This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Bridges and Tunnels Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Current events This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Maryland: Baltimore High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance). Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Singapore This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page history

A news item involving Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 March 2024. This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Fact Check: Edited Wikipedia entry doesn't prove Israel caused the Baltimore bridge collapse". The Paradise. March 27, 2024. Retrieved March 27, 2024. We checked the Wikipedia pages for the Francis Scott Key Bridge and the new page for the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, and as of 2 p.m. March 26 neither included a sentence linking Israel to the bridge collapse. ... We rate the claim that an edited Wikipedia entry provides proof that "Israelis deployed Talmudic network to take out" the Baltimore bridge Pants on Fire! Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

It is requested that a photograph of entire collapsed bridge including uncollapsed sections on both sides be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Please can we NOT add copyvio images. There is one non-free image, which I think is useable for now. The NTSB will almost certainly open an investigation, which will lead to reports / news stories from them which will have useable imaged. For now, we need a bit of patience. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been said that the bridge collapse image is from CCTV, which means that it is PD-US. Can anyone confirm this? Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed from a 24/7 livestream of the ship. I am the original uploader of the image and can attest to this. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only public domain if the owner of the CCTV was the federal government, or another entity which releases its works to the public domain. -- Beland (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV footage being public domain in the US has never been established by legal precident, and even so that would only apply to completely automated fixed cameras, not remotely operated PTZ cameras like the one that took that footage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded to all who worked constructively to create and improve the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse article. Well done, everyone. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this applies to you, feel free to copy to wherever you keep your barnstars. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to have hit mainstream sources as of this moment, but (as you'd expect) the NTSB has launched an investigation. Should that get a sentence in the article now, or wait for a news source to pick it up? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See no harm in adding now. It's hardly going to be a question of notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following sentence to the end of the aftermath section: "The National Transportation Safety Board launched a go team to investigate the accident on March 26." Please use the tweet in my comment above as a source (I'm unsure how to cite a tweet on Wikipedia).

@Martinevans123: I've gone ahead and proposed a brief addition, please feel free to workshop it. That goes for anyone else reading this, too. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for info, use ((cite tweet)) to cite tweets. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NTSB Media briefing will be available here at 14:30 EDT / 18:30 GMT. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should this be added to "External links"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who added it or when (might well have been after you made your comment), but we currently link the NTSB landing page for the investigation which seems the correct move here. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to currently include the video. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A photo, in this article might be public domain because it is produced by the government which this site says is public domain. A.FLOCK (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.FLOCK I don't think so. c:COM:US#US States does not list Maryland as among the states whose government works are in public domain. The cited source of the image shown on MarylandMatters.org is the Fire Department of the City of Baltimore. The Terms of Use of the fire department's website links to the TOU page of the City website, a portion of which states "Any service marks, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property contained in or displayed on this site, and the contents of any linked sites operated by third parties, are the property of their respective owners (which may be the City)." There is no indication that images created by employees of the city government, including the fire department, are in public domain and can be exploited even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not assume that Maryland state or local government products are PD. However ... NTSB has released a B-roll drone video which might be. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material in question seems like it is indeed OR, as I searched specifically for the speed and the ship's name and got no good sources. What I did get was this Sky News piece which contains similar information (including the specific speed 8.7 knots) from which it may be possible to craft a suitable replacement for the disputed sentence. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

2024 Lixinsha Bridge collapse

I think this incident was also a collapse caused by a barge colliding with a bridge support, and it also happened this year. So I think we can add it. コーナーリバー (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree. The linked examples involve a container ship (which is much larger than a river barge) causing the disaster. The bridge in the Lixinsha case had only one span fall, as opposed to the entire main span plus three approach spans.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I respectively also disagree with the Big Bayou case for the same reason, even more so as that bridge didn't collapse.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first incident I thought of when I heard about this in the news this morning, since it also resulted in fatalities. And the collision, IIRC, led to the bridge collapsing when the train went across it eight minutes later. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be more open to including it should the death toll of this collapse end up being confirmed and also a high proportion of those in danger (on the bridge or ship). As of now we don't have any fatalities confirmed in this one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one from the ship died, but that is not the same story for at least some of those on the Key Bridge. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barges and container ships are watercrafts, and this happened about a month after Lixinsha incident, and the collision and collapse were similar, so I think it's fair to mention it. コーナーリバー (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal proximity is a weak argument for inclusion. If you can get consensus for this inclusion here I would be fine with reincluding it, though I think we need to be strict with inclusion in the see also section due to the need to minimize the amount of examples.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to keep the See also section short, and not allow it to become bloated with lots of incidents with a tenuous link to this event. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I agree that the proposed link should not be added. glman (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ongoing discussion for see also links but it was archived mid-conversation, which is a little off-putting. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The see also list is excessive and unnecessary. List of bridge failures is sufficient as per MOS:SEEALSO, which states "relevant and limited to a reasonable number". Flibirigit (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I partially undid your edit because a small number (5 or less) of highly similar examples easily qualifies as "relevant and limited to a reasonable number". 1 is not a reasonable number. If needed, we should further limit it to incidents in the USA, and specifically involving fracture critical truss bridges. That should be a very small number; the Sunshine Skyway instance is likely the only other one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speed dropped from 8.7 knots to 7.6 between resumption of electric power and the collision. Ref to follow if I can. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Will this do? Its highest registered speed between the port and the bridge is 8.7 knots, it starts to slow down around 1km from the bridge. Its last registered speed is 7.6 knots between 100m and 200m from the bridge. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing two sets of figures currently –I'm waiting a bit. It's notable that she was dragging anchors all the while. That's a lot of momentum...! Stay tuned for the sheer kinetics of it all... kencf0618 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN reports; https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/26/us/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-tuesday/index.html

