Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

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)


 * Been contributing myself, no worries! Dellwood546 (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * To clarify, I believe the argument is facile, not that the conclusion is incorrect. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * If it cannot compute, what is it doing?
 * Updates From: Ibmood (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sitting around uselessly. It's still a computer though. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If a car is parked it doesn't cease to be a car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.135.233.22 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

"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. -- Green  C  21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I heavily doubt it's gonna be repaired. It's likely the rest will be demolished before a new bridge goes up.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And now we're getting into Ship of Theseus territory... Ernest Macomb (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Green  C  00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Green  C  00:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Green  C  00:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. --  Green  C  01:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's people here that are obviously in denial or have some type of vested interest in this bridge regarding its current state (possibly a fiduciary interest) which brings into question their ability to be NPOV. Perhaps if you think think this bridge is still standing you shouldn't be editing here because you're not thinking rationally or logically.  57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --  Green  C  02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The pylons have protection around the base for ship strikes. 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)
 * 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.”
 * -- Green  C  00:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * If/when you stop assuming bad faith, I might be able to respond to your points about the bridge. -- Green  C  02:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * According to this news source:
 * 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. -- Green  C  14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: the port is still open to trucks moving goods in and out. It's not closed. -- Green  C  16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop being WP:POINTY. The port is a red herring with respect to the bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Green  C  15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Green  C  21:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Baltimore Sun writes of the bridge in both past and present tense, based on context:
 * "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)
 * -- Green  C  16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "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)


 * 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. -- Green  C  16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This is really about semantics, but sentences like it was a bridge spanning the river remain grammatically correct, and 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * Sure. Using "was" in the lead and elsewhere is fine for me along with catastrophic collapse as the pipe link.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "is a collapsed bridge" for lead sentence, "was" elsewhere. Ythlev (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Here's my take. A very simple one, rooted in my trip to the UK last summer, where I had no knowledge of the bridges.
 * If I googled any particular bridge, and it says "is", I would assume I could cross it.
 * Going back to my trip last summer, if I googled a bridge that crosses between England and Wales, and that entry said "is", and then if I drove to said bridge and it could not be crossed, I'd say the entry is misleading, at best. Just say it is not crossable now. Yes, it might be crossable again at some time in the future, but it is NOT crossable now. Try not to confuse people.
 * My point being, you should write these entries assuming someone has NO knowledge of the situation. All of the arguing here about "is" or "was" inherently assumes one does have knowledge of the bridge collapse. 57.140.108.58 (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Tis well. I'm not upset with that. I won't argue. BerlinEagle (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The bridge certainly *is*, not *was*. It may not be *currently* serving its original purpose as it is damaged, but it still exists in the present tense. Workers are currently waking up and saying to their spouses "Have a great day, honey, I'm going to the bridge to work". You can't visit a place in the past. It's an existing site. Whether or not it is possible to currently traverse the bridge is besides the point. If it is left in its damaged current state forever, it will still *be* a bridge, albeit a damaged one. Everyone arguing otherwise is being pedantic at the expense of clarity. If you don't want to say it's a "collapsed bridge" because again pedantry prevents you because it is not entirely collapsed, then just say it is a damaged bridge. It is still a bridge. In the present. Not in the past. QED. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That sums it up. Lots of people having a problem with "was", constant reversions and talk page discussions, day after day. "Was" is unclear, pedantic. Even "collapsed bridge" is more accurate, precise and clear. This could go on for years. Glad I'm not the one having to constantly watch and revert to maintain the current minority POV.  --  Green  C  16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not the "minority POV" when the majority of editors here agree on the past tense. What is currently there does not meet the dictionary definition of a bridge anymore, see above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What is currently there does meet the definition of a damaged bridge. A bridge that "was" is a bridge you cannot visit. It still exists. Whether this is the majority view is besides the point. Saying it "was" a bridge is nonsensical, illogical. Popularity contests don't trump logic. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's not beside the point, because it means that you do not have consensus due to your lack of any overwhelming argument. What is absurd, if anything, is to say that it is a bridge crossing the river etc. That's a simply false statement.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet the definition of a bridge at all. The Oxford dictionary talks about something that bridges across another something. What remains doesn't go across the bay, so it's no longer a bridge.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying the bridge doesn't currently cross the river is pedantry. The dictionary doesn't factor in the possibility of a bridge being damaged. It describes needing to cross over something because that's the conceptual definition of a bridge. Reality has more details than abstract concepts. The bridge was built to go across something, it just happens to be currently damaged. If it gets repaired, does it travel back in time and now magically "is" a bridge again?
 * The overwhelming argument is the lack of credible primary sources saying the bridge *was* not *is*. Wikipedia shouldn't try to be cute and be the first to say it's no longer a bridge. That's silly editorializing which plagues this site and harms its reputation to everyone else IRL who's not participating in this editing circlejerk. The fact that you can't see past it is all the more alarming. A quick Google search shows multiple articles talking about plans to repair the bridge, which are unclear at the moment but have not been ruled out. One Bloomberg article says some other recent bridge collapse serves as a hint of how long this might take. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be pedantic but the need for accuracy trumps all else. The existing bridge design will not be reused because no new bridges are built fracture critical anymore and it would violate WP:CRYSTAL to only claim it would be repaired rather than replaced outright. Other sources only talk about a "rebuild". MOS:TENSE requires the past tense for entities that do not meaningfully exist anymore. The bridge does not exist in any meaningful sense. Your only option is going to be to do a WP:RFC, but you are not likely to change much by doing so.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point once again.
