This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I found this video of the ship from nine years ago when trying to find info about the companies that own and manage it. Might be of use or at least of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfntNXBZurUHippietrail (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Ship fire
As the ship is reported to have caught fire and sunk, is it possible that the fire was the cause of the collision, and not the result of it? Obviously the NTSB will carry out an investigation, and any info inserted into the article needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
AP retracted the sinking in its latest update. Borgenland (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Some YouTube comments from people that seem to know ships were saying black smoke was pouring out of the ship before the collision but hypothesizing that can happen by putting the engines in full reverse power. — Hippietrail (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Has anyone found a source saying whether the ship was under a harbor pilot's control, or its master's? I would assume pilot's, given the location, but haven't seen any mention of this yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Just for clarification on the sourcing on the 20 MDTA workers: this came from a representative who spoke to the rescue operations officer on scene who relayed that to the incident commander over Baltimore Fire Radio traffic. Don't have a link for it, obviously, but felt it was a valid contribution 69.115.41.34 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Channel and harbor
This may be obvious, but the article should mention that the channel is now blocked and the harbor is effectively closed. The number of trapped vessels should be added as soon as an RS is available.
Vessel traffic into and out of the Port of Baltimore is suspended until further notice. This does not mean the Port of Baltimore is shutdown. We are still processing trucks inside of our terminals.
At some point the fact that properly designed concrete dolphins surrounding the support structures would have prevented the collision should be added. Again, an RS will likely arrive soon on this topic.
That's these (not a case of "cetacean needed"). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes The current Tampa Bay Sunshine Skyway Bridge (top) and the old bridges: the piers of the current bridge are protected by structural dolphins and riprap. The collapsed bridge is under demolition.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, the fiber-optic warning system like on the Queen Isabella Causeway in Texas would have alerted drivers. Elikser (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
There are dolphins at some distance on either side of the piers (not to mention Fort Carroll), but it appears that the ship skewed after it passed a dolphin. We will hear about all this in time. Acroterion(talk) 12:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, they're caissons or supports for power line pylons on the upstream side, somewhat wider than the bridge supports, so they aren't really dolphins for the bridge. Acroterion(talk) 12:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
You were right the first time. The bridge dolphins were not much bigger than a tugboat, and the ship did slide past one. Note that the Sunshine Skyway Bridge has dolphins and large islands of riprap. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Ya know, I just can't get over the elected officials who are calling this event "unthinkable." That is certainly not the case. Just say'in. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
List of similar incidents
There is an article that lists bridge failures, which is quite large. Based on gathering similar incidents here, it seems like it might be worthwhile to create an article for the more specific list of boat-caused bridge failures. Elikser (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Ship's loss of power before striking the bridge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM4nMhpQt7g At 1'30 in this video, you can observe that the ship appears to have lost all power (apparently) before striking the bridge... the power came back on a couple of seconds before striking, for it to be gone again as the bridge collapses on top of it. It's not very clear; I'm not sure I'm interpreting this video correctly.... More information will certainly come up as the story unfolds. 123.205.19.162 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be right. The lights did not totally go out, but many were out for a total of about 12 seconds. The turn of the vessel toward the bridge happened during those 12 seconds, so a steering failure is plausible.
This is why I like to read the online NTSB accident reports. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
PS Based on the speed of collapse of that video compared to others, I suspect that 12 second estimate of mine might be inaccurate. I suspect the video of the blackout and collision was sped up. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Per the Streamtime stream, the first loss of power was at 1:24:32am EDT, restored at 1:25:31am (+59s), lost again at 1:26:37am, restored again at 1:27:09am (+32s), and then lost it again at 1:28:50am during the collision. Since I doubt the Streamtime stream is citable, none of that can be used in the article, but it hopefully clarifies that the video you watched was either sped up by a factor of 3x or 5x. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
CCTV often has a slow frame-rate that will appear speeded when replayed up, if it's not adjusted to match real-time. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Why traffic?