May be relevant 209.7.245.122 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source says: "Baltimore City Council Member Phylicia Porter told CNN’s Boris Sanchez on Tuesday afternoon a body had been recovered from the river, but later said she misspoke." The report makes it clear that two people were pulled out, but that six remain missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the article getting updated there was a report about a body being found, but the councilwoman who said that would retract it and clarify she misspoke. Sorry about that. 209.7.245.122 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. News reports often get updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked it up, I understand why the word "allision" is being used and it's technically correct, but: 1. I doubt it will be familiar to most readers, so a "note" explaining the term might be appropriate. 2. It is being used interchangeably with collision in the article, which rather defeats the purpose of using the technically correct term; if it is going to be used, I suggest we commit to it. 68.202.117.200 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one the Planet has heard of the Term "Allision". Please use Plain English! 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:E50C:57E2:3DAF:C0DE (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that using a technically correct term is appropriate here. The lay-language word seems to have a different technical meaning...better to be right and have readers learn something than wrong (this is not simply a WP:JARGON where a common word would equally suffice). As part of that, and beause I suspect most readers won't know this word (I didn't until I read the WP articles related to this disaster), an explanatory note is a great idea. DMacks (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker of English language, and none of my family speaks English, so the Internet is the only place where I can learn new words (except very expensive private teacher). Using "allision" in the article was very useful for me. When dictionary in my phone couldn't translate the word, I googled it, and increased my English skills :) 91.188.184.192 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native English speaker, and it's a new word to me too! Wikipedia isn't the place for plain English (there's even an entire wiki dedicated to that) so I think the technical term is superior. Orangesclub (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, and note that it is linked to the meaning (a redirect to Admiralty_law#Allision). LizardJr8 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker and have never heard the word. Maybe a parenthetical could be added by someone better versed in admiralty law since I'd imagine 99 percent of people reading this article have never heard the term and may stumble on it Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the case that a common word would not suffice, why are news sources not using the word allision? Everyone knows what it means when you say collision. If we are going to be pedants and not use collision, even then we can say strike or hit or contact. Learning new words is great, but that is not the purpose of this article. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree "allision" is technically correct, but is "collision" technically incorrect? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Per allision, "collision" is when both objects are in motion whereas "allision" is when one is stationary. Presuming the bridge was attached to the rigid pylons going down to the river bottom, the bridge was not moving. Therefore "collision" is incorrect. DMacks (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article text currently has 12 "collision"/"collisions" and 5 "colliding". Is a global swap appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Allision" is unnecessary MOS:JARGON

