Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

Reference to Maryland Route 695

I'm aware of the technicality that the portion of the highway that ran over the bridge is a Maryland state route, not an Interstate, from a legal standpoint, and I'm aware that it was signed as an Interstate primarily as a convenience for motorists in the interest of avoiding confusion. I wonder whether it is counterproductive to refer to MD-695 in the article's first sentence, though, for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, the entire Baltimore Beltway is indisputably signed as I-695. Second, the article's own infobox shows the bridge as having carried I-695, which means the infobox arguably disagrees with the article's text (although, of course, one could argue that just means the infobox should be changed). Third, the link to "Maryland Route 695" simply redirects to the article for I-695, which might make the more casual user who's less interested in the technicalities of road numbering to wonder why it did that. (To be sure, the I-695 article does explain it, but does this level of precision really benefit the average reader as opposed to those of us who are nitpicky about road numbers?) I haven't made the change because I figured it made more sense to bring it up on the talk page first. 1995hoo (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded the lead. Functionally, the bridge has always been signed as I-695. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, in my opinion, the lead really doesn't need to mention a route number. It can just refer to the highway the Baltimore and/or McKeldin Beltway with a pipelink to the I-695 article. MD/I-695 can stay elsewhere for clarity if need be. Mapsax (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

[Followup] Apparently this is all moot as of a couple of months ago. See Talk:Interstate 695 (Maryland)#MD-695 status revisited, which refers to the AASHTO meeting. Mapsax (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I've uploaded the final approval for this from USDOT. Please update any relevant articles appropriately!

USDOT FHWA Final Approval Interstate 695

--Eplack (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It just isn't a bridge anymore.

Why are we accepting the closure of the RFC above? I know I should drop the stick or whatever, but this is flawed beyond belief - every single day, as the remains get cleared out, the bridge being in present tense becomes more and more ridiculous. Maybe it was fine to use present tense when the RFC started, but not anymore. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If a computer doesn't work does that mean it's still not a computer? IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad analogy. A closed bridge, i.e. a bridge that's not working, is still a bridge. A destroyed bridge is not a bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

To repeat my point, the bridge has been not only destroyed, but also is in the process of being demolished. I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day saying this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't watched the movie, what's the reference?

Also you make a great point. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Groundhog Day is a movie in which a TV reporter repeats the same day a bunch of times. Similarly, I've repeated my point a bunch of times. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks! IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I mainly agree with your point. It is no longer functionally a bridge, and it is being replaced and not repaired. A new, different bridge will be going into its place with a new design. This new bridge will have different details and a different history and should arguably get it's own page.

That being said I also think it's a minor enough issue not worth arguing over at this point in time. I don't think anyone will be confused by it. QuiteBearish (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There's now plans to demolish the remnants. No way it can be present tense past then. [1] --Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps we should do a second RFC, or at the very least discuss this further. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bringing this back out again because of the edits from today: why are we still insisting on present tense? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully the issue will soon be moot.

Remaining Key Bridge structures to be demolished soon - The Baltimore Banner

Once it has been fully demolished, no one will be able to plausibly assert the bridge still exists in the present tense. QuiteBearish (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, once it's gone, I'm changing it, consensus be damned. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Consensus be damned"? I hope you are not serious.

Per the RfC close: "Most editors who participated in this RfC agreed that existence as a partially collapsed / destroyed bridge is still meaningful."

The destruction of the bridge does not change the outcome of the RfC, which is for present tense. Read the RfC close carefully, "a broken object still exists in the present tense". We could change it to "..is a demolished bridge" or "..is a bridge under construction" etc.. because the RfC says, "the exact phrasing to be determined through normal editing and discussion". The core outcome of the RfC is present tense, for a "destroyed bridge", or even a "bridge under construction" ie. site preparation phase. However it's phrased in the present tense, based on the phase the bridge is currently in. -- GreenC 06:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It does. When the rationale of most supporters of the present tense is based on existence of remnants, and the remnants no longer exist, there's good reason to believe consensus has changed. A new RfC will be opened once demolition is substantially under way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Once it has been fully demolished, it will no longer exist even as a destroyed bridge. The closure of the RfC even explicitly acknowledged that change in status would be enough.

So yes, the previous consensus should be damned once the situation has gone through a material change, especially when that material change had already been established under the RfC QuiteBearish (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's amazing how much people seem to want to WP:WIN this. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It makes me wonder, if this same situation occurred at London Bridge would we be forcefully declaring London Bridge "was a bridge" ie no more, gone, poof. It was a different bridge in the 19th century, stone-arched bridge, which in turn superseded a 600-year-old stone-built medieval structure. So we have three London Bridge in one article: "Old London Bridge", "New London Bridge" (1831-1967) and "London Bridge" (present). That's likely what will happen here, or should happen. Bridge structures come and go, the topic of the bridge stays the same. -- GreenC 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the London Bridge article is a great example - it refers to each iteration of the bridge as a distinctly different structure and only the current iteration is referred to in the present tense.

Splitting the Key Bridge article (if the new bridge shares the same name) makes perfect sense, but if we were to do so the old Key Bridge would be past tense while the future new Key Bridge would be present tense. QuiteBearish (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It it will become clearer after the plans for the rebuild are announced. London Bridge is not split across 3 articles. Splitting is usually done for practical reasons when there is too much material for one page, it's kind of a 'necessary evil', otherwise keeping information in one page has better comprehension. -- GreenC 20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant splitting the article into different sections, and not splitting the article into different articles. My fault for not being clear with what I was saying.

I agree splitting into multiple pages would usually not be the best approach without a compelling reason to do so, such as if the new bridge ends up with a new name. QuiteBearish (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the 1831 iteration uses the present tense, because it's still a bridge... in Arizona. But that's not the point. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Channel reopened -- more focus on rebuilding the bridge

With the channel to Baltimore Harbor reopened this week, and judging from Gov. Moore's comments, the focus is now turning towards replacing the bridge. WTOP radio in Washington DC mentioned this morning that there is talk of making the replacement main span longer then was the case for the former bridge. With the main span supports farther apart, and therefore in shallow water (and not in the channel), the thinking is that an out-of control boat would run aground before hitting a support. Talk such as this makes it seem unlikely they would reuse any of the bridge that is still standing (e.g., the remaining approaches to the main span). My layman's observation point makes me think they'd also have to make the bridge higher than the old one. 57.140.108.36 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

See Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Crews are planning to demolish the final pieces of the Key Bridge in preparation for a new span. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not privately owned

In light of Scott Perry’s tweet today 12/18/24 saying the bridge is privately owned, the article should explicitly say it is or is not owned privately or by the state. It says maintained by the state but doesn’t say ownership. 98.152.105.26 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)