The article states that police were able to close the bridge. Why then were there still vehicles crossing? Was the bridge closed or not? SDSpivey (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the answer is entirely clear yet, which is why we don't have an answer in the article. However, presumably the bridge had only just been closed at the time of impact and traffic was yet to fully flow off the bridge. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Overhead power line + 2 pairs of bollards/buoys
200 m upstream (= northwest) of the bridge an overhead power line for high voltage crosses the river. On a picture showing 3 pylons and a regular stretch of the 6 power ropes north behind Dali, it looks unbothered.
Google Maps shows, that this straight line runs parallel to the bridge and has been under construction in Mai 2021 according to StreetView. 2 pylons of the line stand on land near the shores, 5 stand in the water. The spans over water beginning from the right shore (in the SW) are ca. 450 + 500 + 600 + 500 + 500 + 450 m wide. The widest span of 600 m arrives with the main opening of the bridge for big ships. The conical steel tube masts are erected in 8 shots, bolted with flanges. The concrete base of about 12 m in diameter is surrounded by a separated narrow hexagonal (40 × 60 m) pier based on pillars as a collision protection.
At least since October 2012 (StreetView) exists a pair of flat cylindrical bollards or buoys with ca. 8 m diameter about 150 m upstream the main opening of the bridge. The downstream pair is with 120 m distance nearer to the bridge and cannot be seen via StreetView. Each pair leaves an opening of about 400 m for through-traffic. Dali collided travelling downstream with the bridge pillar to the right of the passage. In the aftermath position, shown on the picture on orf.at[1] the ship does not touch the nearest, that is the right bollard in front of the bridge, the uptream one.
But is it actually worth noting them in the article? Not sure what the threshold might be. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:ONEWAY, when reliable sources about this topic (the bridge collapse itself) discuss the conspiracy theories in a "a serious and prominent way." There are a few reliable sources talking about these conspiracy theories, but I do not see any reliable source coverage of the collapse talking about these conspiracy theories, much less "in a serious and prominent way." -- Jfhutson (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Is it some official terminology to call it a failure and have "List of bridge failures" under "see also"? (If I pump 500 rounds of ammunition into you, did you "fail" at life, or were you maybe just not made for it?) 2600:8800:2C09:3200:496E:FF98:FF93:85EC (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
While calling a person a "failure" might have a moral connotation, failure is simply lack of success. At this moment, the bridge fails at what it is designed to do, whether or not that is anyone's fault. --Jfhutson (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about that. Dali has a tonnage of 95,128 GT. In 1972, when the bridge was constructed, how many ships using the harbour were this big? Was the bridge designed to take a impact from such a vessel? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Many of the "failures" on the List of bridge failures (e.g. Kinzua Bridge, Interstate 95 Howard Avenue Overpass, Nimule) are the result of disasters for which the bridge was not designed. When I said "what it is designed to do," I mean that it is not currently holding up the highway, not that it failed to withstand the impact of the ship. --Jfhutson (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Another example is in September 11 attacks, we quote the NIST saying that the heat of the fire "caused a critical support column to fail." This is standard English usage of the word fail. -- Jfhutson (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Your message was posted at 16:58 UTC. SDSpivey (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Port anchor
Apparently the port anchor was dropped. This may have caused the ship to turn to starboard.(OR) Alternatively maybe the restarted engine/s caused the turn, or failure of rudder control. All the best: RichFarmbrough 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC).
