Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse 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)

Who on earth made that mistake? (clue: it was me). Fortunately User:Acroterion has trouted me. MIDI (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 · talk 10:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Related Similar Collapse

In addition to sunshine skyway a reference to the Tasman Bridge Disaster should probably be added to the related links as it has similar parallels. 2602:46:3B06:701:E4C0:1671:D8E2:D8CC (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We already link the page List of bridge failures. I don't think we need to list every similar collapse. glman (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Counterpoint: I'd state that link is actually irrelevant as most of those failures are not ships hitting bridges. The tasman disaster was an ore freighter driving right into a pier. 2602:46:3B06:701:E4C0:1671:D8E2:D8CC (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a link to the Tasman Bridge Disaster to See Also before checking here. I think it is relevant enough to have its own link, but if the consensus disagrees, feel free to remove it. EvanSheppard (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the Tasman Bridge disaster is appropriate for inclusion; it's by far the most obviously comparable accident imho 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I concur. We need to watch it though; those sections tend to begin accumulating links that aren't needed. glman (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed they do. I'm not entirely convinced by Cosco Busan oil spill's inclusion though I see the argument for inclusion. I don't think anything else immediately springs to mind as particularly suitable for linking there. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. I agree, while it involves contact with a bridge, it is an entirely different situation and result. glman (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The Cosco Busan spill shouldn't be linked here, it's an example of what you said about "accumulating links that aren't needed". EvanSheppard (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we please include a video of the collapse? 91.102.180.155 (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no free use video available at this point. glman (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that List of bridge failures is relevant here. Most of its entries have nothing to do with ships, and this bridge don't "fail" so much as being destroyed. A putative "List of ship-bridge allisions" might be worth starting. [Edit: typos] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The "Hops and Bodge" sounds like a pub somewhere in Suffolk? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't currently have a more-specific list, and the List of bridge failures does have multiple relevant entries. And there are multiple ones, so I don't support editors' cherry-picking certain ones as being "most like this one" (WP:ORish). All or none; a specific list, or a genral list with the material scattered in it if we don't have a specific one. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It failed; that it did so after (and due to) being hit by a ship doesn't change the fact it is no longer being a bridge. The title of the existing list might want reworking to avoid these concerns in future, though. As for starting a new list covering notable(!) ship-bridge collisions, that seems a good solution both for this article and in general. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

[1] is a ref that "ships hitting bridges" is a notable topic, including discussion of relevant regulations. DMacks (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Chesapeake 1000

I started Chesapeake 1000. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Don't try to mince words here. Call a spade a spade. "Collapse" is the WP:COMMONNAME by far so you're not getting it changed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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)

No. We follow, we don't lead. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. Physically it was most definitely a collapse and what caused it is completely irrelevant to whether it is a collapse or not. You have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the article's title changed unless and until the WP:COMMONNAME drastically changes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Rename to "Francis Scott Key Bridge yeet". GMG ^talk 18:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

* Support :-D (comment knocked over by ship) - Denimadept (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Denimadept: did you mean t
r
o
p
p
u
S? DMacks (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: Yes, something like that! - Denimadept (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse 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)

Done Jamedeus (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Lopez Obrador quote

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)

Sounds like he had a point to make and made it. Thus the quote. What would you rather see? .Rutsq (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the bridge collapse, not Obrador's opinions about unnamed US politicians. The quote is of no relevance here and should go. If it has any significance at all, it relates to Mexico–United States relations or similar. - Davidships (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Au contraire, WP:ELCITE tells us "Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section." Rutsq (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nationalities of casualties

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)

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)

impact force

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. Nyth 63 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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. Nyth 63 12:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Size graphic

Does the above add anything useful to the article? Furthermore, if we do keep it, I find it hard to read; is the contrast in keeping with accessibility guidelines? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

We have reliable source stating that this portends even larger catastrophes ahead? -- Pemilligan (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There are a few articles talking about larger container ships. I will post them for evaluation on if they actually do mention the issue, because I don't know if they actually do say it is a future problem: Washington Post, Foreign Policy (not often cited), Smithsonian Magazine. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

— 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Despite"

@PRRfan: Please explain what the issue is with my use of the word "despite". I actually did go look it up in the dictionary! :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

<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..."

