Wikiwand AI

Talk:1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 17 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) Xain36 {talk} 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

1993 Aurora shooting → 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting – See Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#Requested move 16 February 2019. The title of this article was 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting until it was moved back to 1993 Aurora shooting by User:Jim Michael for the reason of "rv undiscussed move - there's no reasonable confusion between this & the 2012 & 2019 shootings, because they are in different years." Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Xain36 (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. The DAB page at Aurora shooting now lists shootings at multiple states with places known as Aurora. As such "Aurora" is no longer sufficient on its own as a disambiguator, since it doesn't clarify where the event actually occurred. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that the state is a necessary disambiguator between the 1993 & 2012 mass shootings, because they took place in different years & each have the year in their title as a disambiguator. This month's shooting is disambiguated by state & hence doesn't need the year in the title.
It would be better if this discussion were all in one place, instead of on 3 talk pages with some different editors.
If it's decided that either the 93 or 12 articles should have Colorado in its title, then the other one also should. Jim Michael (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As can be seen from the article's history, the title was 1993 Aurora shooting until you added Colorado to the title on 16 Feb. I reverted that undiscussed move later the same day. Jim Michael (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support multiple Auroras and shootings sadly happen in many places. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as there are multiple Aurora shootings. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The year is already different, but sources don't call it by the year (with state or without). Would rather Aurora restaurant shooting (to set apart from Aurora factory shooting and Aurora theater shooting). Three entirely different buildings, two with clear common usage in news. This one has the misfortune of being up against a more recent Aurora restaurant shooting on Google, but is still the only one Wikipedia knows about. Chuck E. Cheese shooting is still an option, twenty years later. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Support disambiguation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All these Aurora shootings should use the following KISS format: YEAR Aurora shooting. So this one at 1993 Aurora shooting is fine, as is 2012 Aurora shooting. That leaves the latest one currently at Aurora, Illinois shooting to be moved to 2019 Aurora shooting. Let's not act like we have had multiple Aurora shootings in the same year. --В²C ☎ 01:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. These shootings did not all occur in the same Aurora so I think the titles ought to be precise and reflect this. PC78 (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per PC78 et al. I don't think there's much doubt that using the form "[Year] Aurora shooting" to refer to shootings that occurred in two entirely different Auroras is likely to be confusing, and fails to meet criteria of recognizability and precision. The problem is easily solved by including the state (as of course our articles on Aurora, Colorado and Aurora, Illinois also do). ╠╣uw [talk] 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per PC78. Davidsousa1 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: The 2012 incident has now been moved to 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting, per consensus in that discussion. bd2412 T 04:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Semi-support, but with the matching comma after the state, as required by essentially all English usage and grammar guides. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Consistency, conciseness, preciseness

I think some people are missing that there is no disambiguity if we name each of the Aurora shootings as YEAR Aurora shooting, and the Aurora shooting dab page would look like this:


Whether users are at the dab page or looking at Google search results (where they see part of the lead - try it), all of the information they need will be there.

We just need to leave this title alone and rename Aurora, Illinois shooting to 2009 Aurora shooting. There is an ongoing discussion about that at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. —В²C ☎ 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, all the information the reader needs will most definitely not be there if titled in this manner. Consider a user examining our articles on Mass shootings in the United States — they would see:

1993 Aurora shooting
2012 Aurora shooting
2019 Aurora shooting

Nothing would indicate that Aurora and Aurora are in Colorado while Aurora is in Illinois. That difference would be entirely unclear — and clear titles matter. It's not our policy to lean on information in the body of an article (or in a DAB) in order to allow for the use of titles that are otherwise ambiguous, hard to distinguish, or otherwise unclear. The title itself must meet our criteria. Those proposed fail on (at least) recognizability and preciseness. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If titles were required to be so descriptive that anyone would be able discern the topic from the raw title in a category list, our titles would be very different. There is no such requirement, and there is no basis for this title to comply with such an extraordinary requirement. --В²C ☎ 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
No, B2C: the requirement, per policy, is that titles be clear and recognizable for our readers. The proposed titles fail in that regard because they do not meet the criteria for good article titles, most notably precision and recognizability since (as you seem to admit) they cannot be clearly distinguished on their titles alone. It is not Wikipedia policy to allow titles to fail AT criteria on the assumption that readers might sometimes also "see part of the lead". The title itself should meet the criteria — and again, the ones you propose demonstrably do not.
As for the category thing, I never claimed that's what the policy is built for; it's just one of many circumstances in which the absence of clear titles would be a problem. When we can reasonably avoid using unclear or confusing titles, we should, and this is a case where we easily can. Why would we not? ╠╣uw [talk] 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Race

Touchy subject, of course, but the line ...in response to an accusation by Crowell's older brother that the murders were motivated by race, Dunlap exclaimed profanities, etc., rather jumps out because at that point—and even more to the point nowhere else in the article—does it mention either the perpetrator's or the victims' race. They could all be caucasian, as far aswhat the article tells us, yet, of course, that would negate the accusation that race was involved.

