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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Czopek, Madison (March 27, 2024). "Fact Check: Edited Wikipedia entry doesn't prove Israel caused the Baltimore bridge collapse". PolitiFact. Retrieved March 27, 2024. We checked the Wikipedia pages for the Francis Scott Key Bridge and the new page for the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, and as of 2 p.m. March 26 neither included a sentence linking Israel to the bridge collapse. ... We rate the claim that an edited Wikipedia entry provides proof that "Israelis deployed Talmudic network to take out" the Baltimore bridge Pants on Fire!
I'm aware of the technicality that the portion of the highway that ran over the bridge is a Maryland state route, not an Interstate, from a legal standpoint, and I'm aware that it was signed as an Interstate primarily as a convenience for motorists in the interest of avoiding confusion. I wonder whether it is counterproductive to refer to MD-695 in the article's first sentence, though, for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, the entire Baltimore Beltway is indisputably signed as I-695. Second, the article's own infobox shows the bridge as having carried I-695, which means the infobox arguably disagrees with the article's text (although, of course, one could argue that just means the infobox should be changed). Third, the link to "Maryland Route 695" simply redirects to the article for I-695, which might make the more casual user who's less interested in the technicalities of road numbering to wonder why it did that. (To be sure, the I-695 article does explain it, but does this level of precision really benefit the average reader as opposed to those of us who are nitpicky about road numbers?) I haven't made the change because I figured it made more sense to bring it up on the talk page first. 1995hoo (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, in my opinion, the lead really doesn't need to mention a route number. It can just refer to the highway the Baltimore and/or McKeldin Beltway with a pipelink to the I-695 article. MD/I-695 can stay elsewhere for clarity if need be. Mapsax (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've uploaded the final approval for this from USDOT. Please update any relevant articles appropriately! USDOT FHWA Final Approval Interstate 695 --Eplack (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Channel reopened -- more focus on rebuilding the bridge
With the channel to Baltimore Harbor reopened this week, and judging from Gov. Moore's comments, the focus is now turning towards replacing the bridge. WTOP radio in Washington DC mentioned this morning that there is talk of making the replacement main span longer then was the case for the former bridge. With the main span supports farther apart, and therefore in shallow water (and not in the channel), the thinking is that an out-of control boat would run aground before hitting a support. Talk such as this makes it seem unlikely they would reuse any of the bridge that is still standing (e.g., the remaining approaches to the main span). My layman's observation point makes me think they'd also have to make the bridge higher than the old one. 57.140.108.36 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Scott Perry’s tweet today 12/18/24 saying the bridge is privately owned, the article should explicitly say it is or is not owned privately or by the state. It says maintained by the state but doesn’t say ownership. 98.152.105.26 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main span of the bridge is completely gone. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-bridge. There is some small chance they will reuse the approaches, but as it is, the state of the bridge is "destroyed by a ship collision". And the future doesn't matter, because if and when they do something about a new span, either it will get its own article, or we will edit this further to reflect this. Mangoe (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens of editors voiced their opinion in an RfC: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)/Archive_2#RfC:_Past_or_present_tense_for_the_bridge. There was further lengthy discussion before the RfC here. Some took your position, some took other positions. This was a very well attended RfC with lots of input. The consensus is for now to use partially collapsed and, as you say, when a new span is created we arrange things based on information available. Like, what will the name of the new bridge be, if any different, will the old bridge have a different name, like how London Bridge has different names for prior versions of itself. The argument based in semantics of how to define a bridge misses other reasons to call it partially collapsed. As an institution, the Key bridge still exists - it has a budget, staff, planning, blueprints, laws and regulations, cultural, etc.. some argue none of that matters and only the physical existence in a working form matters. And why would we signify it is a destroyed bridge, when it's actually currently under construction ie. partially rebuilt. -- GreenC01:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, and the outcome has already been questioned above. I also have to say I don't agree with the "institution" argument, since it isn't and wasn't an institution; it was a structure. "Partially collapsed" may have applied back when they hadn't cleaned up the wreckage, and really, I don't think we ever needed "partially". But now it's just gone. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But now it's just gone. Just to make sure I am reading this right, they have finally demolished the remaining parts of the bridge? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are removing the remaining span over water because it's one of the steps to build a new span ie. they are in the process of rebuilding the Key bridge span over water. -- GreenC15:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've announced that the rest is coming down starting 7 July. Are we then going to start describing it as a "partially collapsed and partially demolished bridge"? Or can we go to saying what it "was" and that it was knocked down by the barge? Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI it wasn't knocked down by a barge. The article already has everything we need. It says "partially collapsed" to satisfy concerns with calling the entity of the bridge defunct. It says "spanned" (past tense - no longer spans) to satisfy the literal concern about what constitutes a physical bridge. It says "replace by 2028" ie. the bridge is under construction. We have all the elements to satisfy all parties and concerns. There is no reason to disrupt this balance, achieved by dozens of editors over a lengthy period of discussion. -- GreenC21:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current status is/was established by RfC. No doubt your arguments are already there. And probably other arguments you may not have considered are there. The main issue is that a bridge is more than a physical object. If someone blew up the London Bridge, and it was being rebuilt, would we say "London Bridge was a bridge..." I seriously doubt it. When Notre Dame burned, did we say it was no longer a Cathedral even though it was closed, partly destroyed, and not serving as a cathedral? No. If a bridge is in the process of being rebuilt it's still a bridge. Indeed much of a bridge goes beyond the span itself, it includes the roadway leading up, ramps, toll booths, legal and financial structures, etc.. all still there. -- GreenC01:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing established by the RfC was to use the present tense, which is becoming less and less plausible given the ongoing dismantling of what remains. But I'll grant you present tense for another month, maybe. And using London Bridge as an example is perhaps too relevant considering how some large part of it was sold and reconstructed at Lake Havasu. Assuming that a new bridge will be constructed, there's no guarantee it will be named after Key, but at any rate, if a composite article is kept, all of the current lead will need to be replaced. For they plan to build a completely new bridge after completely removing the old; it's nothing like the repair of Notre Dame. And the weird attachment to "partially" still strikes me as pedantic and confusing. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge is actually a "facility", in legal terms, in Maryland, which includes all the necessary infrastructure and property required for the operation and maintenance of the crossing. This includes 4 major elements: 1. the bridge structure. 2. approach roadways 3. toll plaza, administrative and maintenance buildings 4. right of way ie. the land where everything sits. The facility lost #1 in the accident but 2, 3 and 4 were not damaged. As a whole the facility still exists and never ceased to exist. As the RfC closer said, "a broken object still exists in the present tense", or in this case a broken public facility is still a facility, even when temporarily broken. -- GreenC05:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really. I don't even know what you're arguing here, much less that I might agree with your points. A bridge does not need a toll plaza, after all, and one could just as well argue that the approaches need the bridge as the other way around. We all assume that the bridge will be rebuilt, but the possibility exists that it will not; and if it is not, there will be no bridge, and materially, whatever is built will be a new bridge. Really, your rhetoric is like the wrong side of the dead parrot sketch. And if you are going to insist on the continued existence of a bridge which is not there, surely you cannot object to me rearranging the lead in a chronological sequence. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe, we are discussing this bridge, not just any bridge. This bridge is a Maryland public works facility composed of 4 main elements, 3 of which were unharmed during the accident. The facility is broken but still exists. This was established in the last RfC. — GreenC19:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC Then we should really change the lede from The Francis Scott Key Bridge (informally, Key Bridge or Beltway Bridge) is a steel arch continuous through truss bridge spanning the lower Patapsco River and outer Baltimore Harbor/Port to The Francis Scott Key Bridge (informally, Key Bridge or Beltway Bridge) is a Maryland public works facility composed of approach roadways, a toll plaza, administrative and maintenance buildings, and a right of way. As it stands now, the article seems to be under the mistaken belief that the bridge is a structure that spans the river. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)19:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant of that RfC, my opinion will change once the removal is finished and I might not be the only one. For me, the bridge exists in a damaged state until removed, at which point it would be "was a bridge" to myself. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bridge under construction - "FSKB is a bridge under construction". Or, "A previously demolished bridge currently being rebuilt" etc.. there is more than one way to do it. The problem has always been this need to use the word "was" in the first sentence. -- GreenC19:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bridge under construction, as the replacement project is currently in the "preconstruction demo phase" per Key Bridge Rebuild, and the new bridge itself is nothing more than a design concept. There is a need to use the word "was" because because it "was" a steel arch continuous through truss bridge, but it is not currently that (all of the truss structure has been removed), and it will never be that again (the proposed replacement is a cable stayed bridge). It also "was" a structure spanning the river and harbor, it currently does not span anything. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)20:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to be clearer, that was a bit of a joke. I probably should have emphasized road instead of the word that. Or used the joke template that I now know about, though I didn't intend it to fully be a joke. (Basically, I was slightly joking.) Regardless, sorry for the trouble if I confused anyone.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's compromising with the current facility language which keeps it present tense, per suggestion by Ahecht. If it's going to be reverted right back to "was" past tense, which the community said noper the RfC, it's directly ignoring the RfC. It doesn't work. -- GreenC01:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC:, I found the RfC on "is" vs. "was" in the archives; it was closed in May 2024. But after a change of the "is a facility" wording to "was a bridge", your revert, and a revert of your edit by someone else, it's clear that there is (still) disagreement over this. Consensus can change, and the situation may also have changed. As Super Goku V mentions above, there's now an article on the planned replacement bridge (started in June 2024). That's shaping up to be very different (and will possibly have a different name). So this may no longer be a once and future bridge. I think it's time for a new discussion about how to characterize this bridge in the opening sentence, perhaps a new RfC. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC wording is extremely clear. The article is not use the past tense in the lead section. Specifically the RfC says do not use the word "was". Some are now deciding to ignore the RfC. We need abide by the RfC. If you want to have another RfC fine, but until then, the current RfC is still the consensus. -- GreenC04:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, I believe that we need a new RfC given what seems to be an impasse here. Before that though, do you have any input to give regarding a future RfC besides what you have said? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear @GreenC:, you are talking about the RfC that was closed with “this matter can of course be revisited if the remnants of the bridge are demolished or the situation otherwise materially changes,” yes? Somehow it doesn’t look it. Qwirkle (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone has the prerogative to make a new RfC. Only that existing RfCs need to be respected. Some issues to consider:
Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement should be merged into this article, it's all part of the same history. For example there is Old London Bridge, New London Bridge, Modern London Bridge .. all the same article. Why? Because it's "the London bridge" - the variable names and forms it has taken are covered as the same topic because it has a continuous history.
