Talk:Chuck E. Cheese/Archive 2

Talk Page Archived
Okay. Since the talk page was becoming too big and cluttered, I decided to archive it to allow for new discussion without having to scroll down all the way. It was also starting to reach the 30 section mark. And since I haven't heard from several different WikiProjects on the reassessment of the article, I've decided to immediately send it in for GA nomination. ''' Dyla nlip (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ The article has been sent in for GA review, so I'm hoping for a good review. Wish me luck! ''' Dyla nlip (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck :) -- OlEnglish (Talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
In order to keep the article stabilized from IP vandals, I've gone ahead and had the article Semi-Protected for 1 month. This should hopefully keep vandals away from the article. If they do come back after the 1 month, I will push for an indefinite protection.(Semi of course) ''' Dyla nlip (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review
Now that the article is GA and has been stabilized thanks to the semi-protection, I will now submit the article in for a(n) FA Peer Review. This review will hopefully show me the last few things that need to be worked on in the article. Once that's out of the way I will finally nominate it for Featured Article. Wish me the best of luck! ''' Dyla nlip (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck once again. :) You'll be happy to know I've adopted this article and keep it permanently on my watchlist. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * to the list of peer reviews. It's already been peer reviewed by a bot, and now I'm waiting for the full review. The link to the review is at the top of the page if you didn't notice yet. Any comments are greatly appreciated! ''' Dyla nlip (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Here we go folks. I'm now going to nominate the article for Featured Article!! ''' Dyla nlip (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now where would you be if it wasn't for my wishing you luck ;) -- OlEnglish (Talk) 08:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

They're quite diligent over at FAC aren't they? Did you foresee some of the issues that were raised? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Violence section added
''There has been a rash of violence and thefts at Chuck E. Cheese restaurants in the US over the last year. In one incident a man punched a woman in the face (Brawl At Memphis Chuck E. Cheese, News Channel 3), there have been family brawls (Family brawl erupts at children's pizza place, Daily Herald), a man who drew a knife at the birthday party of a one year old (Man Pulls Knife During Birthday Party at Chuck E. Cheese, Kens5.com), as well as alleged incidents involving the selling of alcohol to minors (Chuck E. Cheese Busted, NBC Chicago.)''

This does not seem notable to me, i am sure if i google Chevron in Google News i could find articles similar to these on robberies and Family disputtes there, i am not oppose to section like this as violence at a place "where a kid can be a kid" does seem notable but not in the way the above is written Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy?
I'm a tad surprised there isn't any mention of how people have reacted to some of the bigger changes, or heck, even a blurb about the sort of arcade games used. There's a passing mention about evolving video games industry, but it certainly doesn't go into details. Considering the entire premise of Chuck E Cheese's was to allow kids a place to play them, I'd have thought it would be more relevant than that. Here's a couple of articles I found, but I'm not sure if they're good enough to use. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article4522.ece http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/965171/chuck-e-cheese-fires-duncan-brannan-hires-jaret-reddick http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/whats-all-chuck-e-cheese-fights-14917 Just throwing some examples out. Personally, I felt changing Chuck from a tuxedo to a hipster skateboarder was kind of insulting, but that's not how we roll on Wikipedia.--68.6.182.39 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that he is now a life-sized rat instead of a giant one disturbs me. I mean, the restaurant's mascot is vermin. That should tell you right there what a skeezy place it is. Also, how about the number of incidences of lost children and drunken fist fights that have broken out at Chuck E. Cheese? Something about the combo of hot cheese and warm beer sets folks off, I don't know. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've stricken the above comment per WP:NOTFORUM. Which says that WP talk pages are not places to express our personal opinions about the subject. Please keep you comments limited to discussion of the article. Thanks everyone! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Logo information

 * The older logos need to be uploaded to Wikipedia. The new logo used since July 2012 needs to be uploaded as well.


 * These logos can be found on Logopedia and discriptions of these logos can be found below.


 * 1st logo: This first logo says Chuck E Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre and it looks somewhat basic. The logo was used from 1977-1981.


