The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Deptford poisonings. This RM involved several lines of discussion. First, the easy one: participants formed a clear consensus to move the title to sentence case. The next question at hand is, which (if any) date should be used to describe the event? "1889" achieved some early support per WP:NCE, but support dropped off after it was noted that some of the poisonings occurred in earlier years. "1880s" was proposed as an alternative, but for many participants it seems to have been a second choice behind simply omitting the date; supporters of omitting the date also noted WP:CONCISE and the avoidance of WP:OVERPRECISION. Given the numbers and the relative strength of argument, I believe there is consensus to omit the date as well.The most polarizing part of the discussion was instead: should the event be called a "poisoning case", "poisoning cases", or simply "poisonings"? "Poisoning case" (singular) was described as the WP:COMMONNAME, though this was disputed by at least one participant; neither side of the COMMONNAME question leveled any evidence in the RM discussion itself, so I hesitate to place too much weight on this argument. The singular-vs.-plural question also led to an impasse, with different participants arguing that there was either one or multiple legal cases involved in the event. Finally, WP:CONCISE and WP:OVERPRECISION were leveled to support "poisonings" over titles that included either form of the word "case". Ultimately, I believe consensus has converged to "poisonings" here due to its stronger backing in titling policy. However, it achieved a weaker consensus than was seen for the other disputed aspects of the title, so this RM is being closed without prejudice to further discussion on "poisonings" vs. "poisoning case/s". (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deptford Poisoning Cases → Deptford poisoning case – or 1889 Deptford poisoning case or Deptford poisoning cases or 1889 Deptford poisoning cases. This seems like a descriptive title, not a proper name, so it should use lowercase. I checked the online sources cited in the article. Two of them (here and here) use "Deptford poisoning case" in the first sentence of their article bodies (with all-caps in their headlines). I didn't find any that use "Deptford Poisoning Cases". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even notable? Well, regardless, Deptford poisonings or Deptford poisoning case makes more sense. I prefer the first because why do we need to append "case" to it? Unnecessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I like Pppery's suggestion better, 1889 Deptford poisonings 1880s Deptford poisonings is closer to the recommendations at WP:NCE. Case doesn't really form part of the name so should only be done if necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Times calls it  "The Deptford Poisoning Cases", in caps, in their headline, as do Lloyds, Police News and South Wales Echo. (~~~~) AndyScott (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines generally cap more stuff than Wikipedia. MOS:CAPS. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I focused on what the cited sources do in their article bodies, not what they do in headlines. Moreover, the Times article that is cited that has an online link uses all-caps. We're obviously not going to call this "THE DEPTFORD POISONING CASES". After reading it again, I think Andy's comment is about the words and pluralization, not the capitalization. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 1889 Deptford poisonings. Basically per PARAKANYAA but I think adding the year provides more clarity. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with 1880s Deptford poisonings. Not convinced by any of the other arguments below, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject London, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject United Kingdom have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Pppery's suggestion too. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is unclear from the article that the deaths occurred in 1889.—Alalch E. 20:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. In fact the article discusses about five poisonings that clearly occurred before 1889. (Benjamin Winters, who died in 1885, William Winters, who died in 1886, Ann Bolton, who died in 1886, and the statement that "Five of these individuals had died by 1886"). I have struck out my support for Pppery's suggestion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. "Deptford poisoning case" is the WP:COMMONNAME. The discussed alternative title ("1889 Deptford poisonings") is inaccurate, as explained above.—Alalch E. 21:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps we could use 1880s Deptford poisonings to retain some identification of the timeframe. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It really seems to me like "Deptford poisoning case" is the single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for this topic. In addition, it remained a "case", with no one convicted of murder (and "poisonings" leans more strongly in that direction than "poisoning case"). —Alalch E. 22:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point about the lack of a conviction. The evidence of poisoning doesn't seem especially convincing either. Perhaps Amelia Winters was just a great enthusiast for life insurance or a person with a gift for actuarial science. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Deptford poisoning case. Not a proper name. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative This is a descriptive name and not a proper name for a murder case (singular) of poisoning that occurred in Deptford. While both singular and plural are used in sources because there was more than one body, I say singular in that it was investigated and tried as a single case and we would prefer the singular per WP:SINGULAR. Capitalisation for significance falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and we don't do that. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative per SMcC Deptford poisonings. More WP:CONCISE. Not actual conflict with any article on WP so cases is WP:OVERPRECISION. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Deptford poisoning case" is the common name so OVERPRECISION does not apply. —Alalch E. 13:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An arguable point with which I disagree. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is arguable that the evidence of poisoning was not ironclad by today's standards. It may be more clear that there was a case than it is that there were poisonings. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Any lowercase, since this is not a proper name. I think "Deptford poisonings" would suffice, unless there other notable Deptford poisonings from which to disambiguate this. Otherwise, "1880s Deptford poisonings" would work if "1889" is actually too specific. Using "case" seems wrong, since there were both more that one "case" (instance) of poisoning and more than one "case" (legally) about the poisonings, though one abortive due to death of suspect. So "cases" could work either way. But "poisonings" is more WP:CONCISE than "poisoning cases", and it's the entire course of the poisonings, including the subsequent legal actions, that are of encyclopedic interest, not the legal cases themselves, in isolation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]