Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler/Archive 1

Dubious statement
I've removed the following statement:

"Four years after Dowler's disappearance, people continue to lay tributes at the site where her remains were discovered."

Reference: Mastris, Charis. "How did it happen here? Trying to understand the tragic death of Milly", Newsquest Media Group, February 8, 2006.

In fact, the referenced news story was originally published in 2002, shortly after Dowler's remains were discovered, so the above statement cannot be inferred from it. As if to confuse matters, the story has been republished on a number of different Newsquest websites, with different dates attached (example: ). 217.155.20.163 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing information relating to the article
Some of the information such as potental clues regarding the case are missing form this article. This includes the mystery dna cup link to an article of clothing. thie N registerd Red Daewoo Nexia, the involvement of the FBI in improving the quality of some of the CCTV footage especialy the Image showing the dark showdey figure believed to be Milly. there is more but i think this a good palce to atart filling in gaps. Also i think that a backgorund to mily before she was abducted and some mention of her family would also improve the article..

, ,,, , Mystery dna link

,, red Daewoo Nexia

These are just a few of th article from thhe bbc to help et started.--Lucy-marie 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Please dont reinsert the criminal infobox as this is a highly libellous statement that has huge potential to upset her friends and relatives, SqueakBox 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

how is it liableness to use a template in a different way other tahn the way it was intended. It cannot be liable as it does not say she was any form of criminal with any form of criminal conviction. it simply stated the information relevant to the victim.--Lucy-marie 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox was created by WikiProject Criminal Biography and is intended to be used to individual criminals. It is not permitted to use on criminal victims who have not committed any crimes. Wooyi 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review &mdash; kept
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Source
"Levi Bellfield, 39, of West Drayton, west London, was convicted of killing Amelie Delagrange, 22, and Marsha McDonnell, 19.... The former bouncer is also due to be questioned over the murder of 13-year-old Milly Dowler, who went missing on her way home from school in Walton-on-Thames in Surrey on 21 March 2002." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7227830.stm

Can we be precise here?
Is Bellfield the prime suspect, as mentioned in the lead, or a prime suspect, as mentioned at the bottom of the "Investigation" section? They're not necessarily quite the same thing. Loganberry (Talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He is THE prime suspect. Other notable killers such as Ian Huntley were always considered suspects simply because of the nature of their crimes but with Bellfield there is actually compelling evidence available which suggests he is the prime suspect in the murder enquiry. The most compelling piece of evidence is that a car regularly used by Bellfield was captured on CCTV parked at the spot where Milly vanished 25 minutes after her last sighting. Bellfield denies he was in the car and claims it was stolen. Of course such evidence simply makes him a suspect and does not mean he is guilty. Innocent until proven guilty after all.

There have been a few cases where a convicted killer has been the prime suspect of an unsolved murder. The most famous ones are the Suzy Lampugh case in which John Callan is believed to be the prime suspect and The Vicky Hamilton & Dinah McNicol murders of the early nineties in which convicted killer Peter Tobin is the suspect (the bodies of the girls where found in a house which used to belong to him). In these cases police do not have enough evidence to charge the suspect however the parents of the victims are convinced that the killers are behind bars.

