Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oppose per LilianaUwU. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse]] into [[Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pier protective structures  

message: :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"How a cargo ship took down Baltimore’s Key Bridge
: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.I’ve captained ships into tight ports like Baltimore, and this is how captains like me work with harbor pilots to avoid deadly collisions 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.Could tugboats have prevented the Baltimore bridge collapse? They would have helped, experts say
: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.Work on the Delaware Memorial Bridge collision protection system is going smoothly.
:5)- Bridge designs may lean towards a longer span over the ship channel. --  Otr500 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Future

message: This would prevent vandalism, and also partially prevent edit wars, particularly from new users. Robloxbob222222222 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sent it to the requests page, without response for now. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Extend Protect the article temporarily. 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  What is the length of the trussed section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of Company, Container Ship, and Name of Pilot? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clearance above 185 feet (56 m) 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article is unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is/was resolution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  collapse above info box 

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

message: @SarekOfVulcan, did you mean you got a virus-warning or something like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (TALKPAGE) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Press 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historic Newspaper Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: How would you include it? I don't see anything appropriate in Template:Infobox bridge -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Change the template? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Insurance missing in infobox 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Let's leave it for now, see #Is/was resolution above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Noting for the record that I missed and did not consider this !vote. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Past or present tense for the bridge 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Noting for the record that I missed and did not consider this !vote. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: * I feel like GreenC is bludgeoning the process. Anyone else has this feeling? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Carried I-695"?