Jump to content

Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"Was" a bridge

Folks, please do not be pedantic, calling the bridge "was" throughout the article. The bridge is temporarily damaged, plans are being made to fix it ASAP. Infrastructure is often temporarily closed for repairs after suffering damage or deterioration. I would imagine the ship is also temporarily no longer in service while it is inspected for repairs. Even if half the ship was destroyed, it would still be considered an existing ship, until the day it was scrapped. -- GreenC 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I dunno. I heavily doubt it's gonna be repaired. It's likely the rest will be demolished before a new bridge goes up. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
And now we're getting into Ship of Theseus territory... Ernest Macomb (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Liliana. Besides, there's a non-zero chance that the reconstructed bridge would have its own article (similar to Tappan Zee Bridge (1955–2017) vs Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present), Goethals Bridge (1928–2017) vs Goethals Bridge (2017–present), etc.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, Sunshine Skyway Bridge covers both the original bridge that was struck by a ship and collapsed as well as the new replacement bridge that was built next to it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@GreenC: For all intents and purposes, the bridge was, not is. This is not going to be a trivial fix and it will need complete replacement out of all likelihood, especially as they would want it to not be fracture critical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The bridge is still a legal thing, and while currently damaged, will be repaired. The idea that a complete replacement of all the elements of a bridge is ridiculous this includes the roadways leading iup to the bridge, toll booths, parts over land, rights of way, governing bodies, etc.. Anyone trying to change the tense needs to get consensus. The most authoritative sources such as the government of Maryland continue to refer to it in the present tense. Changes to the tense need to show consensus. -- GreenC 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
No. You are the only proponent of the present tense at this time and you can't expect government sources to be already updated. The bridge does not "meaningfully exist" as mentioned in MOS:TENSE. And it is not ridiculous, considering that most bridges which lose their whole main span get replaced in practice, such as the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge, the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, the Morandi Bridge, and many others. Also, the idea that the bridge still "carries" 11.5 million vehicles a year when it can't carry anything across the river now is completely nonsensical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I see, are not reporting what the sources actually say. You are making things up as you believe they should be. You need to show reliable authoritative sources that speak of it in the past tense. -- GreenC 00:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry, that is not what MOS:TENSE says. Reliable, authoritative sources say the bridge basically does not exist. Biden speaks of rebuilding the bridge, not repairing it. Ultimately, I am not required to personally satisfy you that you are wrong, but as you remain the sole proponent and your argument is not clearly supported by the relevant MOS page, the article will remain at past tense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Except that reliable sources are saying it is a partial structural collapse and not a total collapse. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Most bridge collapses are partial yet they still for all practical intents and purposes render their bridges former entities.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It is relevant as it is what our reliable sources are saying about the bridge. We can wait for the City of Baltimore to tear down the rest of the bridge. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
That is not what MOS:TENSE requires for tense. If anything, Green C's preferred version is the one less compliant with RS as it says ridiculous things like the bridge (still) carries 11.5 million vehicles annually and (still) spans the river.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
My only objection is saying or implying that the bridge has totally collapsed, which is what I got from your comment. Sorry if I misunderstood. I do agree that the bridge is non-functional due to most of it being gone. But, some parts of it still exist until it is torn down or reused in a future project. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe, but cannot say to a 100 percent certainty and I won't have time to do the research this morning, that the issue here involving "partial" versus "total" has to do with how bridge engineers would refer to it versus how the media refer to it. Bridge engineers consider the portions of the structure to either side of the truss span to be something different from the main truss structure. That's not unique to this bridge, of course. To use an example familiar to many of us on the East Coast, consider how for many years the Verrazano Bridge in New York was referred to as the "longest bridge in the world." What that meant was that the main suspension span between the two towers was the longest single span in the world. A layman not aware of that parlance could quite understandably respond by noting that, for example, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in Louisiana is a "bridge" and is "longer" than the Verrazano. From a casual standpoint, that argument would not be "incorrect" per se, but the issue is that it relies on a fundamentally