This whole article could do with a rewrite. Humanracer (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sub judice
We need to be very careful about any further edits, particularly those hinting at the suspect's name or giving his alleged record, before statements are made during the trial. Police apparently approached an editor in a very similar case, see Talk:Peter Tobin. The reality is that anyone can google hundreds of pages naming an individual and the jury must be told to disregard such sources. In Tobin's case, the prosecution soon referred to his past record. It may be the authorities were recognising reality but until official advice changes, any UK editor risks being accused of contempt of court. JRPG (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It must be noted that news reports in the UK media today as regards the suspect being charged in this case - even from sources that only yesterday, when it was merely rumoured he would be charged, gave full details of his previous convictions - have all without fail omitted this information. As a result, we must assume there is now an injunction against these details being publicised to avoid prejudicing the case, and so I suggest caution in updates to this page. 86.9.26.150 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You would be wrong here the UK specifically allows a jury to be made aware of previous convictions during a trial under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Lucy, I share 86.9.26.150 's concerns and welcome anything that makes it clearer. I note the section concerned allows evidence of previous convictions to be admitted under 1 of 7 conditions. However there is no certainty these conditions will be met.  In the case of Peter Tobin Wikipedia editors were warned about subjudice -and the prosecution then itself raised previous convictions.  I suspect that newspaper editors have a set of guidelines which we don't have.  Regards JRPG (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Up to date info needed on Bellfield trial
These look like useful links, for example: 1. 2. 3. - Luconst 13:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested page move - "Amanda" versus "Milly"
I think it's useful to people that we say in the lead that she was called Milly by basically everyone. This is COMMONNAME territory. I'm not suggesting moving the page. Just look at the references, there are something like 22 references to Milly... It's not "cruft" as some have claimed, it's what she was commonly referred to. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * most of the sources refer to her using both names. This is not a biographical article it is a formal article on the murder. The coloquial name is not needed in a formal article on the murder. Also Milly Dowler, Murder of Milly Dowler, etc., etc. are redirects to the main title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources refer to her as Milly, a few of the earlier ones refer to her as Amanda as well. COMMONNAME, otherwise why would Prince Henry's article be at Prince Harry, for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's not even an explanation in the article over both uses. The article even makes it clear that her parents call her Milly (name of the charity!) I suggest a rename and an edit are called for. Any dissent? --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should certainly be moved. As a British expat coming here for the first time today, 'Amanda' was completely new to me, though I first heard of 'Milly' long ago. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also would agree with a move. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

<-OK, this has convinced me. Not only does the BBC article say "Amanda Dowler, known as Milly" (and otherwise refer to her only as "Milly"), even the prosecuting QC calls her "Milly". WP:COMMONNAME is very clear. I'm going to make the move. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please request a formal move before moving from a long standing and stable title. I shall undo the move unless the results of a formal move request result in favour of moving the page. --Lucy-marie (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need a "formal move request", you need consensus. That's all you need.  Please do not threaten to move war.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply follow the standard procedure for requesting a page move and no problems will occur. Problems only occur when formal moving procedures are ignored and a so called consensus is imposed without that consensus being tested in a formal move request.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure sure, we'll follow your procedure. An RM will be lodged in due course.  I wonder if the cafe folks will show up for that?  You never answered the Prince Harry issue though.  How odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I shall retain the the right to ignore your attmepted provocations.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. Nothing was "attmepted".  Let's see how things and users check out shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am now at a loss for your obsessive attude you have with trying to "prove" something against me. Please refeain from making threats such as "check user" and other such things. As you said comment on the content and not the contributor.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, I just meant let's see how others users check out with opinions on this move. No threats, of course, I'm no checkuser here, why would you think I was? I have no "obsessive attitude", that really is commenting on the contributor, not the content. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note the text at WP:RM: "In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here."

i.e. if we can form a consensus here then we do not need to, nor are we obliged to follow your version (quote: "formal moving procedures") of the rules. Do not move war, and listen to consensus. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war, by moving it back. Let's see whether consensus hardens further here. What I will do is protect it so that only admins can move it, to prevent an edit war. I've also retitled this section, to help generate comment. --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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: Consensus is to move to Murder of Milly Dowler. The main argument, and a strong one at that, is that COMMONNAME applies here. No argument based in policy, guidelines or precedent has been offered as a response. Woody (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Amanda Dowler → Murder of Milly Dowler – Formal move request of the article as it appears to have been informally started already. Lucy-marie (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, per WP:RM there is no obligation to use the "formal process" as you call it. A consensus is all that's required. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to commonly used name which everyone (press, judge, parents, friends, charity name, sweetpea named after her etc etc etc) uses to refer to Milly, per the Prince Harry principle of common naming. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to commonly used name, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move. I was surprised to see the article under a different name when I typed in 'Milly Dowler'. Rothorpe (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to commonly used name which is the one that will be most searched for and the name that is most commonly used in this context. Definitely in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move per WP:COMMONNAME. A search in google news for "Amanda Dowler" gives many recent news stories from reliable sources that refer to "Milly Dowler" in the headlines. Even with those keywords, I couldn't see any come up with "Amanda Dowler" in the headlines. Whether the article is moved or not, the lead should definitely mention "Milly". If people are typing "Milly Dowler" into the search box, they will be wondering why they have ended up somewhere else, with no mention of that name. Others who are unfamiliar with the case and have clicked a link from elsewhere, will be wondering why the charity mentioned in the lead is called "Milly's Fund". Her full name should be mentioned in the lead too, but no one in the press (that I am aware of) refers to her as "Amanda".-- Beloved  Freak  16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