 * > It may be pedantic but the need for accuracy trumps all else
 * This is a tautology. The accuracy is precisely what we're debating here. I'm saying you guys are missing the forest for the trees and being inaccurately pedantic. You can't say "we're being pedantic to be accurate and therefore we are accurate"
 * > The existing bridge design will not be reused because no new bridges are built fracture critical anymore and it would violate WP:CRYSTAL to only claim it would be repaired rather than replaced outright.
 * This is besides the point. I never suggested the article should *claim* it will be repaired rather than replaced. That's not for Wikipedia to do. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. I'm saying the fact that primary sources speak to the bridge's possible repair, in whatever form it may come, is evidence that the bridge exists in the present, not the past.
 * But this misunderstanding on your part is worth resolving further. To wit, even if the physical aspect of the bridge is ultimately replaced, should it continue to be named "Francis Scott Key Bridge", it shall continue to exist in the present tense ever since it was first created, and using "was" at any point will have been inaccurate. Said differently, you guys are so focused on the specific physical integrity of every lego piece of the (lowercase) bridge going from point A to point B across a river that you cannot understand the article is about an (uppercase) Bridge, which existed in the present arguably from the moment it was *conceived*.
 * In fact, imagine today is the day after the bridge was announced, long before construction was complete, and we are writing this article. Which of these reads more natural and is more accurate?
 * 1. "The Francis Scott Key Bridge will be a steel arch continuous through truss bridge that will span the lower Patapsco River and outer Baltimore Harbor / Port. It will carry the Baltimore Beltway..."
 * vs.
 * 2. "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is a planned steel arch continuous through truss bridge over the lower Patapsco River and outer Baltimore Harbor / Port. Once completed, it will carry the Baltimore Beltway..."
 * I'd argue the present tense is evidently more natural and accurate.
 * Replace "planned" with "damaged" and "Once completed" with "After being damaged" and you will arrive at the place I'm trying to lead us to.
 * As someone else noted elsewhere in this Talk page, the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was entirely demolished and replaced with a new construction after being damaged. It never stopped being the Sunshine Skyway Bridge with a capital B.
 * QED. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Giving a WP:WALLOFTEXT does not help advance your argument, nor did you do anything to actually refute my argument that "is" wording is contradictory in any sentence describing a now-former function of what used to be the bridge, pedantry that is for accuracy, not against. The future bridge argument is a complete red herring because that's not the situation at hand (please read WP:OSE), and also because we would say it is a project or a "bridge under construction", not simply a "bridge". The fact is that the bridge was a bridge over the Patapsco River. It was a toll bridge. It was a continuous truss bridge. The present tense in any of those statements, one of which is the lead sentence, makes them completely false. I should point out that the structural engineering definition of a "bridge" limits a bridge to its main span, here entirely collapsed and thus "was", with what we would call the rest of the bridge called approaches or approach spans. Your argument is baseless. Again, your only option is an RfC; please work with or another editor to draft a neutral RfC statement below if you wish to proceed in that direction, but otherwise no additional replies by you will achieve anything.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary definitions can be useful at times, but they do not define the scope of article topics. Encyclopedias are broader in scope. They can contain multiple meanings of the same thing, multiple POVs, etc.. as in a bridge which is 1) physical object 2) legal entity 3) cultural object. The "was" camp is blindly only looking at the present-day existence of a physical object, which is a narrow minimalist view that many editors do not agree with, in this case. Furthermore the word "Was" is vague and controversial, evidently. -- Green  C  15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's not, when coupled with dependent clauses. It was a bridge that spanned the river. It was a bridge that collected tolls. Those and other functions are gone so there's no ambiguity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead section, first sentence, is the issue. The body of the article can be adjusted to take into account current events. Use of "was" can be mitigated for example saying "As of 2023, it had a million cars a year" etc.. no "was" required. It's the first sentence that is causing dozens of editors to complain, and will continue to do so for a very long time. The use of "was" is not required, there are other better ways to frame it that doesn't cause so much disruption.  --  Green  C  18:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for whatever it's worth, Google Maps no longer shows the bridge in map view as of today (obviously the satellite view takes longer to be updated). Reading this discussion tempted me to change the article to say "is a once and future bridge" (with apologies to T.H. White). 1995hoo (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Google Maps had it inaccessible with a section missing several days ago, can't say when. And Francis Scott Key Bridge is cited as having been named whilst it was being built, so... Let's not go a name too far, shall we? kencf0618 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Google Maps shows it as "temporarily closed" on my end.
 * I must say, I have to agree with the minority here, while the bridge doesn't function, major portions still exist and therefore it should read "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is a partially collapsed..." Any reference to it prior to the collapse should read as "Prior to the collapse..." Which then allows you to refer to the capabilities of the (functional, not collapsed) bridge in the past tense while acknowledging it still exists.
 * If you catastrophically crash your car it remains a car. Until it is scrapped, destroyed, or recycled, it remains a car despite the damage. It doesn't suddenly vanish.