 * 2nd logo: In 1981, the logo was changed for the first time. The Chuck E Cheese lettering was now written in a fancy manner. This logo can in several different variations and it was used until 1989.


 * 3rd logo: The third logo was introduced in 1989 and the "Pizza Time Theatre" name was dropped and the restaurants name became Chuck E Cheese's Pizza. This logo had green outlinning. It also had red bubble letters and it was used until 1995. However, this logo can still be found at a few older locations.


 * 4th logo: A new logo was introduced in 1995. The new logo featured a more kid-friendly looking Chuck E Cheese and he was changed from a rat to a mouse. Although he had a yellow (sometimes red) shirt in the logo, Chuck E Cheese had a purple shirt in the commercials. This logo can still be seen at some older restaurants.


 * 5th logo: Already on the page but has a 3D variation and another one with Chuck and his friends on the logo.


 * 6th logo: In June or July of 2012, Chuck E Cheese's redid their mascot and got a new logo, too. Chuck E Cheese is now an ugly cgi rat with a electric guitar on top of the red lettering that was kept intact from the previous 2004 logo.


 * I put the discriptions of the logos on the main article and this will do until somebody actually answers my stinkin' request!

24.147.1.197 (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)by Jacob Chesley


 * Could you please provide citations to the reliable sources for the above information? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean Xenophrenic. Like I said, these logos can be found on Logopedia. The logos can also be found on ShowbizPizza.Com with the correct dates these logos were used. Like I said above, some of these logos have two or more variations. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley
 * Wikipedia does not usually consider "Logopedia", or other user-generated Wikis, to be reliable sources (See WP:USERG). As for ShowBizPizza.com, could you provide the specific web page links (URLs) to the documents at that cite that support the content you wish to add? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not good with the URL's Xenophrenic and my sources are right. I'm prity sure of that. If you want to put the logos on, you are on your own. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley


 * The current 2012 logo has been added to the page. Who ever did this, thank you! The other previous logos need to be added to the page A.S.A.P. 24.147.1.197 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Slogans controversy
Hello. Just wanted to let others know that I removed the slogans section because 1) they were unsourced and 2) users (mainly IP) change it back to "Where a Kid can be a Kid!" (Their website says otherwise...). If that is problem, then find a reliable source to back them up and talk about it here. If no sources can be found, then I say keep them off of here. Thoughts?  Corkythehornetfan  (Talk)  22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox logo
I don't really care much, but the reason I uploaded is that it appears to currently be the main one on their homepage. Ping. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The full logo contains the character. Unless you have a reference that signifies the logo has changed, these references (1, 2) support the logo in the infobox as current. Any new logo since then would have likely been reported on showbizpizza.com. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chuck E. Cheese's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chuckecheese.com/company-info/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Founding Date(s)
Hello Wikipedia users and editors. I have been recommended to post here about a situation regarding the CEC article. The conflict was in the 'foundation' field in the infobox. Pizza Time Theatre, Inc. was founded in 1977 but went bankrupt in 1984. ShowBiz Pizza Place bought the assets. The modern company (CEC Entertainment) is just a re-naming of ShowBiz Pizza. ShowBiz could not use the Billy Bob & Rock-afire assets freely because they did not own them. They owned "The Pizza Time Players" and Chuck E. Cheese, so they decided to continue operations under the "Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza" until today.

A good comparison would be that if Disney bought Universal and then claimed that they(Disney) were founded in 1912 instead of 1923. It's the same argument here(except with a much smaller fan base, haha).

I added May 1980 into the 'foundation' because that's when ShowBiz Pizza Place was founded. I kept the 1977 part to denote that was when Pizza Time Theatre, Inc. was founded.

