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)

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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that there was no support for the proposed merger. As there is a clear consensus and the topics are being actively edited, it seems best to close this speedily per WP:SNOW to minimise complexity and confusion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

---

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

• Support NOTNEWS. ^Queenof_Hearts 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Too kneejerk and it's 4 am here. Retracting my vote. ^Queenof_Hearts 08:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I know I argue about the ten-year test a lot, but this will absolutely be discussed in 10, 20, even 50 years. Oppose. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also... I suspect this event will make this Francis Scott Bridge the clear and obvious primary topic, but that's for another day. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This major structural failure will have a story and investigation of its own much like the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse. Wait until more developments occur.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Every accident has a story and investigation. Notability is determined by whether it's studied retrospectively in secondary sources. Your !vote is in violation of WP:DELAY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  You cannot assess the second criterion at this time, because there's literally no time for a retrospective secondary source to have studied it. Your linked section is a recommendation, not a requirement, and notability is virtually guaranteed here. Your objection is not sustained.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Counterpoint - WP:RAPID Rob.au (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Considering that link redirects to a section on the bridge's article about the collapse, that doesn't seem like a very useful comparison for your !vote --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The scale of this disaster has not yet been fully realized, due to this, the notability of said events cannot be determined for some time. Dellwood546 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As stated above this is a major bridge collapse with multiple people in the water that will lead to the shutdown of an Interstate. Fallingleaves43 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've move protected the article. As there is an open discussion about merging or not, the collapse article should remain at its current title. Further redirection to this article will result in administrative action being taken. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Given that there is a massive failure that led to this situation, and that there may casualties from this situation, I believe it deserves its own article. NesserWiki (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – this already has significant coverage, with BBC, CNN, AP, NYT, CBS, and more on it, some being updated live as a "developing story", with enough substance for an article already at this moment. This isn't a WP:NOTNEWS situation, and given the "developing story" note, we should get more info soon to flesh out the article and make it likely not worth a merge. At the very least, we should wait and see what happens over the next several hours. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - looks like it is very notable. Needs seperate article. ShakyIsles (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Everything so far indicates this is a major bridge collapse. Johndavies837 (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as we can expect the collapse article will be very notable and become huge in size. Already reported in numerous news sites world wide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sufficient notability for a standalone article. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The bridge is not a culvert and the footage appears to show a total structural failure. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - AFAICT there were more than two dozen people on the bridge at the time of the incident -- seven users of the tollway and "at least 20" workers according to a quote in the BBC link given above by Skarmory. It seems certain that there will be ramifications for the safety of such structures worldwide. Seems obvious to me that a separate article is justified. Ged Haywood (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per LilianaUwU and others. We may not fully understand the nature and depth of all the ramifications at this stage, but there is no possibility that it does not reach the notability criteria. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per LilianaUwU. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:24, 26 March 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.

Pier protective structures

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

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

Future

Discussions to watch for in the near future as well as things that might be pondered. There might be positive results from such a preventable tragedy. A 95,000 gross-ton vessel traveling at 8 knots is a force to be reckoned with. "Benjamin W. Schafer, a professor of civil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins University", stated "No bridge pier could withstand being hit by a ship the size of the Dali"

1)- The ship left the docks with tug assist and two harbor pilots. One of these would have been the senior pilot that is highly trained. At a point, the tugs broke away.

2)- Tug boat requirements: Possibly staying connected until open water or meeting a ship in open water until docked.

3)- Aside from future laws or rulings concerning bridge engineering and safety, there will be updated emphasis on bridge protection systems for future bridges, as well as retroactive fitting of at least certain bridges.

4)- Bridge protection, such as Delaware Memorial Bridges' 80 feet in diameter stone filled dolphin cylinders, may be considered. That project began in 2023. Two of the cylinders have been completed but construction has stopped until July 2024 due to the sturgeon reproduction season. Completion is expected by September 2025..

5)- Bridge designs may lean towards a longer span over the ship channel. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Extend Protect the article temporarily.

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

I've sent it to the requests page, without response for now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The collapse page and the bridge main page should be extended protected. Right now, there is going to be a sea of new edits due to the event being fresh in many minds right now. That might cause vandalism and/or edit wars. Robloxbob222222222 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the length of the trussed section?

