for its height) is used for finished, on-land construction.71.230.16.111 (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Company, Container Ship, and Name of Pilot?

Are container ships even named? If so, what was it. What is the name of the pilot? In previous and similar incidents, the company that owns and/or operates these ships attempt to hide as much identifying information as possible from the public, for as long as they possibly can. Purpose of this post is to get ahead of that effort. This Article should mention both of these typically censored pieces of information as soon as they are publicly available, and with zero delay for any reason, and also any argument to hide this information should be viewed with great suspicion. Frequently, the unnamed pilot has a history the company is trying to hide, such as alcoholism and drug use, and/or the company has a history of similar incidents and they are attempting to hide the connection of numerous dots from the public while public interest in the catastrophe is at a high. Not my first rodeo, and the Boeing whistleblower "killed himself".2603:8081:3A00:30DF:3C55:ECF7:5EC5:186B (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ship's name is given in the section Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#Collapse. More detail is in the main article, Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse‎ -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, container ships are named. This one is "Dali", as reported by several services. The ship that got jammed in the Suez couple years back also had a name, though similar to another, so was mis-reported at first. As for 'hiding' or 'censoring'-- Exxon Valdez and Captain Joseph Hazelwood still resonate 30+ years later, the legend expanding every year. The Captain is not the Pilot: pilots are local experts hired-on only for navigation in/out the harbor PRR (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the video of the strike, the main cause looks to be that the ship lost electrical power. If it's a newer ship, it was likely loaded with electronic control systems, which went out when they lost power. 97.107.37.1 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearance above 185 feet (56 m)

The infobox states Clearance above 185 feet (56 m) but according to Clearance_(civil_engineering)#Waterways clearance above is the clearance for road vehicles, but 56 m looks like the clearance below, that is, the clearance for ships. Pere prlpz (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Was" a bridge

