This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Since this has been edit warredover: @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)
What do you mean by "edit warring?" There was only one revert, and that was by Obankston. CutlassCiera 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
OFFTOPIC
@Kingsif: It's obvious that I mean that I expect that information to become available, and that this section would be a good place to put it when it does. Nowhere did I suggest actually putting it in right now. All I wanted to do is start a conversation over whether to have this section. Don't attempt to close discussions that pertain to editing the article that haven't had their fair chance to occur, and certainly not without actually reading through the whole thing.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not obvious, not with the amount of IPs coming here starting threads to share their theories, not at all. And don't accuse people of not actually reading without evidence, especially when your opening statement is literally one sentence. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an IP. No reasonable editor would read into my comment like that. If you had read it properly, you would've understood that. So by contraposition, that is evidence that you did not read my comment.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I never said you were an IP, and my comment has no reading into anything. I have to assume you are not reading my comments properly. My whole point - which reading above and below you can very easily piece together - is that there are lots of non-regular users coming to this talkpage wanting to chat speculation, and as I see it, your opening comment is a massive invitation to do that. I never thought that was your intention. Would you like to stop making accusation after accusation. Kingsif (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't call the kettle black. You're the one bringing unfounded charges of OR and were the one closing this section. My comment that I'm not an IP is to imply that you should've had a second reading into why I'd make that comment instead of just assuming I am trying to invite OR.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Read I never thought that was your intention. again and WP:CALMDOWN. Kingsif (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, you're not in a position to tell others to "calm down". In fact I have no calming to do. Don't get yourself involved in this discussion any further unless you actually are going to be helpful, which you're not by continuing to discuss this.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Having read the edits linked and this whole discussion before I interacted with it all – hence I also denounce Jasper Deng for making flagrant assumptions of bad faith (accusing users of closing without reading, edit warring for one revert) within minutes of that, and this must be noted, as he has continued to act in such a manner – it's clearly something that does not need to be discussed. The "disputed" text in the article did not mention Whether the ship is salvageable, simply repeating information from the sources that stated the known damage and what is known to still function. It doesn't really matter whether that is included or not, as most of the "need-to-know" information contained within it is already present elsewhere, but it's not harmful. At the time I closed the thread, the editing around this "disputed" content had ceased, so the purpose of the thread to discuss it was fulfilled. I did not simply leave or archive the thread because Jasper Deng had written the opening request in a way (highlighting salvageable, suggesting necessary future information) that can more than easily invite FORUM and OR responses (users joining in after the original resolution to discuss their views on whether the ship is salvageable). Archiving would prevent this, but closing with a note also helps prevent similar threads from being opened. So I would advise such a close once more, now that the thread's purpose has been met. Kingsif (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Jumping the gun again I see. The editor who wishes to keep it, Obankston, has not responded yet and has not had a fair chance to do so. And you clearly are failing to WP:AAGF (if I had assumed bad faith, it would've involved hauling you to WP:ANI or otherwise requesting administrative action immediately). Once again you are clearly misreading my comment, not in bad faith, but still misreading it, and therefore your closure was not justified.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Outright saying you think someone did not read a thread before deciding to take BOLD closing action, is assuming bad faith closure. Accusing the two other users of edit warring over one explained revert is either assuming they are going to continue, or assuming that addition and reversion were both made in bad faith. They're far from the worst examples of assuming bad faith, but they have not been helpful. Kingsif (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
No. It is possible to not read comments thoroughly and do it in good faith, which is what you did right here. Let this conversation proceed between the original disputing editors and disengage, immedaitely; your comments are not helpful the slightest.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Folks, can we turn our attention to editing the article and coordinating changes? This interpersonal sniping is taking up a lot of time and space and emotional energy. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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. CutlassCiera 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Alternatively, send it to the MV Dali article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