FWIW, I understand the point that's being made, but only courtesy of a google image search. This should (somewhow) be (tactfully) clarified. ——SN54129 11:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to indicate the race of the perpetrator or the victims. "Motivated by race" could be an aggravating factor, but this would apply whatever the races involved. This race issue was raised by a victim's brother, so there is no reliable indication that race was actually an issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Fine, I'll remove the refence then. (Although the bit about him going into a tirade is obviously useful, as it's about the trial!) ——SN54129 15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Your edit has left an ungrammatical sentence: During his sentencing, swore repeatedly in an outburst that lasted for three minutes. I think we should either leave this sentence as it was or delete it completely: if we mention Dunlap's outburst then we should say what triggered it, and I see no need to say who was of which race. Swearing while being sentenced to death is probably not uncommon, and it may not be worth mentioning. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's connection

Is there anything from a reliable source that confirms that this incident may have inspired the first game in the Five Nights at Freddy's game franchise or are the similarities just a coincidence?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@174.99.238.22 With Scott Cawthon, nothing is a coincidence ;) But still though, this shooting was more horrible than the games' plot itself. That son of a ***** was evil, more than just let's say, someone being forced to commit a crime like that, because he literally shot a person who was begging for their life. How can anyone spare that ****, even IF he was Black? Anyways, William Afton constantly avoiding death may be somehow tied to this, and ultimate custom night being Afton's "hell" would make sense if the murderer here had nightmares about his well-deserved fate. Baccherini (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting → 1993 Chuck E. Cheese's shooting – WP:COMMONNAME, most know it as the 1993 Chuck E. Cheese's shooting. An alternative would be to move to Chuck E. Cheese's shooting as this is the most well-known one. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Look at the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, we do not call it "1993 New York terrorist attacks" because of WP:COMMONNAME. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral – Honestly there doesn't seem to be a common theme here. A discussion about this type of article naming existed for the 2022 Buffalo shooting and many people responded and it ended being about 50/50: see here. Inexpiable (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unhelpful. how many CECs are in US? WWGB (talk) 09:43, 28 January 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.



Hi, this is my first time editing a talk page, so I don’t really know the format here. I’m here for a suggestion and some input. Which picture should I add in the front page of the article, #1 or #2?

File:Chuck E. Cheese’s in Auora, CO after the shooting 01.jpg
#1
File:Chuck E. Cheese’s in Auora, CO after the shooting 02.jpg
#2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza noob 65 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

== Pages are renamed by moving them to new target names. This procedure preserves the page's edit history. Please do not rename a page by copying/pasting its content to a new page name. If you have an autoconfirmed account (an account that is at least four days old and has made more than 10 edits), you can move a page yourself, but please first review Wikipedia:Article titles. If you still wish to rename the page, go to it, click the Tools drop-down menu at the top on the old vector legacy look (near the View history button and Watchlist star), and choose Move. On the new vector look, simply click Move under Tools in the right margin. You can then specify a new name for the article. The old page name will automatically become a redirect to the new page. However, if it isn't possible for you or you think the move would be at all controversial you should request the move on the talk page using the Template:Requested move. Even where a move is uncontroversial, if the desired target page name already exists and is other than a redirect with only one edit, you will need an administrator or page mover to move the page for you, which can be requested at the technical requests section of requested moves. Hope this helps. (e.g., "fully protected") ==

