Talk:1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting

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) X ain36  { talk } 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

1993 Aurora shooting → 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting – See Talk:2012 Aurora shooting. 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. X ain36  ( 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)

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)
 * 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
 * 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. —— SN  54129  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!) ——  SN  54129  15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit has left an ungrammatical sentence: . 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)

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.
 * 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)

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