The issue of whether or not to include the section "Ship damage" was solved without my intervention by trim excessive section headings combining the sections "Bridge damage" and "Ship damage" into a single section "Damage". In my mind, there is sufficient distinction between the two types of damage to have two sections because one is fixed and the other is movable, but I'll let stand the change to combine them. There is more information from WP:RS about ship damage than there is about bridge damage, so why would we exclude ship damage? The comment "nobody on the ship was injured" is an irrelevant reason to decide whether or not to include information about ship damage, because injuries or the absence thereof belong in the section Casualties. As it turns out, there was some pollution from the ship caused by ship damage, which is notable. Perhaps when the article is mature, damage to the ship belongs in the article for the ship, but when the event is ongoing and the ship has not been moved yet and is still next to the bridge, ship damage should stay with bridge damage. Obankston (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested photograph of "entire collapsed bridge including uncollapsed sections on both sides"
Might this image from the Office of the Maryland Governor suffice? Y2hyaXM (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
And what do you see when you click on the ink labelled "Some rights reserved"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I included the link above if you'd like to click on it and see. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
We already say "The bodies of two of the construction crew were recovered from inside a pickup truck: a 35-year-old Mexican national and a 26-year-old Guatemalan national". Rutsq (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a factual error in the article in the line:
However, engineers noted that its piers, which are essential to the structure's integrity, did not appear to have protective barriers, such as fenders, to block, deflect or withstand the collision.[47][48]
This is simply untrue, as I make clear in my article in The Conversation:
There were both dolphin and fender protections. Indeed, the fender protection for the FSK Bridge, is given as an example in the ASSHTO guide and commentary for ship collision protection (https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=1346). The dolphin protection is clearly visible from photographs of the bridge as circular reinforced concrete elements about 100m or so outside the bridge piers.
Suggest change:
However, engineers noted that its piers, which are essential to the structure's integrity, did not appear to have protective barriers, such as fenders, to block, deflect or withstand the collision.[47][48]
to
Indeed, the bridge had both dolphin and fender protection against ship impact, but these protections were clearly insufficient [1].Ccaprani (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the existing sources and I think they’re compatible with your proposed text. They say the protection was insufficient, not non-existent. I used your statement and source but retained the existing sources as well. — Jfhutson (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It still says engineers noted that its piers did not appear to have protective barriers.
This is false, as seen in the image beside the text which shows the fenders!
Notable to add a section in near future? About that the a captain was Ukrainian and about that it was a Russian revenge for the Crocus City Hall attack. YBSOne (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please start up a "Conspiracipedia". Might come in handy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Easily debunked. Reliable sources report that all crew were Indian nationals, apart from the two American pilots. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leaky.Solar: It's on the grounds of this section that I've undone your addition. That's not to say you might not be able to change consensus to be in favor, but it does mean you need to first do that.--Jasper Deng(talk) 22:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Isi96, I've reverted your addition because consensus hasn't formed to put anything about conspiracy theories yet. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 05:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@LilianaUwU Okay, thanks for notifying. Isi96 (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Between
I've cleaned up the description of the bridge's location; "between Baltimore and Dundalk" makes no geographic sense, the city of Baltimore proper is on the north side of the river, adjoining Dundalk. There happens to be an outlying portion within the city limits at the south terminus, but it is far removed from the city itself, and functionally is more closely related to Anne Arundel County than the city. In order to not get into too much local detail, "outside Baltimore" or "to the east of Baltimore is probably best. I've made it a little more clear in the article about the bridge itself. Acroterion(talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
And it appears to have been reinstated - "between Baltimore and Dundalk" is nonsensical, except in a very legalistic sense - Hawkins Point is mostly landfill, park and docks, far from the city, but technically within city limits. The urbanized city of Baltimore is north of the Patapsco, directly adjoining Dundalk. You don't need to cross the river to get to Dundalk from Baltimore, let's stop confusing people. It's a little like asserting that the Outerbridge Crossing, a directly analogous crossing, spans from Perth Amboy to New York City, instead of saying, as our article correctly states, "between Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and Staten Island, New York." Acroterion(talk) 03:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Trorov is invited to explain why "between Dundalk and Baltimore" is a better description on the bridge's landing points, and why he keeps reverting to that. Acroterion(talk) 13:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree this new image is an improvement...both the town-names and the compass. DMacks (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree re: captions but not about the compass – the image displays information on the Y and Z axes, the compass on the X and Y (and so north isn't to the top right of the image). Is there precedent for this, or could we use a caption that says "viewed to the north-west" or something? MIDI (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Valid concern about the compass (I guess I'm more accustomed to looking at these sorts of 3D things). What if the town-name labels also including their specific directions (like "north-east" on the Dundalk side)? DMacks (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
