Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I-695 Key Bridge

I was told that the Key Bridge is not part of the Interstate System. Before you jump on me and tell me I'm wrong go to The US Department of Transportation Interstate Map and zoom in on the Baltimore area. My Dad used to run the Maryland Interstate System and he told me that there were only a few people in the country that knew of this obscure piece of trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.201 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, and the SHA's logs actually show that part (I-95 to I-97) as MD 695. The same applies to I-895 south of I-695, I believe the I-695 and I-895 articles mention this. --NE2 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That conflicts with SHA's report, in which the Baltimore map has the whole land-based road marked with an Interstate shield. Is there dual-signage? All sources listed in the article here (and also the ref in the Interstate 695 (Maryland) article claimed to support that it is not Interstate) give only I-695 as the designation for the present day roadway and outer-crossing bridge (some also noting that it was originally MD-695 but signage has since changed). Those sources are certainly not as authoritative for official status as US-DOT or MD-SHA (which disagreee with each other?), but certainly could confirm current signs on the actual roads. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the conflicting information. The reason that all the information in this article (as well as I-695 and MD route 695 articles) supports the MD 695 theory is because I changed them. I think that the FDOT page trumps the MDOT page. Also the presence of an almost 90^o turn (and the sub appropriate speed limit that it results in) as well as drawbridges degrade the standard of the road, even if it is 4 lanes. Finally (as I said my Dad used to be in charge of the Interstates in Maryland. After he told me this I posted the first comment on this page and later I asked another former head of the Maryland Transportation Authority and he confirmed the report. I think this is worth a call to the Head Honcho at MTA or MDOT.(Vwlou89 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

I just called MdTA and they said that the bridge was not signed as interstate so it is Maryland 695. (Vwlou89 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for checking it out! DMacks (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Interstate 695 (Maryland), improvements were made? I find this confusing, given the above discussion. In the changes I made to the article, I found that Maryland Route 695 redirects to I-695 (Maryland). Strange? Incorrect? - Denimadept (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally had Maryland Route 695 redirecting to this page, since the MD 695 designation currently applies only to the Key Bridge. There was a section of current I-695 that was also designated MD 695 at one time, but as mentioned, it was upgraded and is now officially I-695, with the Key Bridge being the only remaining section of MD 695.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Outer Harbor Bridge?

Does anyone have any information or source as to where this designation comes from? I've lived within a couple of miles of this bridge my entire life and have never heard of it referred to that. "Key Bridge" is the most common name for the bridge amongst locals.

Magamiako (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The MDTA give the location of the bridge as "I-695 outer-harbor crossing" on their Key Bridge fact sheet (page 3).

Also, I would think that it is more of a nautical term. Anchoring in the "outer harbor" versus docking in the "inner harbor". I found this page that says "Today the Patapsco River, to local boaters, is generally thought of as having three sections - Outside the Key Bridge, Inside the Key Bridge, and The Inner Harbor." - PennySpender1983 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Circular link

The infobox has a link to MD 695. This redirects back to this article, making a circular link. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that if you read the article, it'll become clear. - Denimadept (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, correction. See this talk page. It's discussed above in the section on I-695. - Denimadept (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320013741/http://www.sha.state.md.us/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2005_hlr_all/co24.pdf to http://www.sha.state.md.us/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2005_hlr_all/co24.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose per LilianaUwU. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extend Protect the article temporarily.

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

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

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

Clearance above 185 feet (56 m)

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

Pier protective structures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

collapse above info box

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

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

Historic Newspaper Sources

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

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

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

Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the length of the trussed section?

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

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

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

Press

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

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

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

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

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

Sparrows Point

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

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

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

Insurance missing in infobox

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request

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

Let's leave it for now, see #Is/was resolution above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 4 April 2024

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

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

Yeah, I think it could be written like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(spun off the tense discussion above)

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

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

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

I think a few things to consider are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Carried I-695"?

