Talk:Janet Auchincloss Rutherfurd

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jackie and Janet (2).jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Janet Jennings Auchincloss Rutherfurd gravestone.jpg

Janet Jennings Auchincloss Rutherfurd?...
This article was recently moved from its previous title - Janet Auchincloss Rutherfurd - to the present title Janet Jennings Auchincloss Rutherfurd with the edit summary of "Using full name". It seems to me that the previous title is more commonly used and should be retained. In terms of women who have been married multiple times - for example - WP doesn't render the Elizabeth Taylor main title by all her married names... "Elizabeth Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton Burton Warner Fortensky"... Shearonink (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would welcome more thoughts on the page-move so am paging some other editors who have edited the article recently:, , , , , , , . I guess I could open up an RFC or revert Sabra20016's page-move/article-renaming myself but all the redirects & cleanup are a little daunting to me. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Created as Janet Jennings Auchincloss Rutherfurd by  on November 7, 2005.  It was moved to Janet Auchincloss Rutherfurd February 17, 2008 by, but I don't see any talk page messages about why.  Now we have it moved by  back to the page as it was originally created. In a perfect Wikipedia world, there would have been discussions here before any pages moves to a different name.  Please settle the name here. Otherwise, the future holds more moves without discussing first. — Maile  (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored the longstanding title per Requested moves. The fact that it was previously moved without discussion does not detract from the fact that it has been at the three-name title for the past eleven years. If a move from that title is disputed, then it should be reversed in order to allow a proper move discussion respecting the target. bd2412  T 01:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for asking my input. However, I know little about the actual topic and was instead reacting to an unexplained deletion of content.  I'm afraid I can't offer advice either way.


 * (FYI, I have reviewed my earlier revert and the editor's other, constructive edits to the page and realize they were editing in good faith. What I saw was part of a restructure/rewrite.  I have apologized to the editor and deleted the warning I placed on their page)


 * -- KNHaw  (talk)  06:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked at recent/somewhat-recent edits and pinged those folks to this page, looking for some other eyes on the title. Thanks for your reply. Shearonink (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)