Could we please stop using this word when reliable sources are using "struck," "hit," and "collided?" I've removed it a few times and it keeps coming back. From the MOS page linked above, "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." --Jfhutson (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with this. I'm a nerd and I've never seen this word used. It does not appear to appeal to a general audience and is unnecessarily introducing area specific jargon. GMG^talk 14:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that none of the similar articles listed in "See also" use this word. We might want to include it if it was used in an official investigation report by NTSB? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Isabella Causeway collapse uses the word once. The other articles don't use it. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "allision" is the correct word. Part of Wikipedia's remit is to inform, even where the reader was unaware. I would suggest that [[:wikt:allision|allision]] is used, which gives a link to the Wiktionary entry for allision. 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you use it in place of every existing instance of "collision"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only needs linking on first use. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See #Collision vs. Allision above (was archived while still in active discussion). DMacks (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to use collision, since the dictionary definition does indeed say two moving bodies (though I would submit that many English users will use it to mean striking a stationary object). Most sources use "struck." That will require some rewriting, but is much clearer than "allision." -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This distinction is a necessary one in physical mechanics. Is it of any consequence in assigning responsibility in maritime vessel accident claims? Experience suggests it is important in UK motor vehicle accident claims, even if the word "allision" is never used. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone reading the sentence, "the ship collided with the bridge," read that to mean that the bridge was moving? On the other hand, probably 90% of the people reading "the ship allided with the bridge" are assuming there is a spelling mistake. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly 99%? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that this is a somewhat exceptional event. Allision is the correct term, why use a simpler, yet possibly misleading term 'collision'?. I don't think many sources on aircraft crashes due to a microburst are using the term 'microburst'. We have the artucle to allision linked, I think we should start there before changing text here to be simpler. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading readers into thinking the bridge was moving? Are suggesting just a piped link like collision, or what? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by stating that I prefer the accurate terminology over a simplified one, since it is accessible to everyone, both casual readers and experts. We don't refer to the 'port' side of a ship as the 'left' side, even though the latter is simpler. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree, proper terminology might be preferred in an encyclopaedia. But again, referring to the 'left' side of a ship might actually confuse anyone?? I'm still not quite sure what you mean when you say: "We have the artucle to allision linked, I think we should start there before changing text here to be simpler." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if Allision is considered too complex a word for readers, we should improve the definition of the world on the page for Allision. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that it is too hard to understand, it's that it's completely unknown to the readers and its use adds nothing to the reader's understanding. Port and starboard are much better known and they avoid ambiguity. Sometimes a technical term is helpful to explain what happened; "microbursts" are a good example. It's a phenomenon with a WP page. An "allision" is not some special phenomenon but a term of art in a narrow area of law for something everyone already understands and can explain in plain English as a collision or strike. "Allision" adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the accident, and something is taken away by using a technical word that the reader doesn't know. -- Jfhutson (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, port and starboard are much more widely known. But they are themselves defined in terms of "left" and "right". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JARGON is pretty clear on this; it's a maritime legal term, and doesn't belong on this Wikipedia article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is straightforward, unlike some pieces of jargon. Academic sources and the NTSB final report almost certainly will use "allision".--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that does happen, that would be an opportunity to add a sentence like "The NTSC report did conclude that the allision (collision of a moving vehicle with a stationary object) did..." Other than that, even if the word exists in maritime law speak, I wouldn't consider it correct to use allision normal english sentences.2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use "strike", hit or "impact", if "collision" is technically inaccurate and "allision" is not widely understood? Gatepainter (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we subdivide this section into two, splitting things that happened in the hours after the incident from the more long-term implications, such as the planned change of port for exported motor vehicles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that would be a problem. Did you have a preference to the name of the section headers? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No preference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like you got to it before I came back to this. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long term

Some sources:

• https://www.tradewindsnews.com/containers/how-baltimore-bridge-disaster-threatens-to-leave-key-global-shipping-markets-frozen-in-time-/2-1-1617929
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68672373

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there is no discussion about pillar protection which is quite common in other bridges that straddle some of the busiest water ways in the world. Most bridges are over-engineered to withstand or have protection for support pillars - some generic basic discussion is highly informative. Rwat128 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need WP:RS that cover this. We can, once we have it, certainly refer to the increase in size, bow strength and tonnage of the larges ships compared with when the bridge was specified and built. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

When it is available, it would hopefully address the great amount of flare in container ship bows to allow as much of the ship's length as possible to carry containers. In the 1970s few ships other than aircraft carriers had such dramatic flare. A protection scheme envisioned at that time would not necessarily be sufficient, mass and speed issues aside. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People: WP:FORUM - this conversation/speculation is inappropriate until a topic for it occurs in the news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:21F0:6140:8171:E37C:8973:37EC (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know, we're outlining likely points for article expansion once sources become available. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in point of fact, there is a substantial discussion of the bridge's dolphins, a previous collision, and other matters at CNN that looks like a good source [4]. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it's probably time for an article on fracture critical bridge design, since the NTSB has discussed it. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of dolphins, fenders, and fracture critical design in the Baltimore Banner [5] Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutlass: Please self-revert, because "its" was the first usage (this is the first revision that introduced one or the other). @Acroterion and Ace of Aces12: as they were also involved here. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig into the MOS once we've settled into the investigations. kencf0618 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this was the revision that first used its and MOS:SHIP is the part that applies. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been edit warred over: @Cutlass and Obankston: You ought to discuss the inclusion of it here. Whether the ship is salvageable is going to be an important piece of information to have in this section and thus the section should be kept, unless it better fits in the ship's article. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "edit warring?" There was only one revert, and that was by Obankston. Cutlass^Ciera 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be included or not? I don't think so as nobody on the ship was injured, and as indicated as well in the article that a bridge did in fact fall on the Dali. It's also not included in the similar Summit Venture collision with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. Cutlass^Ciera 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed 100%. @Obankston: Can you please comment here? The content will not likely stay if you don't help build consensus for it. I really think it would be much easier of a question if we did not already have an article on the ship itself. I would argue that the current section meets WP:DUE, but this is going to ever-change because sources on both are popping up very quickly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would say include, but not as a standalone section. Preferably added right after A section of the bridge came to rest on the tip of the bow of Dali with the "After the collision" part removed. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, send it to the MV Dali article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tip of the bow irks me. Firstly tip is redundant when that's what bow means. Secondly, it's obvious from the daytime photographs that the bow is clear, protruding to the east.