<-I think, Lucy-marie, that what "justifies" it (apart from Wikipedia norms) is that everyone: her parents, the witnesses, the media, the police, the barristers, the charity, call her "Milly". Everyone, that is, except one person... you. You have presented no Wikipedia guideline or policy to back up your claim that WP:COMMONNAME applies only to biographies, you've just randomly asserted, without substantiation, that this is the way it has to be because you say so. Oddly, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. --Dweller (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not move - The page is a formal murder article and not a biography if it was a bio article then the "nickname" in the title would be acceptable, though as it is a formal murder article then formal names should be used. Also the page title has been long standing and is the "real name" of the murder victim.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if Elton John was murdered, you'd have the article at "Murder of Reginald Dwight"? --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No because that is legal change of name by deed poll and not a nickname.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So if Prince Harry was murdered, you'd have the article at "Murder of Prince Henry"? Or perhaps "Murder of Henry Charles Albert David Wales"?  Or "Murder of Henry Wales"? or what?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If Meatloaf was murdered, you'd have the article at Murder of Michael Aday, because in 2001, he officially changed his name to that from Marvin Aday and "Meatloaf" is just a stage name. Can you see how you're persistently arguing something that doesn't stack up? --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, can you point me to the guideline or policy which states that "if it was a bio article then the "nickname" in the title would be acceptable, though as it is a formal murder article then formal names should be used" please? We're saying it's her common name by the way, per WP:COMMONNAME. Applying your argument, I guess you'll put a move request in for Murder of Kitty Genovese soon then?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the above names are either stage names or names by which the person is exclusively known by. For example Prince Harry is exclusively known as Prince Harry or Harry Wales and not Prince Henry. Meatloaf is a stage name and so is Marilyn Monroe and they are exclusively known by their stage names, in their profession. The name Milly is not exclusive in this case and as such her birth name and not a nickname should be used as the formal title of the formal murder article of this case.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please show me the guideline or policy which supports your position which is clearly to ignore COMMONNAME. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what "formal" has got to do with anything. Why is this article more "formal" than any other? This article isn't any kind of official document. Yes, it's a topic that should be taken seriously, but so should biographies. -- Beloved Freak  22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move - sorry, this is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned, Milly is clearly by far the most common name used and I see no reason why the common name policy should not apply just because this is an article about a murder and not a biography of a person. If Lady Gaga was murdered I would not expect to see the article about it located at Murder of Stephanie Germanotta, and I don't see why this case is any different...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said Lady Gaga is a professional stage name and she is known exclusivly in her profession by that name. The use of the nickname Milly exclusivly is not the case here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, none of these people are known exclusively by just one name. Lady Gaga is also known as Stephanie Germanotta but not commonly.  Prince Harry is known as Prince Henry or Henry Wales, but not commonly.  Milly Dowler is also known as Amanda Dowler, but not commonly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have missed the element of either being a public figure as in the case of Price Harry who; in his public capacity is exclusively known as Prince Harry. As for Meatloaf and Lady Gaga; in their professional capacity they are exclusively known by their stage names. There is no public capacity or stage name for Amanda Dowler to justify not using her real name and using her nickname.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please show me the guideline or policy which supports your position which is clearly to ignore COMMONNAME. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are failing to either accept or even acknowledge there is substance to the point i am putting, by ignoring it. This shows that there is no answer to the points i am making as you cannot answer the points i am making as you are asking for external evidence as opposed to having a point based discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I (and most others it seems) disagree with your perspective. I was hoping you had something substantive like a guideline or policy to back up your claim that in a murder article a "formal name" should be used, but the various counter-arguments here are clear.  You are not making any points at all, in fact your message has changed quite a bit during this discussion.  Anyway, why doesn't COMMONNAME apply here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact u have been consistent throught all you need do is read properly what i ahe written.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey? What does that mean?  Bottom line is we're quickly approaching a clear consensus that isn't in favour of your curious approach.  There's nothing more to add.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, WP:COMMONNAME includes a list of examples, several of which are not biographies. --Dweller (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think it's clear that there's no substance (at least in guideline or policy to overrule COMMONNAME) in objecting to this move. I would advise a snow closure, however I'm happy for it stay open for the duration, even if that means wasting a lot more time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (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.