If you look at the facts, it makes sense. I'd like this article to be the right information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Boots CEC (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is all fine information, if it can be attributed to reliable sources, and it can then certainly be added to the body of the article (if it isn't already). But that is not where the conflict arose.  The reason your edit was reverted is because it attempted to place corporate name information in the foundation field of an Infobox. Dates are okay, as are locations (i.e.; San Jose, Kansas City), but extraneous clutter isn't -- even if, as in this case, the name-change situation isn't evident without it.  You can see what information is allowed in the field here: Template:Infobox company.  Several of the other fields need to be trimmed as well (for example, we can't have "Company X merged with Company Y" repeated at least three different times as it is now), because the Infobox is only for succinct factoids and not for information that is better explained in the body of the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Xenophrenic here. Cluttering the infobox with extraneous detail defeats the purpose behind the infobox. It is there to provide a quick factual summary of the article's key points and should not attempt to cover details that are better explained in prose. The points you raised above are a good example of what should be left out. Simply state the founding year of 1980 and leave it at that. Those reading the article, if properly written, will understand why 1980 was chosen over 1977 (and that's for those readers who even notice). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition, please see the conflict of interest (WP:COI) notice posted on your talk page. If you have any direct affiliation with CEC, or even indirect relationships through family, friends, clients, etc., then you should disclose this information and avoid editing articles covering CEC-related topics. Please read the guideline to get a better understanding of what this entails. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading the guidelines wikilinked in your responses I understand why this conflict arose.
 * I made a preview of some updated infobox code with some edits. There is 2 dates in the 'foundation' field but they are clearly marked with (PTT) and (SPP). If I was to simply make the foundation date 1980 (founding of SPP) it would be out of line with A. Corporate CECE, B. CECE's upcoming 40th anniversary, and C. multiple "reliable" sources.


 * Many of PTT's corporate employees continued work under SPT. Dick Frank started in 1985 and was with CECE until 2008/9. It doesn't sound "right" but I think it is good enough to be included in the infobox as true materials. The article clearly explains *why* it's there but as you said the infobox is for quick information.


 * In the edit, infobox simplified to remove merge points and remove PTT & SPP as subsidiaries. The latter can be discussed separate if needed, but that isn't my focus right now. [These edits have not been saved. I ask: Is this a good representation of what CEC's infobox *can* look like?


 * @COI: No, I don't work for CEC/CECE nor do I have family or colleagues who do. I am an active CEC fan. I don't see why I can't edit for CEC-realted articles, as I created one of them and have a well understanding of the history. Especially leading up to the PTT-SPP merger. "The History Of Chuck E. Cheese's", which I have read, is a great (non-public/not finished) work detailing the history.Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at the image(s) at that .com website (I'm hesitant to click links to unknown sites). I do know, however, that a company's founding date doesn't change if that company merges with another company, or if it is bought out, or if it changes its name, or if it goes out of business.  The founding date remains the same.  Regarding showbizpizza.com, I'm unsure if it meets Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source.  Our sources are usually required to have an established record of fact-checking and accuracy.
 * I can't speak to the conflict of interest issue, but I can understand how having 'CEC' in your registered Wikipedia user name might raise concerns. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, this article and the one on ShowBiz Pizza Place should probably be merged into one article on CEC Entertainment. Both are relatively short, so the new article would still be a reasonable length after the merger. At some point, it may be worth considering. Also according to the Bloomberg stock profile, CEC's founding year is 1977. That should settle any debate, unless for some reason a significant number of reliable sources suggest otherwise. I didn't dig very deep. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that that a joint "CEC Entertainment" article would be good for what I'm trying to do, and what Wikipedia's standards are. Two foundation dates IS appropriate for this application, because CECE is the combination of PTT and SPP. If that "isn't appropriate" for that field than I will kindly disagree.


 * Refer back to my Disney/Universal example. That doesn't make sense and causes confusion. (And in Disney's large fan base, anger, maybe.) I don't want an article that could be the best out there(on the subject) to be confusing(or dare I say conforming)..


 * My preview image is hosted on Imgur, to whom it may concern...I didn't want to use the WikimediaCommons uploader for an image that won't be used on an article and might get deleted. Would you rather me upload a copy to my personal website?