 * The bridge is still there, major portions still stand, and the collapsed structure remains. Until that is not true, it exists in the present tense. 143.159.132.6 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Otherwise this argument can be used to argue the absurdity that if even an inch of the approaches remain, the bridge still exists. The collapsed structure is being removed as we speak, and a car's definition does not require it to be drivable, while a bridge's definition requires it to span clear air or a water body, which this entity no longer does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be was. This is the consensus, and clearly obvious. The bridge no longer functions as a bridge. Peter L Griffin (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My car broke down, it no longer functions as a car. It is still a car. 143.159.132.6 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You die. Your body still exists. You were a person. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Was" has a finality to it, we use it for dead people. They are never coming back. The bridge is coming back. Strong language like "was" is vague and many people find it misleading. -- Green  C  18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like they are going to build a different bridge. Might or might not have the same name. Not the same bridge regardless. Just like how we can clearly talk about World Trade Center (1973–2001) in past tense, even though another one has been built in its place. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is/was resolution
I protected the article but I think that needs to be removed so editing can continue. My opinion is not relevant, but I scanned the above and found myself agreeing with both sides. There seems to be a majority for the current state of the article (was) so I plan to remove full protection in a few hours on the understanding that was will be used until a clear consensus says otherwise. Any passing admin is welcome to remove protection now if wanted. There is no "restore consensus" edit-warring exemption so if someone changes it to is, please revert them once, maybe twice. But leave it at that until an admin notices. Give the perpetrator a link to this section and a warning that restoring is will be regarded as edit warring and may result in a block (and certainly will result in a block if it looks blatant). If not-logged-in editors restore is, the article is likely to be semi-protected and the IP blocked if blatant. Supporters of is are welcome to start a new section with an WP:RFC. If doing that, it would be desirable to start by drafting RfC wording, perhaps here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This "is" a bridge. The "was" in the lad is incorrect. This thread shows a consensus for "is" a bridge I think 2A00:23C4:241:8C01:D514:5E8C:93F4:C71C (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I notice this IP editor jumped in almost immediately to make exactly the change User:Johnuniq warned against and then posted the comment above. The comment above seems to me to demonstrate bad faith when posted directly below a notice saying not to make that change. I haven't posted anything on the IP user's talk page yet for that reason—the user's comment here proves that the individual is well aware of the issue and doesn't care about edit warring. I don't know what the correct remedy is, though. 1995hoo (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Curious how this brand new IP immediately appears after the protection expires to go against consensus.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

An RfC is started: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore) --  Green  C  19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * I've reworded the lead. Functionally, the bridge has always been signed as I-695. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * [Followup] Apparently this is all moot as of a couple of months ago. See Talk:Interstate 695 (Maryland), which refers to the AASHTO meeting. Mapsax (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Past or present tense for the bridge
The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- Green  C  19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See section above, where it is discussed.

Rules of the RfC:
 * The RfC only concerns the first sentence. Not the rest of the article. The other uses of "was" can be worked out individually based on context of use, common sense, and results of this RfC. For example, "1 million cars cross the bridge each year" was changed to "1 million cars crossed the bridge" - this can be changed to "As of 2023, 1 million cars crossed the bridge" (source dated to 2023) which satisfies both past and present tense concerns.
 * If consensus is for present tense in the first sentence, the phrasing can be worked out later through normal discussions, another RfC, of even clear consensus in this RfC.

-- Green  C  19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose (As nominator.) Prefer something like "is a partially collapsed bridge", "is a destroyed bridge", etc.. which is more precise and less vague. The bridge is composed of three elements: 1) physical object 2) legal entity 3) cultural object. The #2 and #3 still exist, according to present knowledge. There is no evidence the bridge will renamed. Historical bridge collapses have been rebuilt with the same name. Without information it will be renamed the status quo should be assumed. --  Green  C  19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support GreenC's argument violates MOS:TENSE which requires that when the bridge no longer meaningfully exists, as is the case here according to the definition of a bridge in a dictionary, which requires it to (fully) cross a space, the past tense is used. A counterexample to their precedent is the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge, whose replacement is the I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge. Another is the replacement of the Charlestown High Bridge with the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge. Yet another, also involving catastrophic collapse, is the Morandi Bridge, replaced by the Genoa-Saint George Bridge. The former design is unlikely to be reused due to being fracture critical. Furthermore, since the lead sentence specifies crossing the Patepsco River, it becomes an outright false sentence if it were changed to the present tense, even if the qualifier "destroyed bridge" is added, because a destroyed bridge does not cross.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support past tense. I've already made my case above, but TL;DR: it does not meet the definition of a bridge anymore.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Having been rendered inoperable, it is no longer a bridge. If it is rebuilt, it will be a new bridge, that is not the same as this bridge which is the subject of the article.
 * This is no different to how we have different articles for the World Trade Center (1973–2001) (referred to in in past tense), because it was destroyed, and a different office complex was built in its place. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support past tense primarily because it is indisputable that the main span no longer exists and because my interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is that while it would be inappropriate to assume that the bridge will be "rebuilt" or that it will have the same name as it does now, it would also be inappropriate to assume that it will be "replaced" or that it will have a different name. (Just to clarify about the name, I don't find it at all difficult in today's America to foresee that the same people who complain about the use of the word "slave" in the National Anthem might oppose the use of the name of the man who composed that lyric.) As an intellectual matter, I understand the appeal of "partially collapsed bridge," but I'm concerned about the accuracy of that sort of statement because I'm not a structural engineer and I don't know what exactly the proper part of the overall structure is (or was) for purposes of considering what constitutes (or constituted) the "bridge." That is, as I noted in a comment somewhere further up on the talk page, there is a difference between "the bridge" when defined as the truss structure (and the roadway that structure supported) and "the bridge" when defined as including the approach structures to either side. With a suspension bridge, for example, it's the portion between the two towers that counts for determining what "the longest bridge" is, but there is always some sort of structure to either side of those towers. I think the article here is pretty clear that the truss structure was the significant part of the "bridge" and that the other portions (the portions that are still standing) were somewhat ancillary to that. For those reasons, while as an intellectual matter I understand the thought process behind advocating "partially collapsed bridge," I don't support the use of the present tense to describe the bridge in this article. User:Peter L Griffin posted his comment while I was typing mine, but I find his reasoning to be logical, subject to my concern about WP:CRYSTAL. 1995hoo (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose past tense. It will be appropriate to use "was" in the future, but I don't see it as appropriate at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemilligan (talk • contribs) -- 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The bridge is sadly and obviously no longer a bridge. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support From my point of view, the current bridge is dead. It will most likely replaced nearby with a new bride, and may have the same name (wich I personally doubt), but the current constructions is dead and beyond of repair. Therefore past and it was. GodeNehler (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - (Brought here from RFC/A), I do agree with GreenC the idea of labeling it as a "partially collapsed" bridge. It is informative and accurate. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Similar to the points made by others here, and based on the common-sense logic of accurately reflecting the current situation. Language in other parts of the article can clarify the continuing legal or cultural status of this absent object. Potential future rebuilding in the same location may merit a full separate article or separate sections for each version depending on how events unfold.Shorn again (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose precisely per GreenC. The opening sentence should say it is a broken bridge, because that's what it is in ordinary terminology. A car is a self-propelled land vehicle. But in common parlance, if my car breaks down so that it is not currently capable of self-propulsion, I don't stop calling it a car – I still call it a car, although I might start calling it a broken-down car. If it ends up in a junkyard, I call it a junked car. If it's put through a crusher, I call it a crushed car. It doesn't even matter whether the bridge is renamed or not; it only matters whether it continues to exist or not. We shouldn't start using "was" unless most of the remnants of the bridge have been carted away and whatever is at its former location is not considered the same bridge. See MOS:TENSE. We should only use "was" if the bridge "no longer meaningfully exist[s]", not simply because it is no longer functioning for its intended purpose. Moreover, notice that "Bridge" is in uppercase in the article title –  that word is part of the proper name of the thing, not a description of what it is. In principle, a proper name is a completely arbitrary label, not a description. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * soft oppose I'm kind of in the middle. If the bridge gets renamed after being rebuilt, then to me that would signify a totally new bridge (and a new article), and we would use "was" in this article. If the bridge doesn't get renamed, then that would signify a continuation, a rebirth (to be poetic), of the bridge, and there wouldn't need to be a new article. It would just start a new "era" in the history of the bridge. So my suggestion would be to say it's broken for now and then wait to see what happens with reconstruction and possible renaming. pillow crow 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Objectively: which verb tense to use hinges on whether the bridge still exists in the present tense. That is all that needs to be proven. To prove that the bridge still exists, I say a worker can literally tell the person next to them "Hey, I'm going out to visit the Francis Scott Key bridge", and if they confusedly answer "That's impossible, it no longer exists!", the worker would probably think that's illogical and reply something to the effect of "Well, I am literally going there now, so it definitely exists". To refute some of the claims made by the "Support" camp: nuance is important. Dictionary definitions have limited bearing on encyclopedia definitions i.e., we cannot have an article that purports to be about a bridge talk about an airplane, but that's not the case here. A damaged bridge is still quote-unquote "a bridge" (as in "not an airplane"), and "damaged bridge" is not a valid term for a dictionary hence it that nuance is missing from there. So the dictionary argument is irrelevant for deciding whether the bridge exists in the present. The importance of future plans for the bridge is not which specific plans they are, but that they signal people are talking about the bridge in the present tense and what they will do with it. It may be repaired, it may be replaced, it may be renamed, but in any case... it exists today, and the fact that this debate is ongoing is proof enough it still exists. Subjectively: from an outside perspective, this whole "was" saga reeks of Wikipedia editors racing to be the first to say "was" when some new event has happened and wanting to gain some significance from this. If you search "wikipedia editors meme" on Google, most results including the top link and top image point to this trend. I encourage you to revisit what we're solving for here. Do we want to get cute and immediately declare the bridge dead or, you know, apply a very modest amount of reason and caution to wait until we have a clear line on the sand about the bridge no longer existing before making this edit? Which of the two scenarios helps readers understand the article? Imaginary brownie points are irrelevant and being the first to declare the bridge dead is neither Wikipedia's responsibility nor what makes an encyclopedia great. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's still a type of bridge, namely, a destroyed and unusable bridge. I find the IP's argument directly above mine particularly compelling, in that you can use the present tense to describe the bridge... albeit with caveats such as "I'm going to the remains of the Francis Scott Key bridge".  The fact that there is nearly a 0% chance of it not being rebuilt, and a nearly 0% chance of it being renamed, means the present tense is appropriate.  London Bridge includes previous incarnations of the bridge, which were likewise destroyed-- the modern bridge is not really considered a "new and different bridge" than the historical ones.  Fieari (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with BarrelProof. It's not like the bridge no longer exists; it's just being reconstructed now. Some1 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It might cease to exist in the future, but for now you can still point to the surviving stretches and say, "That's the Key bridge". But I also like the suggestion of "is a partially collapsed bridge", "is a destroyed bridge", etc. PRRfan (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Others have given ample real-world examples of why the dictionary logic doesn't work. A car stuck in the mud with a seized, burnt-out engine, is still a car and this is still a bridge, albeit a severely damaged and unusable one. When it is dismantled, becomes scrap metal and when RS start referring to "the ex-bridge" is time to change tense. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Opposs: Per reasons listed. Pedrovelo (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's unusable, but what's left of it is still a bridge. The Pont d'Avignon partially collapsed 380 years ago and has never been repaired, but it retains its name. Maproom (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support when the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, a new article was made for its replacement, the I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge. the Key Bridge, likewise, no longer exists for all intents and purposes. the reconstruction will be a completely new entity, quite likely to have enough significant coverage to warrant its own article. when a person dies, we do not refer to them in the present tense,a nd while the bridge is not a living person, it has clearly ceased to be a bridge. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the bridge used to exist, it does not anymore. Therefore, past tense is appropriate. If a replacement bridge is built, a new article can be written and we can link to it from here and explain in its history why the replacement was necessary. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Soft Oppose the bridge is in partial existence, is identifiable, and all the other arguments previously stated. When this bridge is fully dismantled, then the past tense is appropriate. Sergeant Curious (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The question is whether the reference is to the physical bridge (which no longer exists), or the concept of the bridge and the thing named it (which, respectively, still does exist and almost certainly will again exist). The lead sentence reads The Francis Scott Key Bridge (informally, Key Bridge or Beltway Bridge) was a steel arch continuous through truss bridge that spanned the lower Patapsco River and outer Baltimore Harbor/Port in Maryland, United States.. That is clearly a reference to the physical bridge which once was a steel arch continuous bridge, and once did span the river and port, but now neither of those is true of it. Will the new bridge be constructed in the exact same manner? Well, no one knows yet. So, the bridge referred to by that sentence was the actual physical object, which once existed and now no longer does. When the new bridge is built, there will all but certainly be enough material about it to justify a full new article about it, and this article will likely need to be renamed, but until then, the structure that lead sentence is about was a bridge. It isn't one any more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that I missed and did not consider this !vote. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I feel like GreenC is bludgeoning the process. Anyone else has this feeling?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so as well, but our consensus isn't that strong of one and evidently needs to be wider.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Look further up the page at the subsection "Is/Was resolution." The user who had protected the page directed the people who want it to say "is" to use the RFC process. Under the circumstances, I can't fault GreenC for doing exactly that. If said user were to respond to every "Support" comment in a negative fashion, I might feel otherwise, but that hasn't happened so far. My gripe is with the IP editors who keep showing up and changing the article with claims that the consensus is to use "is." 1995hoo (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT, i.e. presenting no substantive arguments, is not helpful here per WP:NOTAVOTE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're repetitive pronouncements of what is true and what is false aren't much help either. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, trying to WP:BAIT and WP:POKEBEAR. Tu quoque isn't an argument either. And you won't get more replies after this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither are yours. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To further rebut User:GreenC's argument, now a reliable source is predicting the bridge to be replaced. With a wider main span, the existing approaches will not be reusable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More sources are saying the same thing, the latter also explicitly agreeing with my assertion that a fracture critical design will not be reused. The idea that this bridge will be "repaired" is simply not defensible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To yet further rebut it, now there is a serious suggestion to rename it per . Therefore, you must strike the part of your comment saying there's no evidence it'll be renamed, which in any case wasn't a strong argument in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All the other arguments notwithstanding, citing what a few engineers say about the prospects of a new bridge and what a few politicians say about a possible new name (yes, yes, as quoted in RS) is getting a bit far over our skis. I'm pretty sure there's a WP convention about sticking to what has happened rather than speculating about what might. PRRfan (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as possibly falling within paragraph 3 of WP:CRYSTAL. 