Talk:Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 November 2024.

Wikipedia

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Serbia Mid‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canopy was subject to renovation

Significant proof is available that the canopy was also renovated, which was reported by several news outlets. After the collapse, several news outlets edited/removed this detail of their reporting. It would be in the interest of the public for Wikipedia to relay this information. 188.2.57.250 (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this article from Nova.rs 188.2.57.250 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add that information yourself, the page is not protected at the moment.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 09:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't even need extensive external evidence, you only need to compare images of the railway station from the image files provided on Wikipedia that span from 2010s all the way to 2024. There was a surface level restoration prior to 2021 (refurbished marble slabs, removal of ad displays, and fixing of the station sign). Then the first large renovation in 2022 had surface level touch-ups to the canopy (while also adding glass fixtures from the inside that were not there before). The 2024 renovations, the second large renovation, extensively added additional underside lighting and electrical wiring for it, red stone tile coverings from the underside, fake grass covering at the top, and heavy protective glass at the top in the section that use to have open space. The interior area also gained an additional balcony area that was connected to the same structure as the canopy. The canopy was renovated, several times in fact, in the span of around 10 years, as evident by visual records on this very site, the last one was the most extensive. Nickpunk (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better source for victim list

@Nickpunk The list of victims is WP:BLP information because it pertains to specific individuals who are recently deceased and their families. While I am not at all against a list of victims, a better source is needed than Blic. —Alalch E. 00:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blic is okay for not-very-sensitive things like condolences, but a tabloid widely known as unreliable, it isn't reliable enough for this type of material. For example, when I worked on the Belgrade school shooting article, it was very hard to properly source the list of victims. —Alalch E. 00:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, will bring back the list of victims once we get enough sources from different reliable news sites. Currently international ones have only mentioned initials of some of the victims and it will take a few days for them to get full confirmed list. Nickpunk (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, could take a few days. I had to wait for individual funeral reports to be able to compile a reasonably verifiable list of victims with their age, and prior to that, the information in the tabloid sources was conflicting and simply unusable. —Alalch E. 00:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added. —Alalch E. 16:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historic preservation vs. engineering adequacy tradeoffs

Are there sources that show that the tradeoff between historic preservation and the engineering/construction techniques needed on a 50+ year old concrete+steel rebar were even considered when the renovation was being planned? It appears that perhaps the historic preservation group, for which the article states structural engineering is outside their purview, placed various requirements on the renovation without getting input from the sort of authority having jurisdiction that would be concerned/thinking structural integrity of an old concrete/steel Soviet-era built building. Perhaps with government ownership/responsibility, every bureau of the bureaucracy was "just doing their job", and the right higher-order questions just weren't asked. But we would need sources to figure it out and improve the article. N2e (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the historic preservation body needed to be asked for guidelines, roughly speaking, to ensure that no untoward alterations are made to the protected building. Their guidelines deal with stuff like the type of marble and color of tiles. The initiative for the works comes from the national government, as part of the large railway overhaul, discussed in Budapest–Belgrade railway#Modernization of the Serbian section. The design, involving in many parts reconstruction, as in "tear thing down and build a different thing" (as was done with the rail platforms on the other side of the building, which were fundamentally rebuilt and expanded), was created by another organization (CIP) and the historic preservation body merely approved those architectural aspects covered in technical documents that have something to do with any listed buildings (and added some guidelines on top), and did not get into any engineering aspects. The article is very much a work in progress. —Alalch E. 18:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping some links here:

—Alalch E. 15:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geological engineer

@SSJ 5: If you see this image you'll see why there was "20% concrete" inside the canopy per Đajić: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Novi_Sad_railway_station_construction_-_canopy.jpg

The space between the reinforced concrete beams was apparently filled with stuff of the sort he describes. But the cables weren't attached to cement bags and debris, they were attached to the beams.

I don't think that he is a reliable source for the background of the building. It isn't the same thing to rely on an architect like Maldini and on a geology engineer who speaks from the perspective of someone tasked with working on the facade. The problem was not with the facade, it was much deeper down (both physically and in the sense of the building as a system), and neither his expertise or his specific job on the site were relevant to that. —Alalch E. 00:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't see what was behind the marble covering of the roof portion of the facade. According to his own statement, the marble slabs were not replaced in that area; instead, it was simply painted over. When he mentions seeing "maybe 20% concrete", he is referring to the canopy, where the tiles were indeed removed. Based on his observations in that one area, he expressed a concern that there could also be filler materials i.e. trash built into the roof, but this remains merely his suspicion, and it's frankly absurd that the roof could be so compromised or it would have collapsed immediately or shortly after construction. —Alalch E. 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]