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

List of longest continuous truss bridge spans once said 366 meters. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Useful information at the present time would be information on the dimensions and elements of each truss- thickness and type of beam (L, I, U, box etc) and total weight of each truss section.71.230.16.111 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

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

I don't think any English words are "biblical era", so I'm not sure what you mean there. And it being an old term doesn't make it bad usage though. Can you link some of these websites so we can assess standard terminology? Timtjtim (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me that Pier, Column and Pillar are all effectively interchangeable. Pier (architecture) [Description] and Column and Bridge [Structure types] Timtjtim (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I HATE "pier" because it also refers to a completely different structure on the water that the ship conceivably could've run into, making it confusing --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.modot.org/common-bridge-terms

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pillar

https://mgerwingarch.com/m-gerwing/2018/12/16/architects-glossary-post-column#:~:text=It%20may%20be%20that%20direct,or%20post%20becomes%20a%20pier.

Seems like people who know agree with me and don't care whether you HATE pier or not.

Pillar is not commonly used for this. 217.180.201.232 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'll note that Wikipedia has already determined that the usage of pier is primarily used for the structure jutting out into the water, whereas pier (architecture) has to be found through the disambiguation. It's ambiguous, given that running into the first usage of a pier is a totally reasonable thing for a ship to do, whereas a pillar is unambiguous --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia to make Wikipedia more accurate is not good practice. Referencing people who know and use the terms daily and professionally is the right way to make Wikipedia better. If you want to make Wikipedia a big vat of circular references that are meaningless, what you said is the way to do it. What was hit was a bridge pier and calling it a pillar is not using the best and most common term for what it is. And, by the way, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_(architecture)#Bridge_piers 72.46.123.51 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Pier, Column and Pillar not really interchangable. In common usage, Pier (and also Piling) was used to support something in water, wet or rough ground, etc, whereas Pillar (a fatter post) and Column (a skinny post for its height) is used for finished, on-land construction.71.230.16.111 (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The ship's name is given in the section Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#Collapse. More detail is in the main article, Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse‎ -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Clearance above 185 feet (56 m)

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

"Was" a bridge

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

I dunno. I heavily doubt it's gonna be repaired. It's likely the rest will be demolished before a new bridge goes up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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 (TALK
PAGE) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: For all intents and purposes, the bridge was, not is. This is not going to be a trivial fix and it will need complete replacement out of all likelihood, especially as they would want it to not be fracture critical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The bridge is still a legal thing, and while currently damaged, will be repaired. The idea that a complete replacement of all the elements of a bridge is ridiculous this includes the roadways leading iup to the bridge, toll booths, parts over land, rights of way, governing bodies, etc.. Anyone trying to change the tense needs to get consensus. The most authoritative sources such as the government of Maryland continue to refer to it in the present tense. Changes to the tense need to show consensus. -- GreenC 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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. -- GreenC 00:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, that is not what MOS:TENSE says. Reliable, authoritative sources say the bridge basically does not exist. Biden speaks of rebuilding the bridge, not repairing it. Ultimately, I am not required to personally satisfy you that you are wrong, but as you remain the sole proponent and your argument is not clearly supported by the relevant MOS page, the article will remain at past tense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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. -- GreenC 00:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: Nor is that the requirement of the linked MOS page. In that sense your argument is a strawman argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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. -- GreenC 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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:14, 27 March 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. -- GreenC 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.”

-- GreenC 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. -- GreenC 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: [1]

Following Tuesday’s bridge collapse, vessel traffic was suspended in and out of the Port of Baltimore, and state transportation officials gave no estimate on when the port — one of the nation's busiest — might reopen.

Should we change that article from "is a shipping port" to "was a shipping port"? It is no longer functionally a port. The lesson I learned from the above discussion is that anything that is no longer functioning should be referred to in the past tense. -- GreenC 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: the port is still open to trucks moving goods in and out. It's not closed. -- GreenC 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: Stop being WP:POINTY. The port is a red herring with respect to the bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It is intentionally pointy, for a reason. To demonstrate the fallacy of your argument: If a road is temporarily closed because of an accident, it no longer functions as a road. If an airport is temporarily closed, it no longer functions as an airport. The "point" is that there is more to it then simple functionality, there are also temporal issues. You have made it too simple, and the results read vaguely, and many editors are complaining that is not precise. You will be fighting this continuously for weeks, months and years. Not with with me, but many other editors. -- GreenC 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: Are you attempting to WP:BAIT and WP:POKEBEAR? Because I'm done working with you if you're openly admitting to intentionally trying to be disruptive with this thread here. And your argument is invalid anyways, as you have admitted, and also because the port is entirely physically intact, with an unobstructed terminal in Sparrows Point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not being intentionally disruptive. I was making a point, which is pointy, but not in these sense of the essay of bad faith. I thought the entire port was closed, but it's not; however the original point still stands: just because public infrastructure is temporarily closed doesn't mean we refer to it in the past tense. -- GreenC 21:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun writes of the bridge in both past and present tense, based on context: [2]