Folks, please do not be pedantic, calling the bridge "was" throughout the article. The bridge is temporarily damaged, plans are being made to fix it ASAP. Infrastructure is often temporarily closed for repairs after suffering damage or deterioration. I would imagine the ship is also temporarily no longer in service while it is inspected for repairs. Even if half the ship was destroyed, it would still be considered an existing ship, until the day it was scrapped. -- GreenC 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I heavily doubt it's gonna be repaired. It's likely the rest will be demolished before a new bridge goes up. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're getting into Ship of Theseus territory... Ernest Macomb (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Liliana. Besides, there's a non-zero chance that the reconstructed bridge would have its own article (similar to Tappan Zee Bridge (1955–2017) vs Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present), Goethals Bridge (1928–2017) vs Goethals Bridge (2017–present), etc.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Sunshine Skyway Bridge covers both the original bridge that was struck by a ship and collapsed as well as the new replacement bridge that was built next to it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: For all intents and purposes, the bridge was, not is. This is not going to be a trivial fix and it will need complete replacement out of all likelihood, especially as they would want it to not be fracture critical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge is still a legal thing, and while currently damaged, will be repaired. The idea that a complete replacement of all the elements of a bridge is ridiculous this includes the roadways leading iup to the bridge, toll booths, parts over land, rights of way, governing bodies, etc.. Anyone trying to change the tense needs to get consensus. The most authoritative sources such as the government of Maryland continue to refer to it in the present tense. Changes to the tense need to show consensus. -- GreenC 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are the only proponent of the present tense at this time and you can't expect government sources to be already updated. The bridge does not "meaningfully exist" as mentioned in MOS:TENSE. And it is not ridiculous, considering that most bridges which lose their whole main span get replaced in practice, such as the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge, the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, the Morandi Bridge, and many others. Also, the idea that the bridge still "carries" 11.5 million vehicles a year when it can't carry anything across the river now is completely nonsensical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, are not reporting what the sources actually say. You are making things up as you believe they should be. You need to show reliable authoritative sources that speak of it in the past tense. -- GreenC 00:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sorry, that is not what MOS:TENSE says. Reliable, authoritative sources say the bridge basically does not exist. Biden speaks of rebuilding the bridge, not repairing it. Ultimately, I am not required to personally satisfy you that you are wrong, but as you remain the sole proponent and your argument is not clearly supported by the relevant MOS page, the article will remain at past tense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that reliable sources are saying it is a partial structural collapse and not a total collapse. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. Most bridge collapses are partial yet they still for all practical intents and purposes render their bridges former entities.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant as it is what our reliable sources are saying about the bridge. We can wait for the City of Baltimore to tear down the rest of the bridge. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what MOS:TENSE requires for tense. If anything, Green C's preferred version is the one less compliant with RS as it says ridiculous things like the bridge (still) carries 11.5 million vehicles annually and (still) spans the river.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only objection is saying or implying that the bridge has totally collapsed, which is what I got from your comment. Sorry if I misunderstood. I do agree that the bridge is non-functional due to most of it being gone. But, some parts of it still exist until it is torn down or reused in a future project. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, but cannot say to a 100 percent certainty and I won't have time to do the research this morning, that the issue here involving "partial" versus "total" has to do with how bridge engineers would refer to it versus how the media refer to it. Bridge engineers consider the portions of the structure to either side of the truss span to be something different from the main truss structure. That's not unique to this bridge, of course. To use an example familiar to many of us on the East Coast, consider how for many years the Verrazano Bridge in New York was referred to as the "longest bridge in the world." What that meant was that the main suspension span between the two towers was the longest single span in the world. A layman not aware of that parlance could quite understandably respond by noting that, for example, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in Louisiana is a "bridge" and is "longer" than the Verrazano. From a casual standpoint, that argument would not be "incorrect" per se, but the issue is that it relies on a fundamentally different basic definition of the terms being used. Here, the main continuous truss structure completely collapsed; I think we can all agree that is beyond dispute. In what I understand engineer-speak to be, that constitutes a "complete collapse." People who consider the portions to either side (the "ramps" up to the main structure, for lack of a better term) to be part of the "complete" structure might not consider it a "complete collapse." Just to be completely clear, I'm not trying to say either side is "right" or "wrong" per se; I'm just trying to flag what I think is an important definitional issue that arises in this sort of discussion and that may explain some of the terminology at issue. (As an aside, using the term "ramps" has now given me the very absurd mental image of either Evel Knievel or Bo and Luke Duke trying to jump the gap.) 1995hoo (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the government of Maryland has had a lot more important issues to deal with today than updating a website or similar to deal with verb tense. Your comment smacks of a WP:OWN tone, but I hope I’m just misinterpreting your meaning. 1995hoo (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment does not "smack". Do you smack? I am challenging the complete lack of sourcing. No sources at all speak of it in the past tense. You assume they will in time, but that is presumptive, and probably erroneous. -- GreenC 00:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Nor is that the requirement of the linked MOS page. In that sense your argument is a strawman argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t get to give orders on how people respond to you. Your comments smack of a WP:OWN tone. You are the only person who thinks the bridge is still in existence. The burden is on YOU to establish a consensus that you’re right. 1995hoo (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, I don't own this article. And I am not giving orders, nobody does that on Wikipedia. Your assuming bad faith. I made about 3 edits to this article, ever, how many have you made? I asked for sources speaking of the bridge in the past tense and not a single link was provided. Instead you attack me personally. Nice. Due to the bad faith I can't deal further with you directly. So I will via other means. -- GreenC 01:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less about any ownership stuff, but I said it above and I'll say it again - do you seriously think the bridge still is a thing after most of it collapsed? It's a matter of time before the rest is demolished. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all fairness, only a minority of it in terms of length collapsed (no more than 3000 ft out of 8000+), but I otherwise agree.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:LilianaUwU, The pylons are in salt tidal water they are massive and deep, the Chesapeake Bay is notoriously difficult to put structures into because of a thick muddy bottom, but engineers know how. The pylons have protection around the base for ship strikes, it is a busy tight shipping lane. The ends of bridge are also still intact. Then there are supporting infrastructure: toll booths, maintenance sheds, on/off ramps, shoreline protections, etc.. then there are the legal aspects, rights of way, names, commissions, etc.. and then there are the cultural aspects. There is a lot more to the bridge then the section that collapsed. So, we can argue this back and forth, there are good cases either way, but until we know the future plans, the bridge is only functionally out of repair right now. It still exists as an entity, legally, culturally and (mostly) physically. To say otherwise is CRYSTAL based on the assumption (unsourced) that everything has to be torn down and the whole thing rebuilt. -- GreenC 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pylons have protection around the base for ship strikes[citation needed]. No one is speculating on what will be done with the bridge in the article. Also, given that the opening sentence is a complex sentence with a descriptor after "...was a ... bridge...", what's given is grammatically correct because the bridge has ceased to perform the function of crossing that river.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming the pylons had protection. Obviously not adequate for the event, but also not devoid.