 * On the subject of sources, SP.com is actually better because we know the facts (unlike some financial types who copy-paste the generic CECE speil) and in many cases are the very first to document much. I won't get into what is and isn't a good source though. My opinion...maybe it's just because I've never seen your names show up in any of the active CEC/SPP message boards, groups, or social outlets. But I digress..
 * [ Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC) ]


 * I'm not sure what you mean by your closing comment regarding message boards and the like. Perhaps you can clarify. As for the founding date, your example above is a decent one, but there are points to consider. When two companies merge in some fashion, it is important to distinguish whether this was a merger or acquisition. In a merger, the assets are joined, and the founding date is often cited as the date of the merger. In an acquisition where the acquired company's brand and/or assets become an integral part of the company's history, the oldest of the two founding dates might be used. However, some acquisitions involve the liquidation of a competitor's assets; this happens for a number of different reasons, but often, it's to eliminate the competing brand and occasionally turn a quick profit in the process (made possible by purchasing the company's assets below their face value). In this last example, the founding date often remains unchanged.Now that we've laid out the common scenarios, let's apply that to our situation here. When ShowBiz Pizza Place purchased the financially-struggling Pizza Time Theatre, Inc. in 1984, it was clearly an acquisition. However, the type of acquisition matters. They didn't eliminate its assets or brand in the process, and instead decided to incorporate them, retaining the CEC brand alongside the ShowBiz brand. The assets were used to expand into new markets. The history of the two companies effectively merged in the process, and once the CEC brand became the company's dominant brand (and eventually, only brand), it only made sense to cite 1977 as its founding year. Your Disney example wouldn't follow the same path unless the newly-formed company disposed of the Disney brand in favor of Universal. In huge mergers like that, more often than not, a new company name would be chosen, such as Disney-Universal, and the founding date would become the year they merged. Real-world examples of this include companies like Time Warner (1990) and JPMorgan Chase (2000).Hopefully that helps. Keep in mind that this is all really a moot point anyway. The article in question covers Chuck E. Cheese, not CEC Entertainment. So while a case can be made that CEC Entertainment's founding year should be 1980, it's quite clear that Chuck E. Cheese (Pizza Time Theatre) dates back to 1977 regardless of whether it was acquired later on and/or became defunct. The argument for 1980 would only have a chance in an article about CEC Entertainment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

new edit worried someone will undo it
i think someone will undo my revision on chuck e cheeses Rockafire (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I undid your edit because that information is not needed in that location in the article, it is written about in the article and the title is the current name of the restaurant. VViking Talk Edits 14:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuck E. Cheese's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528031951/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_27_33/ai_55165632 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_27_33/ai_55165632

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Article cleanup
Hoo boy. This one got out of hand, gonna try a good-old fashioned cleanup and edit. Already started fixing the info and history (Considering that this page will refer to the restaurant chain/brand only, not the corporate owner), and now I'll at least try to fix the other sections.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Logo Information/Edit Request 3/10/2018
I was digging around and I stumbled across the second archived talk page for Chuck E. Cheese's and I found an old request I made back when I was just a wiki contributor four years ago. I mentioned that the older logos can be found on ShowbizPizza.com and on Logopedia and I was denied of my request since I din't know how to add links (URL's) to articles. Well, I'm bringing back the request and now with links to the URL's.


 * Descriptions of these logos can be found below.


 * 1st logo: This first logo says Chuck E Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre and it looks somewhat basic. The logo was used from 1977-1981.


 * 2nd logo: In 1981, the logo was changed for the first time. The Chuck E Cheese lettering was now written in a fancy manner. This logo can in several different variations and it was used until 1989.


 * 3rd logo: The third logo was introduced in 1989 and the "Pizza Time Theatre" name was dropped and the restaurants name became Chuck E Cheese's Pizza. This logo had green outlining. It also had red bubble letters and it was used until 1994.


 * 4th logo: A new logo was introduced in 1994. The logo featured a more kid-friendly looking Chuck E. Cheese and he was changed from a rat to a mouse. This version of the logo has two variants. The first variant features Chuck E. Cheese sporting a red long sleeved shirt with yellow circles, and a red/blue cap. It was used alongside the second variant until 1998. The second variant debuted in 1995 and became the official design after 1998 and features Chuck wearing a yellow colored log sleeved shirt with green lines, and a red and green cap with a yellow C on it. The name was reverted back to the one being used from 1984 and the word "pizza" was dropped. This logo was used until 2004 but can still be found at some older resturants, though it's slowly being updated to the current logo.


