Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse

Allision

Listen there was an argument about this and no one in the world has heard of the term “Allision” Please use simple English! And I don’t care if Allision is the right term 99.9% of people have not heard Of it! And if we are going to have a big argument about this then we should this put “crash related damage to Dali and its cargo”2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean allision I think. Allison is someone else. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes let me fix that 2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed my comment 2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the header too. Take a look at the archive for the discussion. I agree with you on the general point, but didn't prevail. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

ok its fixed 2604:3D09:A984:F000:E5F0:24F5:CFBA:2F42 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to the most recent discussion about it that I could find. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i know about this i read it and they chaged it but now it is allision again 2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed to collison do not change 2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

someone changed it 2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A moving ship struck a stationary object, which is the definition of allision. While the word may not be as commonly known as "collision", it's valid and not unnecessarily complicated vocabulary and it's not evident that it qualifies as technical language or jargon. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of collision does involves two moving objects. "Allison" is obscure technical jargon. May I suggest an alternative:

• Change "Loss of propulsion on ship, leading to collision with pier and subsequent collapse of the bridge truss." to "Loss of propulsion and steering control, leading to ship hitting pier and the collapse of the bridge truss."

• Change "Collision-related damage to Dali and its cargo" to "Damage to Dali and its cargo from impact and bridge collapse"

These are both plain language and, I believe, more accurate.--17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the way it's done now: using the correct technical term ("allision") with the definition in a note. It's precise and easily understandable. PRRfan (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the use of "allision". All it makes me think about is the stereotypical nerdy boy at school who kept correcting other people's grammar. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer the term "allision" given that it is actually an accepted term in this context and isn't overly complex or jargony. The summary for Air France Flight 447 is "Entered high-altitude stall; impacted ocean" and not "plane crashed because too slow" for a reason. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 22:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed a large volume of edits in Recent Changes coming from this article, and this looks like an edit war is in progress, at least to me. I don't want this to escalate to the edit warring noticeboard and I do not want anyone to get blocked, or the page to get protected. I hope the anonymous editor will consider using the talk page to reach consensus before edits regarding the wording are made. I do not want to take sides, but placing a warning that is visible in the final rendering of the article is not not okay. Thanks, CpX41 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether we might come to consensus by doing this:

1. Leave the lead paragraph as is (the bridge "...collapsed after the container ship Dali struck one of its piers").
2. Replace "allision" in the Background section with "collision". The word currently appears in a dependent clause that's meant to be read over quickly; replacing it with the more common term makes for a smoother read.
3. Replace "allision" in the Timeline section with "collision".
4. Replace "collision" in the infobox's "Cause" line with "allision" and the note; this is a good place to use the precise, correct term and offer an explanation
5. Delete "allision" in the infobox's "Damage" line so the bullet point becomes "Damage to Dali and its cargo".

This would reduce the use of "allision" to a single prominent instance, allowing the article to use the correct term and make the distinction without unduly taxing the reader. Thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Provided that the reader gets a definition of what "allision" means in context (I would make it a wikilink, there is a redirect in place already) I don't see any reason to not do this. CpX41 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that general approach, except that the (same?) note should be linked to an early use of "allision" in the main text. Not all readers read infoboxes, and many will come to the page having already read the word elsewhere, indeed in our own references. Davidships (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea; perhaps you can suggest where and how "allision" should be placed in the text. PRRfan (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I had some time to think about it, what would probably be the best option is to leave it in the infobox and replace it everywhere else in the text. On one hand, the text should be easy to understand to the average person, but on the other, this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. CpX41 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

One more thought: what if we use it just once in the main text, like so: "...at the time of the collision (in legal terms, allision), the ship was..." PRRfan (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) PRRfan (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I do like this more than my proposal, I am going to replace "allision" with "collision" in the timeline table. CpX41 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Allision is not a legal term. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

While not looking to resurrect a discussion about allision vs. collision, I don't think the wording is great – infobox is fine, but the article body says "in legal terms, allision" immediately followed by the footnote which describes it as "maritime terminology". There are two problems here – one of repetition/redundancy (why say something inline then effectively say it again in the footnote?) and one of contradiction (we're not being clear as to whether it's legal or maritime terminology – or, indeed, both). I propose that we remove the footnote from the article body and reword to "(in maritime terms, allision)" per this edit. Thoughts? MIDI (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Your point is well-taken. It seems "allision", while primarily used in the sphere of maritime law, is actually not strictly either a maritime nor a legal term. Google "allision" and most of the top hits are law firms explaining the term. Wikipedia's own definition begins "In maritime law..." But check Merriam-Webster and its definition says neither "legal" nor "maritime" ("1. obsolete : the action of dashing against or striking upon; 2: the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary —distinguished from collision".) We might change the footnote to say "A crash between two moving vessels is a collision; a crash between a moving vessel and a stationary object, such as a bridge, is an allision. The distinction is most often useful in maritime law."

I'm not wedded to having the footnote in the body and the infobox, but if we removed it from the body, I think we'd still need to offer an explanation. This could be just a wikilink to Admiralty_law#Allision, but I don't find it objectionally redundant to have the note in two places. PRRfan (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the note and body text; thanks. PRRfan (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Error on "damage" diagram

The current diagram shows the NE-most inverted "V" pier (the twin of the one stuck by the ship) in red (i.e. as having collapsed). As can be seen in the image immediately beneath the diagram, that pier is substantially intact.

Can someone fix the diagram, please? And ideally the other versions found on Commons, also? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Done. (I'm sure this will soon become moot as the wreckage is removed and what's left of the bridge is demolished, though.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

One more missing body found May 1

You may want to include this info from the Bridge Response website: [1] Denniss (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

On it. Glen Burnie is really close to where I grew up, and my older brother worked construction. He knows a lot of people in really similar situations to these workers. I've been interested in transport disasters for years, never thought something like this would happen to my hometown. Apelcini (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"is likely to approve"

Hi, @CommonKnowledgeCreator. Thanks for your diligent work in adding to this important article! I think this is getting ahead of things, however: "On May 2, officials at Willis Towers Watson, the bridge's insurance broker, stated that Chubb Limited, the bridge's insurer, was likely to approve a $350 million insurance claim for the state government." To be sure, Willis Towers Watson is in a position to know what Chubb is going to do—and even they can't say for sure. So this is fodder for a daily newspaper, perhaps, but not an encyclopedia. No one is going to look back in a year and want to know, "What did Chubb's broker say before Chubb made its payout?" We can note it if and when it happens. PRRfan (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit summary for this diff, the AP news story from today uses much more definitive language about the insurance claim being approved. Apologies for not discussing on the talk page first. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @CommonKnowledgeCreator. No apologies necessary! But even if Chubb is "in the process of approving" the payout (which is what the Wall Street Journal said in the first place), there is, as they say, many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. The payout hasn't happened yet; citing predictions that it will happen, however likely it seems, is news reporting, not encyclopedic documentation. Here's another way of looking at it: if, say, the payout comes tomorrow, we're going to erase "Chubb's broker said they'd pay the money" and write "Chubb paid the money". We should strive to build our encyclopedia without sentences that we can anticipate having to change in a day or two. PRRfan (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. If you feel that strongly, we can wait. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool; thanks. By the way, if you were to point out that I'm not objecting to "On May 2, Maryland Department of Transportation officials said they plan to replace the bridge by fall 2028 at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion", I would say, "Touché!" But I would also argue that a) the DOT estimate probably won't change for months and b) it's actually useful to note what officials said so we can record how much over (or under) budget and schedule the project ultimately runs. PRRfan (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)