This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 March 2024. |
On 30 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Listen there was an argument about this and no one in the world has heard of the term “Allision” Please use simple English! And I don’t care if Allision is the right term 99.9% of people have not heard Of it! And if we are going to have a big argument about this then we should this put “crash related damage to Dali and its cargo” 2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 ( talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of collision does involves two moving objects. "Allison" is obscure technical jargon. May I suggest an alternative:
These are both plain language and, I believe, more accurate.--17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I wonder whether we might come to consensus by doing this:
This would reduce the use of "allision" to a single prominent instance, allowing the article to use the correct term and make the distinction without unduly taxing the reader. Thoughts? PRRfan ( talk) 00:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
While not looking to resurrect a discussion about allision vs. collision, I don't think the wording is great – infobox is fine, but the article body says "in legal terms, allision" immediately followed by the footnote which describes it as "maritime terminology". There are two problems here – one of repetition/redundancy (why say something inline then effectively say it again in the footnote?) and one of contradiction (we're not being clear as to whether it's legal or maritime terminology – or, indeed, both). I propose that we remove the footnote from the article body and reword to "(in maritime terms, allision)" per this edit. Thoughts? MIDI ( talk) 13:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The current diagram shows the NE-most inverted "V" pier (the twin of the one stuck by the ship) in red (i.e. as having collapsed). As can be seen in the image immediately beneath the diagram, that pier is substantially intact.
Can someone fix the diagram, please? And ideally the other versions found on Commons, also? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Unified Command Key Bridge Response (UCKBR) has multi-media releases on the daily, but that entity won't last forever. The replacement of Key Bridge shall be a multiple agency, multi-modal affair of at least a decade. I presume that planning won't even begin until the investigation has ended, but at his juncture I propose splitting off the salvage section –it'll only grow and become unwieldly. kencf0618 ( talk) 13:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@
Pigsonthewing: The definition of reconstruct is to "build or form (something) again after it has been damaged or destroyed" and a reconstruction is "a thing that has been rebuilt after being damaged or destroyed", while replicate is "make an exact copy of; reproduce" and replication is "the action of copying or reproducing something". For the purpose of this topic, "replicate", and "reproduce", and "reconstruct" are arguably synonymous considering that the question is whether the bridge will be rebuilt without modification or will be designed differently (the latter is which is probably what will occur considering Buttigieg's comments). Additionally, as far as I'm aware, the sources do not indicate whether the new bridge will likewise be named after Francis Scott Key. --
CommonKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 18:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
"In an address on March 26, Biden said that he would ask Congress to fund the bridge's reconstruction."; citing a source which quotes Biden as saying
""It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstruction in that bridge..."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The name of the bridge is immaterial. Your claim - not least the part about about wreckage - is a non sequitur and utterly without merit. The very first line of the section whose title is in dispute is ... citing a source which quotes Biden as saying...This argument is without merit. What specific words any government officials use to label the bridge replacement is irrelevant. If the subsequent bridge is not named the Francis Scott Key Bridge or follows the design of the previous bridge, then in no meaningful sense is it a reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge following either the Sunderland station example you cited,
"If the subsequent bridge is not named the Francis Scott Key Bridge or follows the design of the previous bridge, then in no meaningful sense is it a reconstruction "Poppycock. See, again, the citation in my OP.
"reconstruction is what actually leads to such a non-sequitur conclusion [that the replacement will be built out of the wreckage]."Also poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
poppycock. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 17:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought I already told you that your version breaches MoS.You've made no reference to a specific MoS policy/guideline.
Also, it supposes that the surviving parts of the bridge will be replaced. That is pure supposition.As I've stated multiple times now: there currently is no concrete proposal for a new bridge, it is not clear what design it will conform to, or what it will be named. I'd also reiterate that your Sunderland station example reinforces that reconstruction is a less appropriate word to use than replacement. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
And now we have a similar issue in another subsection, with CommonKnowledgeCreator insisting that it be called "Bridge safety regulation" rather than the more optimal "Safety regulations", despite the fact that:
The improved version also has the advantage of being shorter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not just about bridges; it talks about regulations for ships, and "critical maritime infrastructure". It's about more than one regulation.Nope. The content
The improved version also has the advantage of being shorter.Thus far, this is only an improvement as far as you are concerned. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
"When reporters asked about a proposal to require tugboats to pilot vessels around critical maritime infrastructure". Note that "critical maritime infrastructure" and "bridges" are not synonymous. And please don't twist my words; I said "regulations for ships", not "regulations to protect ships". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a cliche, but nonetheless true, that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is, the section talks about... And please don't twist my words; I said "regulations for ships", not "regulations to protect ships".Well, considering that I'm the person who first added the content that is now included in that subsection and have now reviewed the references it summarizes for the purpose of this comment, I think I should ask you to not do the same. The tugboat proposal is primarily about protecting bridges rather than ships (considering that the regulation would be promulgated by a government agency doing so in the interest of the taxpayers who subsidize the bridge's construction, maintenance, and holding of insurance policies for the bridges), and while the references use the phrase critical infrastructure, that phrase is a designation that not all bridges or maritime infrastructure fall within. The comments made by Buttigieg and the WSJ analysis of the NBI likewise is about protecting bridges. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 March 2024. |
On 30 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Listen there was an argument about this and no one in the world has heard of the term “Allision” Please use simple English! And I don’t care if Allision is the right term 99.9% of people have not heard Of it! And if we are going to have a big argument about this then we should this put “crash related damage to Dali and its cargo” 2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 ( talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of collision does involves two moving objects. "Allison" is obscure technical jargon. May I suggest an alternative:
These are both plain language and, I believe, more accurate.--17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I wonder whether we might come to consensus by doing this:
This would reduce the use of "allision" to a single prominent instance, allowing the article to use the correct term and make the distinction without unduly taxing the reader. Thoughts? PRRfan ( talk) 00:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
While not looking to resurrect a discussion about allision vs. collision, I don't think the wording is great – infobox is fine, but the article body says "in legal terms, allision" immediately followed by the footnote which describes it as "maritime terminology". There are two problems here – one of repetition/redundancy (why say something inline then effectively say it again in the footnote?) and one of contradiction (we're not being clear as to whether it's legal or maritime terminology – or, indeed, both). I propose that we remove the footnote from the article body and reword to "(in maritime terms, allision)" per this edit. Thoughts? MIDI ( talk) 13:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The current diagram shows the NE-most inverted "V" pier (the twin of the one stuck by the ship) in red (i.e. as having collapsed). As can be seen in the image immediately beneath the diagram, that pier is substantially intact.