 * 5th logo: The fifth logo was introduced in 2004 and features Chuck E. Cheese in a purple shirt and hat. Several variants of this logo exist, including a 3D variation and another one with Chuck and his friends Helen Henny, Jasper, and Mr. Munch. This logo was used until the mascot redesign in 2012.


 * 6th logo: The sixth logo debuted in July of 2012, Chuck E. Cheese was redesigned and a new logo debuted to go along with it. A mockup logo was used which featured the CGI Chuck E. Cheese on the 2004 red letters was used for 2012 until the following year, but an official new logo was created a year later.


 * 7th logo: The company debuts Chuck E. Cheese Pizzeria & Games. This logo is already used on the article.

http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Chuck_E._Cheese%27s - I know that Logopedia and other user-generated Wikis are not usually considered to be reliable sources (See WP:USERG). However, at least it gives a logo history and what years they were used and the website is usually pretty accurate.

http://www.showbizpizza.com/info/history/logos.html - ShowbizPizza.com also gives a timeline or company logos used by Chuck E. Cheese's and ShowBiz Pizza. It's a little outdated (missing the Chuck E. Cheese Pizzeria & Games logo), but it's better then nothing.

--JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Chuckwallis E. Cheese" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chuckwallis E. Cheese. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu 57 14:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CEC 32.jpg

Bankruptcy
I suggest relocating the new bankruptcy filings from the lead into its history section. It makes more sense for the reader to find it there. Any disagreement? Some of everything (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been a year since I've edited this page, and the entire 3rd paragraph of the lead is new! The last two sentences of that paragraph could be condensed into one short statement, and I agree with moving the details into the history section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to hijack your thread, but on another note, I'm not sure the chart under "International expansion" is necessary. Seems extraneous in an article that is already long in the tooth, and it's main citation is a search page on the company's website. A summation of the major countries in prose with better sourcing is probably needed. Just throwing that out there in case anyone else wants to tackle it before I do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll let you move forward with adjustments to the the lead. Some of everything (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the international expansion and agree that it should be removed and replaced with a few sentences. It takes up a lot of the page with info that isn't at a high-enough level for Wikipedia. I'll take a stab at the revisions. Some of everything (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese Conspiracy Theories
Around the early 2000's many people started a conspiracy that Chuck E. Cheese served recycled pizza. Many people thought this was true due to the fact that the pizza was pre-cut and the pizza slices themselves looked like they were different sizes. Though Chuck E. Cheese publicly denied this, this conspiracy is still alive today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savagekid223 (talk • contribs)
 * No not unless you can reliably source it. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This does not meet the standard to be on the page. Fringe theory. Some of everything (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of everything, while the conspiracy theory is most definitely a fringe theory, you cannot deny that it may have affected CEC's financials in some way. Otherwise, I see no reason why a massive company with loads of locations (At the time) would have answered a conspiracy theory about their food being recycled. After all, the food is the main reason you go to Chuck E. Cheese, and if people believe its recycled, then I would expect the affect on their profits to be pretty substantial. 0xide 0ri0n (talk) 02:43, 20th of August, 2021 (UTC)