1995hoo (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor was I proposing to insert these into the article. What I'm calling out is GreenC made the unjustifiably strong claim that "there's no evidence" of a renaming as an argument for the present tense. Since I've found some evidence, that claim has been refuted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For choosing the verb tense for the opening sentence, it shouldn't matter whether the bridge will be renamed or not. All that matters is whether the bridge continues to exist or not. If the bridge continues to exist and is renamed (and the new name is commonly adopted by the general public so that the WP:COMMONNAME changes), the article would simply be renamed to the new name. What matters for choosing the verb tense is whether the previous bridge is considered to still exist. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a bridge that no longer has a main span does not "meaningfully exist", especially as a major mapping application has removed it from the map. And the article will not be renamed if the bridge is renamed, with the old name staying the COMMONNAME for the old bridge only. That's the precedent of the I-35W and Zakim bridges. Please also try to not WP:SHOUT like you did in your first sentence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the helpful advice on how I should write my comments, but frankly I see a lot less boldfacing in my remarks than in the WP:SHOUT guideline description that purports to discourage it. As for whether the broken bridge still meaningfully exists or not, I think I will stick with my opinion despite seeing that yours differs. Please see my above remarks about a broken-down car. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I already refuted the broken car comparison, because a car's functioning is not part of its definition, but a bridge's crossing something is. The other point that is not in favor of yours is that a person no longer exists after death even when their body does. Nor did you address how I completely refuted your assertion that the article would be renamed to follow the new bridge name; yet another counter example is the Morandi Bridge's replacement, the Genoa-Saint George Bridge, and I should point out that the Morandi Bridge had an even smaller percentage of its length collapse.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing your opinion, as I have expressed mine. I will let someone else decide which prevails, but in my opinion and in your words, "Your objection is not sustained." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You argued something factually wrong, which is the renaming. My objection prevails. Don't try to use my words against me; it'll never work. Cope.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your entire tone is so unwelcoming as if you had some skin in the game here. Who cares if it's really "is" or "was" at the end of the day? I fail to understand why you're deriving significance from this... I care for accuracy, but it has no bearing on my life. I find it odd that you choose to be this off-putting throughout this whole talk page.
 * Maybe don't start your answers with "Sorry, comma..." followed by an opinion. Maybe don't end them with "Cope". Maybe don't call people's opinions "*italicized* factually wrong" when this is a discussion with two sides trying to find some logical resolution, and you're also just literally sharing your opinion.
 * Be positive and be polite. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * > "meaningfully exist"
 * You keep making this comment as if it's self-evidently true, but you have failed to convince the many that oppose the past tense usage as to its accuracy.
 * To date, it seems like your arguments are generally that the current bridge doesn't fit (a) the dictionary definition or (b) the engineering definition. I view these as secondary definitions that are more appropriate to discussing a (lowercase) bridge rather than "The Francis Scott Key Bridge". I would argue dictionaries focus on lowercase definitions and encyclopedias focus on uppercase things of note.
 * I am of the view that the "entity" that defines the Francis Scott Key Bridge still exists. People are debating what to do about it, which by itself is (perhaps self-evident) proof that such a bridge still exists. People are talking about whether to repair or renew it. Meaning it exists in some damaged state that ought to be fixed (or fully replaced such that it does, at that point, cease to exist).
 * The last time I made these arguments, you wrongly accused me of a "wall of text" rather than actually responding to the points I'm making. I encourage you to enter into an unbiased discussion of the merits of our position (i.e. put yourself in our shoes) rather than dismissing it outright and trying to "one up" other editors when they express their views, because that's neither helpful nor welcoming to contributing members of the community. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This source forcibly describes the bridge as "no longer".--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that it much matters, but that's an opinion piece, albeit by the Baltimore Sun's editorial board, and I'd say its use of "no longer" is a bit more flowery than forcible. PRRfan (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an opinion piece that has the specific agenda of changing the name of the bridge due to racial issues, so it really has limited bearing on whether the bridge exists or not. They're trying to push that agenda, not to logically resolve the "correct" tense for the bridge. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not, frankly, accept a closure by who has only 725 edits and has been here for less than a year. I want this closure to be reviewed by someone with much more experience closing contentious discussions, as the above hardly constitutes a "consensus". They also made the factually wrong statement that a majority of people said that the bridge meaningfully exists; a strict headcount is only 50-50.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion was subject to a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that was archived today from the Administrators' noticeboard without action. Charcoal feather (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Carried I-695"?