Alleged fire on vessel
I couldn't find any evidence related to the ship itself catching fire( from the collision). However, there seemed to be smoke coming from the vessel before the impact, indicating some sort of fire before the incident. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, "eye-witnesses" reported seeing a plume of smoke, coincident with the apparent power failures (or at least, those who've watched the video afterwards). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I added in a statement about the smoke before the collision there now, I suspect the post collision 'fire' is due to confusion about the smoke coming after the vessel suffered a power failure. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
That plume of smoke from the funnel was most probably the ship engine start procedure, either start up after power was restored or astern movement. The reported smoke from the collision was just ship hitting the pier and its base / caisson. Looked around, couldn't find any fire proof or any visual indication on the ship even now. Sea shanty2001 (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
– See the #Fire discussion for further details. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It's no longer linked. :) Thanks for raising the issue 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
See also
The Big Bayou Canot rail accident was in the see also earlier. I see the see alsos have been trimmed which is probably a good thing but I feel that link should have stayed. It's a remarkably similar incident and in the same country and more recent than either of the other two disasters currently listed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, there was some discussion above about see also content. Personally, I'm neutral on this one; I thought about it, but a lost tug on the wrong waterway seems a far cry from an oceangoing ship crashing on the way in/out of port. But, you're right re: time and location being closer and it is undeniably a ship collision with a bridge followed by land vehicles in the water. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Dali - 2016 incident
No doubt factual but how is this in any way encyclopaedic in this article? Unless the point is WP:speculation that there is a connection? Springnuts (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Any connection seems unlikely in the extreme. I'm not sure any RS sources have mentioned it (yet). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The only connection is some sources reporting on both incidents together; for the primary example, here is the first paragraph for The Guardian's article:The same vessel that hit the Baltimore Francis Scott Key Bridge on Tuesday, destroying it and sending people and vehicles tumbling into the water, was also involved in a collision while leaving the port of Antwerp, Belgium, in 2016. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Name of the ship's captain
As far as I can tell, no reliable source has published the name of the ship's captain. This seems very odd.
The pilot team would have been in charge of the ship at the time of the accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Naming any of the bridge crew while we don't know much about what happened (or how it happened) raises BLP issues... I think? Maybe I'm wrong, but I question if we should include it. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN. I chose to focus on the article which currently names the captain, Ever Given. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Wow! Lots of responses, and so quickly too. Thank you for that.
I agree that we need to follow BLP and all other wikipedia policies.
I just thought that, since other, similar wikipedia articles mention the name of the person who was in charge, it seemed odd that the mainstream news sources seemed to be ignoring it this time.
Not done: It's not a misspelling; Allision is the technically correct term from admiralty law for when a ship collides with a stationary object. There was a brief discussion above on this, and you may want to contribute to it to achieve consensus. Liu1126 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Comma Splice
I'm trying to correct a comma splice involving "however". It's not letting me. Why?—Bde1982 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Wait. It was already corrected. Never mind.—Bde1982 (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Fire
I've not seen any recent mention of a fire on Dali, no images showing fire damage, and no signs of fire in the widely-known CCTV of the incident. Are we sure this happened? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Well done. The smoke appears to be associated with the engines, and could be simply due to them restarting in unusual conditions. All the best: RichFarmbrough 23:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC).
Does seem to make the most sense given the situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
A link could potentially be added, but the article clearly describes everything that happens in the video already Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
"Impossible"
I removed this:
Unless protected from collisions, it is impossible for a bridge support to withstand the direct impact of a large ship.[1]
It's too absolute, and watering it down makes it meaningless. I can see that "direct" and "large" are already qualifiers. We would have to add "at sufficient speed". And maybe "carrying sufficient load". And "unless it is really really strong"... (Note that the claim is not explicitly supported in the ref, although it is apposite, it never mentions dolphins, and is more about calculations of risk and bow collision forces, allowing piers and pylons to be suitably specified).
All the best: RichFarmbrough 17:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC).
