Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the last paragraph in the lead section,

−

[[Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse|On March 26, 2024, the main span collapsed]] ...

+

On March 26, 2024, [[Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse|the main span collapsed]] ...

HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 06:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear where that wikilink goes. It more logically would go to a general article about collapsing bridges or List of bridge failures, and not the specific article about the FSK collapse. Having the date of the collapse makes it more clear the link is for a specific article not a general concept. MOS:LINKCLARITY. -- GreenC 14:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 15:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

For posterity, a timeline follows.

• 4 April 2024: Article protected, summary "Edit warring / content dispute".
• 5 April 2024: Article unprotected, summary "per Is/was resolution: _was_ currently has consensus; changing to _is_ without an RfC would be edit warring".
• 11 May 2024: RfC at Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)/Archive 2 was closed with consensus to use present tense (is).
• 25 October 2025: Article changed to was, summary "there's no guarantee we would even keep the same article in this bridge. Demolition operations invalidate the original RFC.
• Brief is/was skirmish.
• 26 October 2025: Article protected, summary "Edit warring / content dispute".

Editors on both sides seem dug in and the only good way to resolve the issue is for another RfC. I like consistency so another RfC with the same question as before seems desirable:

• The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)?

Speaking of consistency, does anyone know of similar is/was cases for bridges or buildings?

Please discuss ideas regarding an RfC here. Discuss the bridge somewhere else. Let's agree on wording for an RfC. Sorry that this has to drag out longer but unless someone has a knock-out argument, another RfC seems inevitable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I plan changing the article to semi-protection in roughly 24 hours to allow editing. Experienced editors will know that edit warring will lead to blocks. Please leave the current was until either a clear consensus emerges here (not going to happen), or the RfC is closed in a month or so. Last time unprotection occurred, a new IP jumped in to change the wording so I plan for semi-protection to avoid that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thank you for your moderation it's very helpful. We could run the same RfC again, but it still leaves unresolved the bigger merge/split issue ie. do we cover all versions of the bridge in one article like London Bridge, which contains 3 or 4 different bridges in a single article. Or separate articles for each bridge. There is no standard, it is done both ways. An RfC that answers this question would also resolve the is/was question. If there are two articles, the old bridge article (this one) is "was". If there is one article, that article (this one) becomes "is", since the new bridge is under construction ie. "FSKB replacement is under construction to replace the former FSKB that was demolished", and cover both old and new bridges in the same article. In that scenario the merge destination would be this page, and the merge incoming would be Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement. -- GreenC 07:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't have to solve all problems at once, but please give a possible RfC question that might cover both items. Let's then leave this for a couple of days to get other views. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Well if we run the same RfC and it closes "is" again, the same contradiction remains that caused the most recent uprising against "is": two articles both positioning themselves as primary topic (present tense). A proposal would need a chance of getting clear consensus, a binary yes/no sort of question, so I would propose: Should there be one article, or more than one article, about the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Currently there are two, this one and Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement. If the RfC closes "one" the replacement article is merged into the primary topic article and framed in present tense ("is"). If it closes "two" this article is framed in past tense ("was") and all new information about the bridge will be in the replacement article which is framed in present tense ("is"). -- GreenC 17:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh. I had no idea there was another article, and I see there is also Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse. That complicates the issue. I think the above proposed RfC question is a bit cumbersome and I'm hoping some of the other participants in the recent edit skirmish will make a suggestion. A problem with the proposal is that it would (if closed as "one article") effectively delete Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement and I suspect an AfD would be needed for that. We don't need to spend much time worrying about the future but it seems unlikely that in ten years the two articles would have their current titles. I have reduced article protection to semi so editing by regular editors can continue. If someone changes the is/was status please ping me and wait 24 hours by which time I probably will have resolved the issue. If the article is taken to WP:AN/EW again there are likely to be blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:MERGE does not require AfD. The collapse article is a distinct topic. The old/new bridge articles unclear if best merged or distinct ("is" vs "was" question). -- GreenC 03:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm guessing that a merge would be contested. Anyway, let's see if there are further comments. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

There's no consistency in whether to have different articles or the same article. It depends on whether there is enough content to establish the notability of each preceding structures. There are also I-35W Mississippi River bridge, vis-a-vis, I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge, and Funan DigitaLife Mall (old) and Funan, Singapore (new), as examples for having different articles.