GAR
Well it should be clear that an article tagged with so many maintenance tags is not good enough to be a good article. Also there seems to be a reluctance in the lead to use the common name of the victim (Milly) which is very confusing to the reader who would always know her as Milly when heading here. Finally there are dead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm "so many maintenance tags" is a wild exaggeration. There is one and only one added by the user posting above. As for the insistence of the above user to insist on the common name in a formal murder article it is madness when both the name Milly and the name Amanda are frequently used and referred to in all sources. The article largely and correctly refers to her by her surname throughout. Yes the Tabloid headlines from the gutter press splash her picture on the front with POV nonsense like "Tragic Milly" but even they use her real name in the text of the stories. This though is a formal article and not a journalistic news report. If you want to use the colloquial go work for a news outlet but this is an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. Also the infobox includes her other name “Milly Dowler” which adequatly covers her other name. --Lucy-marie (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What an odd perspective. And an untruth: "both the name Milly and the name Amanda are frequently used and referred to in all sources".  Milly is referred to in all sources, "Amanda" isn't.  Fact.  Her common name is Milly.  We use common names where appropriate, I think you know that.  And do not presume to tell me to go and do anything.  Comment on the content, not the contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture
Does any one have an opinion on changing the image in the infobox? I don't think the one we're using at the moment is very good, it's not very clear and there are a couple of others being used by most of the media that are far more recognisable to anyone following the case. I'm thinking of one of the first few that come up if you do a google image search -, or. Any thoughts? -- Beloved Freak  18:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. The current image is barely recognisable (in my opinion) as Milly, so any of those you linked to would be better.  We'd need to use it under Fair Use and then have the other one deleted I would guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, any of them would be a great improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, this seems to be fairly non-controversial, so I've gone ahead and replaced the image. -- Beloved Freak  02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Investigation tampering by News of the World
On July 4, 2011 "The Guardian" issued a story claiming that the tabloid "News of the World" had hacked into Milly's voicemail. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.196.34 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to just Milly Dowler

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Milly Dowler → Milly Dowler – Given everything that has been going on this page should probably be moved to just Milly Dowler now given the worldwide attention regarding the phone hacking. VER Tott  02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Dowler is notable for only one thing and that is, unfortunately, being murdered. This is not a biography article and if it was, it would be deleted per WP:BIO1E. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * O What Jenks said. The redirect does a good job. --Dweller (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Jenks24.   a_man_alone (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above. "Murder of..." is the standard format for someone with no pre-existing notability. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Exactly the same reasons as Nick Cooper. David J Johnson (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 22 July 2011
 * Oppose per all the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Notability derived from being a Murder victim, the article is not a biography and nor should it be.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per Policy and guidelines - well worth a read before nominating or voting on anything here. This nomination makes me suggest a competancy clause - a level of competence and understanding that users should be awarded though some small investigation of their understanding of policy and guidelines prior to their being able to move, propose, nominate any thing for anything. It would sure save such waste of editors time as this is. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit harsh Rob... Jenks24 (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs saying sometimes. Off2riorob (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; phone hacking content can be dealt with in the context of the murder perfectly well. Moving the article does nothing of substance. --Errant (chat!) 08:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E is quite clear on this, we should center the article around about the event, not around the otherwise-anonymous individual. The sources talk about the individual's life only in the context of this event. Not being a child prodigy, she died too young to do any notable stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely this should be closed as per wp:snowball?  a_man_alone (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Name usage in article
Why is it in this article Milly is referred to as Dowler the whole way through? This was a young girl who was murdered. Surely victims in all articles should be referred to by thier name should they not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.163.81 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Its usual and correct on en wikipedia and a part of WP:mos to use the family name and not the first name. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Besides - "Dowler" is her name.  a_man_alone (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Dowler is her surname, that's how we encyclopaedically refer to people in biographical articles, by their surname after first introducing them with their full name. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I do understand what you're saying and have some sympathy with it, but if you think about it for a moment, while you'd easily work out how to treat young murder victims and have another rule for, say, adult murderers, where do you draw the line when dealing with young murderers, adult victims of murder, teenagers, thieves, etc etc. Quite apart from the encyclopedic tone mentioned above, we take WP:NPOV very seriously and cannot deal more sympathetically with one person/article than another. I hope that makes sense - however harsh it seems. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A similar claim was made a couple of weeks ago, about treating her with respect, by using her first name instead of her surname. To me, it seems less respectful to use the familiar "Milly" term, rather than the formal "Dowler".  Still, that's just me.  Dweller makes a good point as well of course abotu consistency between articles.   a_man_alone (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

