Talk:Jet Set nightclub roof collapse

“8 April 2025”

Wouldn’t it make sense to use the American MM/DD/YYYY format, as usually used in Wikipedia articles? CavDan24 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There are no American ties here to use that format. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You do realize this event is outside of America, right? 174.92.117.83 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In English, definitely it's correct to use the USA format as in spanish we use our format. Cristian Hidalgo (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, CavDan24. WP:DATEOVERVIEW is an interesting read on this question, as is MOS:DATE: do take a look. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If it happened in the United States, then that format would be used. StormHunterBryante5467 01:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Structural issues

The article says “ While the nightclub had operated for years, the structural issues were relatively new. The building was originally a cinema, which had different safety regulations.[9]”. This is referenced to a paywalled NY Times article. Could someone with access confirm if the statement “The structural issues were relatively new” is in that article? The statement about nightclubs and movie theaters having “different safety regulations is puzzling, and also deserves scrutiny. Is cut from The NY Times article as well? 98.220.12.67 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I added those based on the last 2 paragraphs of the NY Times article:

... Jet Set building was decades old and had recently been damaged.

... structure over 50 years old, built for a movie theater and later converted into a nightclub, and obviously these are different safety parameters. ...

For some reason, I don't see any paywall. 69.171.140.10 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete 'Casualties' table

I would like to proposed deleting the Casualties table. Nearly all of the entries duplicate existing information in both the lead and in the text immediately below it and interrupts the flow of the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Dreameditsbrooklyn has deleted it. 69.171.140.10 (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Celjski Grad and sorry for not coming here first, I didn't even see this conversation, that's my bad 😅 I am strongly for the reintroduction of the table though for a few reasons. The table was never meant to be long or list even close to all the names of those deceased (something that would no doubt violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL and break the flow of the article), functioning more like an infobox if nothing else in the sense that it's a quick visual for information that readers can interpret at a glance. I only did this for the most notable of the casualties, or in my mind ones that could potentially or do have Wikipedia articles. Quite similarly to infoboxes, the information is meant to duplicated and repeated in more detail in the prose, and is not meant to serve as an in-depth replacement. Tables like this exist for similar purposes in the articles 2024 Ankara prisoner exchange, Mandera Prison, List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G), List of mayors of New York City, and I personally have always found them helpful. Cheers! Johnson524 14:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the notable ones are less likely to violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I'd only say that for the first 4, which actually have articles.

However, things look terrible on mobile. The "Notes" column is both squished and stretches the table out to be longer than the rest of that section. It might also be better to move the table down because "Below is a list of individuals who received news coverage" is not a very good sublead as it introduces the table but not the prose. 69.171.140.10 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You're right 69.171.140.10, and I agree the table would probably look better a little later in the article, if that works with you Celjski Grad? Johnson524 15:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with introducing casualties table. the information it had was useful especialy with pictures and nationality of victims. Gillispie007 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war over this, but my opinion hasn't changed. Most of the widely-publicized names in the table are figured prominently in the lead, and then a second time in the Casualties section. The table repeats the same information a third time, right above the prose, and does not add to the reader's understanding of the event. It's not even a full list of victims but rather a handpicked selection, which makes it arbitrarily incomplete. The list of mayors (150+) and the list of 9/11 victims (3000+) are the sole focus of their articles and cannot be described in prose. The other articles provide the tables as the single source of that information in the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. then we can remove some repeated information from the article paragraphs and add the table again? what do you think? Gillispie007 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done A good compromise for the table was added on April 14. Johnson524 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2025

Rubby Perez was never extracted alive nor was found as claimed. He was later found around 1am on Wednesday after they were able to identify his body. 2600:4040:9C86:B00:5C7D:ED33:A3A:2829 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. User:Celjski Grad (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The place caught fire in 2023.

