Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore): Difference between revisions

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Maryland: Baltimore High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695), Maryland Transportation Authority

I was told that the Key Bridge is not part of the Interstate System. Before you jump on me and tell me I'm wrong go to The US Department of Transportation Interstate Map and zoom in on the Baltimore area. My Dad used to run the Maryland Interstate System and he told me that there were only a few people in the country that knew of this obscure piece of trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.201 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and the SHA's logs actually show that part (I-95 to I-97) as MD 695. The same applies to I-895 south of I-695, I believe the I-695 and I-895 articles mention this. --NE2 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That conflicts with SHA's report, in which the Baltimore map has the whole land-based road marked with an Interstate shield. Is there dual-signage? All sources listed in the article here (and also the ref in the Interstate 695 (Maryland) article claimed to support that it is not Interstate) give only I-695 as the designation for the present day roadway and outer-crossing bridge (some also noting that it was originally MD-695 but signage has since changed). Those sources are certainly not as authoritative for official status as US-DOT or MD-SHA (which disagreee with each other?), but certainly could confirm current signs on the actual roads. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the conflicting information. The reason that all the information in this article (as well as I-695 and MD route 695 articles) supports the MD 695 theory is because I changed them. I think that the FDOT page trumps the MDOT page. Also the presence of an almost 90^o turn (and the sub appropriate speed limit that it results in) as well as drawbridges degrade the standard of the road, even if it is 4 lanes. Finally (as I said my Dad used to be in charge of the Interstates in Maryland. After he told me this I posted the first comment on this page and later I asked another former head of the Maryland Transportation Authority and he confirmed the report. I think this is worth a call to the Head Honcho at MTA or MDOT.(Vwlou89 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I just called MdTA and they said that the bridge was not signed as interstate so it is Maryland 695. (Vwlou89 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for checking it out! DMacks (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Interstate 695 (Maryland), improvements were made? I find this confusing, given the above discussion. In the changes I made to the article, I found that Maryland Route 695 redirects to I-695 (Maryland). Strange? Incorrect? - Denimadept (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had Maryland Route 695 redirecting to this page, since the MD 695 designation currently applies only to the Key Bridge. There was a section of current I-695 that was also designated MD 695 at one time, but as mentioned, it was upgraded and is now officially I-695, with the Key Bridge being the only remaining section of MD 695.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any information or source as to where this designation comes from? I've lived within a couple of miles of this bridge my entire life and have never heard of it referred to that. "Key Bridge" is the most common name for the bridge amongst locals.

Magamiako (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MDTA give the location of the bridge as "I-695 outer-harbor crossing" on their Key Bridge fact sheet (page 3).

Also, I would think that it is more of a nautical term. Anchoring in the "outer harbor" versus docking in the "inner harbor". I found this page that says "Today the Patapsco River, to local boaters, is generally thought of as having three sections - Outside the Key Bridge, Inside the Key Bridge, and The Inner Harbor." - PennySpender1983 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has a link to MD 695. This redirects back to this article, making a circular link. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that if you read the article, it'll become clear. - Denimadept (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, correction. See this talk page. It's discussed above in the section on I-695. - Denimadept (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320013741/http://www.sha.state.md.us/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2005_hlr_all/co24.pdf to http://www.sha.state.md.us/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2005_hlr_all/co24.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a contributor but am watching this article in real-time and wanted to say thank you to the dedicated folks on here who are working to keep the flow of information accurate as stuff rolls in, and moreover just helping remove the absolute nonsense/trolling happening DiscoSkittle (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been contributing myself, no worries! Dellwood546 (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough right now to warrant an individual article. As more details emerge, splitting it into an article can be discussed, if notability can be established. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NOTNEWS. ^Queenof_Hearts 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Too kneejerk and it's 4 am here. Retracting my vote. ^Queenof_Hearts 08:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I know I argue about the ten-year test a lot, but this will absolutely be discussed in 10, 20, even 50 years. Oppose. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also... I suspect this event will make this Francis Scott Bridge the clear and obvious primary topic, but that's for another day. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This major structural failure will have a story and investigation of its own much like the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse. Wait until more developments occur.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Every accident has a story and investigation. Notability is determined by whether it's studied retrospectively in secondary sources. Your !vote is in violation of WP:DELAY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot assess the second criterion at this time, because there's literally no time for a retrospective secondary source to have studied it. Your linked section is a recommendation, not a requirement, and notability is virtually guaranteed here. Your objection is not sustained.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that link redirects to a section on the bridge's article about the collapse, that doesn't seem like a very useful comparison for your !vote --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The scale of this disaster has not yet been fully realized, due to this, the notability of said events cannot be determined for some time. Dellwood546 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As stated above this is a major bridge collapse with multiple people in the water that will lead to the shutdown of an Interstate. Fallingleaves43 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've move protected the article. As there is an open discussion about merging or not, the collapse article should remain at its current title. Further redirection to this article will result in administrative action being taken. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Given that there is a massive failure that led to this situation, and that there may casualties from this situation, I believe it deserves its own article. NesserWiki (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – this already has significant coverage, with BBC, CNN, AP, NYT, CBS, and more on it, some being updated live as a "developing story", with enough substance for an article already at this moment. This isn't a WP:NOTNEWS situation, and given the "developing story" note, we should get more info soon to flesh out the article and make it likely not worth a merge. At the very least, we should wait and see what happens over the next several hours. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - looks like it is very notable. Needs seperate article. ShakyIsles (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Everything so far indicates this is a major bridge collapse. Johndavies837 (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as we can expect the collapse article will be very notable and become huge in size. Already reported in numerous news sites world wide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sufficient notability for a standalone article. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The bridge is not a culvert and the footage appears to show a total structural failure. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - AFAICT there were more than two dozen people on the bridge at the time of the incident -- seven users of the tollway and "at least 20" workers according to a quote in the BBC link given above by Skarmory. It seems certain that there will be ramifications for the safety of such structures worldwide. Seems obvious to me that a separate article is justified. Ged Haywood (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have some background on the discussions in the design phase over what type of protections should have been provided for the piers in the event of stray shipping. From the photograph it all looks pretty vulnerable Lawrence18uk (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would prevent vandalism, and also partially prevent edit wars, particularly from new users. Robloxbob222222222 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]