Given the public interest in the old and replacement bridges, it is likely that there will be sufficient content to have a separate article about the replacement bridge. After all, the new bridge is of a different design as well. – robertsky (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

OK but do you have an opinion on what might settle the is/was dispute in this article? Do you agree that an RfC would be needed? If so, what the RfC question be? Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Personally I am entirely happy with the current wording of the lead, with the replacement being kept spun out as a separate article at the moment, and with the collapse itself as a separate event article. We could eventually end up with two bridge articles or one; I'm not concerned about that now given that there's not much to be said about the replacement that might or not be disproved by the passage of time. The only actual issue I see here is the reference back to an old RFC in order to support a series of circumlocutions to try to establish some sort of ship of Theseus continuity and have the article state that the bridge is there when it isn't. If we have to bureaucratically go through another RfC to stop the resort to the old one when we've already had considerable discussion that its outcome is obsolete, then that's what we need. Other than that I see no actual dispute, as the only actually contested part of the article is the first few sentences. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

First, thanks for moderating this issue. It is much appreciated.

Since you've asked for comments, I was here for the original RfC and was the person trying to keep the article consistent with the outcome of that RfC, which means I'm on the "is" camp. I feel the change to the past tense is calling the patient dead while it's still on the operating table. I fear this is a broader issue with Wikipedia in general to the point it has become a meme.

Based on the evidence I've presented, including the https://keybridgerebuild.com/ link, it seems evident to me that the bridge still exists and will continue to do so in the future again *based on evidence available today*. A bridge connects point A to point B over water, and it means more than its physical structure.

If in the future the bridge reopens as is still named "the Francis Scott Key Bridge", an article with the past tense in the opening paragraph will have been wrong for that entire time—and for no reason other than incorrectly trying to "get ahead" of that development for, what, speed of editing? However, if we keep the present tense between now and then, the article will have been correct, as we would still have the choice to change it to the past tense at that future date.

If, however, the bridge reopens and is now named differently, one could not argue the past tense paragraph would have been incorrect between now and then, but neither would they be able to credibly defend that we *should have preempted this situation and changed the verb tense to the past proactively*.

Therefore, maintaining the present tense and switching to the past tense only if and when a different bridge is announced is the only logical choice here if we're solving for maximizing clarity for readers.

Said differently, as of today the bridge has neither been replaced, renamed nor abandoned. The past tense is inaccurate. To change the verb tense to the past would be premature and it incorrectly tries to maximize "editing speed" at the expense of clarity.

Finally, as a very busy person who spent time here around the time of the original RfC, I would much prefer a new RfC be opened to change the current consensus, otherwise I don't really see why one should bother spending time on any RfC now or ever. 167.88.81.196 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, My preference is 'was' given that the bridge has ceased to be a bridge with the news of its demolition. I would like to draw parallels with Lixinsha Bridge where the tenses remains in the present as the affected span(s) of that bridge was replaced instead of the entire bridge being replaced wholesale.

The previous RfC was a time sensitive one, and I would incline to think that, likewise as Jasper indicated in the edit summary of the revision that sparked the recent edit war, the RfC outcome would have been invalidated on condition that the bridge being gone, and the closure indicates as such This matter can of course be revisited if the remnants of the bridge are demolished or the situation otherwise materially changes.

When reading through the previous RfC, I see that those oppose are not necessarily hard up on the tenses, i.e. if the bridge is being replaced/demolished, we can use past tenses. Do I think if a RfC is needed? Not necessarily if we interpret the discussions as above.

The names of the articles can be resolved at WP:RM for Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement if and when a new name is given, or if the name is reused, then it would be a situation similar to Parliament House, New Delhi and Old Parliament House, New Delhi, where the former was at New Parliament House, New DelhiNew Parliament House, New Delhi while the latter was at Parliament House, New Delhi until a year after the opening of the new premises. – robertsky (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The bridge hasn't ceased to exist with some demolition. The damaged structure is being demolished to make way for the remodeled structure. The "Francis Scott Key Bridge" shall continue to exist, until and unless an announcement to the contrary has been made. 167.88.81.196 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

can you state specifically which sources are there out there that support the assertion that only the damaged structure are being demolished? – robertsky (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the posts but this section is to discuss is an RfC desirable, and if so, what question should be asked. Some support is while others support was. How should that disagreement be resolved? Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"is an RfC desirable" is not a question that can be answered by one person. The answer is "yes" if (1) enough people oppose the result of the original RfC and can present a sufficient argument for overturning it and (2) enough people are opposed to overturning it outright without a new RfC. You'll find that the people who fit under #1 are different from the people in #2.