missing info
the article forgets to mention how her murderer was caught and based on what evidence. kind of a crucial piece of information to just leave out --79.212.250.191 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Murder of Milly Dowler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101220192702/http://surrey.police.uk/media/news_item.asp?area=12&itemID=1561 to http://www.surrey.police.uk/media/news_item.asp?area=12&itemID=1561

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox title
I'm currently in an edit dispute over the title of the infobox. The original title is "Amanda Jane Dowler" and I changed it to "Milly Dowler", but I was reverted by David J Johnson. I'm taking this here to try to reach consensus. In my opinion, the infobox title should be "Milly Dowler" for the following reasons:


 * It is consistent with the title, the rest of the article and the sources.
 * The full name is already obvious from the lead and the birth_name parameter.
 * If you Google "Milly Dowler", you get much more results than if you Google "Amanda Dowler" or "Amanda Jane Dowler". In All, you get 163,000 for "Milly Dowler", 6,020 for "Amanda Dowler" and a mere 477 for "Amanda Jane Dowler". In News, "Milly Dowler" gets 13,400, "Amanda Dowler" 160 and "Amanda Jane Dowler" just 4, including this article.

Including the nickname in the infobox does not in any way make the info invalid or "wrong", but I am interested to see why this is opposed, as David J Johnson stated here that this was discussed before and rejected. Linguist 111 talk 22:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The infobox heading is exactly what the name implies - it is the correct birth information on the person concerned and the generally accepted nickname is stated in the article heading and later in the infobox and text. However, I'm prepared to accept other editors consensus. David J Johnson (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the purpose it serves. Person infoboxes already include a specific parameter for full birth names, so having them in the title is not necessary. Linguist 111 talk 23:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support the "Milly Dowler" version - it seems to make sense that this is the commonname, and if the usage was comprehensive enough to warrant an uncontested change from "Murder of Amanda Dowler" to "Murder of Milly Dowler" then it should be good enough for the infobox as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This proposal is out of step with what is the common policy of Wikipeida to the complete name of an individual in the infobox and not shortened names or nicknames. This is bad form and bad prose. The use of the full name for a formal name label, is the only sensible way to use that label, to use other names is nothing more than current trends being popular, and is not constructive. The name 'milly' is used in the title and is listed in the infobox. Changing the full name to remove it removes the information, which is pointless and unhelpful. --Sport and politics (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all- WP:COMMONNAME and to a lesser degree (in this case) WP:NICKNAME exist to directly counter your argument and support the use of "Milly". The individual is known as "Milly" - the media reported her as "Milly", and the article title includes the name "Milly".  "Milly" is far more appropriate to the article than "Amanda Jane".  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what is also being overlooked here is this is not a biographical article, this is a crime article. The victim here has an infobox. The victim has a full name, and a nickname. Both are in use in the article. This individual is not notable as a person, but the crime which they were involved with is. As such he full name of the victim should be used for accuracy purposes and the nickname used where appropriate after the first instance. In his case the article title is Crime type Common name, where as the infobox is accurate full name. Overusing the nickname no matter how common is bad prose and inaccurate. The infobox and first sentence of the article are the first instances of the use of the name and using the full name is covered under MOS:FULLNAME and in my opinion this issue is covered by that. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Sport and politics comments above and I have nothing to add to their correct remarks above. Linguist111 has tried this "edit" before and appears to be coming back with the same rejected alteration for a second time. David J Johnson (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Except that the person in question is known as Milly Dowler. The article in question is Milly Dowler. I agree that this is a crime article - a crime article that is called "Murder of Milly Dowler" - "Milly", not Amanda Jane. Nobody - except this article infobox - calls her "Amanda Jane". We have a WP:COMMONNAME policy for exactly this scenario. It is not her legal name, but it's what she is known as. The person in question is not known as Amanda Jane, but as Milly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Chaheel Riens. Including "Milly" in the infobox title or anywhere else in the article where names