This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Czopek, Madison (March 27, 2024). "Fact Check: Edited Wikipedia entry doesn't prove Israel caused the Baltimore bridge collapse". PolitiFact. Retrieved March 27, 2024. We checked the Wikipedia pages for the Francis Scott Key Bridge and the new page for the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, and as of 2 p.m. March 26 neither included a sentence linking Israel to the bridge collapse. ... We rate the claim that an edited Wikipedia entry provides proof that "Israelis deployed Talmudic network to take out" the Baltimore bridge Pants on Fire!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. -- GreenC06:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- GreenC17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- GreenC20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
The result of the move request was: not moved. As several have pointed out below, WP:RECENTISM applies to the OP's reason. A point has been made that if a said bridge is to be built in its place, it will be named "Francis Scott Key Bridge", but not the same bridge, therefore "Baltimore" being a disambiguating word is important. (non-admin closure) Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would have supported it, but then I read the Washington article, and found that that one significantly predates this one, is on the National Register of Historic Places, and ran directly by the Key House before it was dismantled for a hyperspace bypass. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SarekOfVulcan and Gottagotospace. It is indeed a dose of recentism to elevate the bridge that is presently in the news, but will never be a bridge again. It is reasonable to expect that the new bridge built in its place will also be named the "Francis Scott Key Bridge", but won't be the same bridge. I would say, wait and see. BD2412T17:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, certainly for now. There's a good chance the replacement bridge won't bear the name of the slaveholding Mr. Key, whereupon the Baltimore Key Bridge will recede into history while the Washington one continues to exist. PRRfan (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