Saying the bridge carried I-695 in the infobox is simply false, considering it explicitly says the designation for it is MD 695 (even though it was signed as I-695). Thus I changed it.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 13:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

U.S. vs. American national anthem
Let's talk about "U.S. national anthem" vs. "American national anthem", which is currently being contested in edit summaries. Does anyone know whether Wikipedia's Manual of Style has guidance? Googling seems mainly to turn up pages of Talk discussion from the early 2000s. PRRfan (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d like to know who "User:Trorov" thinks he is to come in giving orders like "don’t change it again," as he did in an edit summary. 1995hoo (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a tit for tat, see the preceding edit summary. That's still not an excuse though.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was the one who said that first. I don't think "the international community" will confuse "American" for the rest of the American countries. It's a stretch to imagine this article about an American bridge would refer to "American" in any other way.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (Responding to both of you:) Ah, my fault for not looking at all the edit summary histories. Shame on me. Still, setting aside any such issues, it’s utterly obvious in this article's context that "American" refers to something from the United States because it’s amply clear that the article is about a former bridge located in the US. I really cannot understand why some folks on Wikipedia think readers are stupid and have to have their hands held. I’m also kind of amused. Someone recently edited an article on my watchlist to change the word "soccer" to "football" with the edit summary "Americans are stupid." Now here we have someone else assuming non-Americans are the stupid ones. I’m beginning to think it’s all a sign of what I sometimes call Wikipedia's anti-US mafia who try to figure out what word, grammar, etc., is used in the United States and then insist on something else. 1995hoo (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lifetime American here. I'd prefer—though not by very much—"U.S." because it's shorter and utterly noncontroversial (in the sense that no one can attack it on the grounds of being "confusing" or neo-imperialistic") and so seems more encyclopedic. PRRfan (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also American and I prefer "U.S." Not sure why it's a controversial edit at all. Using "American" here sounds more informal by my ear. Worth noting that Names of the United States calls using "America" to mean "U.S" "informal" in the lead. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Between those choices, I'd also vote for "US National Anthem" (without periods per MOS:US) as sounding more natural between those two choices, although Google Trends shows them as virtually tied. However, my preference would be to just use "National Anthem of the United States" as is used in the The Star-Spangled Banner article. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * I'd suggest "US national anthem" over "national anthem of the United States" because it's shorter and because "United States" already appears in the previous paragraph. (It'd be "national anthem" either way because it's not a proper noun.) PRRfan (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "U.S." isn't about "hand-holding" at all. It is more concise, more formal, and - dare it be said - more appropriate for an international readership because other countries are "American" as well. Nowhere in the article about the SSB is it referred to as the "American national anthem" - why should it be here? Do we say "American dollars" "Washington is the American capital" "American Army" "4th of July is an American holiday" etc. - informally everyone knows exactly what these phrases mean but U.S. dollar, U.S. capital, U.S. Army, U.S. holiday AND U.S. anthem are what befits an encyclopedia. Trorov (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think "U.S." is about handholding. You seem to be the one who thinks that way, considering there is no risk for confusion in this article yet you want to change it because it's more appropriate for the international Wikipedia readership (diff). Then again, I gotta say that looking back, it's silly that we're going back and forth on such a small detail.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about avoiding confusion - it's showing an ounce of respect for the dozens of other nations in North America and South America, each which have anthems and therefore American anthems. The bonus is that "U.S." is more clear and more concise. You may think this is silly, but you escalated things by ordering that your so-called "proper term" not be changed. Back up your claim that "American national anthem" is the "proper term", while "U.S. national anthem" is not. Trorov (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "US national anthem" seems to be the obvious choice here, and I strongly support making that change.
 * As it has been more than 72 hours since the last comment and only one person in this discussion seems to oppose the change (which seems to be supported by all others), I think it can be surmised that consensus has been reached and this change can be made. QuiteBearish (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "U.S." isn't about "hand-holding" at all. It is more concise, more formal, and - dare it be said - more appropriate for an international readership because other countries are "American" as well. Nowhere in the article about the SSB is it referred to as the "American national anthem" - why should it be here? Do we say "American dollars" "Washington is the American capital" "American Army" "4th of July is an American holiday" etc. - informally everyone knows exactly what these phrases mean but U.S. dollar, U.S. capital, U.S. Army, U.S. holiday AND U.S. anthem are what befits an encyclopedia. We can reduce the syllables by half and yet become slightly less ambiguous, people - where is this resistance coming from? is it now considered "woke" to use our country's very own initials as an adjective?? Trorov (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't deploy the much-abused "woke" pejorative, there's no call for such belittlement. Personally, where the national anthem is concerned, I prefer U.S. as the most commonly-used modifier.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where's your censure of LilianaUwU giving a "don't change it again" order, was there any call for that? oh, my bad - "American national anthem" is the "proper term". Trorov (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's enough of the back and forth snark please - stop personalizing discussions. I'm going to hat this section as unproductive, please feel free to frame your suggestions for article improvement without making observations about other editors.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It just isn't a bridge anymore.
Why are we accepting the closure of the RFC above? I know I should drop the stick or whatever, but this is flawed beyond belief - every single day, as the remains get cleared out, the bridge being in present tense becomes more and more ridiculous. Maybe it was fine to use present tense when the RFC started, but not anymore.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If a computer doesn't work does that mean it's still not a computer? IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad analogy. A closed bridge, i.e. a bridge that's not working, is still a bridge. A destroyed bridge is not a bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To repeat my point, the bridge has been not only destroyed, but also is in the process of being demolished. I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day saying this.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 05:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't watched the movie, what's the reference?
 * Also you make a great point. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Groundhog Day is a movie in which a TV reporter repeats the same day a bunch of times. Similarly, I've repeated my point a bunch of times.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks! IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mainly agree with your point. It is no longer functionally a bridge, and it is being replaced and not repaired.  A new, different bridge will be going into its place with a new design.  This new bridge will have different details and a different history and should arguably get it's own page.
 * That being said I also think it's a minor enough issue not worth arguing over at this point in time. I don't think anyone will be confused by it. QuiteBearish (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There's now plans to demolish the remnants. No way it can be present tense past then. --Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, perhaps we should do a second RFC, or at the very least discuss this further.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bringing this back out again because of the edits from today: why are we still insisting on present tense?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 03:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the issue will soon be moot.
 * Remaining Key Bridge structures to be demolished soon - The Baltimore Banner
 * Once it has been fully demolished, no one will be able to plausibly assert the bridge still exists in the present tense. QuiteBearish (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, once it's gone, I'm changing it, consensus be damned.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Consensus be damned"? I hope you are not serious.