I am tempted to axe that entire section. It seems like a bunch of ideas thrown at a wall at why a bridge couldn't survive being rammed at speed by a post-panamax container ship. It would be better to make a note about the lack of dolphins around the bridge than include speculation opinions of structural integrity. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with the removal of the section entirely. When reliable sources start talking about the bridge's structural properties during the collapse, we can cite those. Presumably that will one day be in the investigation section. Right now, it's WP:SYNTH. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Number of reported injuries
@MIDI: I noticed that you took out the cn for the claim that two people were injured. The article does say that two people were rescued from the river, but it only says one was injured, while the other was not. It seems to me like we should be saying there was one injury (at least as of now). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
As the person who added the figure, I applied common sense here. Despite walking away with 'no injuries', I think anyone bar The Hulk would walk away with at least a few cuts and bruises. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Do we know they walked away with minor cuts and bruises? The specific source we are using to cite that claim says that the second person "declined medical treatment." To me, this seems like we can neither conclude from this that they were injured, or were not (but certainly we shouldn't claim that they were). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
You are of course correct with WP:V; we can't say they're an injury if the sources don't (and, similarly, we must certainly not assume that because it was a hefty thing to go through, they must've been injured). I did read one source that said something along the lines of "one of the people refused medical help" which might muddy things a bit – that doesn't necessarily mean they were uninjured. But from a WP:V POV, we should be saying "1" or "at least 1" or something similar... MIDI (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The current image is not free use but also not representative of the fact the entire bridge of the water collapsed due to the collison. I uploaded an image earlier to better depict the bridge but it was shot down as WP:COPYVIO. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@ASmallMapleLeaf copyright respect comes first, especially on Wikimedia Commons, where only conmercially-usable content (under commercial CC or PD licenses) are permitted. English Wikipedia can host unfree images though, provided that the unfree images have complete fair use rationales and are complying with WP:Non-free content. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
"the entire bridge" did not collapse. You have made no case as to why the current image is "potentially misleading". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think making a fuss over a image on a rapidly developing topic. But in regards to the bridge collapsing entirely, I don't know about what you consider a 'partial collapse' but in my view the entire truss section of a bridge falling into the water (about 60-70%, easily over a half of the bridge at least) can be construed as 'much of the bridge collapsing'. So I don't know what your quoting me stating 'the entire bridge' in this context, especially since another user explained the difference between the two pictures in terms of copyright and free use. As for the image itself, it shows all sections above the waterline, when later on in the collaspe sections of the bridge were pulled/pushed into the water. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Ship article
I notice the ship now has a page. I am really not sure whether the ship merits its own article right now: There are certainly sources that could add to that article, but everything seems to be in context of this collapse and precedent with other major events indicates that there needs to be more coverage of the ship than there is now. ~UN6892tc 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Ever Given appeared quite quickly, but that was a much more significant accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine if the redirect to the his article was restored. I will note that the ship can be notable enough outside of the incident. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
With that article updated even further, I no longer support redirection back here. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Ship owner, etc
More appropriate for talk page of the article on the ship, though still FORUM-y
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Dali seems to be owned by Stellar Marine LLC, not sure where they're based. It seems to be managed by Oceanbulk Container Management SA, which is located in Athens, Greece. — Hippietrail (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Odd. Unsure where Stellar is coming from, I don't see any detail on the company. Balticshipping seems to be saying that the Dali is both owned and managed by Oceanbulk. [1]https://www.balticshipping.com/vessel/imo/9697428Surreal12 (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The place I found that info had the flag of the Marshall Islands, but didn't mention the country otherwise. I'm pretty sure that's another popular country that ships are "flagged as", so that might only represent where it was flagged before being Singapore flagged as it is now. The 2015 video I linked to below clearly shows "Majuro" on the stern, which is the capital of the Marshall Islands. — Hippietrail (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Good point, I've just seen it. Found them as well on the Marshall island corporate registry. Annulled in 2019, could possibly explain why I'm seeing Oceanbulk as the owner. Surreal12 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Continuing....now I'm getting sources saying that a company name Synergy Marine Group manages the ship, and others saying they own it. This is from the guardian and cbs news atm.
