to Personality and image of Elizabeth II. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 21:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Nobody has ever seriously referred to her by this name (the same goes for Betsy Windsor) QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. No one has ever called her that ever, it sounds like a WP:HOAX redirect to me. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Redirect to Personality and image of Elizabeth II. Left-wing political and anti-monarchist sources have (like it or not) used that name to refer to her for decades. It may have been derogatory, but it is real, and a perfectly reasonable redirect. Have [https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/5755062.should-the-queen-be-plain-old-betty-windsor/ a source] or [https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/17/world/melbourne-journal-crown-is-wobbly-but-long-live-betty-windsor.html two]. Wikipedia is not pro-monarchy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC) PS: See my comment below re "Personality and image..." article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: per Ghmyrtle and my own research it seems to pretty unambiguously refer to Queen Elizabeth from a number of different sources that I saw it mentioned in, and it is a name used by enough sources it seems to be used enough to keep as a redirect. TartarTorte 20:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete, I think. Yes, it might be used in a jokey way but I was trying to picture why it would be used as a search term. Would a dedicated anti-monarchist wanting to read up on Elizabeth II dogmatically insist on searching for Betty Windsor only?? Usually there's two reasons why a redirect term is searched for: someone knows the article subject primarily by the redirect term - highly improbable in this case; or someone has heard of the redirect term, doesn't know that it refers to the article subject and wants to know who it is a reference to. In the latter case, would they be any the wiser because of the redirect? There's no reference to it or explanation in Elizabeth II leading to, presumably, continuing puzzlement when they came to the article. Where's Brenda (Private Eye) as a redirect? If my thinking is faulty, happy to change. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- :Mind you, we do have Liz Windsor! DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- ::Thank you for expressing my sentiments better than I could. I could care less about whether such a redirect is derogatory, just whether it is encyclopedically useful to keep this as a redirect, and as you say this nickname is not mentioned on the page.
- ::{{small|I suppose Brenda (Private Eye) could redirect to our Recurring jokes in Private Eye article.}} QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- :I'm sure that we have had to deal with issues over the length and (when she was living) the content of her article, so that not all references to her in the media will have been included in the article. The article content will change in the future, with the benefit of hindsight, so that terms like "Betty Windsor" and indeed "Brenda" may well be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- ::Aha! Maybe it should be redirected to the same place as Tea with Betty.DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- :As others have said, Re-target to Personality and image of Elizabeth II seems sensible. I've struck my delete. DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm a republican & even I can see that this 'redirect' isn't acceptable. Same with Charles Mountbatten, Charles Windsor or any other such royal re-directs. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm American, so my ability to fully understand the cultural relevance of Private Eye seems to be constantly not fully there despite how much I learn about it, but from what I do understand/have learned about Private Eye, it is very popular but also full of in-jokes that are a completely foreign concept to those who do not read Private Eye; However unlike the name Brenda from Private Eye, the name Betty Windsor seems to be used by a variety of sources from opinions pieces in [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/dec/30/i-had-accepted-my-life-in-prison-until-it-prevented-me-helping-a-friend-in-need The Guardian] and [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lets-grow-up-make-queen-23468690 The Mirror]. It is also used in a variety of Scottish and Australian sources. While it is not mentioned at the target, it seems like WP:R#D8 does not apply as it seems to be neither novel nor very obscure, with it being mentioned at a number of sources. TartarTorte 01:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- :Note: The term "Betty Windsor" is not a Private Eye term - it's a widespread term (not "novel" or "very obscure") purporting to be her "real name". Private Eye used "Brenda". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Fixed my comment for clarity because it scanned very poorly. TartarTorte 12:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep: Referred to as such sometimes. Per Ghmyrtle. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems common enough in usage to keep. Obvious connection so direct mention isn't needed, we don't, as far as I know, require every nickname to be mentioned in the target, just those that are a {{tq|novel or very obscure synonym for an article name}} per WP:R#DELETE. Skynxnex (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to some article where it would be appropriate (per WP:WEIGHT and whatnot) to add a sourced mention and explanation of this nickname, perhaps Personality and image of Elizabeth II#Media perception where the Private Eye nicknames are already mentioned. As the above discussion reveals, there's all sorts of social context around this name, precisely none of which is explained in the target article or anywhere else. A person who does not know this context is left none the wiser by being redirected to the current target, particularly the top of the current target: they won't even get an explanation of the surname Windsor until more than two thousand words in. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- :If the context is added to the article mentioned then I really like this. It does seem to explain "Betty Windsor" to anyone who doesn't know the term in a way where they can easily get to the Elizabeth II article, but also would provide context for why the name is relevant. TartarTorte 03:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- ::I also think this is a good solution, provided explanation is given at this article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- :Good idea. I was not aware of that article. I've struck my "Keep" comment earlier. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete not a serious redirect. Similarly, "Elizabeth DNR" or "Old Lady Liz" would be similarly not a serious redirect. CandyStalnak (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}}
on reply) 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::Do you have any sources for the common use of those terms? "Betty Windsor" is a term in widespread use in certain circles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
::I'm sure you'd be delighted to know, then, that Whoop whoop pull up is a very real and very serious redirect that exists! — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 14:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
:::I've nominated that page for deletion, too (sorry to be a spoilsport). QueenofBithynia (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Split between keep and retarget.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}}
on reply) 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, no one has ever officially called her by that name. I can forsee no circumstance in which an artocle would need to link to to 'Betty Windsor' and not 'Elizabeth II' EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.