Name of Jasper
I reverted an edit calling Jasper T. Jowls "Jasper P. Jowls" because it was incorrect. My edit reverting that edit was also reverted, and I was invited to discuss this on the talk page if need be. I don't want to start an edit/revert war, so I'll just state this here: the source calling Jasper "Jasper P. Jowls" is incorrect in their naming of him. Jasper's name is Jasper T. Jowls, as shown on the caption of his original portrait animatronic, as well as lots of other official Chuck E. Cheese merchandise. So, that's why we need to change his name back to "Jasper T. Jowls". Blubewwy (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, news sources get things wrong all the time, so I don't doubt that you are correct. However, what needs to happen is a new reliable source needs to be inserted in its place next to the statement listing all the names. Then feel free to change it to match the source. Also, part of the reversion had to do with listing the name twice in one sentence. Later on in the same section, Jasper is called out by first name only, and then some editor tried to list the full name later in the same sentence. No need to reinstate that, as you did. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, alright. I'll update the article with a source as soon as possible, thanks for letting me know. Blubewwy (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources removed from the lead
Here's a list of sources recently removed from the lead. Some sentences had over 5 citations, complete overkill (see WP:CITEKILL). Plus citations in the lead aren't necessary to begin with. The ones listed here weren't being used in the body, and I didn't want to lose them altogether, If another editor wants to do the research and find a way to incorporate them into the body, please do. I may circle back at some point as well if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, . You wrote that it was changed in 2012, but that was another rebranding to make the mouse thinner and hipper. The excessive references are evidence of a large amount of edit warring. Some folks who were involved in this topic have been using the page to publish their personal remembrances, and I've been working against this effort per WP:No original research. You are correct that a pruning was in order, but another way to reduce the appearance of excessive references is to bundle them into one citation. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, GoneIn60. You wrote that it was changed in 2012..."
 * Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Have another look at what I changed: diff. I didn't write or add anything about 2012 or the rat mascot. I simply copyedited the lead without making any major changes. As for the inline citations I removed, many of those weren't even in the body of the article and they were excessive. I added a few to the body and put the rest in the list below. If you'd like to add them back in, feel free, but I'd suggest article body only. If a need arises again to place them back in the lead (because of edit warring), we can certainly do that, but let's wait and see if that's really required. What happened months or years ago may not return. There are also other ways of dealing with that, such as page protection. Sure, citations can be bundled, but let's cross that bridge as a last resort. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, . You wrote that it was changed in 2012, but that was another rebranding to make the mouse thinner and hipper. The excessive references are evidence of a large amount of edit warring. Some folks who were involved in this topic have been using the page to publish their personal remembrances, and I've been working against this effort per WP:No original research. You are correct that a pruning was in order, but another way to reduce the appearance of excessive references is to bundle them into one citation. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, GoneIn60. You wrote that it was changed in 2012..."
 * Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Have another look at what I changed: diff. I didn't write or add anything about 2012 or the rat mascot. I simply copyedited the lead without making any major changes. As for the inline citations I removed, many of those weren't even in the body of the article and they were excessive. I added a few to the body and put the rest in the list below. If you'd like to add them back in, feel free, but I'd suggest article body only. If a need arises again to place them back in the lead (because of edit warring), we can certainly do that, but let's wait and see if that's really required. What happened months or years ago may not return. There are also other ways of dealing with that, such as page protection. Sure, citations can be bundled, but let's cross that bridge as a last resort. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, . You wrote that it was changed in 2012, but that was another rebranding to make the mouse thinner and hipper. The excessive references are evidence of a large amount of edit warring. Some folks who were involved in this topic have been using the page to publish their personal remembrances, and I've been working against this effort per WP:No original research. You are correct that a pruning was in order, but another way to reduce the appearance of excessive references is to bundle them into one citation. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, GoneIn60. You wrote that it was changed in 2012..."
 * Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Have another look at what I changed: diff. I didn't write or add anything about 2012 or the rat mascot. I simply copyedited the lead without making any major changes. As for the inline citations I removed, many of those weren't even in the body of the article and they were excessive. I added a few to the body and put the rest in the list below. If you'd like to add them back in, feel free, but I'd suggest article body only. If a need arises again to place them back in the lead (because of edit warring), we can certainly do that, but let's wait and see if that's really required. What happened months or years ago may not return. There are also other ways of dealing with that, such as page protection. Sure, citations can be bundled, but let's cross that bridge as a last resort. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, . You wrote that it was changed in 2012, but that was another rebranding to make the mouse thinner and hipper. The excessive references are evidence of a large amount of edit warring. Some folks who were involved in this topic have been using the page to publish their personal remembrances, and I've been working against this effort per WP:No original research. You are correct that a pruning was in order, but another way to reduce the appearance of excessive references is to bundle them into one citation. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, GoneIn60. You wrote that it was changed in 2012..."
 * Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Have another look at what I changed: diff. I didn't write or add anything about 2012 or the rat mascot. I simply copyedited the lead without making any major changes. As for the inline citations I removed, many of those weren't even in the body of the article and they were excessive. I added a few to the body and put the rest in the list below. If you'd like to add them back in, feel free, but I'd suggest article body only. If a need arises again to place them back in the lead (because of edit warring), we can certainly do that, but let's wait and see if that's really required. What happened months or years ago may not return. There are also other ways of dealing with that, such as page protection. Sure, citations can be bundled, but let's cross that bridge as a last resort. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, . You wrote that it was changed in 2012, but that was another rebranding to make the mouse thinner and hipper. The excessive references are evidence of a large amount of edit warring. Some folks who were involved in this topic have been using the page to publish their personal remembrances, and I've been working against this effort per WP:No original research. You are correct that a pruning was in order, but another way to reduce the appearance of excessive references is to bundle them into one citation. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The rat mascot was changed to a mouse in 1993, GoneIn60. You wrote that it was changed in 2012..."
 * Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Have another look at what I changed: diff. I didn't write or add anything about 2012 or the rat mascot. I simply copyedited the lead without making any major changes. As for the inline citations I removed, many of those weren't even in the body of the article and they were excessive. I added a few to the body and put the rest in the list below. If you'd like to add them back in, feel free, but I'd suggest article body only. If a need arises again to place them back in the lead (because of edit warring), we can certainly do that, but let's wait and see if that's really required. What happened months or years ago may not return. There are also other ways of dealing with that, such as page protection. Sure, citations can be bundled, but let's cross that bridge as a last resort. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Have another look at what I changed: diff. I didn't write or add anything about 2012 or the rat mascot. I simply copyedited the lead without making any major changes. As for the inline citations I removed, many of those weren't even in the body of the article and they were excessive. I added a few to the body and put the rest in the list below. If you'd like to add them back in, feel free, but I'd suggest article body only. If a need arises again to place them back in the lead (because of edit warring), we can certainly do that, but let's wait and see if that's really required. What happened months or years ago may not return. There are also other ways of dealing with that, such as page protection. Sure, citations can be bundled, but let's cross that bridge as a last resort. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