should be mentioned does not make the info inaccurate or invalid in any way. And if it was so bad to include it, why did the article go through a largely uncontested move from "Murder of Amanda Dowler"? And as well as this, since this article is written about a crime you might expect newspapers documenting the case to exclude nicknames, but the press (English and non-English newspapers), police, court etc. generally did not do this. David J Johnson and Sport and politics say that since that the nickname should be excluded as this is a formal article, but if that is the case, then why doesn't Prince Harry, which is a formal article about a member of the royal family, have "Prince Henry" or "Prince Henry Charles Albert David" in the article or infobox titles? And what about other articles on murdered people such as Murder of Kitty Genovese and Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce? What I disagree with most is the inclusion of "Jane" in the infobox title. This is unnecessary, as it duplicates the info in the birth name parameter. And then having the nickname in the other names parameter, which duplicates the info in the article title and the image caption parameter. Also, generally speaking, including middle names is bad practice as they can stretch infoboxes beyond necessity, especially if you have people with longer full names such as Thomas Mervyn ap Rhys Pryce or Sarah Evelyn Isobel Payne. I'm having a hard time understanding the logic of what the other two editors are saying. Linguist 111 talk 13:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is rapidly straying into potential original research and personal interpretation. using google hits as above, are irrelevant as it treats the article as a biographical and not a criminology. The common name of the person here is not relevant as this is not a biographical. The name Milly is used in the title for ease of searching. The full name is used as it is for accuracy of the article. The rest of the article correctly uses Dowler throughout. I would also like to point out that cherrypicking has gone on with the examples. See the Murder of Sarah Payne example, in the same article the use of the full name Roy William Whiting, is used. This is though clearly not going to achieve a consensus a there are two positions which do not seem to have any common ground possible. This needs to go to a place with more input, or this will simply stay circular, and unresolved. Sport and politics (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself about cherry-picking - the argument using Sarah Payne is irrelevant because there was no commonly used nickname (which is the whole crux of this discussion,) for any of the people involved - Whiting or Payne. I disagree with Linguist on this point and think that the entire "Amanda Jane" should go not just "Jane", and be replaced with "Milly".  I do agree that DRN is needed though.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that "Jane" should go and only "Amanda" should remain at the very least, if it wasn't to be replaced with "Milly". I still think "Milly" should be in the infobox title. Neither "Amanda" nor "Amanda Jane" are needed. Linguist 111 talk 16:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said common ground is not likely, outside input needs to be found in a suitable format. Sport and politics (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

DRN
As per the above discussion, It has been proposed to take this discussion to DRN, I am in agreement with that, and formally propose that this discussion be taken to DRN. Sport and politics (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, clearly. Linguist 111 talk 18:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support David J Johnson (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

When will this go to DRN? Linguist 111 talk 12:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd kind of forgotten about it, but I'd support DRN, and have therefore the same question as Linguist - when is this going to happen? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any progress, or have you dropped your end of the discussion and resolution? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing it with . Linguist 111  talk 12:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Full name at top of infobox and acute
I don't know why this edit is so controversial here, but apparently it is, so I'm taking it here. I removed the middle name from the top of the infobox because it's already specified in the birth_name parameter and it's not necessary at the top. Also I changed "Amélie" to "Amelie" by simplifying, as the British press didn't use the acute, so I think it is appropriate for that to be reflected in the article. I was reverted by and. Linguist 111 Moi?  Moi.  21:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Some British press did use e-acute; their laziness in typesetting their stories is not, however, an excuse for writing Amélie Delagrange's name incorrectly. As for the infobox, this is the subject of an as yet unresolved dispute as you are well aware. Keri (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC - name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

Ended without conclusion - discussion moved away from the specific issue to begin with and is now discussing the infobox itself. Sport and politics (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is a continuation of the above discussion, "Infobox title". What should the title of the infobox at the top of the article be? Linguist 111 Moi?  Moi.  17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Milly Dowler, per the statements in "Infobox title" by Chaheel Riens and I. Linguist 111  Moi?  Moi.  17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The original title is "Amanda Jane Dowler" and as per the discussions above, that is how it should remain. This version is supported by myself and David J Johnson. --Sport and politics (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And me; there's no need for change. Rothorpe (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Amanda Jane Dowler" Keri (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Milly Dowler, as per article name. The change is for consistency in the article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Amanda Jane Dowler, are we loosing sight of her correct name?....and that is what should appear in the info box.David J Johnson (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all - WP:COMMONNAME, Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens and article name. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "Amanda" is used once in the article proper - as the very first word, and nowhere else (infobox notwithstanding), whereas the term "Milly" appears 10 times. If we include references - which I suppose we should as a guide to what her commonly recognisable and repotred name is, then "Milly" appears 48 times, and "Amanda" appears 5 times.  There is quite clearly a definite preference within the media who provide us with reliable sources to call her "Milly" - ergo so should we (which is why the article was moved to Milly, not Amanda.)  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME etc all apply to the title and content of the article body. Infoboxes, which are "neither required nor prohibited for any article", and how they are used, are determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Keri (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Milly Dowler, per common usage and the title of the article. The {infobox person} has parameters for this, and it makes sense to use them for biographical details as follows: name = Milly Dowler | birth_name = Amanda Jane Dowler. Examples of this type of biographical common-name usage at Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Prince Harry, and so on. Killing of Jo Cox contains another example of common name usage from a crime article. In fact I believe the wrong template is being used. Murder of Meredith Kercher and Murder of Stephen Lawrence is more like how it should be done, with the title of the article at the top. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Milly Dowler Summoned by bot Essentially per WP:COMMONNAME. Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Milly Dowler Stricktly speaking, the relevant policy/guideline isn't WP:COMMONNAME but MOS:INFOBOX, but the conclusion is the same. The latter says, "It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name". I take "may contain" to mean "may also contain", see the page for Bono—heading of infobox matches title, but the first line of the "background information" in the infobox gives his birth name. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Milly Dowler Much more familiar to a Wikipedia reader than her birth name. Similar murdered victims of abductions in the U.S. are known by their most common appellation, i.e. Jessica Lunsford, for whom "Jessica's Law was named. Activist (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Milly Dowler Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:INFOBOX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.131.64.210 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This RfC has been open for a month now, and it's looking like there's a bias towards Milly Dowler, (7:4) but also as zzuuzz points out, the infobox itself may need to be changed. That seems to be the way to go?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. I've made a syntax:

Linguist Moi?  Moi.  13:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I say this is balanced, and is not a vote, more comments one way or the other is not how this s done, there is slightly more one way but not a clear consensus. This is clearly unsettled, and not a clear consensus. Sport and politics (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Changing the infobox itself should be a new discussion, this is on a very specific issues. Lets not conflate the two. Sport and politics (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For there to be a consensus, the reasoning of one side of an argument has to completely outweigh that of any opposing side. In this case, users supporting the "Milly" version have pointed to policies and guidelines that support their arguments. My personal point of view is most similar to zzuuzz's; Template:Infobox person/doc clearly says the Common name should appear in the name parameter. Those supporting the "Amanda Jane" version don't seem to have done the same. Anyhow, as I said above, Infobox event is probably the more suitable infobox for this article and those similar to it. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  15:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is moving to discussing the infobox itself please begin a brand new discussion, and this discussion can be closed. As if the infobox itself is up for discussion, discussion a specific parameter of another infobox, is not needed, until it is known if the consensus has determined if is it be used at all. The RfC is not about the infobox itself.Sport and politics (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for comment. 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.