Baltimore Sun:
A Baltimore Sun article .. in 1980 quoted the director of engineers .. as saying the Key Bridge had a type of “concrete dolphins” at the time. The story cites the official, Mike Snyder, saying they were intended to deflect ships from the piers, and even if they failed to deflect a vessel entirely, they might absorb enough of a ship's force that a collision “would be a glancing blow by the time [the ship] hit the pier.”
New York Times:
But images taken before the disaster, he said, suggested that small barriers that could be seen rising around the bridge’s piers, roughly at water level, would be unlikely to be able to stop a large ship. Effective fenders, he said, had to be far enough from the pier to keep the bow of a large ship from striking the pier, and large enough to absorb the energy of a collision. Assuming nothing had changed since the prior pictures were taken, he said, the visible structures did not seem up to that task. “Maybe it would stop a ferry or something like that,” he said. “Not a massive, oceangoing cargo ship.”
-- GreenC 00:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, maybe I misinterpreted your meaning. If I did, I regret that, but it’s how your comments came across to me. For what it’s worth, I believe your final sentence comes across as a threat. Do not make threats. Regarding the bridge, nobody can seriously think it still exists, or even that it ever will exist again in its previous form. Consider that around 40 years ago the Sunshine Skyway, following its collapse, was replaced, not rebuilt. Bridge construction has evolved significantly since then. But anyone trying to say how it will look is violating WP:CRYSTAL. 1995hoo (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If/when you stop assuming bad faith, I might be able to respond to your points about the bridge. -- GreenC 02:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the name of the bridge will likely be renamed to reflect the current anti-racist sentiment of the community as well. Many proposals have been forwarded, most names indicating prominent Black individuals associated with the Baltimore area, notably Frederick Davis and Harriet Tubman. Michaelopolis (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jasper Deng. The bridge ceased to functionally exist when a large part of it collapsed. It should remain "was" for now. It will either be demolished and replaced or it will be repaired, and if that happens we can change it back to "is". Johndavies837 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this news source: [1]
Following Tuesday’s bridge collapse, vessel traffic was suspended in and out of the Port of Baltimore, and state transportation officials gave no estimate on when the port — one of the nation's busiest — might reopen.
Should we change that article from "is a shipping port" to "was a shipping port"? It is no longer functionally a port. The lesson I learned from the above discussion is that anything that is no longer functioning should be referred to in the past tense. -- GreenC 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the port is still open to trucks moving goods in and out. It's not closed. -- GreenC 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Stop being WP:POINTY. The port is a red herring with respect to the bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is intentionally pointy, for a reason. To demonstrate the fallacy of your argument: If a road is temporarily closed because of an accident, it no longer functions as a road. If an airport is temporarily closed, it no longer functions as an airport. The "point" is that there is more to it then simple functionality, there are also temporal issues. You have made it too simple, and the results read vaguely, and many editors are complaining that is not precise. You will be fighting this continuously for weeks, months and years. Not with with me, but many other editors. -- GreenC 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Are you attempting to WP:BAIT and WP:POKEBEAR? Because I'm done working with you if you're openly admitting to intentionally trying to be disruptive with this thread here. And your argument is invalid anyways, as you have admitted, and also because the port is entirely physically intact, with an unobstructed terminal in Sparrows Point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly not being intentionally disruptive. I was making a point, which is pointy, but not in these sense of the essay of bad faith. I thought the entire port was closed, but it's not; however the original point still stands: just because public infrastructure is temporarily closed doesn't mean we refer to it in the past tense. -- GreenC 21:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Baltimore Sun writes of the bridge in both past and present tense, based on context: [2]
  • "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is named for.." (present tense since this is still true)
  • "The bridge, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, is one of the longest continuous-truss bridges in the United States" (present tense)
  • "The bridge arched over the Patapsco River" (past tense since the arch itself is no longer)
  • "The four-lane bridge, which soared 185 feet" (past tense since it no longer 185 tall)
  • "Tolls were 75 cents for passenger cars" (past tense since it no longer collects tolls)
  • "The steel bridge is one of the harbor’s three toll crossings" (present tense after the bridge is rebuilt/restored this fact won't change)
  • "It’s part of a 10.9-mile Beltway span" (present tense - this fact won't change)
  • "The Key Bridge allows wide loads and hazardous material" (present tense - the policy of the bridge has not changed)
-- GreenC 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tolls were 75 cents ..." past tense because they haven't been 75 cents for a long time 71.230.16.111 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other editors are taking issue with the vague and imprecise language used in this article. It's just poorly written. Here is an example of an editor trying to be precise: Special:Diff/1215860440/1215862050 - but then reverted. Until the language is precise, and not vague, it will continue to haunt the article hour and after, day after day, for the foreseeable future. I hope the regulars are prepared for the long term issue they are creating for themselves, by continuing to use vague and imprecise language to characterize the bridge. Many editors have tried to correct this, to be more precise, and have been repeatedly reverted by a small number of editors. -- GreenC 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that the language is imprecise. However, looking at it in more detail, this is because of fundamental disputes over what counts as the bridge:
    • If someone only counts the three main truss spans (and not the approach viaduct spans) as forming the bridge, then they would say the entire bridge did collapse, along with three of its approach spans.
    • If someone counts the main spans plus the approach spans as being part of the bridge, then they would consider it to still be partially standing.
    Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here are some examples saying or implying a partially collapse: causing a partial structural collapse; Parts of the 1.6-mile, four-lane Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, collapsed; following the partial collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge; following the near-total collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Though, we would likely need to see more sources to determine what the majority of RSs are saying. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC and Epicgenius: This is really about semantics, but sentences like it was a bridge spanning the river remain grammatically correct, and @Super Goku V: MOS:TENSE has no requirement for us to use the tense in the sources. "does not meaningfully exist" is the criterion for using past tense and this is clearly the case here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to check, if the only thing you care about is tense, then you are fine with the use of partial collapse to describe the bridge? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead sentence should stay "was a ... bridge". Other mentions should also be past tense but partial collapse is technically accurate. But I also don't think it's the best word here; the collapse was technically partial but was functionally total and permanent in a way. I would prefer "catastrophic partial collapse" or "major collapse", or "total collapse of the main spans".--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. With that being the case, perhaps we could combine this with Ythlev's reply below and have at least one mention of a catastrophic partial collapse somewhere in the article with the rest saying "major collapse" or "total collapse of the main spans" elsewhere. That would still be factual and should avoid any potential inline or article contradictions. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Catastrophic collapse" might be appropriate as the pipe link to the collapse article but I think the lead sentence still ought to be in the past tense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a collapsed bridge" for lead sentence, "was" elsewhere. Ythlev (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the collapse was not complete, that is not preferable. MOS:TENSE requires consistency when it's about existence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge /noun/ - a structure carrying a road, path, railroad, or canal across a river, ravine, road, railroad, or other obstacle:

"a bridge across the river"
Similar
viaduct, aqueduct, overpass, flyover, way over

Since the bridge is presently not doing what the aforementioned definition of a bridge is supposed to do, then saying that it was a bridge would be correct given the present circumstances. Therefore, once the bridge starts carrying a road, path, railroad, or canal across a river, ravine, road, railroad, or other obstacle, then you have my humble of permissions to change it from "was" to "not was". Nosehair2200 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "is" based on what is still standing but I will go along with David Weiss and Don Fagenson.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BerlinEagle: I undid your edit largely because of the discussion here and also because reconstruction has not yet begun per se. Even if it did, the new bridge may get a new name and be considered a replacement. The PanAm Worldport would not be described in the present tense even if reconstruction were proposed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tis well. I'm not upset with that. I won't argue. BerlinEagle (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is more with the 'collapsed' label. It is not fully collapsed, as I've highlighted, there are constructed parts towards the right and left of the bridge, although that is an entirely new argument. And so, I would say, simply to make things easier for both of us, I'd say, as I prescribed in my edit, 'is a partially-collapsed bridge.' BerlinEagle (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you reading the first sentence to imply that it is collapsed at all? That's not the job of the first sentence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe last night/this early morning, at the time of my edit, it read 'collapsed bridge', and had mention of it. Although I may be wrong, as it was incredibly early in the morning. BerlinEagle (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