Requested move 7 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Most cited WP:NCWWW as a reason to oppose the move. While there was a separate proposal for a much more slight move per MOS:GEOCOMMA, there seems to be widespread disagreement on this, and it's neither here nor there with regard to the discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting → Chuck E Cheese Shooting – Why Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. It was the worst mass shooting in Colorado until the Columbine High School Massacre. In a historical perspective it makes sense to name it the Chuck E Cheese Shooting. The name also has OVERPRECISION, due to there being other Aurora Shootings, making ambiguous and failing to show the historical impact of the crime. Renaming also fits into CONCISE, as per these rules: The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. I:E Chuck E Cheese being the subject area with the shooting. The name shouldn’t overwhelm the reader with to much information. ButteyFelicity (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment Would it make more sense to still have Aurora in the name? as in: 1993 Aurora Colorado Chuck E Cheese shooting? I just think we would still want to specify what town what year and where. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    Maybe 1993, but definitely not Aurora or Colorado. It defeats the purpose of removing “Aurora, Colorado” and changing it the first place. (Not being rude) The location is stated with “Chuck E Cheese”. Though in News articles it does say “Aurora Colorado Chuck E Cheese Shooting” so your point is valid. But it still sounds like a handful. Maybe “1993 Chuck E Cheese Shooting” could work? It’s a location and has a year. What are you other suggestions? I feel like the location of crime can be read in the article itself and not the title. Though there’s San Ysidro McDonald’s Massacre with the name of the town in it but without the state. Like San Ysidro its ubiquitously called “Aurora Chuck E Cheese Shooting.” ButteyFelicity (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    Is it the ONLY shooting EVER recorded at a Chuck E Cheese? That was actually my concern. If it is--then go for it. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    No. But it is the primary recorded one. There are other shootings at Chuck E Cheese covered by the news and people have died. (Usually 1-2) But this case was a shock to many and was the deadliest mass shooting until Columbine. So a year can work most definitely. 1993 Chuck E Cheese Shooting work? It fits well with the Wendy’s Massacre article in terms of name. But your suggestion also worked. It’s mainly reported as the Chuck E Cheese shooting and saw how the title glazed over the fact of it missing the historical significance of the title. ButteyFelicity (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    I think 1993 Chuck E Cheese shooting works--not super verbose like my prior suggestion. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah it works. Year, location, and prominence of the name. How do I change it to be with 1993? ButteyFelicity (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    "Chuck E. Cheese" includes a dot in the article on the subject (and in the logo). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    Fixed it. Thank you. ButteyFelicity (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, violates WP:NCWWW. It does not violate overprecision as is because of the year; there are also multiple Chuck E Cheese shootings. This is much less clear. Most of the sources include Aurora and Colorado and this is far more important to identifying when/where as per NCE than the specific chain of restaurant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
It does. “ Where the incident happened” = Chuck E.Cheese. It does not have to be the town or location all the time. It violates this Wikipedia:COMMONNAME 1993 Aurora Colorado Shooting isn’t what people think of when it comes to this shooting. And have there been other chuck e.cheese’s shootings in 1993? It fails to meet this criteria: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. The most common name associated with it is the Chuck E.Cheese Shooting. It does have aurora but your failing to recognize that Chuck E. Cheese is important when referring to the shooting. It is the most important name.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. It is common in news articles that the name includes Chuck E. Cheese When search Ig the shooting.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. It distinguishes from the rest of the others and identifies it more clearly.
Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. It is consistent with other articles like the Luigi’s Restaurant shooting and the IHOP shooting. All specify the exact location. Thought the comment above offers a valid point. Would you be willing to have the name above as a compromise? ButteyFelicity (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
There are many, many Chuck E. Cheeses. There is one Aurora, Colorado.
You advocated we remove the 1993.
Yes, your title violates all of these points. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
I said how about 1993 Aurora Chuck.E Cheese shooting. I never said remove it now. And no it doesn’t. It doesn’t have the location- Chuck E. Cheese. Wikipedia:Common Sense ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
I said how about 1993 Aurora Chuck.E Cheese shooting. I never said remove it now. And no it doesn’t. It doesn’t have the location- Chuck E. Cheese. (Sorry if it sounds rude.) ButteyFelicity (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject Colorado, WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics/Gun politics, and WikiProject United States History have been notified of this discussion. Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed move and Support a move to 1993 Aurora, Colorado, shooting per MOS:GEOCOMMA. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Nope, we don't do that for titles. See Draft talk:2010 Knox County, Tennessee mayoral election for recent RM discussion that found no consensus for such an awkward construct.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
I'd really like to agree with you. I recall trying to come up with a reason not to accept having such a weird situation in a more recent discussion over at Talk:2024 Birmingham, Alabama, shooting#Requested move 14 April 2026 but I couldn't, and indeed the consensus accepted the MOS:GEOCOMMA argument with no opposition.
There just isn't much wiggle room here. MOS:GEOCOMMA tells us that a comma follows the last element of the geographic designation when it involves multiple components, and MOS:AT tells us Subject both to the above and to Wikipedia:Article titles, the rest of the MoS, particularly § Punctuation, applies also to the title. and MOS:GEOCOMMA is a part of the Punctuation section.
This just isn't something a local RM discussion consensus can change. WP:MOS is way too clear, and as it stands it unequivocally states that the wider consensus is to include commas. If there is an objection to a guideline on the basis of it not having consensus that should be argued at the guideline page, not wherever the guideline is being applied. Quite frankly I don't know how the RM you linked was closed like that and went unchallenged, because I don't see how its compliant with WP:NOTAVOTE. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 09:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
OK, well that's your opinion, but almost every time this is tested in RMs, it fails to find consensus. I will always oppose it because it makes the title more confusing for readers and has very little discernible benefit beyond WP:Wikilawyering. Another solution might be to omit the state name altogether. Although there are other Auroras, no other one had a shooting in 1993, so the state name isn't needed for disambiguation.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
My opinion is just that the guidelines say what they say, but if you're saying consensus doesn't support them, why hasn't anyone gone and got it changed? The guidelines are meant to document consensus, and they're what editors rely on in discussions, and what closers are instructed to use to weigh arguments.
Also I wouldn't call it WP:Wikilawyering because it was explicitly said in the writing of the guideline that the intended purpose was for it to apply to titles. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 10:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
My impression is that some people are just tired of the geocomma question, so when it comes up very explicitly it is sometimes considered disruptive to discuss, and outcomes can end up being based on which variant was already being used or which variant was suggested first. I don't believe there is a consensus to change the guideline (and I would personally not support that, as my impression is that the comma is generally preferred to be present in formal writing, and I think removing them would sometimes result in confusing phrasing). For those accustomed to the comma, omitting it is glaringly amateurish/informal. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
In situations like this where there is only one word after the last WP:GEOCOMMA there isn't really a good solution. Either way you get something that looks a bit off.
I don't care too much myself, but something I do care about is having it be consistent and clearly stated in the guidelines. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 17:29, 15 May 2026 (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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks