Talk:Truro murders

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, not moved billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Truro murders → Christopher Worrell and James Miller — Articles about identified serial killers tend to be named after the offender, not the crimes. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd have to oppose this - there were two murderers, so the combination name is a tad ugly, but more importantly "Truro murders" is the most common way of referring to this crime, so it would be the most recognisable term and the most likely to be searched for. The article is primarily about the event, so naming it after the event makes a lot of sense. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ugly? It's not a beauty contest. As for your second point, it will redirect from "Truro Murders" anway. So the next time people want the article they might actually remember the names of the offenders. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Naming the article after the case is surely dumbing down. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I guess the central point is that this is an article about the event that is commonly known as the Truro murders, rather than a biography of the people involved. Thus it should be named after the event. - Bilby (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Look at other serial killer articles. Apart from the famous ones they rarely contain much biographical information because the crimes are what make them notable. But they are still named after the offender. This article has quite a lot comparatively. Only the title and opening sentence show that it isn't as much a biography as, for instance Beverley Allitt. But that isn't called 'Grantham Hospital Murders'. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd agree that Beverley Allitt is sitting in a slightly gray area - per WP:1E, you hit cases where it is difficult to determine if there should be an article about the person or the event, even though there's a preference towards the event. In this case, though, where there are two people involved, I don't see this as fitting in the gray area at all. It seems to be about the event, and covers the individuals concerned only in light of that, and I'm certainly opposed to a biography about two people who share one event, which is what the move is pointing to. Anyway, I guess we'll see where consensus heads. - Bilby (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• You've hit the nail on the head there. Per 'one event' how many serial killers would even have articles? But they do, so 1E shouldn't be used in terms of naming. Shen Changyin and Shen Changping, John Duffy and David Mulcahy and Wolfgang Abel and Mario Furlan all have less biography than in the 'arrest' section here, and those are just two-male examples. Admittedly it's mostly about Miller but that's because he lived past 23. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• If you limit the search to articals on Australian serial killers you will notice that some are named after the event and those named after the killer seems to be only if his name is better known than the name of the event itself.Wayne (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can think of only one example. The article about Ivan Milat is titled Backpacker Murders, and there wasn't even a consensus for that. All the others are named after the offender. In any event, what it better known is purely subjective. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe that the emerging consensus is that, when there is too little information for a biography (normally because the person is only known for one event or a serious of linked events) then the article should be named after the case if there is a popular name for the case, as there appears to be here. This is a view with which I agree as it seems most in keeping with other wikipedia norms (e.g. those around one event at WP:AfD). I think this particular case has the added problem of what person to put first if we name it after the people involved. Naming it after the case is a simple, neutral, way of avoiding this issue. Dpmuk (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• No-one disputes that Worrell was the main perpetrator so his name should be first. This is an issue which could be raised about any number of subjects, but it should not be a reason to exclude both names from the title. It's simply a matter of coming to a reasoned decision. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: As above. Even in South Australia few people would recognise the names as it is the event that has significance in the public mind.Wayne (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again, people not recognising names is no reason. This is an encyclopedia. To gain anything from it you obviously have to stray beyond the limits of your existing knowledge. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Articles titled after people should be biographies. This is an article about a serial killing spree. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is CURRENTLY an article about a serial killing spree, as you put it. Move the 'arrest' section to the start and you have a biographical article, to the extent that most serial killer articles are. It's quite obvious the way this is going. Things must stay the same...because things must stay the same. I get it. But no-one has actually explained how so many articles 'about a serial killing spree' are named after the offender. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The information leading to the arrest of Miller is incorrect. Her name was not Amelia and she did not voluntarily go to the police and she did not collect the reward. The information was provided by someone who knew she was Worrel's girlfriend and that she had disclosed to a member of her family who in turn disclosed to someone else who contacted the police.The reward was claimed by a number of people but only one person was granted the reward and it was not her. It was $10k. from the Advertiser and $20k. from SAPOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magrol52 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Deborah Skuse in list of victims

Having just read the article, I wondered what the rationale is for including Deborah Skuse's name in the "Victims" section. While she probably would not have died but for her association with Worrell and Miller, she certainly wasn't murdered by them like the other women in the list. Nor is there any suggestion that she was an intended victim at the time of her death in the car accident that claimed both her and Worrell's lives. I don't dispute that the small amount of biographical information about her is of interest in the context of the article, but wonder whether it might be better placed elsewhere. DuchessofNewTown (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Worrell's car

Most likely a Chrysler Valiant if it wasn't an import. Doug butler (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)