• "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is named for.." (present tense since this is still true)
• "The bridge, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, is one of the longest continuous-truss bridges in the United States" (present tense)
• "The bridge arched over the Patapsco River" (past tense since the arch itself is no longer)
• "The four-lane bridge, which soared 185 feet" (past tense since it no longer 185 tall)
• "Tolls were 75 cents for passenger cars" (past tense since it no longer collects tolls)
• "The steel bridge is one of the harbor’s three toll crossings" (present tense after the bridge is rebuilt/restored this fact won't change)
• "It’s part of a 10.9-mile Beltway span" (present tense - this fact won't change)
• "The Key Bridge allows wide loads and hazardous material" (present tense - the policy of the bridge has not changed)

-- GreenC 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"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. -- GreenC 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)

  @GreenC and Epicgenius: This is really about semantics, but sentences like it was a bridge spanning the river remain grammatically correct, and @Super Goku V: MOS:TENSE has no requirement for us to use the tense in the sources. "does not meaningfully exist" is the criterion for using past tense and this is clearly the case here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

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)

@BerlinEagle: I undid your edit largely because of the discussion here and also because reconstruction has not yet begun per se. Even if it did, the new bridge may get a new name and be considered a replacement. The PanAm Worldport would not be described in the present tense even if reconstruction were proposed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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. -- GreenC 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. LilianaUwU ^{(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 Johnuniq (talk · contribs) 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. -- GreenC 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. -- GreenC 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. -- GreenC 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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

An RfC is started: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)#RfC:_Past_or_present_tense_for_the_bridge -- GreenC 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

collapse above info box

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

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

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)

Press

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

I restored the Press section, but directly linked to PolitiFact instead of the Nigerian site that was mirroring their content. That said, while they do try to explain how Wikipedia works, they claim the text never existed when it was added by an IP editor before being reverted seconds later (making it somewhat suspicious that that X user happened to capture a screenshot at exactly the right time...). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht Thanks and good call. I did notice the similarity to Politifact, but it didn't occur to me that they actually copied it. I'll copy your improvement to the event-article talkpage. This "copy someone else and appear higher on Google" thing is quite annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I count about 10 Francis Scott Key Bridge articles on PolitiFact atm. If they had their own tag, it would be a good EL on the event article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Something like that. At least one pop-up window... I was too busy closing it down to see exactly what it said. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Historic Newspaper Sources

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

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

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

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

(spun off the tense discussion above)

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

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

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

I think a few things to consider are:

1. If the new bridge has a different name, definitely split
2. Otherwise, look at the amount of sources that refer to it as a repair or rebuild vs. a replacement
3. If neither criterion is conclusive, then general WP:SPLIT guidelines

I'm in favor of a split in this case most likely, but we simply don't have enough information to fully assess it yet, so we need to wait. I'm already in favor, provisionally, on the grounds that this design was fracture critical and no new bridges built these days are fracture critical. No. 2 likely will also hinge on whether the approaches are kept or demolished (most likely demolished, since the truss sections' collapses would've also bent/displaced the remaining approach spans and/or their supports).--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

To go over the Scudder article, it was a six sentence article back when it was created in 2004. It received significant attention in 2007, but that also had a section added called "Improvement Project" at the end of the article. By 2010, the "Improvement Project" section took up 60% of the article and accounted for 58% of the article's citations. It stayed that way for the most part until 2019 when the swap occurred, when the Improvement Project section was renamed to be the "Replacement bridge" section. Since and including 2019, there have been some balancing by accounting for the older bridge, but the majority of that article refers to the new bridge, just as it was doing back over a decade ago.

