Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse

The "Bridge replacement" section is nearing 1,000 words, so I'd say it's time to break it into its own article. (It will be well over a thousand words once we add an intro paragraph and infobox. I propose to move the text to "Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement", which is currently a redirect to this article. Once the new bridge gets its new name, we'll change the article's name to suit. PRRfan (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. Presumably leaving a para with a "main" hatnote. - Davidships (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. PRRfan (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just adding my support. glman (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Done (boldly); thanks. PRRfan (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I MOS-fixed your link to the new page, which syncs with what you did so it's blue. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks (belatedly). PRRfan (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20251118.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu7PJoxaMZg

These might be good sources to update the cause of the electrical issues the Dali experienced. Ckoerner (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't seem to find NTSB's "41-page report detailing tests completed on Dali in the weeks after the collapse" in which it "found a loose electrical cable in the transformer and breaker system." I see lots of news articles mentioning it, but not the pdf document itself. Thanks. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Here you go: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA24MM031.aspx The March and November reports are in the sidebar. Ckoerner (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The desperation of some editors to force words that are not used at all in normal English into this article, and others, is truly absurd.

• Nobody uses the word "allision" in English, except in highly specialised legal contexts. In the 2.5 billion word Oxford English Corpus, it does not appear at all.
• "collision" is 100% correct, clear, unambiguous, and obviously widely understood.
• Using this absurd word violates very clear guidelines: Do not introduce specialized words solely to teach them to the reader when more widely understood alternatives will do
• In this specific case, it was decided years ago that it was not appropriate to use it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_42#Allision

It is frankly just incredibly childish to try to force vanishingly obscure terminology into articles like this. Get a grip. Nobody who encounters an obscure maritime legal jargon term instead of a common term in a general encyclopaedia is impressed with you. ~2026-38181-6 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

If this is the "stupidest behaviour you've ever seen," either on Wikipedia or anywhere else, you've been remarkably fortunate. While I generally agree with the core of your argument, stripped of the dudgeon, you can express it without hyperbole. Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse/Archive 4 has one of several discussions here about this specific case within the past two years, based on sitewide guidelines, that clearly support using this word at least sometimes, and defined clearly, in this article regardless of a more general discussion 12 years ago. Part of this article's talkpage discussion noted that this is a fairly unique event, so more general approaches to the writing might not be perfectly applicable. That's the most recent WP:CONSENSUS for this article. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Protecting admin here: Firstly, the IP editor was asked to take this to talk, instead of edit warring, per BRD. Secondly, they were strongly advised to do so. Thirdly, they decided to edit war. As it is apparently a dynamic IP, the easiest way to stop the edit warring was to semi-protect the article. As has been pointed out above, the issue of allision/collision has been discussed previously. Consensus would seem to be that allision is correct. Part of Wikipedia's remit is to educate. Here we have the opportunity to educate readers that an impact between a moving object and a stationary one is an allision. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

"Part of Wikipedia's remit is to educate" - no it isn't. Wikipedia doesn't even have a remit. Its mission is explicitly not to "teach": the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter.

"Here we have the opportunity to educate readers...." You are explicitly stating that you want to introduce new and specialised terminology just to "teach" the reader. Do not introduce specialized words solely to teach them to the reader when more widely understood alternatives will do. ~2026-41137-0 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

"that an impact between a moving object and a stationary one is an allision". That is a false statement. Apparently you think that because a piece of technical jargon exists, it overrides the non-technical English used by normal people the world over. An impact between a moving object and a stationary one is a collision. It may be useful to describe it using the technical word "allision" in specialised legal contexts. The word "allision" does not exist in normal English. There is no possible reason to use it in this article or any other that I have looked at. The only sensible use case is if directly quoting a technical document in which it appears. ~2026-41137-0 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

That ship has sailed, I'm afraid; your complaint is alliding with established consensus. PRRfan (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41137-0: Are you forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? The whole point of an encyclopedia is to educate. As for allision not being a word, Wiktionary begs to differ! Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Apparently you cannot read. the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Nor can you accurately report what others have said. Nor have you given any sensible rationale for using a technical word that does not exist in normal English, instead of a 100% correct, clear, unambiguous, universally understood word. I, and every normal reader of this encyclopaedia, despise you. ~2026-40417-8 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41137-0: the operative word here is consensus. The word allision appears in the article 6 times in all, including notes and references. The word collision appears 24 times. That seems a reasonable compromise to me, and one which was reached through discussion and consensus building. As for you despising me, as an admin, I've got very thick skin. You'll have to try much harder than that! Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The article in its current state does a good job of describing the unfamiliar term without retreating into admiralty law jargon. So ~2026-41137-0, give this a rest, with the apparently you cannot read and contempt for any view but your own. I'm no friend to technical jargon, as I've said above, but time and consensus have resolved my concerns. Your persistence in using this talkpage as a platform to malign other editors is becoming disruptive, as I tried to explain to you more gently at the top of this thread. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Temp-account user, consider this your formal warning to cease all personal attacks and other incivilty. If it occurs again, your account will simply be blocked from editing and you will lose all chance of having your idea heard at all. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, and it is your responsibility to assume others are doing that. Those are three fundamental behavioral policies and guidelines you must accept if you wish to continue to participate. DMacks (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic? While editors are warring over whether Wikipedia readers who don't already know the word "allision" deserve to learn it, the first paragraph of the article contains a flat-out factually incorrect statement, and I can't correct it because of the "protection" over the fairly trivial vocabulary dispute. Here's the sentence:

"Six members of a maintenance crew working on the roadway were killed, while two more were rescued from the river."

Here's what's wrong: Only one worker was rescued from the river, as clearly stated in the NTSB report and at least one of the cited sources for this errant sentence. There were seven workers and one inspector on the bridge the night it collapsed. The seven workers, in their work vehicles, fell into the river and only one of them survived. The inspector arrived at his car on span 21 after walking the length of the bridge to survey drying concrete and then heard bad things happening behind him, so he began running toward the end of the bridge and was on span 22 by the time span 21 collapsed (depriving him of his car, but not his life). Span 22 and beyond did not collapse, so the inspector just proceeded on foot to the end of the bridge and met the police officer stationed there. The inspector was completely unharmed (and dry)--but I imagine his heart rate was higher than he was accustomed to it being (--and actually, after running, maybe he was not completely dry). So one man was rescued from the river, one ran/walked off the bridge, and the other six did not survive the fall in their work trucks. Please, someone with adequate WP editorial authority, edit the article to correctly reflect these facts.

~2026-47668-1 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's an addition:

"The backup generator did not attempt to start because sensors indicated ..." is not quite right. It did attempt to start, and it did start, and it connected to the emergency bus and provided power on that bus, but it took 70 seconds to start when regulations said it must take no more than 45 seconds. NTSB did not positively determine exactly why it took so long--in a post-accident test it did start in 45 seconds, as it was designed and required to do, but NTSB concluded that there was a delay because the radiator damper either did not open or its limit switch malfunctioned. They suggested that the serial automatic sequencing--open damper, confirm that it has opened, then start the EDG (Emergency Diesel Generator)--was not ideal and caused delay relative to a parallel sequence that would start the engine while opening the radiator damper. It stands to reason--and I think NTSB meant to imply--that if the damper did not open and the engine began to overheat, it could be automatically shut down at that point, so why delay starting the emergency generator, which after all is only done in an emergency? Anyway, will someone who can please edit that sentence, too?

~2026-47668-1 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)