News reports are starting to mention Grace Ocean Investment though at least one is saying it's a Singapore company... — Hippietrail (talk)
They're all saying Grace Ocean is Singapore based now. There seems to either be both an HK and a Singapore company with this same name, or perhaps the same company is based in both cities? Can find good links for both that are unrelated to the current news, but so far can't find anything linking HK & SG. — Hippietrail (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If this applies to you, feel free to copy to wherever you keep your barnstars. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Public Domain photo available
A photo, in this article might be public domain because it is produced by the government which this site says is public domain. A.FLOCK (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@A.FLOCK I don't think so. c:COM:US#US States does not list Maryland as among the states whose government works are in public domain. The cited source of the image shown on MarylandMatters.org is the Fire Department of the City of Baltimore. The Terms of Use of the fire department's website links to the TOU page of the City website, a portion of which states "Any service marks, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property contained in or displayed on this site, and the contents of any linked sites operated by third parties, are the property of their respective owners (which may be the City)." There is no indication that images created by employees of the city government, including the fire department, are in public domain and can be exploited even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 00:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
We should not assume that Maryland state or local government products are PD. However ... NTSB has released a B-roll drone video which might be. Acroterion(talk) 00:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Speed
The speed dropped from 8.7 knots to 7.6 between resumption of electric power and the collision. Ref to follow if I can. All the best: RichFarmbrough 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC).
Seeing two sets of figures currently –I'm waiting a bit. It's notable that she was dragging anchors all the while. That's a lot of momentum...! Stay tuned for the sheer kinetics of it all... kencf0618 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Body pulled from river but not immediately apparent if it was one of the six missing
That source says: "Baltimore City Council Member Phylicia Porter told CNN’s Boris Sanchez on Tuesday afternoon a body had been recovered from the river, but later said she misspoke." The report makes it clear that two people were pulled out, but that six remain missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Prior to the article getting updated there was a report about a body being found, but the councilwoman who said that would retract it and clarify she misspoke. Sorry about that. 209.7.245.122 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries. News reports often get updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
OR tag in collapse section
The material in question seems like it is indeed OR, as I searched specifically for the speed and the ship's name and got no good sources. What I did get was this Sky News piece which contains similar information (including the specific speed 8.7 knots) from which it may be possible to craft a suitable replacement for the disputed sentence. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
In "Ship damage", under "Allision and bridge collapse", there is a note saying a non-primary source is needed. I believe this note can be removed, since the source is about the company's claim, not about wheter or not the claim is true. Minaspen (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done Edit requests need to be more specific than this, and you are not correct per WP:SECONDARY.--Jasper Deng(talk) 09:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:SECONDARY is preceded by WP:PRIMARY, which says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia [...] to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This applies to the text in question. The request is perfectly specific (albeit since made superfluous). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
NTSB investigation
It doesn't seem to have hit mainstream sources as of this moment, but (as you'd expect) the NTSB has launched an investigation. Should that get a sentence in the article now, or wait for a news source to pick it up? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
See no harm in adding now. It's hardly going to be a question of notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the following sentence to the end of the aftermath section: "The National Transportation Safety Board launched a go team to investigate the accident on March 26." Please use the tweet in my comment above as a source (I'm unsure how to cite a tweet on Wikipedia).