That seems better. Agree with MIDI's concerns. Sdkbtalk 16:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I've made the necessary changes. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Quasi-isometric overlay on raster Another option would be something like this (like this; it's just a quickly cobbled-together example)—a freely available aerial view of the bridge, with an SVG overlay with or without labels, place names etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
An excellent start! The original image was taken 30 March 2007 but it'll certainly serve as a template. (The hexagonal Fort Carroll east by south (EbS) certainly won't remain an involuntary park for long...!) kencf0618 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
+1 Nice!! DMacks (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I've refined the image and added place labels and Dali paths (based on AIS data). The background image may be 18 years old but not much seems to have changed (not enough to make it inaccurate, anyway). Again, if this is something that might be useful for the article... suggestions welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I WP:BOLDly put it last night and then ran out of gas. Given its provenance and orientation I would only add where "Up" is for those who don't know how Baltimore/Maryland geography works –I certainly don't! ~Regards. kencf0618 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The overlay image is completely inaccurate. That is NOT the path that ships take out of the harbor. Stop OR-ing (or outright guessing) and wait for sources to cite. It's outright ridiculous to anyone actually familiar with the harbor. -- Veggies (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Anything of any size that passes to the north of Fort Carroll will be aground. The shipping channel is to the south. The image is wrong. Acroterion(talk) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. That is not the shipping channel path and, obviously, not the path that the Dali took. I would have thought "no original research" is something that admins would have ingrained. -- Veggies (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Uh-huh. And was it those sources that told you that the main shipping channel leads you to run aground on the shoals off Sparrows Point? -- Veggies (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not OR to show the shipping channel in one color, and the actual path in another. Both are well documented in reliable sources. The path shown is speculative, and incorrect in both senses, it is neither the ship's path nor the intended path. Acroterion(talk) 17:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
When I added it to the image—again, not meant for mainspace—I based it on news sources. The point was to present "what sort of information would readers/editors like to see on the graphic" and obtain responses/suggestions, as I did with the 2D diagram originally requested at the Graphics Lab. For instance, someone might point out that a certain landmark is more useful to label than another. Someone might want a magnetic North marker, or a bearing marker. Other people might find that doesn't add value.
I would be more than happy to add the shipping channel (from a public domain chart, as you suggested below) instead of an "intended path" if that would be useful (and I agree it would be verifiable).
Iterative image development is hard if you don't upload the image so people can see it and suggest, well, iterations. I clearly erred in not adding a huge block-letter template to the file saying "do not post this on mainspace". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this is what happens in my professional Real Life too, no worries. I think everybody can be satisfied with a view that shows the shipping channel (found in the NOAA charts, which are RS for that) and news accounts that show the documented path of the ship into the bridge pier, showing both, which I think makes the deviation more understandable.. Acroterion(talk) 18:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Happy to make that change. If you (or anyone else!) have any more suggestions on labels, markers, colors, font size, etc. they're all more than welcome. The file name should probably also be more informative/easier to find. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Much better. The bridge kind of hides the deviation, but I think it helps to make the point of how small a departure from the channel results in disaster. Acroterion(talk) 20:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
1) This image is certainly not "ready for primetime", which is why I posted it on the Talk page for discussion and improvement, not on this or any other article. I thought I had made that clear enough above when I referred to it as "quickly cobbled together".
2) There are multiple published, reliable sources (in the WP:RS sense) for this (NY Times, El Pais, Reuters, local news, etc.) e.g. [1] and [2]. I considered adding the path into the harbor as well, again from AIS tracking (which clearly shows the ship coming in from SSW of Fort Carroll), but thought that might prove confusing.