In Popular Media
I added a "In Popular Media" section and the "Chuck E. Cheese is not a restaurant" thing from the WayneRadioTV group. I see this as important to the CEC article, as if one were to look up "Chuck E. Cheese is not a restaurant" or anything along those lines, The debacle on WayneRadioTV would appear in the top search results. I also think other top search result debacles could be inculded. For example, the conspiracy theory about CEC's pizza being recycled, as this not only affects search results, but potentially also affected CEC's profits from it's several locations due to the misconception. While the conspiracy theory was just that (A conspiracy theory: It was false), it doesn't mean it didn't have an important impact on CEC's bottom line in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0xide 0ri0n (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , first make sure you are signing your talk page posts with 4 tildes . This will automatically add a signature and timestamp to the end of your post. I went ahead and added it for you. Second, Wikipedia does allow for trivia sections in articles, but deciding what to allow in can be tricky. Typically, the cultural reference must have significant coverage in reliable sources. Since none were cited, I removed your addition from the article for now. If you can find a couple secondary sources that discuss and analyze WayneRadioTV's use of Chuck E. Cheese in their web episode, then we can consider adding it back to the article and citing those references for support. Secondary sources are necessary to show that the information is relevant and will have lasting significance suitable for encyclopedic coverage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Skytubes?
Do some Chuck E Cheese locations still have the Skytubes? If not, why were they removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not very many CEC's have the Skytubes anymore, as they have been removed in previous years, especially during the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic, when they had to switch to take out only. Most US stores don't have Skytubes, some may do but idk,and maybe a few international locations still have them, but i dont know either which ones.--WhoDidWhat16 (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Puerto Rico listed separately from the US
I know there's political tension about Puerto Rico's status, so forgive me if there's some Wikipedia stance or rule on the subject, but the third paragraph here includes Puerto Rico as a separate country. Should it? The Wikipedia entry for Puerto Rico doesn't really make it clear. Jayrayspicer (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)