I'm against overturning the RfC. I leave it to the people who want to overturn it to propose a new question for a new RfC. That burden should not be on the people who managed through the original process.

But I fear a new RfC will not have the same degree of participation as the original one, because the article is no longer topical, so the votes will be predominantly cast by obstinate editors who are sticking around the thread long enough to win by exhaustion rather than by the value of their argument. In other words, the "past tense" camp is still sticking to this thread while nearly everyone on the "present tense" camp other than GreenC and me have moved on.

A proper 2nd RfC would be one that asks the *same* people who participated in the original RfC to cast a new vote, but that's obviously impractical.

The current situation is the worst of both worlds. An article that goes against the RfC, justified by some alleged "new consensus" despite some of us arguing the situation hasn't changed to justify that, proving consensus does not exist. 167.88.81.196 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It is evident from the above there are good positions for is and was. Nothing has changed from the first RfC. They are the same arguments, rehashed. The first RfC results should be restored until a new RfC overturns it. This is policy: WP:CONLEVEL. Any new RfC would notify all participants of the first RfC, to address 167's concerns. -- GreenC 20:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The commencement of demolition is not "the same arguments, rehashed". All of the concrete has been removed. A substantial number of RfC present-tense proponents conditioned their support on the lack of demolition (beyond the Dali-freeing operation). The last operation will be to remove the abutments in the spring, but when only abutments are left, the bridge is gone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The situation that exists: there is both bridge construction and bridge removal happening at the same time. The bridge has no name other than "Francis Scott Key Bridge". -- GreenC 21:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, test piles are not construction. There's no guarantee that the ones being driven will be reused in the final bridge, and there's legislation to rename it the Francis Scott Key Memorial Bridge ().

