This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Explosives Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Hotels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the hospitality industry, including hotels, motels, resorts, and destination spas 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.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Presidents: Donald Trump Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Las Vegas Cybertruck filled with gas canisters, fireworks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq27wOLaLMw Bachcell (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. But yes, this is already included in the article, and cited to the CNN article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s keep the language neutral until investigators tell us. For all we know, this could be unrelated to the NOLA attack and we all know how Tesla’s cybertruck is considered the worst EV on the market. Emigdioofmiami (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article clearly states that there was a "detonation system". –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LVPD says otherwise in the interview. So who’s right, the Journalists or the police? Emigdioofmiami (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Emigdioofmiami. Here's my source if you'd like to check it: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/01/us/cybertruck-fire-trump-hotel-las-vegas/index.html. Can you post your source as well? Perhaps your source is from before they had this information. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s on Bluesky. https://bsky.app/profile/artcandee.bsky.social/post/3lepsooz5x22r Emigdioofmiami (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's login walled so I can't see it. Anyway, social media websites are WP:SELFPUB and aren't great sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had the same problem with CNN since they put up their paywall. Emigdioofmiami (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I open the CNN article and I'm not getting any paywall. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the Cybertruck is considered “the worst EV in the market” nor is it known to spontaneously explode and make firework sounds in the explosion. Muntenhunten (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the car is not the issue here. The issue is the attack and the car being used as a weapon. --NevadaExpert (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they do know who rented the truck, but haven't released the name yet pending notification of kin and 100% identification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmChggvp2Mk Bachcell (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bachcell. Got any sources that aren't YouTube? We shouldn't use YouTube sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the CNN ref used in the article: Police said they do know who rented the truck... Moscow Mule (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds fine to insert with appropriate citation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion → 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion – Procedural request, see § Current title is way too long. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Arbeiten8 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Emigdioofmiami (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• agree. If it was any other hotel would the hotel name feature prominently in the title? Obviously if it proves to be a targeted attack that would change things. Gjxj (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  reminds me of the trump assassination attempt in butler discussion. title was only changed weeks after the FBI said it was an assassination attempt. wikipedia seems to be in trump denial. 138.255.255.51 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  no reliable sources are claiming it's an attack on Trump/his businesses. It's still being investigated as a POSSIBLE attack. Buffs (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONCISE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the year required, are there other Las Vegas Cybertruck explosions to be confused with? Maybe just Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is "Cybertruck" in the title at all? Wikipedia has tons of articles on car bombings and the make of car or truck is never in the title (see List of mass car bombings ). Suppose that the exploding vehicle had been a Chevrolet Suburban instead. Would it makes sense to include "Suburban" or "Chevy Suburban" in the title? GrammarObsessed (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur with GrammarObsessed- while the Cybertruck is a pretty unusual vehicle, the title should just refer to it as a 'truck' unless the make and model are proven to be a factor (i.e. should a pattern of similar Cybertruck fires arise) 42-BRT (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. It's looking like it wasn't even the truck that exploded, but rather cargo in the truck. There are cases of electric vehicles spontaneously igniting. This isn't one. Instead, this is most similar to a car bombing and probably should be called that. 2600:8802:2600:4DE:D70A:A118:37E9:1F42 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Current title is too long and awkward. Pristino (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but... Cypertruck should be replaced with truck. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the proposal to rename it to 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion. If we would not name something 2025 Munich VW Bus explosion or 2025 Beijing Dodge Ram pickup truck explosion, then we certainly should not put the name of the particular vehicle in the article title. The details can be in the article body. Also, since it sees to be little more than a single person committing suicide inside a vehicle with some fireworks & gas, it is unclear that it warrant such an extensive article at all. N2e (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but also agree that Cybertruck should be replaced by truck to form 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone We don't know if they delibrately choose this famous truck to attack at a famous place, or just all coincidence. Since the relations between Donald Trump (owner of attack site) and Elon Musk (maker of vehicle invloved) and the future politics changes, I think we should wait until further investigations. Awdqmb (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if the Cybertruck model was deliberately chosen, the Cybertruck is a truck, and there is no apparent reason to refer to it by its model name, or as anything more than a truck, for purposes of the article's title. 42-BRT (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I suggest postpone, although I agree with you that for now no apparent reason to refer to it by its model name, as the WP:CONCISE. Awdqmb (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but without the 2025 disamb. AFAIK this is the first cybertruck explosion ever in las vegas and hopefully the last one so no need to disambiguate the title Abo Yemen✉ 07:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without the "Cyber" per WP:CONCISE (i.e. 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion). Juxlos (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CONCISE. Nightmares26 (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "2025 Las Vegas truck explosion" (or "bombing" if that is proven before the move) per WP:CONCISE Buttons0603 (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion. I agree the "Cyber" part isn't necessary and should be omitted. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone +1 to Awdqmb. The names of Trump and/or Tesla are also used in the media: [1], CBS Las Vegas, ABC, Denver 7, CNN. When there is more knowledge about the background, it can be moved again. - Thylacin (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing this out. As I've noted in my comments and replies below, the omission of "Trump" (in the form of "Trump Tower," "Trump Hotel," etc.) strikes me as very odd, since few of us would have probably even heard of this incident in the first place, had it not been for the connection with Trump. It arguably wouldn't even warrant an article if it weren't for this. And, as you correctly not, nearly all of the news articles reference "Trump" in their headlines. -2003:CA:8723:6512:1F2B:ADE0:2C30:61E7 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONCISE, also replace Cybertruck with just truck, per others above. Procyon117 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the suggested title. I think 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion is an acceptable alternative but I oppose leaving the year out of the title per WP:NCWWW. It is not yet such a known event that the event itself is immediately identifiable and I have my doubts that it will pass the WP:10YEARTEST where such a title would be appropriate. cyberdog958^Talk 11:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposed. I do not agree with replacing Cybertruck with just Truck because I'd like to avoid confusion with 2025 New Orleans truck attack which happened around the same time but is, as far as we're aware, an unrelated event - so I'd like to see some distance in the article titles. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both "Las Vegas" and "explosion" would already differentiate the two events; that said, if there are any other truck explosions in Las Vegas this year, we would need to differentiate it either as "Cybertruck" or as a "January" event.

  I support the move either way Alpacaaviator (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion. We're not calling the New Oreleans attack a "Ford truck attack". StAnselm (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case the use of a Cybertruck is a notable and widely covered aspect of the explosion. I would agree that in most cases the brand of vehicle doesn't matter but here it's actually notable. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONCISE, current name is a lot jolielover♥talk 15:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• is the model truck really important? If the guy rented a Ford would the title be Las Vegas Ford F250 explosion? Gjxj (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Several sources have referred to it as a Cybertruck explosion, see 1 2 3 4 5 to name a few, so there's WP:COMMONNAME ground for that being in the title too jolielover♥talk 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All except one of the five news stories you link include "Trump Hotel" in their titles. So it seems to me that WP:COMMONNAME argues for its inclusion in this article. Unfortunately, the proposed title for this move request omits this central element. -2003:CA:8723:6512:1F2B:ADE0:2C30:61E7 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to the Cybertruck version, there will certainly be many notable explosions of trucks as there are in most years (think fuel tankers catching fire under bridges (as happened in 2023), perhaps a bus in a third-world-country falling off a ravine and combusting, a truck bomb in Pakistan or Afghanistan, etc, etc). There probably won't be any more Cybertruck explosions in Vegas this year though. JayCubby 15:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without the "2025" disambiguator per WP:CONCISE. There are no other notable Cybertruck explosions in Las Vegas so we don't really need to specify the year. If there somehow happen to be more in the future we can readdress the titles at that point. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE Wafflefrites (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Wafflefrites, above. Concision is everything. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "2025 Las Vegas truck explosion" per WP:CONCISE. The brand of the truck is more sensational than useful. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to the "2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion" name. Marcel Ntim (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Close — Sheriff Kevin McMahill just reported that investigators believe the driver was attempting to kill himself. This significantly affects the nomination and it should be closed in favor of a title that directly addresses the subject, either Matthew Livelsberger or Suicide of Matthew Livelsberger. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD - I'm not convinced that what appears to be a glorified suicide is even notable enough for a stand-alone. Perhaps a sentence or two on the article for the building - if there is an article. I'm concerned that we may be glorifying suicide. Nfitz (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz: It was already nominated at AfD and closed as "speedy keep". See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the assumption that it was a terrorist attack and not suicide. Also after being only open for 6 hours, and with 3 dissents, it didn't qualify for a speedy. I've asked the closer to reopen it, and will start a new AFD shortly if he doesn't respond. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, at least with this proposed new name. Personally, I agree that the name could be more concise, but I think it's important that the title include "Trump" rather than simply "Las Vegas," since this is part of what makes it notable - an explosion outside one of Trump's hotels just a few weeks before he's scheduled to take office. The proposed new title doesn't make that clear, and it could just have been an explosion anywhere in Las Vegas. I'm not sure that "Cybertruck" needs to be included in the title, or even 2025, unless/untile there's some other such attack there. I'd suggest something like "Las Vegas Trump Tower Carbombing." -2003:CA:8723:6512:1F2B:ADE0:2C30:61E7 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Should we mention which street? New Year's Day? The maker of the tires? The origin of the materials in the battery? Ok, I'm being facetious, but only to illustrate a point. We can be specific, but that belongs in the article if germane to the topic. The title is important to describe what we're looking for. Unless necessary, the Trump Tower doesn't appear to be a factor. The fact that it occurred there doesn't seem to be correlative to the potential attack. If it later proves to be a) an attack and/or b) related to Trump, then yes, it should be included, but that's a step too far at this point. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First off, my proposal - "Las Vegas Trump Tower Carbombing" - is actually rather concise. Moreover, while we don't yet know all the details regarding motive and whatnot, I think the fact that it happened right outside one of the hotels owned by the former president, and now president-elect, who's scheduled to take office in just a couple weeks is inherently notable and central to this event, even if it ultimately turns out to have been entirely coincidental. The explosion happening right outside the president-elect's hotel is WHAT made this a particularly notable event, as opposed to just an electric car blowing up at any old random place in Las Vegas.....If the latter had been the case, it probably wouldn't even merit a Wikipedia article at all, but this is precisely what the proposed title - "2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion" suggests.....And as I noted above, my alternative proposal is actually shorter. IMO, there's no need to include "Cybertruck" in the title, since the type of vehicle isn't so central to its notability, nor is there a need to include "2025." But the connection with Trump is the number one factor that makes this event notable at all, so it doesn't make any sense to retitle it in a way that excludes "Trump." -2003:CA:8723:6512:1F2B:ADE0:2C30:61E7 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I like that title. The Safety Kingpin (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this title. Twinbros04 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE sum it up nicely. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose name be changed at this point (nor that this article be deleted as not noteworthy, let us allow the FBI investigation to proceed before deciding to retain or not). If article is retained perhaps a better title be made to reflect time (year), place and trigger for it, so perhaps something like "2025 Las Vegas Trump Hotel truck bombing" since some object to the length of current name. An example of a similar article would be "1993 World Trade Center bombing". Thorkall (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per WP:CONCISE. A concern I personally have against naming it simply "2025 Las Vegas truck explosion" is that the title would be too vague (WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE). Most media is reporting this specifically as a Cybertruck explosion, not simply just a truck, and naming this article otherwise might confuse readers as to what truck explosion this refers to. I support the title being "2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion". RidgelantRL (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CONCISE. I think we have a consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it's snowing in here! JayCubby 21:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "2025 Las Vegas truck explosion" per WP:CONCISE. The media include "Cybertruck" in their titles because it is more sensational and gets views. That should not be a goal of Wikipedia. "2025 New Orleans truck attack" article doesn't included Ford F-150, and neither does the media, for the same reason: it's not sensational. 2600:1700:24:F81F:FD95:3AB0:6611:D2AB (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Once it is officially confirmed this was an intentional bomb I think more accurate would be "2025 Las Vegas truck bomb explosion" 2600:1700:24:F81F:FD95:3AB0:6611:D2AB (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If and when a bombing is verifiable, "Las Vegas truck bombing" or "2025 Las Vegas truck bombing" would be appropriate. That is premature for now per WP:V, as the verified facts indicate that a truck exploded, and the root causes are under investigation. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reliable news sources refer to a "detonation system". –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support The proposed name change should be adopted as is. Disagree with those saying to take out the year or the truck model. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move somewhere, no preference. I would have closed this as moved per SNOW myself if there was a clear preference between 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion and 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion, but I personally do not feel comfortable picking between the two titles with no clear favored title. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be in favor of moving it per WP:SNOW, since the request was for 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion I'd say move it there and we can always have another discussion in the future if need be. The few oppositions want to wait for more details, but the requested move isn't presuming anything we don't know so I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Alpacaaviator (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT - One factor which it seems to me that most of the /votes here so far have ignored is that, if it weren't for the connection with the former president, and now president-elect, who's scheduled to take office in just a couple weeks, and it were just an electric car blowing up at any old random place in Las Vegas, then this incident probably wouldn't even merit a Wikipedia article at all, but this is precisely what the proposed title - "2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion" suggests. While we don't yet know all the details regarding motive, etc., the connection with Trump is inherently central to this event, even if it ultimately turns out to have been entirely coincidental. To be clear, I'm certainly NOT attached to the current title, and IMO, there's no need to include "Cybertruck" in the title, since the type of vehicle isn't so central to its notability, nor is there a need to include "2025." But the connection with Trump is the number one factor that makes this event notable at all, so it doesn't make any sense to retitle it in a way that excludes "Trump." I've made an alternative proposal - "Las Vegas Trump Tower Carbombing" - but of course there are other possibilities. The important thing is that "Trump" should be included in the title, since if it weren't for the connection with Trump, few of us would have even heard about this incident in the first place. -2003:CA:8723:6512:1F2B:ADE0:2C30:61E7 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point there seems to be a consensus on moving to the suggested title. You make some good points; my take is that once this move is closed and if there are enough reliable sources where we can appropriately call it a "carbombing", that you request a move to the title you mentioned, though "Hotel" would be better than "Tower" Alpacaaviator (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Trump Tower is a specific building in New York, which is why hotel would be a better word. Perhaps "Las Vegas Trump hotel truck bombing" (hotel being lowercase since it's not the proper name) Alpacaaviator (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support I am not opposed to including the name of the hotel, but until the specific motive or lack thereof in a political sense is known, it is a terror attack in Las Vegas and the most notable words are "attack" and "Las Vegas". Additionally, it is very standard for terror attacks to have the year, so I believe "2025" should be in any title for the article. PickleG13 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I used the term "attack" instead of "explosion", and the latter is what I meant. I do believe that our goal on Wikipedia is to make information as easily accessible as possible, which lengthy article titles make more difficult. PickleG13 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONCISE. — The Anome (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CONCISE, the truck involved is the main focus of the article. HarukaAmaranth 01:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CONCISE. Pretty straightforward in my eyes. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. The nutshell statement does say it must be as simple as possible, but not long. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion per WP:CONCISE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Idek mann (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RedactedHumanoid (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Normally I would support per WP:CONCISE, but making it any more concise (except for maybe removing "Tesla") would remove one of the two key points that sources note about the incident; that it was conducted at a hotel partly owned and named after the US president-elect, and that it was conducted with a Cybertruck. I won't oppose it, but we should at least keep "Cybertruck" if the current proposal is to go through. While generally the model involved in vehicular attacks is not notable enough to be mentioned in the title, this is a clear exception given the potential political motivation behind the choice, as noted by many sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) 2A04:4A43:960F:FF8D:5D1F:1201:36D1:5430 (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTAVOTE Abo Yemen✉ 09:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONCISE, the current title is mouthful Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The location of the car bombing is perhaps the most notable thing of it all. Changing it and acting like the fact it was a Trump property wasn't an obvious reason why the bombing happened there is rather absurd. The title can be shortened from "Tesla Cybertruck explosion" to "carbombing" for conciseness, but removing Trump from the title makes zero sense. Twinbros04 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd go for Trump hotel bombing. That said, I'm in support of this requested move since it's much more concise than the current title, and we could make a new request to move from there so that this request doesn't just keep the very long title. Alpacaaviator (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - more concise and still clear what the topic is. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Basis MOS stuff. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CONCISE. Current title is way too long. Jeffrey34555 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:CONCISE. Also support the inclusion of the year to make it WP:CONSISTENT with other articles under the naming convention WP:NCEVENTS. Pilaz (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support, would prefer the inclusion of label "Trump hotel" which seems to be more significant than its location in Las Vegas, but it should be shortened regardless. Altorespite 🌿 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the current name is way too long and incoherent! The proposed new title here is much more WP:CONCISE while still being precise enough. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - Move to Las Vegas truck explosion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - Move to Paradise truck explosion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nominated. The Cybertruck is a necessary and relevant element. If we want to aim to satisfy both WP:CONCISE and other relevant and applicable policies, such as WP:CRITERIA, item 1 (recognizability), we need to find a title which suitably describes the event while not going into too much detail. The location, in my opinion, is less relevant than the thing that exploded. In news searches for "las vegas" and "truck explosion", from 1980 to 2023, I only found mostly vehicle fires, and if the vehicle had been a Toyota Corolla, I somehow doubt it would be given quite as much debate as it is now, however Tesla has done us the favor of making the name of their vehicle both concise and recognizable, and I would find it difficult to say the model is not relevant in some way here. Our sources agree - few major news outlets have chosen a title with "truck explosion", and it is our job here to give weight to our sources, rather than editorializing our titles. ASUKITE 01:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This event occurred in Paradise, Nevada, not Las Vegas. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh what. The event occurred in Las Vegas, that is what literally every single news source, etc, is reporting RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise, Nevada says 'all Paradise addresses, as well as other unincorporated areas in the Las Vegas Valley, have "Las Vegas, NV" addresses'. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 Las Vegas shooting also occurred in Paradise, yet it is titled as Las Vegas per WP:COMMONNAME. Sammylovesyouxx (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The location is a primary reason why this is notable. I support redirects with that title, but I believe the current title should stay. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONGLY Oppose - The precise location (Trump Hotel) is highly relevant and noteworthy. Also, Trump International Hotel Las Vegas has the name "Las Vegas" in it, but the event took place in Paradise, Nevada, so the correct move based on this format would be "2025 Paradise Cybertruck explosion". However, it would confuse people to be searching for the Las Vegas Cybertruck bombing, when everyone knows it as a bombing in Las Vegas because that city is in the actual title of Trump's hotel that is physically located in Paradise, Nevada (not Las Vegas, Nevada). --MightyLebowski (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't put Paradise in the title name under COMMONNAME and CRITERIA. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, some people here are recommending to change the name so that Paradise replaces Las Vegas. MightyLebowski (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are few sources labelling the event as occurring in Paradise, even if by technicality it did. Most if not all major outlets report the event as taking place in Las Vegas, which makes sense, since Las Vegas has far more public name recognition than Paradise. Even the hotel where the explosion took place at is called the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas. ArkHyena (it/its) 20:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why are you using colored bold instead of the normal bold? Abo Yemen✉ 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in general for a move: The title as is goes against Concision and Naturalness of CRITERIA. The title does not appear to be one that readers would look for and is definitely longer than necessary. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alternative: Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Cybertruck bombing - I think that the precise location is too key to leave out. --MightyLebowski (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support and Alternative Suggested — support shortening and elimination of brands to plain "truck bomb" explosion and suggest another alternative title: Las Vegas truck bomb and suicide January 2025 — the year is just beginning, so month — lots of opportunities for more; his death is determined to be self-inflicted along with the explosion, that is distinctive enough to justify noting the suicide in the title to differentiate from other bombings that may occur in 2025 even in the exact location. One change may suffice instead of having later to consider renaming again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support using the most concise naming possible - To find an article about an incident, I look for what, modified by when and where. 2025 Las Vegas truck explosion is concise, unambiguous, and accurate.