If it's decided to maintain a single article, the name of this article can be adjusted, if the name changes. There can be a subsection for the old and new bridges. The history remains continuous, there is less duplication across articles.
If it's decided to have two articles, then this article is historical and it won't say much beyond the destruction, pointing readers to a new article. It will likely be the same or a very similar name in the end. There will likely be a fair amount of duplication between articles which means at some point editors might merge.
The facility still exists even though the bridge span itself is temporarily down, was the contentious subject of the last RfC. It is not straightforward that just because the bridge is temporarily down the facility is past tense.
There is something of a problem writing an eternal monument of text about something whose status/nature is in flux, but the obduracy of insisting that the bridge which no longer stands and which has ceased to do so for over a year is nonetheless still there is really quite remarkable. And the argument for "facility" is quite questionable when you do not do the same for the two tunnels, the Bay Bridge, and for that matter any other feat of civil engineering under state maintenance, and heck— if the State of Maryland, then why not the whole nation? Every bridge on earth? I cannot imagine that other editors would let you do that.
Every reasonable person will soon see that, for some time, there will be nothing at all left of the bridge, until the state not only has settled on a design, but also has a contractor who has moved equipment out to the site and has started digging. And whatever the RfC of last year decided, it appears to me from the course of discussion that the consensus as of now is that there is no bridge any longer, and that you are the only one now arguing that the bridge is still there. And while it's likely that some bridge will be built and most likely at the same spot, nothing is guarantee. For all we know the economy may go into recession and the state will be unable to pay for a new span. Or maybe the current president will throw up legal roadblocks out of spite. And as several people have pointed out, the new bridge stands a fair chance of having a different name. Without going into the problems with the current London Bridge article structure, everything that's written about the various bridge involved has already happened; and everything that has already happened to this bridge is that it was destroyed by a ship collision, that the remains of the center span were removed a year ago, and that the other remnants will soon be gone too. And when it gets to the point where one would ask any other person whether there was a bridge there, and they say "no", and you say "yes, because there's still a toll plaza", is this not something beyond absurd? Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time it's not necessary to highlight that a large public works is actually a facility composed of multiple elements, but sometimes it is useful when the status/nature is in flux, this is one such case. I think many would agree. Prior to the last RfC, the course of discussion was to use "was". The RfC changed that. Now again, the course of the discussion is "was" AND ignore the outcome of the last RfC. You know how we ended up having that last RfC? Because so many editors kept changing "was" to "is". The use of "was" was problematic. There were supporters for past tense, and present tense. And curiously the past tense supporters were very vocal on the talk page, while the present tense supporters not so much, yet the present tense supporters showed up when there was an RfC. So, I'm willing to give past tense wording some time, and we'll see what controversy it engenders. Maybe you are right, readers will accept it now. We won't know, but just as the current wording has motivated the past tense believers, the new wording may reinvigorate the present tense believers. -- GreenC17:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that those who disagree with you are “Ignoring the RfC” is, based on the conversation above, at best self-deception. Qwirkle (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC says don't use past tense. Our article uses past tense. The RfC has some ambiguous provisions for "revisiting" - any RfC can be "revisted" yet they are a higher level consensus than talk page discussions so overturning would be another RfC. The whole purpose of the first RfC was to resolve the initial problem, which was unsolvable through normal talk discussions. All that's been accomplished in this discussion is reverting back to the same intractable situation that necessitated the RfC in the first place. -- GreenC04:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“This bridge no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late bridge! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-bridge!” Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