I'm not in favor of the merge, so will not open it (Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge exists and has enough material for its own article, so even if the bridge keeps its name, there should not be a merge), but if you are, you should open that merge discussion first and delay the tense question until after that. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Once it passes and is renamed, we change the verb tense, but not before. And I agree we can delay the verb tense question until after the merge discussion, but in the meantime we should change the article back to reflect the RfC decision. 167.88.81.196 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The original RfC is no longer valid because of the significant demolition that has occurred, as that was a key supporting argument used. This isn't debatable. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Jasper Deng, reading the close that way makes no sense because the bridge is being rebuilt, and you don't refer to a bridge in the process of being rebuilt in the past tense - demolition and clearing are distinct phases of construction, Google it, well documented. As further evidence the same company rebuilding the bridge is the same one removing the debris in the way. Your contention the bridge is not being rebuilt, or that it might never be rebuilt, goes against all evidence and would unlikely to gain much support with a neutral outside observer. If that is the basis of your argument you will be on weak ground. The way I read that close the word "obviously" makes clear the intention: if the bridge was demolished in the sense of never rebuilt, "obviously" you would revisit the present-tense. However, it's not at all obvious you would refer to a bridge being rebuilt in the past tense. — GreenC 16:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be that complicated. It just needs to be two parts. First, a merge discussion at Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement. Then, after that is settled, an RfC with the same question as before, only to add that demolition has commenced and has made substantial progress. I should note, however, that as with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, even keeping the name is not enough to use the present tense for the former bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC: If no one will start the merge discussion I will start the RfC directly. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Jasper Deng, Don't do anything until there is consensus, much less wording, and we have User:Johnuniq here as a neutral moderator as well. Furthermore a merge discussion is not an RfC, they are different processes and rules WP:MERGE vs WP:RFC. Johnuniq was concerned about having a merge discussion at all. Right now we have tacit agreement for a merge discussion with yourself, IP167, and myself. John do you have anything to add? — GreenC 16:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Knowing almost nothing about the issue, I suggested having an RfC with the same wording as before—see "The lead section first sentence" above. GreenC proposed different wording—see "Should there be one article" above. If people are content to leave the current wording ("was a highway bridge") in this article for a while, I now think that Jasper Deng's suggestion would be cleaner: discuss at Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement (with RfC if necessary) whether that article should be merged to here. After that, discuss here (with RfC if necessary) what wording should be in this article. Wording for an RfC here should be drafted after the merge question is settled. Please speak up if I am missing something. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is "was" the correct wording today if it goes against the RfC and there's no consensus to overturn it? 167.88.81.196 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There was an edit war (see my opening comment in this section) and there are only two ways to resolve that. One is to block the editors concerned. The alternative is to hold an RfC. The people involved are not dumb—they would have a reason (unknown to me) for believing that changed circumstances mean that the previous RfC no longer applies. It is much better to resolve stuff like this with a formal RfC, although a merge discussion seems necessary first. Specifically to answer your question, I am not claiming that "was" is correct, just that it applied in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We do not need the merge discussion as a predicate to the core issue: is there a bridge, or not? And I suppose we have to have an RfC on that simply because of the weird intransigence of two people who insist that the bridge is still there when it manifestly is not, and who are relying on WP legalism of the old (and IMO dubious from the start) RfC to obstruct updating the article to reflect that there is no bridge now. We already have enough of a discussion above to refute the claim that there is still any consensus to respect the old RfC, but it's clear that until the Gods Of Process are appeased, these two people are going to insist that the article should be written as if the bridge were still there. Of course they are going to keep saying that there's no consensus to overturn the old RfC, but that "no consensus" is really just the two of them WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATing the RfC's rejection. So yes, an RfC on whether the bridge exists: it's stupid, and we shouldn't be doing RfCs on matters of fact like this, but it's the only thing that's going to work. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The fact is that there was an edit war where one side made a change and the other side reverted. It's a bit of a stretch to declare that there is a consensus and that only two wrong-headed individuals are holding up progress. RfCs were invented for this situation. If an RfC turns into a SNOW storm, it can be actioned early. Propose some wording, get a sort-of agreement that it's ok, then start it. My first post in this section was 11 days ago. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You'd do us all a huge service if you stopped framing one side of the argument as stupid. WP:CIVIL

In my case, it's not about process at all—I thought my IP signature made clear how little I care about that.

It's actually about logic. At the risk of repeating myself.... The bridge still exists, it's just being fixed. There may not be a lowercase bridge, temporarily, as it's getting rebuilt, but there still is a "Francis Key Scott Bridge". If and when there's an announcement that some other bridge will exists in its place or that it will not be rebuilt, we get to say it "was" a bridge in the past tense. I had hoped our argument would be pretty clear at this point, even if you disagree.

Funnily enough, to me the intransigence seems to be from the side that feels wronged by the original RfC looking for reasons to change the article back to their preferred flavor, even though nothing has changed since that outcome—the alleged demolition is to make ways for repair, not to permanently bury the Bridge. ~2025-31307-36 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources are clear that it's unclear when actual reconstruction will begin. The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge has been past tense and stays past tense, even though the new I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge was constructed much more quickly than this one. "Nothing has changed" is a patently false statement because the RfC had many supporters citing lack of demolition. The fact that demolition has begun, whatever its purpose, makes it a material change. The jeopardy of the funding due to politics also is a reason to not consider actual rebuilding to be in progress.

Can we not just re-run the same RfC question while noting that demolition is now more than halfway done? Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Opinions please (just a brief opinion, not an explanation). Per above, should an RfC be run with (A) the same wording as before (see "The lead section first sentence says ..." above). Or (B) with the alternative (see "Should there be one article, or more than one article ..." above). Or (C) something else. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option A, in a few months, when unambiguous hammer-swinging construction begins. It doesn't make sense to jump the gun when facts on the ground are about to change, and some editors here are contesting that construction might never occur. Merge (B) is not practical until the bridge is named (fall 2028), how we structure article naming will be a factor of bridge naming. I am also not adverse to leaving things as they are: "was" and the NPOV tag to get new participants. -- GreenC 19:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Maintaining a list where multiple bridges are the same article, as I come across them:

• London Bridge
• Friendship Bridge (Germany-France)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Long time reader, first time editor here. I'd like to give my thoughts on the state of the infamous is/was conundrum, as I was once a Maryland local and have been watching the talk page for this article since the collapse. I was there to observe the first RfC, and I have thoughts that I hope can resolve this debate, or at least add some clarity.