collapse above info box

The collapse is likely the most influential event related to the bridge and should be noted higher in the introduction Gregory5796 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it up earlier in the lede, but generally infoboxes should not come after prose, so due to technical limitations you may still see the infobox first on mobile.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Maryland Route 695

I'm aware of the technicality that the portion of the highway that ran over the bridge is a Maryland state route, not an Interstate, from a legal standpoint, and I'm aware that it was signed as an Interstate primarily as a convenience for motorists in the interest of avoiding confusion. I wonder whether it is counterproductive to refer to MD-695 in the article's first sentence, though, for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, the entire Baltimore Beltway is indisputably signed as I-695. Second, the article's own infobox shows the bridge as having carried I-695, which means the infobox arguably disagrees with the article's text (although, of course, one could argue that just means the infobox should be changed). Third, the link to "Maryland Route 695" simply redirects to the article for I-695, which might make the more casual user who's less interested in the technicalities of road numbering to wonder why it did that. (To be sure, the I-695 article does explain it, but does this level of precision really benefit the average reader as opposed to those of us who are nitpicky about road numbers?) I haven't made the change because I figured it made more sense to bring it up on the talk page first. 1995hoo (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the lead. Functionally, the bridge has always been signed as I-695. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, in my opinion, the lead really doesn't need to mention a route number. It can just refer to the highway the Baltimore and/or McKeldin Beltway with a pipelink to the I-695 article. MD/I-695 can stay elsewhere for clarity if need be. Mapsax (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press

[3] @SarekOfVulcan, did you mean you got a virus-warning or something like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Press section, but directly linked to PolitiFact instead of the Nigerian site that was mirroring their content. That said, while they do try to explain how Wikipedia works, they claim the text never existed when it was added by an IP editor before being reverted seconds later (making it somewhat suspicious that that X user happened to capture a screenshot at exactly the right time...). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht Thanks and good call. I did notice the similarity to Politifact, but it didn't occur to me that they actually copied it. I'll copy your improvement to the event-article talkpage. This "copy someone else and appear higher on Google" thing is quite annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I count about 10 Francis Scott Key Bridge articles on PolitiFact atm. If they had their own tag, it would be a good EL on the event article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. At least one pop-up window... I was too busy closing it down to see exactly what it said. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Newspaper Sources

The following articles are referenced by the dcroads.net page for the bridge, which contains a lot of good detail but does not appear to qualify as a reliable source iteslf. Given the recent spike in interest due to the collapse, perhaps they might contain useful information to add:

  • Baltimore Thinks Ahead to Second Harbor Tunnel," The Washington Post (10/13/1957)
  • "Second Harbor Tube Planned," The Washington Post (5/10/1958)
  • "Second Baltimore Tunnel Urged by Road Chairman," The Washington Post (8/27/1964)
  • "Bonds Sold for Tunnel, Bay Bridge," The Washington Post (10/11/1968)
  • "Maryland Ponders Bid on Harbor Tunnel," The Washington Post (7/25/1970)
  • "Worker Crushed by Steel Cable," The Washington Post (5/06/1973)
  • "Delay on Bridge," The Washington Post (8/08/1974)
  • "New Bridge Bypasses the Baltimore Tunnel," The New York Times (3/27/1977)
  • "Terror Threat Ties Up Baltimore Tunnels" by Eric Rich and John Wagner, The Washington Post (10/19/2005)
  • Other sources: Maryland Transportation Authority; Jim K. Georges; Scott Kozel; Alexander Svirsky.