different basic definition of the terms being used. Here, the main continuous truss structure completely collapsed; I think we can all agree that is beyond dispute. In what I understand engineer-speak to be, that constitutes a "complete collapse." People who consider the portions to either side (the "ramps" up to the main structure, for lack of a better term) to be part of the "complete" structure might not consider it a "complete collapse." Just to be completely clear, I'm not trying to say either side is "right" or "wrong" per se; I'm just trying to flag what I think is an important definitional issue that arises in this sort of discussion and that may explain some of the terminology at issue. (As an aside, using the term "ramps" has now given me the very absurd mental image of either Evel Knievel or Bo and Luke Duke trying to jump the gap.) 1995hoo (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the government of Maryland has had a lot more important issues to deal with today than updating a website or similar to deal with verb tense. Your comment smacks of a WP:OWN tone, but I hope I’m just misinterpreting your meaning. 1995hoo (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
My comment does not "smack". Do you smack? I am challenging the complete lack of sourcing. No sources at all speak of it in the past tense. You assume they will in time, but that is presumptive, and probably erroneous. -- GreenC 00:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@GreenC: Nor is that the requirement of the linked MOS page. In that sense your argument is a strawman argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You don’t get to give orders on how people respond to you. Your comments smack of a WP:OWN tone. You are the only person who thinks the bridge is still in existence. The burden is on YOU to establish a consensus that you’re right. 1995hoo (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh come on, I don't own this article. And I am not giving orders, nobody does that on Wikipedia. Your assuming bad faith. I made about 3 edits to this article, ever, how many have you made? I asked for sources speaking of the bridge in the past tense and not a single link was provided. Instead you attack me personally. Nice. Due to the bad faith I can't deal further with you directly. So I will via other means. -- GreenC 01:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about any ownership stuff, but I said it above and I'll say it again - do you seriously think the bridge still is a thing after most of it collapsed? It's a matter of time before the rest is demolished. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
There's people here that are obviously in denial or have some type of vested interest in this bridge regarding its current state (possibly a fiduciary interest) which brings into question their ability to be NPOV. Perhaps if you think think this bridge is still standing you shouldn't be editing here because you're not thinking rationally or logically. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Out of all fairness, only a minority of it in terms of length collapsed (no more than 3000 ft out of 8000+), but I otherwise agree.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
User:LilianaUwU, The pylons are in salt tidal water they are massive and deep, the Chesapeake Bay is notoriously difficult to put structures into because of a thick muddy bottom, but engineers know how. The pylons have protection around the base for ship strikes, it is a busy tight shipping lane. The ends of bridge are also still intact. Then there are supporting infrastructure: toll booths, maintenance sheds, on/off ramps, shoreline protections, etc.. then there are the legal aspects, rights of way, names, commissions, etc.. and then there are the cultural aspects. There is a lot more to the bridge then the section that collapsed. So, we can argue this back and forth, there are good cases either way, but until we know the future plans, the bridge is only functionally out of repair right now. It still exists as an entity, legally, culturally and (mostly) physically. To say otherwise is CRYSTAL based on the assumption (unsourced) that everything has to be torn down and the whole thing rebuilt. -- GreenC 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The pylons have protection around the base for ship strikes[citation needed]. No one is speculating on what will be done with the bridge in the article. Also, given that the opening sentence is a complex sentence with a descriptor after "...was a ... bridge...", what's given is grammatically correct because the bridge has ceased to perform the function of crossing that river.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Confirming the pylons had protection. Obviously not adequate for the event, but also not devoid.
Baltimore Sun:
A Baltimore Sun article .. in 1980 quoted the director of engineers .. as saying the Key Bridge had a type of “concrete dolphins” at the time. The story cites the official, Mike Snyder, saying they were intended to deflect ships from the piers, and even if they failed to deflect a vessel entirely, they might absorb enough of a ship's force that a collision “would be a glancing blow by the time [the ship] hit the pier.”
New York Times:
But images taken before the disaster, he said, suggested that small barriers that could be seen rising around the bridge’s piers, roughly at water level, would be unlikely to be able to stop a large ship. Effective fenders, he said, had to be far enough from the pier to keep the bow of a large ship from striking the pier, and large enough to absorb the energy of a collision. Assuming nothing had changed since the prior pictures were taken, he said, the visible structures did not seem up to that task. “Maybe it would stop a ferry or something like that,” he said. “Not a massive, oceangoing cargo ship.”
-- GreenC 00:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
As I said, maybe I misinterpreted your meaning. If I did, I regret that, but it’s how your comments came across to me. For what it’s worth, I believe your final sentence comes across as a threat. Do not make threats. Regarding the bridge, nobody can seriously think it still exists, or even that it ever will exist again in its previous form. Consider that around 40 years ago the Sunshine Skyway, following its collapse, was replaced, not rebuilt. Bridge construction has evolved significantly since then. But anyone trying to say how it will look is violating WP:CRYSTAL. 1995hoo (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
If/when you stop assuming bad faith, I might be able to respond to your points about the bridge. -- GreenC 02:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the name of the bridge will likely be renamed to reflect the current anti-racist sentiment of the community as well. Many proposals have been forwarded, most names indicating prominent Black individuals associated with the Baltimore area, notably Frederick Davis and Harriet Tubman. Michaelopolis (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Jasper Deng. The bridge ceased to functionally exist when a large part of it collapsed. It should remain "was" for now. It will either be demolished and replaced or it will be repaired, and if that happens we can change it back to "is". Johndavies837 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
According to this news source: [1]
Following Tuesday’s bridge collapse, vessel traffic was suspended in and out of the Port of Baltimore, and state transportation officials gave no estimate on when the port — one of the nation's busiest — might reopen.
Should we change that article from "is a shipping port" to "was a shipping port"? It is no longer functionally a port. The lesson I learned from the above discussion is that anything that is no longer functioning should be referred to in the past tense. -- GreenC 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Update: the port is still open to trucks moving goods in and out. It's not closed. -- GreenC 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@GreenC: Stop being WP:POINTY. The port is a red herring with respect to the bridge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
It is intentionally pointy, for a reason. To demonstrate the fallacy of your argument: If a road is temporarily closed because of an accident, it no longer functions as a road. If an airport is temporarily closed, it no longer functions as an airport. The "point" is that there is more to it then simple functionality, there are also temporal issues. You have made it too simple, and the results read vaguely, and many editors are complaining that is not precise. You will be fighting this continuously for weeks, months and years. Not with with me, but many other editors. -- GreenC 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@GreenC: Are you attempting to WP:BAIT and WP:POKEBEAR? Because I'm done working with you if you're openly admitting to intentionally trying to be disruptive with this thread here. And your argument is invalid anyways, as you have admitted, and also because the port is entirely physically intact, with an unobstructed terminal in Sparrows Point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly not being intentionally disruptive. I was making a point, which is pointy, but not in these sense of the essay of bad faith. I thought the entire port was closed, but it's not; however the original point still stands: just because public infrastructure is temporarily closed doesn't mean we refer to it in the past tense. -- GreenC 21:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The Baltimore Sun writes of the bridge in both past and present tense, based on context: [2]
  • "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is named for.." (present tense since this is still true)
  • "The bridge, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, is one of the longest continuous-truss bridges in the United States" (present tense)
  • "The bridge arched over the Patapsco River" (past tense since the arch itself is no longer)
  • "The four-lane bridge, which soared 185 feet" (past tense since it no longer 185 tall)
  • "Tolls were 75 cents for passenger cars" (past tense since it no longer collects tolls)
  • "The steel bridge is one of the harbor’s three toll crossings" (present tense after the bridge is rebuilt/restored this fact won't change)
  • "It’s part of a 10.9-mile Beltway span" (present tense - this fact won't change)
  • "The Key Bridge allows wide loads and hazardous material" (present tense - the policy of the bridge has not changed)
-- GreenC 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
"Tolls were 75 cents ..." past tense because they haven't been 75 cents for a long time 71.230.16.111 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's my take. A very simple one, rooted in my trip to the UK last summer, where I had no knowledge of the bridges.
If I googled any particular bridge, and it says "is", I would assume I could cross it.
Going back to my trip last summer, if I googled a bridge that crosses between England and Wales, and that entry said "is", and then if I drove to said bridge and it could not be crossed, I'd say the entry is misleading, at best. Just say it is not crossable now. Yes, it might be crossable again at some time in the future, but it is NOT crossable now. Try not to confuse people.
My point being, you should write these entries assuming someone has NO knowledge of the situation. All of the arguing here about "is" or "was" inherently assumes one does have knowledge of the bridge collapse. 57.140.108.58 (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bridge /noun/ - a structure carrying a road, path, railroad, or canal across a river, ravine, road, railroad, or other obstacle:

"a bridge across the river"
Similar
viaduct, aqueduct, overpass, flyover, way over

Since the bridge is presently not doing what the aforementioned definition of a bridge is supposed to do, then saying that it was a bridge would be correct given the present circumstances. Therefore, once the bridge starts carrying a road, path, railroad, or canal across a river, ravine, road, railroad, or other obstacle, then you have my humble of permissions to change it from "was" to "not was". Nosehair2200 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say "is" based on what is still standing but I will go along with David Weiss and Don Fagenson.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@BerlinEagle: I undid your edit largely because of the discussion here and also because reconstruction has not yet begun per se. Even if it did, the new bridge may get a new name and be considered a replacement. The PanAm Worldport would not be described in the present tense even if reconstruction were proposed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Tis well. I'm not upset with that. I won't argue. BerlinEagle (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
My problem is more with the 'collapsed' label. It is not fully collapsed, as I've highlighted, there are constructed parts towards the right and left of the bridge, although that is an entirely new argument. And so, I would say, simply to make things easier for both of us, I'd say, as I prescribed in my edit, 'is a partially-collapsed bridge.' BerlinEagle (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
How are you reading the first sentence to imply that it is collapsed at all? That's not the job of the first sentence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe last night/this early morning, at the time of my edit, it read 'collapsed bridge', and had mention of it. Although I may be wrong, as it was incredibly early in the morning. BerlinEagle (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The bridge certainly *is*, not *was*. It may not be *currently* serving its original purpose as it is damaged, but it still exists in the present tense. Workers are currently waking up and saying to their spouses "Have a great day, honey, I'm going to the bridge to work". You can't visit a place in the past. It's an existing site. Whether or not it is possible to currently traverse the bridge is besides the point. If it is left in its damaged current state forever, it will still *be* a bridge, albeit a damaged one. Everyone arguing otherwise is being pedantic at the expense of clarity. If you don't want to say it's a "collapsed bridge" because again pedantry prevents you because it is not entirely collapsed, then just say it is a damaged bridge. It is still a bridge. In the present. Not in the past. QED. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That sums it up. Lots of people having a problem with "was", constant reversions and talk page discussions, day after day. "Was" is unclear, pedantic. Even "collapsed bridge" is more accurate, precise and clear. This could go on for years. Glad I'm not the one having to constantly watch and revert to maintain the current minority POV. -- GreenC 16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not the "minority POV" when the majority of editors here agree on the past tense. What is currently there does not meet the dictionary definition of a bridge anymore, see above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
What is currently there does meet the definition of a damaged bridge. A bridge that "was" is a bridge you cannot visit. It still exists. Whether this is the majority view is besides the point. Saying it "was" a bridge is nonsensical, illogical. Popularity contests don't trump logic. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
No it's not beside the point, because it means that you do not have consensus due to your lack of any overwhelming argument. What is absurd, if anything, is to say that it is a bridge crossing the river etc. That's a simply false statement.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the definition of a bridge at all. The Oxford dictionary talks about something that bridges across another something. What remains doesn't go across the bay, so it's no longer a bridge. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Saying the bridge doesn't currently cross the river is pedantry. The dictionary doesn't factor in the possibility of a bridge being damaged. It describes needing to cross over something because that's the conceptual definition of a bridge. Reality has more details than abstract concepts. The bridge was built to go across something, it just happens to be currently damaged. If it gets repaired, does it travel back in time and now magically "is" a bridge again?