I completely agree the image should not be in the article in its current state. I'm not even sure it is useful at all while this is still a current event, which, again, is why I posted it here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The path is off by about 20 degrees, the shipping channel is on the other side of Fort Carroll. While the angle of view makes the context a little clearer than a 2D elevation view, the angle leads to error - if that path was followed, a ship would hit the north pier of the bridge or hit Fort Carroll. Reference to a chart (which may be available in the public domain) would be better. Acroterion(talk) 16:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 30 March 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse → Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge – I suggest that the article should be renamed to "Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge", for grammatical reasons, and to distinguish the name of this article from the name of the bridge proper. Please consider my proposal. Liam2005 (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Liam2005: The process to do this is laid out in WP:RM. I've started it for you.--Jasper Deng(talk) 04:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Liam2005 (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose per WP:CONCISE; the new title is seven characters longer (" of the").--Jasper Deng(talk) 04:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see anything grammatically wrong with the current title, and it sounds more natural. The title is distinguished from the name of the bridge by the word "collapse". Station1 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:CONCISE and WP:NCE. There's a clear precedent that we follow the "YEAR (IF NECESSARY)LOCATION AND/OR OTHER DESCRIPTORTYPE OF EVENT" format for naming articles that cover events. List of bridge failures shows that similar events which have their own article (rather than a subsection of the bridge article) follow this format too. MIDI (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose as "Collapse of (insert name)" would better refer to an institution or a system, while "(Insert name) collapse" better suits a structure that collapsed.YBSOne (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – Sounds a bit dramatic, if you ask me PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CONCISE, as stated by others above. S5A-0043Talk 11:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per MIDI's argument for consistency wrt names of articles on other disasters/ failures/ collapses in the List of bridge failures.Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per all the above. Plus "to distinguish the name of this article from the name of the bridge proper", uh, this is distinguished in the current title by having collapse at the end. MisawaSakura (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per @Ybsone and consistency. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 13:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Weak support: The suggested title gets to the point more directly. The article is about the collapse. The reader shouldn't be forced to read all the way to the end of the title, past the four-word name of the bridge (which is not well known to most people), to figure that out. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per all the above, especially WP:CONCISE, as there is no discernible ambiguity in the current title. The rename also seems slightly dramatized, which might sound nice as the title of an art piece ("The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", for example), but this is a factual article. NomadicNom (talk) 20:39, 30 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.
Timeline section (removal/reintegration)
FAO @Reywas92 but also others: I've taken the list timeline out of the page for now; this info can be better used by working it into the prose. The list doesn't cite any sources, and there's new info introduced in it not otherwise sourced in the article. That needs fixing, but I presume it's all verifiable information. Rationale for moving to talk page is that editors can pick from the list here and reintegrate into the prose with inline citations.
00:39 EDT /UTC-4 (approximate): The MV Dali gets underway from her berth at Seagirt Terminal in the Port of Baltimore. The pilots release the tugs shortly thereafter.
01:25 (approximate): Multiple alarms go off; Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) ceases recording electronic system data. Bridge audio is recorded using backup power.
01:27:04: Pilot gives order to drop anchor and issues additional steering commands.
01:27:25: Pilot makes general radio call over VHF that Dali had lost all power and was approaching the Key Bridge. MDTA units have been dispatched to shut down Key Bridge.
The redirected timeline from which the above was taken should be folded into the article if it's not going to get too big. kencf0618 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The NY Times and others refer to the timestamps of realtime video feeds such as this one [3] which show a splash and collision from 1:28:45 to 1:28:50 and bridge collapse by 1:28:55, which is slightly at odds with VDR audio starting at 1:29:00 – SJ + 02:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
We await the results of the investigation. kencf0618 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Damage diagram
The collapsed part of the bridge includes the three spans under the metal truss, and three more to the northeast (left of the images in Dundalk, Maryland). The right side of the images is Hawkins Point, Baltimore.