I know the page says that it was struck by lightning but I feel its important to also add that it caught fire in 2023 as a result. The whole interior was burned/ damaged which caused significant damaged. (The owner was told to tear the building down and rebuild but he chose not to and instead decided to just fix the cosmetic problems)

There are multiple documentaries, photos and interviews with the contractor originally hired to asses the damage. StopTheFalseInfo (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

If you can provide some reliable sources that back this up, other editors can add the information. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The fire was located in the generator hut adjoined to the main building. Neither the interior nor the concrete of the main building were burned or damaged. Even the generator hut did not burn down, but was extinguished and remained whole, if charred. Leaving the old and new AC units and condensators on the roof of the main build most likely ended the roof, not the fire in the shed behind the club. 2A01:599:620:6BD6:F48B:9C46:5914:6B8D (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this important information Bleue00 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2025

Remove duplicate text, especially one on 'Background' area, "The nightclub opened in 1973 and underwent renovations in 2010 and 2015." It bloats the information, as it was stated previously on the 2nd paragraph. KingRHM (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE. We would also lose the citation, whereas adding one would either leave a mix of cited and uncited content or require undoing MOS:LEADCITE. 69.171.140.10 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

A.m. vs p.m.

An article editor feels that 12:44 a.m. is too ambiguous without parenthetically including the part of day this falls in (morning vs afternoon). I've started this discussion here to head off an edit war. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Remove. We shouldn't clutter the lead with unneeded explanations that may benefit a vanishingly small number of readers. 12-hour_clock discusses confusion specifically with 12am (midnight) and 12pm (noon), because these discrete times fall on the transition point between day and night. Times before or after, such as 12:44 a.m. have no such abiguity. Nor do the Dominican Republic sources such as [1] or [2] have any such concerns with reporting times after midnight as a.m. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I wonder what country has that kind of confusion over a WP:SKYISBLUE affair. Borgenland (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  12:44 a.m. has exactly the same ambiguity as 12:00 a.m. Half the world thinks it's around noon and the other half thinks it's the middle of the night. I initially thought this and reading further thought why are so many people in a nightclub at noon? Vanishingly small is probably more than 50% of English speaking readers. I've asked people in Australia, South Africa and Kenya is 12 pm midnight or noon and they all said midnight. Avi8tor (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Remove The ambiguity is only for readers using the wrong definition. See wikt:a.m. We don't go against WP:NOTDICTIONARY for basic, non-technical terms. 69.171.140.10 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep This article has a time of 12:44 a.m. which can be confusing to readers in parts of the world as referencing 12:44 a.m. (Noon), because there is no consensus to define a.m. or p.m., either can apply to post meridiem or anti meridiem. This includes the minutes after 12:. See Confusion at noon and midnight. I have tried to include "(just after midnight)" but that's been reverted by Celjski Grad. I'd like comments on how we can make this less confusing to readers who use 12 p.m. as midnight, which appear to be English speakers East of the Americas (Former British colonies). The British define midnight as 12 p.m. or as they might term it 12 midnight. Avi8tor (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  "there is no consensus to define a.m. or p.m., either can apply to post meridiem or anti meridiem"

  You can't possibly mean that—a.m. and p.m. are literally abbreviations for anti meridiem and post meridiem. Also, you are misreading 12-hour clock, it is referring to confusion at noon and midnight not before or after. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see you actually removed what I wrote initially on the talk page with links and substituted your own text. I pointed to Confusion at noon and midnight which has a section on the Confusion issue.

  In the UK, the National Physical Laboratory "FAQ-Time" web page states "In cases where the context cannot be relied upon to place a particular event, the pair of days straddling midnight can be quoted"; also "the terms 12 a.m. and 12 p.m. should be avoided."