The overwhelming argument is the lack of credible primary sources saying the bridge *was* not *is*. Wikipedia shouldn't try to be cute and be the first to say it's no longer a bridge. That's silly editorializing which plagues this site and harms its reputation to everyone else IRL who's not participating in this editing circlejerk. The fact that you can't see past it is all the more alarming. A quick Google search shows multiple articles talking about plans to repair the bridge, which are unclear at the moment but have not been ruled out. One Bloomberg article says some other recent bridge collapse serves as a hint of how long this might take. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
It may be pedantic but the need for accuracy trumps all else. The existing bridge design will not be reused because no new bridges are built fracture critical anymore and it would violate WP:CRYSTAL to only claim it would be repaired rather than replaced outright. Other sources only talk about a "rebuild". MOS:TENSE requires the past tense for entities that do not meaningfully exist anymore. The bridge does not exist in any meaningful sense. Your only option is going to be to do a WP:RFC, but you are not likely to change much by doing so.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
You're missing the point once again.
> It may be pedantic but the need for accuracy trumps all else
This is a tautology. The accuracy is precisely what we're debating here. I'm saying you guys are missing the forest for the trees and being inaccurately pedantic. You can't say "we're being pedantic to be accurate and therefore we are accurate"
> The existing bridge design will not be reused because no new bridges are built fracture critical anymore and it would violate WP:CRYSTAL to only claim it would be repaired rather than replaced outright.
This is besides the point. I never suggested the article should *claim* it will be repaired rather than replaced. That's not for Wikipedia to do. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. I'm saying the fact that primary sources speak to the bridge's possible repair, in whatever form it may come, is evidence that the bridge exists in the present, not the past.
But this misunderstanding on your part is worth resolving further. To wit, even if the physical aspect of the bridge is ultimately replaced, should it continue to be named "Francis Scott Key Bridge", it shall continue to exist in the present tense ever since it was first created, and using "was" at any point will have been inaccurate. Said differently, you guys are so focused on the specific physical integrity of every lego piece of the (lowercase) bridge going from point A to point B across a river that you cannot understand the article is about an (uppercase) Bridge, which existed in the present arguably from the moment it was *conceived*.
In fact, imagine today is the day after the bridge was announced, long before construction was complete, and we are writing this article. Which of these reads more natural and is more accurate?
1. "The Francis Scott Key Bridge will be a steel arch continuous through truss bridge that will span the lower Patapsco River and outer Baltimore Harbor / Port. It will carry the Baltimore Beltway..."
vs.
2. "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is a planned steel arch continuous through truss bridge over the lower Patapsco River and outer Baltimore Harbor / Port. Once completed, it will carry the Baltimore Beltway..."
I'd argue the present tense is evidently more natural and accurate.
Replace "planned" with "damaged" and "Once completed" with "After being damaged" and you will arrive at the place I'm trying to lead us to.
As someone else noted elsewhere in this Talk page, the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was entirely demolished and replaced with a new construction after being damaged. It never stopped being the Sunshine Skyway Bridge with a capital B.
QED. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Giving a WP:WALLOFTEXT does not help advance your argument, nor did you do anything to actually refute my argument that "is" wording is contradictory in any sentence describing a now-former function of what used to be the bridge, pedantry that is for accuracy, not against. The future bridge argument is a complete red herring because that's not the situation at hand (please read WP:OSE), and also because we would say it is a project or a "bridge under construction", not simply a "bridge". The fact is that the bridge was a bridge over the Patapsco River. It was a toll bridge. It was a continuous truss bridge. The present tense in any of those statements, one of which is the lead sentence, makes them completely false. I should point out that the structural engineering definition of a "bridge" limits a bridge to its main span, here entirely collapsed and thus "was", with what we would call the rest of the bridge called approaches or approach spans. Your argument is baseless. Again, your only option is an RfC; please work with Johnuniq (talk · contribs) or another editor to draft a neutral RfC statement below if you wish to proceed in that direction, but otherwise no additional replies by you will achieve anything.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary definitions can be useful at times, but they do not define the scope of article topics. Encyclopedias are broader in scope. They can contain multiple meanings of the same thing, multiple POVs, etc.. as in a bridge which is 1) physical object 2) legal entity 3) cultural object. The "was" camp is blindly only looking at the present-day existence of a physical object, which is a narrow minimalist view that many editors do not agree with, in this case. Furthermore the word "Was" is vague and controversial, evidently. -- GreenC 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
No it's not, when coupled with dependent clauses. It was a bridge that spanned the river. It was a bridge that collected tolls. Those and other functions are gone so there's no ambiguity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead section, first sentence, is the issue. The body of the article can be adjusted to take into account current events. Use of "was" can be mitigated for example saying "As of 2023, it had a million cars a year" etc.. no "was" required. It's the first sentence that is causing dozens of editors to complain, and will continue to do so for a very long time. The use of "was" is not required, there are other better ways to frame it that doesn't cause so much disruption. -- GreenC 18:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for whatever it's worth, Google Maps no longer shows the bridge in map view as of today (obviously the satellite view takes longer to be updated). Reading this discussion tempted me to change the article to say "is a once and future bridge" (with apologies to T.H. White). 1995hoo (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Google Maps had it inaccessible with a section missing several days ago, can't say when. And Francis Scott Key Bridge is cited as having been named whilst it was being built, so... Let's not go a name too far, shall we? kencf0618 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Google Maps shows it as "temporarily closed" on my end.