I'd like to request a new version of File:2024 Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse labeled (en).svg (top) that reorients it so that the Hawkins Point end is on the right and Dundalk end is on the left. Placing that diagram directly above File:Coast Guard Site Tour (53616852344).jpg (bottom), which is photographed in that orientation, would have value to readers in better understanding the geography and scope of the incident, I feel. — AFC Vixen 🦊 14:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
That's easy to do, although the lens distortion of File:Coast Guard Site Tour (53616852344).jpg means they wouldn't match exactly. Happy to make a new version if there's agreement this would add value. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily has to perfectly align 1:1 for the similarity between the images to be parsed by readers. That'd be fine. — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I genuinely appreciate that you went as far as modifying the graphic to match the panoramic lensing of the photography. Thank you. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Are "due southwest" & "due southeast" correct? kencf0618 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Maersk
At present "Danish shipping company Maersk has chartered Dali since its delivery in early 2015", which may well be true, but not cited as such. There is the ref from 2015, but that does not specify the period; and I have not seen a ref regarding the length of the current charter. Anyone have a source for this? - Davidships (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
To your point:
"We can confirm that the container vessel “DALI”, is owned by Grace Ocean, and operated by Synergy Group. It is time chartered by Maersk and is carrying Maersk customers’ cargo." 26 March 2024, emphasis added
Sounds like classic WP:SYNTH – just because it was chartered by Maersk when it was first launched, and also when the incident occurred, doesn't mean that it was one continuous charter (like our article says). I think any re-wording should avoid implying that it wasn't a continuous charter, however. I've done a quick job at it for now. MIDI (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
S&P Sea-web has Maersk A/S under "Operator" since 2015-03. Tupsumato (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tupsumato, can you provide a url or a path to that info? Thx. Rutsq (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Tupsumato. We should keep in mind that, if I remember correctly from when I had access, SeaWeb (as with many other maritime sources) uses "shipmanager" for what WP terms "operator". - Davidships (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Collision vs. Allision
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
We all agree "allision" is technically correct, but is "collision" technically incorrect? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for the quick answer. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The article text currently has 12 "collision"/"collisions" and 5 "colliding". Is a global swap appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. GMGtalk 14:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Only needs linking on first use. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MOS:JARGON is pretty clear on this; it's a maritime legal term, and doesn't belong on this Wikipedia article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I regard "allison" as obscure legal jargon. I very much doubt that anywhere else we say that "the airplane allided with the mountain" or that a car "allided with a parked vehicle." It's an interesting bit of admiralty law jargon that might merit a little bit of explanation somewhere, but "collided" is understandable to all readers. Acroterion(talk) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. On Wikipedia, we use formal written English, which means we routinely use technical terminology in common use in particular fields. For example, like most college graduates, my mathematical education terminated with integrals and differential equations, but that doesn't give me the right to insist that the article on general relativity ought to be rewritten in algebraic terms (i.e., as the subject is taught in physics courses to people who have not yet mastered calculus). The Key Bridge collapse is a maritime incident, so we should use the correct maritime terminology. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Legal language is not renowned for understandability to laymen - there's a reason "legalese" is a term, and legalese should generally be avoided outside a courtroom, and not encouraged in an encyclopedia article. This isn't calculus. It seems to me that we're being overly pedantic in our emphasis on that term. Acroterion(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
seems like a quick mention that the correct term is allision, but that common usage (as in a lot of news articles and discussions) use the term collision as a blanket term including moving objects striking stationary objects. then it doesnt matter which term is used in our article, as long as the first use of "allision" is explained. i am highly literate in english and never heard this term until this week. explanatory note seems entirely justified.50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
What about splitting the difference: we start off with "allision" and mentioning its meaning, then switch to a more common term for the rest of the article which is also used in WP:RS, such as "struck." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Allision should be used in the infobox, as the section pertains to "property damage". It is therefore relevant to use the correct terminology. In the article prose, sure, use whatever other language. Start an RfC if you wish to reach consensus against this. Rowing007 (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
If anything, the infobox should be more accessible than the article. The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts about the subject, which is best done with plain English. This obscure term in maritime law is not a key fact about the subject, but now that we insist on using it we have to put a footnote in the infobox to explain its meaning. People keep saying this is "the correct term," that is not true, there are multiple correct terms to use for a ship hitting a bridge, and the preferred terms when not in a technical legal setting are collision, strike, and hit. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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: RichFarmbrough 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC).