Can someone fix the diagram, please? And ideally the other versions found on Commons, also? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Unified Command Key Bridge Response (UCKBR) has multi-media releases on the daily, but that entity won't last forever. The replacement of Key Bridge shall be a multiple agency, multi-modal affair of at least a decade. I presume that planning won't even begin until the investigation has ended, but at his juncture I propose splitting off the salvage section –it'll only grow and become unwieldly. kencf0618 ( talk) 13:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@
Pigsonthewing: The definition of reconstruct is to "build or form (something) again after it has been damaged or destroyed" and a reconstruction is "a thing that has been rebuilt after being damaged or destroyed", while replicate is "make an exact copy of; reproduce" and replication is "the action of copying or reproducing something". For the purpose of this topic, "replicate", and "reproduce", and "reconstruct" are arguably synonymous considering that the question is whether the bridge will be rebuilt without modification or will be designed differently (the latter is which is probably what will occur considering Buttigieg's comments). Additionally, as far as I'm aware, the sources do not indicate whether the new bridge will likewise be named after Francis Scott Key. --
CommonKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 18:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
"In an address on March 26, Biden said that he would ask Congress to fund the bridge's reconstruction."; citing a source which quotes Biden as saying
""It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstruction in that bridge..."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The name of the bridge is immaterial. Your claim - not least the part about about wreckage - is a non sequitur and utterly without merit. The very first line of the section whose title is in dispute is ... citing a source which quotes Biden as saying...This argument is without merit. What specific words any government officials use to label the bridge replacement is irrelevant. If the subsequent bridge is not named the Francis Scott Key Bridge or follows the design of the previous bridge, then in no meaningful sense is it a reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge following either the Sunderland station example you cited,
"If the subsequent bridge is not named the Francis Scott Key Bridge or follows the design of the previous bridge, then in no meaningful sense is it a reconstruction "Poppycock. See, again, the citation in my OP.
"reconstruction is what actually leads to such a non-sequitur conclusion [that the replacement will be built out of the wreckage]."Also poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
poppycock. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 17:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought I already told you that your version breaches MoS.You've made no reference to a specific MoS policy/guideline.
Also, it supposes that the surviving parts of the bridge will be replaced. That is pure supposition.As I've stated multiple times now: there currently is no concrete proposal for a new bridge, it is not clear what design it will conform to, or what it will be named. I'd also reiterate that your Sunderland station example reinforces that reconstruction is a less appropriate word to use than replacement. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
And now we have a similar issue in another subsection, with CommonKnowledgeCreator insisting that it be called "Bridge safety regulation" rather than the more optimal "Safety regulations", despite the fact that:
The improved version also has the advantage of being shorter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not just about bridges; it talks about regulations for ships, and "critical maritime infrastructure". It's about more than one regulation.Nope. The content
The improved version also has the advantage of being shorter.Thus far, this is only an improvement as far as you are concerned. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
"When reporters asked about a proposal to require tugboats to pilot vessels around critical maritime infrastructure". Note that "critical maritime infrastructure" and "bridges" are not synonymous. And please don't twist my words; I said "regulations for ships", not "regulations to protect ships". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a cliche, but nonetheless true, that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is, the section talks about... And please don't twist my words; I said "regulations for ships", not "regulations to protect ships".Well, considering that I'm the person who first added the content that is now included in that subsection and have now reviewed the references it summarizes for the purpose of this comment, I think I should ask you to not do the same. The tugboat proposal is primarily about protecting bridges rather than ships (considering that the regulation would be promulgated by a government agency doing so in the interest of the taxpayers who subsidize the bridge's construction, maintenance, and holding of insurance policies for the bridges), and while the references use the phrase critical infrastructure, that phrase is a designation that not all bridges or maritime infrastructure fall within. The comments made by Buttigieg and the WSJ analysis of the NBI likewise is about protecting bridges. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).