Saying the bridge carried I-695 in the infobox is simply false, considering it explicitly says the designation for it is MD 695 (even though it was signed as I-695). Thus I changed it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

U.S. vs. American national anthem

Let's talk about "U.S. national anthem" vs. "American national anthem", which is currently being contested in edit summaries. Does anyone know whether Wikipedia's Manual of Style has guidance? Googling seems mainly to turn up pages of Talk discussion from the early 2000s. PRRfan (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to know who "User:Trorov" thinks he is to come in giving orders like "don’t change it again," as he did in an edit summary. 1995hoo (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It was a tit for tat, see the preceding edit summary. That's still not an excuse though. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who said that first. I don't think "the international community" will confuse "American" for the rest of the American countries. It's a stretch to imagine this article about an American bridge would refer to "American" in any other way. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(Responding to both of you:) Ah, my fault for not looking at all the edit summary histories. Shame on me. Still, setting aside any such issues, it’s utterly obvious in this article's context that "American" refers to something from the United States because it’s amply clear that the article is about a former bridge located in the US. I really cannot understand why some folks on Wikipedia think readers are stupid and have to have their hands held. I’m also kind of amused. Someone recently edited an article on my watchlist to change the word "soccer" to "football" with the edit summary "Americans are stupid." Now here we have someone else assuming non-Americans are the stupid ones. I’m beginning to think it’s all a sign of what I sometimes call Wikipedia's anti-US mafia who try to figure out what word, grammar, etc., is used in the United States and then insist on something else. 1995hoo (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lifetime American here. I'd prefer—though not by very much—"U.S." because it's shorter and utterly noncontroversial (in the sense that no one can attack it on the grounds of being "confusing" or neo-imperialistic") and so seems more encyclopedic. PRRfan (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Also American and I prefer "U.S." Not sure why it's a controversial edit at all. Using "American" here sounds more informal by my ear. Worth noting that Names of the United States calls using "America" to mean "U.S" "informal" in the lead. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Between those choices, I'd also vote for "US National Anthem" (without periods per MOS:US) as sounding more natural between those two choices, although Google Trends shows them as virtually tied. However, my preference would be to just use "National Anthem of the United States" as is used in the The Star-Spangled Banner article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest "US national anthem" over "national anthem of the United States" because it's shorter and because "United States" already appears in the previous paragraph. (It'd be "national anthem" either way because it's not a proper noun.) PRRfan (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"U.S." isn't about "hand-holding" at all. It is more concise, more formal, and - dare it be said - more appropriate for an international readership because other countries are "American" as well. Nowhere in the article about the SSB is it referred to as the "American national anthem" - why should it be here? Do we say "American dollars" "Washington is the American capital" "American Army" "4th of July is an American holiday" etc. - informally everyone knows exactly what these phrases mean but U.S. dollar, U.S. capital, U.S. Army, U.S. holiday AND U.S. anthem are what befits an encyclopedia. Trorov (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "U.S." is about handholding. You seem to be the one who thinks that way, considering there is no risk for confusion in this article yet you want to change it because it's more appropriate for the international Wikipedia readership (diff). Then again, I gotta say that looking back, it's silly that we're going back and forth on such a small detail. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not about avoiding confusion - it's showing an ounce of respect for the dozens of other nations in North America and South America, each which have anthems and therefore American anthems. The bonus is that "U.S." is more clear and more concise. You may think this is silly, but you escalated things by ordering that your so-called "proper term" not be changed. Back up your claim that "American national anthem" is the "proper term", while "U.S. national anthem" is not. Trorov (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"US national anthem" seems to be the obvious choice here, and I strongly support making that change.

As it has been more than 72 hours since the last comment and only one person in this discussion seems to oppose the change (which seems to be supported by all others), I think it can be surmised that consensus has been reached and this change can be made. QuiteBearish (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion that doesn't resolve anything
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"U.S." isn't about "hand-holding" at all. It is more concise, more formal, and - dare it be said - more appropriate for an international readership because other countries are "American" as well. Nowhere in the article about the SSB is it referred to as the "American national anthem" - why should it be here? Do we say "American dollars" "Washington is the American capital" "American Army" "4th of July is an American holiday" etc. - informally everyone knows exactly what these phrases mean but U.S. dollar, U.S. capital, U.S. Army, U.S. holiday AND U.S. anthem are what befits an encyclopedia. We can reduce the syllables by half and yet become slightly less ambiguous, people - where is this resistance coming from? is it now considered "woke" to use our country's very own initials as an adjective?? Trorov (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Please don't deploy the much-abused "woke" pejorative, there's no call for such belittlement. Personally, where the national anthem is concerned, I prefer U.S. as the most commonly-used modifier. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Where's your censure of LilianaUwU giving a "don't change it again" order, was there any call for that? oh, my bad - "American national anthem" is the "proper term". Trorov (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC) That's enough of the back and forth snark please - stop personalizing discussions. I'm going to hat this section as unproductive, please feel free to frame your suggestions for article improvement without making observations about other editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)