  Likewise, some U.S. style guides recommend either clarifying "midnight" with other context clues, such as specifying the two dates between which it falls, or not referring to the term at all. For an example of the latter method, "midnight" is replaced with "11:59 p.m." for the end of a day or "12:01 a.m." for the start of a day. That has become common in the United States in legal contracts and for airplane, bus, or train schedules, though some schedules use other conventions. Occasionally, when trains run at regular intervals, the pattern may be broken at midnight by displacing the midnight departure one or more minutes, such as to 11:59 p.m. or 12:01 a.m. Avi8tor (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I removed nothing of what you wrote and substituted nothing. This page's edit history is publicly available diff=1285734039&oldid=1285731643. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I started this conversation, but you decided you would place text in the article ahead of mine, which is now a couple of paragraphs below I now realize. Avi8tor (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, I started the topic on 14 April. You created a duplicate section on April 15, which I moved (as IP user) to the existing conversation. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Consider this https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1752,00.html being a British newspaper from other English speaking countries as it covers both viewpoints. This article gives the evidence of Confusion around the planet regarding a.m. p.m. Avi8tor (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  12:44 a.m. is unambiguously in the morning. You continue to use sources that describe confusion around the term midnight only and whether it is 12am or 12pm. You even quote text that recommends using "12:01 a.m." for the start of a day" Celjski Grad (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  It would have been helpful if I'd been informed after our discussion on the page in question. There is confusion worldwide on this issue which is why I added and you reverted "just after midnight" to clarify the issue. Avi8tor (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  In some of the world where noon is 12 am, after noon can be 12:44. It's obviously ambiguous in some parts of the world, and an article in Wikipedia states that fact. It's one of the reasons I personally always use the 24 hour clock. Perhaps that may be an idea here. Avi8tor (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

24-hour clock

Since readers can't decide on how to interpret the 12-hour clock, let's just switch to the 24-hour clock to avoid these issues. 173.206.137.33 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the location of this incident, I believe a 24-hour clock would be prudent. Words in the Wind(talk) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Avi8tor (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia referencing 12:xx a.m. times of day successfully. There are reasons to use 24-hour time in an article, accommodating unqualified readers is not one of them. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not think we need to classify any reader of Wikipedia as unqualified. Wikipedia is to inform all who care to read it, not to be confused by poorly written articles. More information is better for everyone. Including clarification can only help. Having 12:44 a.m. (00:44) would definitely be an improvement. Avi8tor (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the death toll is now at 231 Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2025

The death toll is now at 231 deaths. 2601:18F:484:1E00:CD9:7B69:13A9:F242 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Injured

The sources actually seem to indicate that 189 were rescued alive, not that 189 were injured. On April 10, it was indicated that 155 were injured, on April 12 it was reported that 200< were injured. So these figures are actually stating very different things. Someone may have survived and by some miracle not been injured in a random pocket, but still needed rescuing. Unless I am seeing different things here, I will update the lead and infobox. ABC News source NBC News source.

Structure Issues - timing of engineer's assessment is unclear

Currently the article reads "Civil engineers and architects have indicated that the roof was inadequately supported by narrow columns on the sides and none in the center, and could have collapsed under its own weight due to fire-weakened concrete and the heavy machinery it was carrying." right after saying that Firefighters deemed it safe back in 2023. Can we put some timing on when these Civil engineers have indicated the structural issues? I think it makes a significant different to the reader if the civil engineers had pointed this out at the time of the fire or after the fact of the collapse.

Reading the article #6 which is the source of that sentence, it looks like the timing is after the collapse. But I'll let someone whose Spanish is better than mine verify that. But if true, I propose to update the text to:

"After the collapse, civil engineers and architects who reviewed the damages have indicated that the roof was inadequately supported by narrow columns on the sides and none in the center, and could have collapsed under its own weight due to fire-weakened concrete and the heavy machinery it was carrying."

Misosoup7 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made the change. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead citations

@Nwbeeson: Now there are excessively 8 citations in a row. Why are the "moved refs as per Wikipedia Style Manual" in the lead section? I think we should remove all of them from the lead section and repeat the facts in the body. 173.206.137.33 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Words in the Wind. 173.206.137.33 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Tiles

In order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention the fact that plaster tiles frequently fell from the nightclub's ceiling for years prior to the roof collapse? Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/24/americas/dominican-nightclub-jet-set-collapse-owner-espaillat-intl-latam/index.html 98.123.38.212 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)