Of these, I probably like Option 2a best. What do you think? PRRfan (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Do you think Option 3 an improvement over the current revision or are there other issues with it? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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 Dali struck 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)

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)

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)

What's wrong with "inspecting"? :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems needlessly formal. But I'm not wedded to "looking for". PRRfan (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Did you not see my comment at 14:54 today? Stuffiness is preferred! :) How about "informed The Washington Post"? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I took your point on "inspected" vs. "looked at". But why "informed" instead of the shorter, simpler, perfectly accurate "told"? Told also has the virtue of being the common way to talk about something a source has said to a newspaper; no one will blink at "officials told the Post", while "officials informed the Post" might make readers stop and wonder what, exactly, occurred. PRRfan (talk) PRRfan (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, all right. :) I'll make the edit myself. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the good discussion. PRRfan (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Verb Tense

Please continue discussion at Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#‎RfC: Past or present tense for the bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Which bureaucracy decommissions a bridge? Have you any examples? Lots of defunct bridges... kencf0618 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Consensus at Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#"Was" a bridge is for the past tense. See MOS:TENSE. What was the bridge is no longer one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, come on. There's already enough of one Francis Scott Key Bridge talk page with that nonsense. This is bludgeoning, plain and simple. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It does not "exist in the present" as a bridge. It exists as the remains of a bridge. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many anchors were dropped?

We say: "The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) reported that the ship dropped its anchors [plural]" citing and paraphrasing CNN. The timeline then mentions "port anchor" and "dragging anchor". The latter I imagine is an invariable term of art, but it's unclear how many anchors were dropped. Rutsq (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've changed it to "...dropped anchor...". kencf0618 (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Salvage & Replacement, etc.

Unified Command Key Bridge Response (UCKBR) has multi-media releases on the daily, but that entity won't last forever. The replacement of Key Bridge shall be a multiple agency, multi-modal affair of at least a decade. I presume that planning won't even begin until the investigation has ended, but at his juncture I propose splitting off the salvage section –it'll only grow and become unwieldly. kencf0618 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Reconstruction"

@Pigsonthewing: The definition of reconstruct is to "build or form (something) again after it has been damaged or destroyed" and a reconstruction is "a thing that has been rebuilt after being damaged or destroyed", while replicate is "make an exact copy of; reproduce" and replication is "the action of copying or reproducing something". For the purpose of this topic, "replicate", ~~and~~ "reproduce", and "reconstruct" are arguably synonymous considering that the question is whether the bridge will be rebuilt without modification or will be designed differently (the latter is which is probably what will occur considering Buttigieg's comments). Additionally, as far as I'm aware, the sources do not indicate whether the new bridge will likewise be named after Francis Scott Key. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

They are not synonymous. One of the examples for "reconstruction" on Wiktionary is "Sunderland station has undergone several reconstructions." No one would argue that the same station was replicated, to the exact same design, each time. The answer to the question "Do the authorities plan to reconstruct the Francis Scott Key Bridge" is "yes", not "no". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:WINARS, Wiktionary is not a reliable source. The definitions I have provided are from the Oxford English Dictionary via Google Search. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add, per the definitions I've provided, that the bridge is probably not going to rebuilt out of the wreckage so it really does make little sense to say that it will be "reconstructed". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted to "replacement". This is a Ship of Theseus situation, but major structures are considered to be "replaced", not "reconstructed", in the event of catastrophes like this. The casual reader won't pull out a dictionary; they will take the common connotation of "replicate".--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Well, just in case this discussion requires some academic consensus to fall back to for resolution, most philosophers appear to see things my way per the Ship of Theseus article subsection "Constitution is not identity". :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