Shorn again (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If/when a new bridge is built, how would we determine if it should be in this article or its own article?

(spun off the tense discussion above)

The Sunshine Skyway Bridge in the Tampa Bay area suffered from a similar boat collision in 1980 (though in that case only one of the two spans collapsed), and was completely demolished and replaced with a different bridge. Yet there is still only one article for it, covering both bridges.

People above mentioned the Goethals Bridge (1928–2017) and the Goethals Bridge in New York City, as well as the Tappan Zee Bridge (1955–2017) and the Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present). Like the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, both were also truss bridges that were replaced by more modern cable-stayed designs, though for those two, the replacement process was planned in advance and not catastrophic. But the Scudder Falls Bridge near Trenton has one article despite being completely replaced. Is it because that bridge isn't as notable as the others? (I mean, both the old and new bridge might look boring, but the Scudder Falls Bridge is part of a major interstate highway with a significant history involving the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project.)

Similar plans exist to replace the Delaware River–Turnpike Toll Bridge between NJ and PA and the Outerbridge Crossing in Staten Island. If/when the replacement processes are approved and take place, how should we replace them? Ernest Macomb (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a few things to consider are:
  1. If the new bridge has a different name, definitely split
  2. Otherwise, look at the amount of sources that refer to it as a repair or rebuild vs. a replacement
  3. If neither criterion is conclusive, then general WP:SPLIT guidelines
I'm in favor of a split in this case most likely, but we simply don't have enough information to fully assess it yet, so we need to wait. I'm already in favor, provisionally, on the grounds that this design was fracture critical and no new bridges built these days are fracture critical. No. 2 likely will also hinge on whether the approaches are kept or demolished (most likely demolished, since the truss sections' collapses would've also bent/displaced the remaining approach spans and/or their supports).--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To go over the Scudder article, it was a six sentence article back when it was created in 2004. It received significant attention in 2007, but that also had a section added called "Improvement Project" at the end of the article. By 2010, the "Improvement Project" section took up 60% of the article and accounted for 58% of the article's citations. It stayed that way for the most part until 2019 when the swap occurred, when the Improvement Project section was renamed to be the "Replacement bridge" section. Since and including 2019, there have been some balancing by accounting for the older bridge, but the majority of that article refers to the new bridge, just as it was doing back over a decade ago.
That's not the case here. This article is 64% larger than the current Scudder article. The likelihood is that this article will be getting a complicated rename to something like "Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore, 1977-2024)" or something that works. Of course, Jasper Deng is right that the name might not be the same, so we have to see what happens. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the main deciding factor is WP:RECENTISM. The Sunshine Skyway bridge was replaced before Wikipedia existed, whereas the Goethals and Tappan Zee bridge construction occurred during an era in which every announcement made and milestone reached during planning and construction led to a flurry of Wikipedia editors clamoring to be the first to add it to the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll cross that bridge when we get to it... literally. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrows Point

The front page of The Charlotte Observer says the bridge is in Sparrows Point, Maryland. I haven't read any other coverage of the disaster but the eEdition is all there is on a Saturday and I'm reading it sooner than the actual newspapers that were delivered. If this is true, it affects that community's article as well.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Charlotte Observer is wrong. The Interstate 695 (Maryland) article or almost any online map shows that the east end of the bridge is in Dundalk which is serviced by the first eastbound exit. The highway crosses over Bear Creek to reach Sparrows Point, serviced by the second eastbound exit. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance missing in infobox

CHUBB is the lead insurer of the bridge. It is missing in Infobox.https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/investors-unfazed-by-chubb-s-baltimore-bridge-link-81033992 207.96.32.81 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you include it? I don't see anything appropriate in Template:Infobox bridge -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)&oldid=1216800842"