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)
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)
We know, we're outlining likely points for article expansion once sources become available.Acroterion(talk) 23:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
I've moved my draft to fracture critical bridge and linked it in this article. It is a bare outline that should get attention from someone versed in AASHTO design terminology. At the same time, I have to point out that no bridge, fracture critical or not, would survive the destruction of a pier, and that it could be argued that fracture criticality was an aggravating factor leading to collapse of other sections not directly affected by the loss of the pier, not a root cause. But that would be OR at this point. Acroterion(talk) 02:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
And DMacks has pointed out that pier redundancy is a concept, which in the long run might be a more relevant factor, but we’ll need for the engineering journals to catch up. Acroterion(talk) 03:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
PolitiFact seems to have about 10 on-topic articles atm:[6], scroll below "People" to see a list. This could argue that some conspiracy-stuff is WP:PROPORTIONate, but what can you do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of these just seem to be "something some dude posted on twitter" without a lot of indication why it matters. I'm not sure that kind of thing rises to the level of encyclopedic relevance, although I understand that PF is probably trying to get ahead of the curve here. I'm going to assume that there is a twitter conspiracy somewhere about Oppenheimer winning Best Picture because Oppenheimer himself was a Jew. I would prefer a general piece about conspiracy theories and not PF checking individual tweets. Twitter is truly the very bottom rung of social discourse, that makes 4chan and comments on PornHub seem like philosophy in comparison. GMGtalk 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, atm all of the relevant articles seems to be "people wrote crap on social media", at least going by the headlines. We could have a sentence saying basically that, but... meh. There could be interesting non-conspiracy info in there, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
They have a different mission, and I'm sure they hopped on random tweets before and had something in place when it blew up. Just not sure that's a level of proactiveness that jives with the mission of WP. GMGtalk 11:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
We generally don't do "proactive" in article-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
To summarize, the ship was Chinese, with a Ukranian captain, the crash, planned by Mitch McConnell, was intendended to distract the public from Sean "Diddy" Combs, and the bridge was racist. Don't tell me this doesn't make sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
All I see is potentially a sentence or two like Following the collapse, a variety of conspiracy theories about the bridge and the collapse itself were posted to social media.[Ref][Ref][Ref] Some included doctored images or images and videos of other unrelated events presented as being from the fires, such as footage from the 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion.[Ref] mainly based off this article. Though there are a decent number of conspiracy theories, I don't believe we would need a standalone section. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not against the content in principle. I just think it needs to percolate to the surface a little more and get more general coverage not specifically dedicated to debunking individual tweets. Conspiracy nutters are nutters with too much time and red bull. If we're using a bar that is too low, we're probably making an argument that could be applied to literally a million articles. Compare something like COVID where the conspiracy theories were clearly a topic in their own right and received widespread coverage as a topic unto itself. GMGtalk 10:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
"At least five submerged vehicles, including three passenger vehicles and a transit mixer, were detected using sonar. ... The bodies of two of the construction crew were recovered from inside a pickup truck." Was the pick-up truck one of the passenger vehicles? Was it the fifth vehicle? Was it a sixth vehicle? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The ref for this, which follows the next sentence, does not provide any info at all. Rutsq (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Now sourced but it requires a Wash Post subscription to clarify. Rutsq (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
If anyone has a The Washington Post subscription, I'd be interested to know. And I think it might improve the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added an archived version of the page which should let you see that article. MIDI (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, the archive link does not connect for me, but I've registered with WaPo, so no problem. The report says it was a "red pick-up truck", but little else, only: ""Based on sonar scans, we firmly believe that the vehicles are encased in the superstructure and concrete that we tragically saw come down," Butler said. So I'm still really no further on in understanding if this was one of the five vehicles mentioned or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Presumably the red pick up truck belonged to Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT)? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://ep00.epimg.net/infografias/2024/03/puente-baltimore/en/en-escena/en-escena-escritorio.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://ep00.epimg.net/infografias/2024/03/puente-baltimore/en/foto_en/foto_en-tableta.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}