We are supposed to be writing an encylopedia, not a philosophy textbook. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you reverted to "Bridge replacement", which not only reads poorly, but is contrary to WP:MOS. Your assertion that "major structures are considered to be 'replaced', not 'reconstructed'". is disproven by the citation I gave earlier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: No it's not. Pointing to a project space page without explaining how it specifically applies here is not an argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would reiterate what I've said throughout this discussion: at present, there is no concrete proposal as to what will be built in the place of the Francis Scott Key Bridge or whether a subsequent bridge will likewise be named the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The Sunderland station example you've cited refers to structures that likewise subsequently retained the name Sunderland station, and it is not clear that will be done here. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it makes more sense to leave the subsection title as "Bridge replacement" since that's the most neutral name. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're citing WINARS, since I didn't cite Wiktionary. I referred to one of the sources it cites, which is reliable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You cited the Sunderland station quotation from the Wiktionary definition of reconstruction rather than the definition itself, which is not different in substance from the Oxford English Dictionary definition I cited. As I would reiterate, the bridge is probably not going to be rebuilt from the wreckage of the previous bridge and it is not clear that the new bridge will likewise be named after Francis Scott Key. As such, makes little sense to refer to it as a "reconstruction" until a concrete proposal emerges per WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of "reconstruction" in this case is both eminently sensible and entirely congruent with the OED definition. The name of the bridge is immaterial. Your claim - not least the part about about wreckage - is a non sequitur and utterly without merit. The very first line of the section whose title is in dispute is (my emboldening): "In an address on March 26, Biden said that he would ask Congress to fund the bridge's reconstruction."; citing a source which quotes Biden as saying ""It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstruction in that bridge..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The name of the bridge is immaterial. Your claim - not least the part about about wreckage - is a non sequitur and utterly without merit. The very first line of the section whose title is in dispute is ... citing a source which quotes Biden as saying... This argument is without merit. What specific words any government officials use to label the bridge replacement is irrelevant. If the subsequent bridge is not named the Francis Scott Key Bridge or follows the design of the previous bridge, then in no meaningful sense is it a reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge following either the Sunderland station example you cited, ~~my understanding of~~ the definitions, or plain common sense—which is why I noted that the bridge replacement won't be built out of the wreckage because usage of reconstruction is what actually leads to such a non-sequitur conclusion. The Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) article has been changed to reflect that the bridge no longer exists as a bridge, and there currently is no concrete proposal as to the design of a replacement bridge or what it will be named. Besides, at present, you don't have consensus. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"If the subsequent bridge is not named the Francis Scott Key Bridge or follows the design of the previous bridge, then in no meaningful sense is it a reconstruction " Poppycock. See, again, the citation in my OP. "reconstruction is what actually leads to such a non-sequitur conclusion [that the replacement will be built out of the wreckage]." Also poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is poppycock. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, you need to make the case that "reconstruction" is better, not that "replacement" is bad. Biden is not an engineer. Engineers only use the words "replacement" or "rebuild".--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I already told you that your version breaches MoS. Also, it supposes that the surviving parts of the bridge will be replaced. That is pure supposition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I already told you that your version breaches MoS. You've made no reference to a specific MoS policy/guideline. Also, it supposes that the surviving parts of the bridge will be replaced. That is pure supposition. As I've stated multiple times now: there currently is no concrete proposal for a new bridge, it is not clear what design it will conform to, or what it will be named. I'd also reiterate that your Sunderland station example reinforces that reconstruction is a less appropriate word to use than replacement. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd add that a train station or a bus station is more of a reference to a location ~~that~~ than to a specific physical structure (like a bridge or a building). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd also note the example of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge and I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge already mentioned in the section of how a replacement bridge could be constructed in the same location as the previous bridge while designed and named differently. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Safety regulations

And now we have a similar issue in another subsection, with CommonKnowledgeCreator insisting that it be called "Bridge safety regulation" rather than the more optimal "Safety regulations", despite the fact that:

"Bridge" is superfluous, per MoS (and for the same reason we have a section called "Collapse" and not "Bridge collapse").
It's not just about bridges; it talks about regulations for ships, and "critical maritime infrastructure".
It's about more than one regulation.
The article has no other sections about other types of regulation.

The improved version also has the advantage of being shorter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not just about bridges; it talks about regulations for ships, and "critical maritime infrastructure". It's about more than one regulation. Nope. The content ~~summarizes~~ is not about regulations to ~~protects~~ protect ships, only bridges and critical maritime infrastructure. The improved version also has the advantage of being shorter. Thus far, this is only an improvement as far as you are concerned. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a cliche, but nonetheless true, that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is, the section talks abaout "When reporters asked about a proposal to require tugboats to pilot vessels around critical maritime infrastructure". Note that "critical maritime infrastructure" and "bridges" are not synonymous. And please don't twist my words; I said "regulations for ships", not "regulations to protect ships". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a cliche, but nonetheless true, that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is, the section talks about... And please don't twist my words; I said "regulations for ships", not "regulations to protect ships". Well, considering that I'm the person who first added the content that is now included in that subsection and have now reviewed the references it summarizes for the purpose of this comment, I think I should ask you to not do the same. The tugboat proposal is primarily about protecting bridges rather than ships (considering that the regulation would be promulgated by a government agency doing so in the interest of the taxpayers who subsidize the bridge's construction, maintenance, and holding of insurance policies for the bridges), and while the references use the phrase critical infrastructure, that phrase is a designation that not all bridges or maritime infrastructure fall within. The comments made by Buttigieg and the WSJ analysis of the NBI likewise is about protecting bridges. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Error on "damage" diagram

The current diagram shows the NE-most inverted "V" pier (the twin of the one stuck by the ship) in red (i.e. as having collapsed). As can be seen in the image immediately beneath the diagram, that pier is substantially intact.

Can someone fix the diagram, please? And ideally the other versions found on Commons, also? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Done. (I'm sure this will soon become moot as the wreckage is removed and what's left of the bridge is demolished, though.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)