@Martinevans123: I've gone ahead and proposed a brief addition, please feel free to workshop it. That goes for anyone else reading this, too. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Done Now added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
for info, use {{cite tweet}} to cite tweets. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The NTSB Media briefing will be available here at 14:30 EDT / 18:30 GMT. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Should this be added to "External links"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure who added it or when (might well have been after you made your comment), but we currently link the NTSB landing page for the investigation which seems the correct move here. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to currently include the video. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Images
Please can we NOT add copyvio images. There is one non-free image, which I think is useable for now. The NTSB will almost certainly open an investigation, which will lead to reports / news stories from them which will have useable imaged. For now, we need a bit of patience. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
It's been said that the bridge collapse image is from CCTV, which means that it is PD-US. Can anyone confirm this? Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed from a 24/7 livestream of the ship. I am the original uploader of the image and can attest to this. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
It's only public domain if the owner of the CCTV was the federal government, or another entity which releases its works to the public domain. -- Beland (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
CCTV footage being public domain in the US has never been established by legal precident, and even so that would only apply to completely automated fixed cameras, not remotely operated PTZ cameras like the one that took that footage. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we subdivide this section into two, splitting things that happened in the hours after the incident from the more long-term implications, such as the planned change of port for exported motor vehicles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see where that would be a problem. Did you have a preference to the name of the section headers? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
However, the ship remains watertight, and the shipping company claimed there was no water pollution directly from the ship following the incident. Despite the claim, on March 27 the NTSB announced that they are investigating a hazmat spill coming from breached containers onboard Dali, including containers carrying corrosive and flammable materials and lithium batteries.
To become
The ship remains watertight, and the shipping company stated there was no water pollution directly from the ship following the incident. On March 27 the NTSB announced that they are investigating a hazmat spill coming from breached containers onboard Dali, including containers carrying corrosive and flammable materials and lithium batteries.
Why:
Don't start a sentence with however
The shipping company "claimed" implies dishonesty. They've made a statement, report it as such
"Despite the claim" deleted this, again implies dishonesty.
For the last two points, it's actually accurate. There is no spill directly from the ship rather there may be leaking from containers on the ship and those are different things. Directly from the ship would be fuel oil, bilge, etc. Should be pretty easy to fix the neutrality on this. Thanks.
--24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) 24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I do like that. very much WP:NPOV. i'll make the change. thanks! -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Premature Archiving
If you are looking for a discussion here, but it has disappeared or is not visible, it may have been prematurely archived. Springnuts (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The archiver is set for 3 days. But several were archived before that and while still active discussion; I un-archived the ones of those I noticed. Others seem to have been inactive (either resolved or mooted by time), so I left them archived. No prejudice against further un-archiving them if anyone has interest. DMacks (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The Collapse section correctly says: "Multiple vehicles were on the bridge at the time it collapsed" -- but the rest of the sentence is outdated and should be deleted: "though no one was believed to be inside them" -- now that the Casualties section explains with reliable references: "The bodies of two of the construction crew were recovered from inside a pickup truck ... from a depth of 25 feet." Many thanks. — 98.113.83.5 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
No one was believed to be inside the vehicles then, so the sentence is still true. They were proven wrong, but that's how it went. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 00:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but please reconsider. There's no need for an encyclopedia to preserve outdated, insensitive, and highly misleading information, especially about the recently deceased. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Rutsq just clarified the sentence and paragraph substantially – thanks much. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Singapore flagged?
There are multiple nations involved in the incident:
Singapore is the nation of register
Greece is the nation of the company that owns it
Denmark is the nation of the company that operates it
The US is the nation of the location of the incident
India is the nation of the crew
Is there a particular reason why Singapore needs to be mentioned in the headline paragraph, and the other countries not? HiroSaki2024 (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not seeing the reason, so I have removed it for the moment. Is this fine with you, Cfls? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Is this not normally how ships are treated? Compare something like Exxon Valdez. It may be a flag of convenience, but it's international maritime trade. AFAIK, it's pretty normal for it to be complicated, but (again, AFAIK) the flag is the primary identifier of the nationality of the ship according to maritime law. GMGtalk 11:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The "Singapore-flagged" in the lead also made me uncomfortable when I previously saw it. I'd like to hear from maritime editors about this. I'd be more inclined to support keeping it there if being Singapore-flagged meant that there was a significant chance Singaporean nationals were responsible for the ship's maintenance (and thereby potentially for the incident). Sdkbtalk 16:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Reliable source coverage rarely mentions, let alone emphasizes, the ship's flag state or the crew's nationality. It should not be in the lead. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
the rest is fine. - Davidships (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Moment of Silence
The Orioles held a moment of silence on March 28 during their Opening Day game. They also cancelled their fan rally and workouts on March 26. [1][2]47.153.148.108 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed. Rutsq (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
State of emergency bill
Current wording states that the bill currently under consideration in the Maryland legislature to allow for a one-year state of emergency for critical infrastructure would also allow the government to seize private property for government use. However, in the original source it makes clear that the bill restricts certain government powers normally granted during a declared state of emergency INCLUDING the right to seize private property. 96.234.147.110 (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
You are correct. I made the change. Rutsq (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Casualties
Could someone remove 'namely' from the first paragraph of the Casualties section, since they are not actually being named. (I don't have a login so can't edit this page, apparently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.2.10 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Done. In future, please add to the bottom on this Talk page. Rutsq (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Timeline
In the Collapse section of the article the timeline of events seems out of sorts.