So it should say something like a section of the truss lies abeam the ship just aft of the bow or a section of the truss lies across the bow section.Martin Kealey (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested wording sounds a bit confusing to me. If it can be simplified a bit, then I would be supportive of it. Though, it seems that the sentence has been altered by Pigsonthewing to resolve the issue: The main span fell onto the ship's bow and a section of it came to rest there. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In "Ship damage", under "Allision and bridge collapse", there is a note saying a non-primary source is needed. I believe this note can be removed, since the source is about the company's claim, not about wheter or not the claim is true. Minaspen (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Edit requests need to be more specific than this, and you are not correct per WP:SECONDARY.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SECONDARY is preceded by WP:PRIMARY, which says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia [...] to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This applies to the text in question. The request is perfectly specific (albeit since made superfluous). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Collapse section of the article the timeline of events seems out of sorts. 00:44 left port, 01:26 power loss, 01:30 mayday call to DOT of lost of control and allision possible, 01:28? collision with bridge occurred, 01:30? calls to 911 begin. Straykat99 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source says "shortly before 1:30" as does the article, which is vague in our context. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

No doubt exact times will be given in the NTSB report when it is published. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have came across a radio transcript with timestamps from the NYT article, as such, the time the radio dispatched the officers closed the bridge to traffic seems contradictory to the time of collapse on video and as reported to radio dispatch (there may also be a delay when the bridge collapses and when radio dispatch finds out about the collapse). I have also checked the webcam feed and noted at the time of posting, the webcam's clock is approximately 31 seconds behind UTC-04 EDT time (also accouting for livestream latancy delay). I'm not sure how much clock drift the webcam has had, in the past 44 hours since collapse. Toran107 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand a creation of an article on the event, it may or may not be kept in the long run. But isn't MV Dali overdoing it? WP:BLP1E is about people, but IMO the spirit applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is no guideline for it, the long-standing interpretation of WP:GNG within WP:SHIPS is that large commercial ships are considered notable even if they have not been involved in any major incident such as this one. See also WP:SHIPOUTCOMES. Tupsumato (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus will be what it will be. I note the article has a few pre-event sources, but in my view it's a WP:SUSTAINED etc fail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might this image from the Office of the Maryland Governor suffice? Y2hyaXM (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the prior issues, I would recommend a second check on the copyright status just to be safe on the matter of using it, but so far I don't see any obvious issues. (At the least, thank you for pointing it out.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM. It's openly licensed on the governor's official Flickr page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple nations involved in the incident:

• Singapore is the nation of register
• Greece is the nation of the company that owns it
• Denmark is the nation of the company that operates it
• The US is the nation of the location of the incident
• India is the nation of the crew

Is there a particular reason why Singapore needs to be mentioned in the headline paragraph, and the other countries not? HiroSaki2024 (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the reason, so I have removed it for the moment. Is this fine with you, Cfls? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this not normally how ships are treated? Compare something like Exxon Valdez. It may be a flag of convenience, but it's international maritime trade. AFAIK, it's pretty normal for it to be complicated, but (again, AFAIK) the flag is the primary identifier of the nationality of the ship according to maritime law. GMG^talk 11:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sections of this talk page seem to have been doubled by this edit. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the ((ESp)) template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

The Damage section needs a wording tweak:

However, the ship remains watertight, and the shipping company claimed there was no water pollution directly from the ship following the incident. Despite the claim, on March 27 the NTSB announced that they are investigating a hazmat spill coming from breached containers onboard Dali, including containers carrying corrosive and flammable materials and lithium batteries.

To become

The ship remains watertight, and the shipping company stated there was no water pollution directly from the ship following the incident. On March 27 the NTSB announced that they are investigating a hazmat spill coming from breached containers onboard Dali, including containers carrying corrosive and flammable materials and lithium batteries.

Why:

• Don't start a sentence with however
• The shipping company "claimed" implies dishonesty. They've made a statement, report it as such
• "Despite the claim" deleted this, again implies dishonesty.

For the last two points, it's actually accurate. There is no spill directly from the ship rather there may be leaking from containers on the ship and those are different things. Directly from the ship would be fuel oil, bilge, etc. Should be pretty easy to fix the neutrality on this. Thanks. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) 24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a discussion here, but it has disappeared or is not visible, it may have been prematurely archived. Springnuts (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]