We don't need to include the model (was there another noteworthy 2025 LV truck explosion?), and we shouldn't indicate that he was bombing a building, as that is not a proven result or intent. Yes, these things are "noteworthy", but so are many other things -- an entire article's worth! - that are noteworthy, and still don't need to be in the title. (And we don't need to confuse basically every non-pedant on the planet by saying "Paradise" instead of "Las Vegas".) NapoliRoma (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The explosion occurred in Paradise, Nevada, not Las Vegas. The hotel is called the Trump International Hotel - Las Vegas even though it's located in Paradise. If the goal was to shorten the title, one would call it the Paradise, Nevada Cybertruck explosion. I am beginning to think some editors just dont want a title with Trump's name! LOL! MiamiManny (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See Paradise, Nevada Mandalay Bay Hotel shooting. NapoliRoma (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start thinking about the different redirect pages for this article e.g. Trump hotel explosion etc... X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a redirect for Trump hotel bombing Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the news that prior to the explosion the perpetrator fatally shot himself, should he be included in the 'explosion' death toll in the infobox, or should it possibly reflect "Deaths - 1 (the perpetrator, suicide by gunshot)"? I realise this is probably pedantic but I think it's a worthwhile distinction to make, given that the article is about the explosion (yet the perp didn't die as a result of the explosion itself) Luminism (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Luminism I don't think he should be included because he didn't die from the explosion but instead to the gunshot wounds. X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the suicide should be included in the death toll as it would be incorrect. He died before the incident described by this article (the "Cybertruck explosion") took place. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one - I would consider it part of the "total event", even if the explosion wasn't the cause of death - especially since the perpetrator's actions leading up to the explosion caused his death. Not a perfect analogy, but I'm thinking of the people who jumped from the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. Their deaths would be caused by the plane crashes, despite them jumping in lieu of succumbing to the fire/smoke. This perpetrator seems to have shot himself in lieu of dying from the explosion (a little bit of speculation but his death was part of the event).Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has "suicide attack" as attack type. Is this new information that needs adding and sourcing as it is not supported anywhere in the article content? In fact, I'm not sure that the article even supports that it was an attack of any kind. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB, thanks. Let hope it sticks this time. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate article about Matthew Alan Livelsberger (perpetrator) should be made rather than it redirecting here. X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:1E. Generally, cover the event, not the person if they are only known for one event. Alpacaaviator (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpacaaviator ahh ok X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are credible claims that the email Sam Shoemate reportedly received may be faked. I've removed the reference to it for the article for now, until confirmation is available either way. See here; See here; Ryan McBeth Youtube Channel Obscurasky (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a random YouTube channel to dispute WP:RS, which confirm the email as real and describe it as "authentic", first revealed on the Shawn Ryan Show podcast.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/01/03/tesla-cybertruck-explosion-suspect-trump-las-vegas

"Officials said that while they have not yet conclusively determined that email came from Livelsberger, they think the correspondence is authentic."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-cybertruck-explosion-police-clues-suspects-writings/story?id=117326215

"Authorities are also looking into a letter purportedly sent by Livelsberger and shared by the military-themed "Shawn Ryan Show" podcast on Friday. That information was sent to the FBI following the attack, Evans confirmed."

MightyLebowski (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia, but McBeth is reliable. It's also on McBeth's website, and other places too. If nothing else, the narrative about the email in this article needs adjusting to acknowledge these concerns. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and it appears the only evidence that the email exists is Shoemate's say-so - to me that doesn't meet the encyclopaedic threshold for inclusion. Obscurasky (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the media landscape in 2025 has completely changed, and many people outside of the mainstream media have credibility, but these are government officials who say that the email manifesto is authentic, not just the media. Also, Shoemate sent the email to the FBI, so if Shoemate faked the email, that would almost certainly be considered a crime. I highly doubt a former Army intelligence officer would do something that stupid for clout.

Also, it's impossible to spoof or fake Proton Mail headers and send dates. The email Shoemate sent to the FBI was dated December 31, 2024, before the attack, and mentioned the car bomb (VBIED). This would be impossible to fake unless Shoemate had prior knowledge of the bombing i.e. he would've had to send the email to himself prior to the bombing. The FBI wouldn’t accept an email dated after December 31, 2024, so it’s obviously real, which is why government officials have confirmed its authenticity.

There's nothing (no evidence at all) in the video you linked that would prove the email is fake. The singular point that Ryan McBeth made in the entire video was that spellcheck highlighted the words, which is obviously because the email is in forward mode or placed in text editing/note-taking software to redact names, and clearly says "Forwarded message" at the top. The fact that McBeth is apparently actively in defense intelligence, and yet missed such an obvious indicator of why the message is in edit mode, tells me he has zero credibility. MightyLebowski (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't scroll far enough down the article. I now see that there are references to the two letters in the "Investigation" section. Should those be mentioned in the "Manifesto" section?