00:44 left port, 01:26 power loss, 01:30 mayday call to DOT of lost of control and allision possible, 01:28? collision with bridge occurred, 01:30? calls to 911 begin. Straykat99 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The cited source says "shortly before 1:30" as does the article, which is vague in our context. All the best: RichFarmbrough 14:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC).
No doubt exact times will be given in the NTSB report when it is published. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I have came across a radio transcript with timestamps from the NYT article, as such, the time the radio dispatched the officers closed the bridge to traffic seems contradictory to the time of collapse on video and as reported to radio dispatch (there may also be a delay when the bridge collapses and when radio dispatch finds out about the collapse). I have also checked the webcam feed and noted at the time of posting, the webcam's clock is approximately 31 seconds behind UTC-04 EDT time (also accouting for livestream latancy delay). I'm not sure how much clock drift the webcam has had, in the past 44 hours since collapse. Toran107 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The NTSB has released a preliminary timeline, and a WP:RS has restated it. A section for "Timeline (preliminary)" has been added.Obankston (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The ship too?
I can understand a creation of an article on the event, it may or may not be kept in the long run. But isn't MV Dali overdoing it? WP:BLP1E is about people, but IMO the spirit applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Although there is no guideline for it, the long-standing interpretation of WP:GNG within WP:SHIPS is that large commercial ships are considered notable even if they have not been involved in any major incident such as this one. See also WP:SHIPOUTCOMES. Tupsumato (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Consensus will be what it will be. I note the article has a few pre-event sources, but in my view it's a WP:SUSTAINED etc fail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
But it was "large commercial ocean going and named" for some time, so WP:SUSTAINED criteria is also met. YBSOne (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
SUSTAINED is about coverage in RS, not existence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The situation may be similar to that of Ever Given? If a container ship gets stuck/ demolishes a bridge, it may or may not be very notable. But the economic consequences of each of these two accidents are really so huge, that the ship itself gets catapulted into the realms of notability pretty quickly? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
There are similarities [4], sure, but WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't a good argument. Also "is one of the largest container ships in the world." Anyway, I have no intention of afd:ing atm, might take another look in the future. It's not like there are serious WP:PROMO problems or anything like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure folks are already queuing up to buy one... (but probably not this one). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 Off-topic, but you made me remember this article:[5]. It mentions OceanGate, a company who owned a boat. It's one of the best articles written from the PR POV about WP I've seen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Gråbergs. That's very interesting and very relevant. I'm probably better off editing those article that have zero readers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not MV Dali should have an article should be discused at Talk:MV Dali, not here. Please take any further discussion there. Thank you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Done: Teapotpie created an article and Nardog adjusted the redirect. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Not done: It's not a misspelling; Allision is the technically correct term from admiralty law for when a ship collides with a stationary object. There was a brief discussion above on this, and you may want to contribute to it to achieve consensus. Liu1126 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done Edit requests need to be more specific than this, and you are not correct per WP:SECONDARY.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Fixed by this edit. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)