Talk:MV Dali

Lead sentence
"In March 2024, the ship collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, United States, causing a catastrophic structural failure of the bridge."

In a situation like this, please figure out that the most important thing is not the boat, it is not the bridge but the people that lost their live. Folks don't give a barn door about machines or structures. It's the human lives that were lost that is the most important.

Netweezurd (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As we do not know how many lives have been lost yet, we don't have a figure to quote. It will likely be appropriate to change the sentence to read In March 2024, the ship collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, United States, causing a catastrophic structural failure of the bridge that resulted in X deaths. once there is a count. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The current known figure is one casualty, so I've added that as suggested, with the expectation that it will be updated as more details emerge. Teapotpie (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Source: One body pulled from the water, report says 64.125.199.82 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the current sentence work or does it need more touchup? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)-
 * All good. THX! Netweezurd (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A collision is when two vessels hit one another. When a vessel hits a stationary object such as a bridge it is called an allision.  The correct phrasing is "the ship allided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge" 69.85.223.13 (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. There wasn't a redirect with the word 'allided', but I was able to create one after some searching.  Now adjusted.  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Collision" vs. "allision"
Since my edit was reverted, I guess it's better to start a discussion here rather than an edit war there. In the context of maritime law, "allision" is the collision between a moving vessel and a stationary object such as a bridge. However, should Wikipedia use words that may be more familiar for casual readers ("collision", "collided") instead of the more obscure term ("allision", "allided")? Or should we use the latter and then add a footnote explaining it (or somehow the other way around)? Better to agree something here rather than engage in a tug of war sooner or later... Tupsumato (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ...and in case my opinion counts, I'm in favor of "allision" and "allided" in the article body with an explanatory footnote (but I live in a world of explanatory footnotes and understand those may not be desirable in Wikipedia, so I'm open to other ideas as well). Tupsumato (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this and I think WP:TTD covers this: use the technically correct term and provide an explanation of it.
 * The sources I found for the Antwerp incident all used "allision".
 * There is a similar discussion happening on the bridge collapse page: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse, Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse
 * One suggestion here is to use allision, explain it, and then use alternative phrasing such as "struck". Teapotpie (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a maritime legal document. It's better to use a clear term that will be understood by most readers, especially in the lead section. There is absolutely no advantage to using technical terms like "allision" or "allided" other than being pedantically correct. My spell checker doesn't even recognize them as words. MOS:JARGON is also very clear in its guidance: The article should use more common terms based on reliable sources: struck, collided, etc. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * +1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally (as the one who added it) I have no preference either way. I just saw the suggestion in the prior discussion and attempted to resolve what appeared to be a second issue with the wording.  --Super Goku V (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Should this really be a separate article?
Started a discussion at Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this is the better avenue for such a discussion. In any case, the article is decently sourced and only a small percentage of it discusses the March incident.  If we were to exclude the "2024 Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse" section and the second paragraph of the lede, we would still be left with 14 sources (67%) and 83% of the text of the current article.  I think this article is pretty sparse in detail regarding the Key Bridge incident and is fine as a standalone article.  --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * per a statement in the main article a quote from insurance company that this allision may result in largest maritime insurance payout in history, this article, even if not very detailed, should remain. highly notable ship, the name will be written of in various history books, and of course will continue to operate if the owner wishes to. i think this ship passes notability easily. large container ships are all per a policy i beleve quite notable even if not involved in massive news stories. 50.193.19.66 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that the article is a valid standalone. Jusdafax (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do also. It is an interesting read. Krok6kola (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)