That's not the case here. This article is 64% larger than the current Scudder article. The likelihood is that this article will be getting a complicated rename to something like "Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore, 1977-2024)" or something that works. Of course, Jasper Deng is right that the name might not be the same, so we have to see what happens. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the main deciding factor is WP:RECENTISM. The Sunshine Skyway bridge was replaced before Wikipedia existed, whereas the Goethals and Tappan Zee bridge construction occurred during an era in which every announcement made and milestone reached during planning and construction led to a flurry of Wikipedia editors clamoring to be the first to add it to the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And to top it all off, London Bridge is one that is both, over the past 2000 years nearly. Most of the first incarnations over the first 12 centuries that there was a bridge there get very short mentions that probably would have gotten full notability had Wikipedia existed back then. Then there was one version from the 13th to 19th century, which is still newer and has a lot more information about, but still it’s about something that’s been gone for nearly 200 years. The 1831 version of the bridge is where it gets tricky and philosophical, in that it was demolished and then every individual piece was shipped to Arizona in 1967. And the bridge in Arizona got its own article but the bridge as it existed in London doesn’t. So who solves this apparent paradox? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it... literally. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In point of fact we have crossed bridges before, i.e., split articles about bridges and much else besides. The future imperfect tense existence of the Francis Scott Key bridge aside, I'll check into the opening ceremonies of various bridges and their replacements, and see if they use bottles of champagne or just cut ribbons... kencf0618 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sparrows Point

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

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

https://www.dundalkeagle.com is a more reliable source. kencf0618 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Insurance missing in infobox

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

How would you include it? I don't see anything appropriate in Template:Infobox bridge -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Change the template? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The template cannot be edited, so a modification would need to be proposed at Template talk:Infobox bridge. Though, I don't see the advantage or benefit to mentioning the lead insurer for a bridge. I would advise explaining why you think it would be beneficial. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article for a week to allow more time for the discussion above. Please be sure to not continue edit warring when protection expires or is removed. Any administrator is welcome to adjust the protection (while keeping the previous indefinite full move protection) without consulting me. Ask me or any admin to remove the protection if consensus becomes clearer. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the consensus is very clear, Johnuniq. A one-against-many situation does not warrant a full protection. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed the report at WP:RFPP, checked the history which shows quite a bit of back-and-forth, took a very quick look at the discussion, and thought it nicer to protect than start looking for people to block. Please be explicit: what does consensus show? what should happen (no need to mention editor names)? Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

...you know what, your reasoning is fair enough. Never mind. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

See #Is/was resolution above for my intention to remove protection in a few hours. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 April 2024

Change "The NTSB indicated that Key bridge was constructed prior to the introduction of redundant support structures, which are widely used in modern bridges, and would have prevented such a collapse." to "The NTSB indicated that the Key Bridge was constructed prior to the introduction of redundant support structures, which are widely used in modern bridges, and would have prevented such a collapse." to correct typos. Muhibm0307 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the last few words include which? That is: "and which would have prevented". That first comma should be omitted? Thoughts please. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it could be written like this:

"The NTSB indicated that the Key Bridge was constructed prior to the introduction of redundant support structures that are widely used in modern bridges and which would have prevented such a collapse." Muhibm0307 (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There would be many people watching this page. Can someone more alert than me say whether the that should be which? Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No hard & fast rule, and some dialectical variation, but according to Fowler’s defining/non-defining distinction (which I like to observe) I think “which” is better, because being “widely used …” is not a necessary or defining characteristic of the structures in question. So I prefer the first formulation above, but without the second comma. (To my ear, removing the comma would make a second “which“ unnecessary.)—Odysseus1479 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now; need to come to a consensus first on exactly what the text should be. Happy‑melon 14:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed it anyway; protection having been lifted, anyone can tweak it further now.—Odysseus1479 18:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request

When @Jasper Deng reverted to an earlier version on April 4 (with edit #1217156535), apparently as part of the is/was dispute, they no doubt inadvertently reverted a separate edit that made the intro more concise, more standard, and better organized. If this can be rolled back easily, great; if not, I'll redo the edits once protection is lifted. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's leave it for now, see #Is/was resolution above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 4 April 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)? -- GreenC 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.

-- GreenC 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. -- GreenC 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. LilianaUwU ^{(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. pillowcrow 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. -- Aunva6^{talk - 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)

Discussion

• I feel like GreenC is bludgeoning the process. Anyone else has this feeling? LilianaUwU ^{(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)

• @Pemilligan: 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)

  @Pemilligan: 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, @GreenC: now there is a serious suggestion to rename it per [4]. 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)

  @BarrelProof: 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)

  @BarrelProof: 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)

"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. LilianaUwU ^{(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)

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. LilianaUwU ^{(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 (TALK
PAGE) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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. LilianaUwU ^{(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)

Unproductive discussion that doesn't resolve anything
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"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)