I must say, I have to agree with the minority here, while the bridge doesn't function, major portions still exist and therefore it should read "The Francis Scott Key Bridge is a partially collapsed..." Any reference to it prior to the collapse should read as "Prior to the collapse..." Which then allows you to refer to the capabilities of the (functional, not collapsed) bridge in the past tense while acknowledging it still exists.
If you catastrophically crash your car it remains a car. Until it is scrapped, destroyed, or recycled, it remains a car despite the damage. It doesn't suddenly vanish.
The bridge is still there, major portions still stand, and the collapsed structure remains. Until that is not true, it exists in the present tense. 143.159.132.6 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
No. Otherwise this argument can be used to argue the absurdity that if even an inch of the approaches remain, the bridge still exists. The collapsed structure is being removed as we speak, and a car's definition does not require it to be drivable, while a bridge's definition requires it to span clear air or a water body, which this entity no longer does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Should be was. This is the consensus, and clearly obvious. The bridge no longer functions as a bridge. Peter L Griffin (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
My car broke down, it no longer functions as a car. It is still a car. 143.159.132.6 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You die. Your body still exists. You were a person. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
"Was" has a finality to it, we use it for dead people. They are never coming back. The bridge is coming back. Strong language like "was" is vague and many people find it misleading. -- GreenC 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems like they are going to build a different bridge. Might or might not have the same name. Not the same bridge regardless. Just like how we can clearly talk about World Trade Center (1973–2001) in past tense, even though another one has been built in its place. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is/was resolution

I protected the article but I think that needs to be removed so editing can continue. My opinion is not relevant, but I scanned the above and found myself agreeing with both sides. There seems to be a majority for the current state of the article (was) so I plan to remove full protection in a few hours on the understanding that was will be used until a clear consensus says otherwise. Any passing admin is welcome to remove protection now if wanted. There is no "restore consensus" edit-warring exemption so if someone changes it to is, please revert them once, maybe twice. But leave it at that until an admin notices. Give the perpetrator a link to this section and a warning that restoring is will be regarded as edit warring and may result in a block (and certainly will result in a block if it looks blatant). If not-logged-in editors restore is, the article is likely to be semi-protected and the IP blocked if blatant. Supporters of is are welcome to start a new section with an WP:RFC. If doing that, it would be desirable to start by drafting RfC wording, perhaps here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This "is" a bridge. The "was" in the lad is incorrect. This thread shows a consensus for "is" a bridge I think 2A00:23C4:241:8C01:D514:5E8C:93F4:C71C (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I notice this IP editor jumped in almost immediately to make exactly the change User:Johnuniq warned against and then posted the comment above. The comment above seems to me to demonstrate bad faith when posted directly below a notice saying not to make that change. I haven't posted anything on the IP user's talk page yet for that reason—the user's comment here proves that the individual is well aware of the issue and doesn't care about edit warring. I don't know what the correct remedy is, though. 1995hoo (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Curious how this brand new IP immediately appears after the protection expires to go against consensus. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

An RfC is started: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)#RfC:_Past_or_present_tense_for_the_bridge -- GreenC 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)/Archive_3&oldid=1242948116"