Infobox
The above RfC is now redundant as the topic of discussion has changed. I propose that, as the article topic is a crime and not an individual person, that the current infobox be removed and replaced with an event infobox (with a syntax like the below).

Linguist Moi?  Moi.  16:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm just going to be bold and make this change. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  17:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this is the most applicable infobox for this article. The article goes into more detail than just the murder, it goes in to the phone hacking as well, also it includes the wider context. This is more than just one event. The event of the murder is one thing yes, the event of the disaperance and related police and public activities are also a thing. That is also an event. Is it that there should be separate inboxes for those events as well. Also the parameters in this infobox could be restrictive when trying to convey the detail which is conveyed in this infobox, e.g. the Amanda Dowler memorial garden. When the abduction took place, when and where the body was found. All of that information is lost by switching to this infobox.  There may be a need to take elements of both infoboxes, and child parameters may also be required, or similar sub parts to the infobox. Sport and politics (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Murder of Meredith Kercher uses the simple infobox. Maybe that would be useful? Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  19:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * May well be the most appropriate way forward, but the information to be included will need to be discussed.Sport and politics (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To start off, I made this:

Linguist Moi?  Moi.  20:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is how it would look in the article. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  20:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The custom parameters are useful. I think some should be removed, e.g. is there a need for accused and convicted. Also Burial cannot be at a crematorium, unless the crematorium has a cemetery. It is either a cremation of a burial, it cannot be both, so that parameter needs modifying. Also the specific offences charged with need to match the sources, the sources mainly say kidnap or abduction, but not child abduction. The Life imprisonment should include the life tariff, as a whole-life tariff. Cause od Death cannot be homicide by strangulation, Homicide is a type of killing, strangulation is a cause of death, the two are separate, and including both is confusing, and reduces accessibility to the article. The custom infobox is though useful and more indicative of the nature of this article. Sport and politics (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should at least include the "Convicted" parameter; Bellfield's name should be included for completeness. It was child abduction and murder, as the victim was legally a minor. What about this?:

Linguist Moi?  Moi.  19:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the following should be added: Also the charges should reflect the sources if the charges do then I have no issues with their inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * label15 = Tariff
 * data15 = (whole life)

Linguist Moi?  Moi.  19:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not consensus, but a definite bias.
I'm all for the discussion about the infobox, but I feel that certain editors have Sport & Politics has used the infobox as an excuse to close the previous discussion with an inaccurate rationale.

S&P claims that there is balance between opinion, when this is clearly not the case. There is a definite bias leaning towards the use of "Milly", rather than the use of "Amanda". It was quite clear from the outset that there was never going to be a perfect consensus because the involved editors would never agree. To this end all agreed that an RfC would be raised - it was and comments were taken on, which as I repeat myself, showed a preference for Milly - which S&P ignored, claiming !Vote.

So, we're back to the start where the infobox doesn't match any of the presented policies, or even the article name. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind S&P closing the RfC; after all, the discussion has now become about which type of infobox to use. I've proposed that we use an infobox with custom parameters which combines most of the info from the current infobox and the event infobox which I originally replaced it with (see my above comments). Thoughts? (However, for now, I think we can change the title of the infobox to "Milly Dowler" per Template:Infobox person/doc and MOS:INFOBOX. Also, the people voting "Milly" did support their arguments with policies and guidelines; those voting against "Milly" didn't). Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  18:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is disagreement with the closure then re-open the discussion, it does though seem pointless as the discussion has moved on. Please also always assume good faith on the part of all users. stating motives, alleged or believed, behind actions is not in the spirit of assuming good faith. If there are comments for specific users please make those comments on the specific users talk page, and not on an article page. Sport and politics (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Practice what you preach. You're saying I'm editing "antagonistically" when I'm making a MoS/template doc edit, and then saying I'm "edit warring" when you keep reverting such changes. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  19:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please make comments regarding specific users on user talk pages not on article pages. Sport and politics (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)