First of all - both sides are right. I'm not just being a centrist to escape criticism or float above on a cloud of smugness. Let me elucidate my arguments for both sides:

IS: The bridge was destroyed, yes. However, it is being replaced. The replacement will be called the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The Bridge will continue to exist. A damaged bridge that isn't navigable is still a bridge - and unless the future bridge were to carry a new name, it is appropriate to use the verbiage "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is a [partially destroyed | destroyed | pick your adjective] bridge ...". It would be inaccurate to state that the bridge is still an intact or operational bridge, but that's not germane to the use if the verb is.

WAS: The collapse, and subsequent demolition, of the bridge is such an event that it renders the bridge entirely removed. There is no bridge. If you drive out to the end of the road, the bridge is gone, and some pylons or rubble does not equal a bridge existing - otherwise we have to use the present tense for every ruined and torn-down bridge everywhere, which has a few girders or piers still standing. Yes, they plan to rebuild the bridge - but until a new bridge actually exists, the state of the world is that the Francis Scott Key Bridge was a bridge, that was struck by a boat, and subsequently demolished. Much like Neo in the Matrix and his spoons, one must realize there is no bridge. The replacement bridge is a new bridge, this isn't just replacing some cables or resurfacing a deck.

A suggested resolution and a course of action: We can have RfCs until the cows come home, and very likely the debate will extend well into the operational period of the replacement bridge. What I think would be ideal - we have an article for the old bridge where we use the past tense. The article Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement will be the new article for the Francis Scott Key Bridge (202X), simply titled with the year in brackets for whenever they actually finish it. In other words, this article - Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) is "retired" in a sense, refers to the old bridge, uses the past tense, and Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement becomes the main article on the actually existing bridge when (if?) it is finished. Thus, in the future, we have two articles, one for the old bridge that was destroyed, and one for the new/current bridge. This resolves a number of points of conflict:

- The merge debate: these articles _feel_ redundant, because in a way, they are. However, we should not merge.

- The is/was debate: both sides have completely valid points; however, I feel that the collapse was such a notable event that it warrants cleavage in the timeline here, and we use both but in different articles.

- Future confusion: in the future, someone may wish to read about the old bridge. These details condensed into a long history section in one article feels cramped. The old bridge was quite notable in its way, and its own history and story, which would be awkward to condense into an article about the new bridge, which will also have its own history and story.

I am aware that other historical bridge collapses and rebuilds do not have multiple articles - however, I would point out that these examples predate Wikipedia, and if Wikipedia existed at the time, I find the argument quite strong that both versions of the bridge would have separate articles. For a bit of an extreme example, I would point to 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) and 7 World Trade Center, which does the inverse of what I suggest here, but has the same effect. We would not say, during the reconstruction of 7 World Trade Center, that "7 World Trade Center is", we simply create two articles.

Eaglerific (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I welcome input from @GreenC, @Johnuniq, et al. At the end of the day, I don't care very much and would be happy with the consensus, I just wanted to give my 2 cents. Eaglerific (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed this at some noticeboard and have no opinion on the issue. The situation is now dormant as I don't think any recent edits have involved is/was and it's probably better to leave the article as it is now. If someone wants a change, they can try an edit. If reverted, start an RfC as advised above. It would be a good idea to first post a "Draft RfC" section to get opinions on suitable wording for an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the situation has resolved itself regarding is/was. Regarding the rest, we can wait a while longer until needed at the rebuilding article to see if we need one or two articles on the new bridge. Given that this bridge is notable, I don't believe that we will try to condense everything into one article. (Sometimes, even the construction can be itself notable.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

As one of the anons who was firmly in the "is" camp during the RfC, I welcome your contribution and the noble goal of finding resolution here.

I would be quite happy with the two-article scenario. As a matter of fact, I don't even see a reason for not starting the "new" bridge article now. It can be a "planned" bridge or whatever you want to call it. It would make the current "old" bridge article essentially done, plus or minus regular way editing.

Above all, your point about future readers wanting to learn about the bridge past, present and future would benefit most if neither part of the bridge's history and story were crammed into a general article. ~2026-19527-55 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)