 * Per the RfC close: "Most editors who participated in this RfC agreed that existence as a partially collapsed / destroyed bridge is still meaningful."
 * The destruction of the bridge does not change the outcome of the RfC, which is for present tense. Read the RfC close carefully, "a broken object still exists in the present tense". We could change it to "..is a demolished bridge" or "..is a bridge under construction" etc.. because the RfC says, "the exact phrasing to be determined through normal editing and discussion". The core outcome of the RfC is present tense, for a "destroyed bridge", or even a "bridge under construction" ie. site preparation phase. However it's phrased in the present tense, based on the phase the bridge is currently in. --  Green  C  06:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does. When the rationale of most supporters of the present tense is based on existence of remnants, and the remnants no longer exist, there's good reason to believe consensus has changed. A new RfC will be opened once demolition is substantially under way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Once it has been fully demolished, it will no longer exist even as a destroyed bridge. The closure of the RfC even explicitly acknowledged that change in status would be enough.
 * So yes, the previous consensus should be damned once the situation has gone through a material change, especially when that material change had already been established under the RfC QuiteBearish (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's amazing how much people seem to want to WP:WIN this. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It makes me wonder, if this same situation occurred at London Bridge would we be forcefully declaring London Bridge "was a bridge" ie no more, gone, poof. It was a different bridge in the 19th century, stone-arched bridge, which in turn superseded a 600-year-old stone-built medieval structure. So we have three London Bridge in one article: "Old London Bridge", "New London Bridge" (1831-1967) and "London Bridge" (present). That's likely what will happen here, or should happen. Bridge structures come and go, the topic of the bridge stays the same. -- Green  C  17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say the London Bridge article is a great example - it refers to each iteration of the bridge as a distinctly different structure and only the current iteration is referred to in the present tense.
 * Splitting the Key Bridge article (if the new bridge shares the same name) makes perfect sense, but if we were to do so the old Key Bridge would be past tense while the future new Key Bridge would be present tense. QuiteBearish (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It it will become clearer after the plans for the rebuild are announced. London Bridge is not split across 3 articles. Splitting is usually done for practical reasons when there is too much material for one page, it's kind of a 'necessary evil', otherwise keeping information in one page has better comprehension.  --  Green  C  20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant splitting the article into different sections, and not splitting the article into different articles. My fault for not being clear with what I was saying.
 * I agree splitting into multiple pages would usually not be the best approach without a compelling reason to do so, such as if the new bridge ends up with a new name. QuiteBearish (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically, the 1831 iteration uses the present tense, because it's still a bridge... in Arizona. But that's not the point.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2024

 * 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As several have pointed out below, WP:RECENTISM applies to the OP's reason. A point has been made that if a said bridge is to be built in its place, it will be named "Francis Scott Key Bridge", but not the same bridge, therefore "Baltimore" being a disambiguating word is important. (non-admin closure) Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) → Francis Scott Key Bridge – Maybe this is a bit of recentism, but with its collapse, this Francis Scott Key Bridge has become the primary topic by far. It's not an uncontroversial idea by any stretch of the imagination (as I said, recentism definitely applies), but it's one that is worth being entertained.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I would have supported it, but then I read the Washington article, and found that that one significantly predates this one, is on the National Register of Historic Places, and ran directly by the Key House before it was dismantled for a hyperspace bypass. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I literally had all the same thoughts as @SarekOfVulcan, minus the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference. (Good one, though!) Gottagotospace (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious primary. The Key Bridge (Washington, D.C.) is best known as the Key Bridge, there isn't much overlap in public parlance. -- Green  C  16:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per SarekOfVulcan and Gottagotospace. It is indeed a dose of recentism to elevate the bridge that is presently in the news, but will never be a bridge again. It is reasonable to expect that the new bridge built in its place will also be named the "Francis Scott Key Bridge", but won't be the same bridge. I would say, wait and see. BD2412  T 17:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, certainly for now. There's a good chance the replacement bridge won't bear the name of the slaveholding Mr. Key, whereupon the Baltimore Key Bridge will recede into history while the Washington one continues to exist. PRRfan (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As noted, recentism definitely applies -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The page views from 2023 |Key_Bridge_(Washington,_D.C.) shows there is no clear primary topic between the two bridges. Jessintime (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per reasons above. JE98 (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Extended Reason – Upon completion of the new bridge, we could end up with another article for it, so WP:PRIMARY does not apply on this one. JE98 (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree, but I can see why most would oppose
 * IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 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.

Channel reopened -- more focus on rebuilding the bridge
With the channel to Baltimore Harbor reopened this week, and judging from Gov. Moore's comments, the focus is now turning towards replacing the bridge. WTOP radio in Washington DC mentioned this morning that there is talk of making the replacement main span longer then was the case for the former bridge. With the main span supports farther apart, and therefore in shallow water (and not in the channel), the thinking is that an out-of control boat would run aground before hitting a support. Talk such as this makes it seem unlikely they would reuse any of the bridge that is still standing (e.g., the remaining approaches to the main span). My layman's observation point makes me think they'd also have to make the bridge higher than the old one. 57.140.108.36 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * See Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)