Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Operation London Bridge task force

British Royalty: Operation London Bridge

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
	This page is supported by Operation London Bridge task force.

Commonwealth

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth

United Kingdom

This page is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom

Death

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath

This projectpage has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Jody Serrano (9 September 2022). "How Wikipedia's 'Deaditors' Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II's Page After Her Death". Gizmodo. However, editors didn't limit their work to the Queen's Wikipedia page. A six-membered task force deemed "WikiProject London Bridge" appeared and began to create and maintain new articles, "Death of Elizabeth II" and "Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II."
Annie Rauwerda (9 September 2022). "Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II's Wikipedia page so quickly?". Input. On September 8, a new task force cropped up specifically for Operation London Bridge. Its official project page hit the internet just twenty minutes after Her Majesty's death was announced, and it monitors the articles Elizabeth II, Death of Elizabeth II, Operation London Bridge, Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II, and Charles III.
Liam Mannix (13 September 2022). "Evidence suggests Wikipedia is accurate and reliable. When are we going to start taking it seriously?". The Sydney Morning Herald. But more was to come. A group of six editors calling themselves the "London Bridge task force" sprang up almost immediately. They got to work writing a new entry for the Queen's death and updating the large number of articles that mentioned her.

Already done

I updated Royal Maundy as soon as I heard the news.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing double redirects

Charles III' article was moved so many times we have quadruple redirects currently. These all need to be changed directly to Charles III. You can use "What links here" on the sidebar of the article and then limit the search to hide links and articles. Rmhermen (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could alternatively start a discussion to get consensus on what the title should be. wizzito | say hello! 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to deviate from the existing naming convention? -- Chuq (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QC to KC

Any articles about living Queen's Counsel (I see the article itself has already been moved) will need the abbreviation QC changing to KC. The change is immediate and automatic and has already been confirmed to the Bar Council by the Crown Office [1]. Nthep (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The categories need to be changed, and every single article in each category will the postnominal changed (or rather - living people only). Is a smart person able to program a bot to do this? St Anselm (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can probably be done with WP:AWB, no?--Ipatrol (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H.M.S and related expansions.

How many references in text to Her Majesty (as an expansion of H.M) will need to changed over to His Majesty and related expansions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms

My main concern, is that we keep in mind that Elizabeth II & Charles III are first & foremost associated with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Charles III death task force?

Hello! Firstly, I appreciate everything that this task force is doing. Since Charles III is rather elderly as he is, I had an idea to keep this same task force for his eventual passing. I'm not a member of this task force, and I don't know if this is a good idea. Either way, I wanted to put my idea forth. ERBuermann (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Unicorn?

Wikiproject name is a little Anglocentric, I think? At present as I understand it, it's Operation Unicorn (or the OU phase of OLB, depending on quite how the two are supposed to interrelate.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller article mentions to edit?

Doing my bit here - stumbled across two articles (as of now) with small, but potentially WikiProject significant mentions that will most likely need updating:

2021 State Opening of Parliament#Event (linked in Template:Elizabeth II) - "The consort's throne was absent from the House of Lords during the event due to COVID-19 restrictions: though the Queen's consort Prince Philip had died on 9 April 2021, the throne is expected to be returned and occupied by Prince Charles at future State Openings."
Canada Act 1982#Proclamation - "Canada has complete sovereignty as an independent country, however, and the Queen's role as monarch of Canada is separate from her role as the British monarch or the monarch of any of the other Commonwealth realms. Canada, like some other Commonwealth nations, maintains the Queen as head of state."
Stagecoach Bluebird - "The company holds a Royal Warrant from Queen Elizabeth II for bus and coach services, granted in 1996.(and expired/voided in 2022?)"

Now I would do those edits myself, but I'm really unsure of the process, especially since for the second point, Charles III has not technically been proclaimed King of Canada yet (if at all?), and for the latter, the Royal Warrants situation is a little unclear at the minute. I thought it be best to bring it to the attention of the more experienced Task Force than risk making mistakes. Hullian111 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he now has been proclaimed in Canada, but officially it's a 'speed-of-monarchy' thing. If he'd somehow had to King between the moment of his mother's death and the proclamation, he'd have been legally competent to. I don't know if there's a separate oath-taking for Canada, but I think that'd be regarded as a formality, given the Statute of Westminster and Perth Agreement, and so on. #1 is redundant, though you could finesse it with a tense change if you felt the expectation was a historically interesting detail. #2 just needs a gender-flip (though could be written entirely gender-neutrally, but as future-proofing goes that's a little extreme, given there's three male generations lined up). On #3, those warrants will indeed have expired; those granted by Chaz as PoW remain valid as monarch. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Edits made as suggested - feel free to check over if I have them correct; royal affairs and laws aren't exactly my area of expertise. Hullian111 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical names

A number of articles refer to what was at the time the Queen’s so-and-so and is now the King’s so-and-so. For instance, a retired judge may have served on a court of Queen’s Bench, which is now the court of King’s Bench. Do those get updated, or are they left as-is? I assume it would follow the same rule as was followed for King’s so-and-so stuff during Elizabeth’s reign, but I don’t know what that rule is. Generalcp702^{user talk} 15:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if it is entirely a past relationship, it stays as is, for example if person was a judge of the court of Queen's Bench from 2003 to 2009, then it should be left. If there is a present relationship, change it, for example if you are saying that the person is a retired judge of the court of Queen's Bench, then make that King's Bench.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that perhaps over here somewhere that a list of pages where changes to the names of current relationships is kept for the time being? I know it could get a little long, but it might be good as some situations are rather ambiguous at present I suspect. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most urgent cases to fix are any constructions that say things like "become a King's Counsel (now a Queen's Counsel)", which will looking doubly odd now and be less understandable as an editorial lapse. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A double re-direct in real life! -- Chuq (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of viceregal representatives of Elizabeth II

How to deal with it? Mike Rohsopht (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rohsopht, I say leave it as is, make a new own for Charles III Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomorrow and tomorrow, I disagree—that wouldn't make sense, considering that the people listed are no longer her representatives, and it is not a list of all representatives during her reign, only the current ones. They are current representatives of the current British monarch. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_viceregal_representatives_of_Elizabeth_II#Requested_move_12_September_2022. Compusolus (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Compusolus, I'm comfortable with that as a solution as well. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth the Great?

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It's currently as a rather substandard DAB page, because none of the articles of the people supposedly so-described actually WP:DABMENTION it. (Elizabeth of Russia doesn't even get mentioned or indirectly linked to!) I think Elizabeth I is the most likely of the three, but arguably even a redirect fails WP:R#ASTONISH. Very much open to suggestions! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recentist, nominating dab for deletion Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely -- it's existed as a redirect for a decade. But the QE2 item seems very slight. At best it might be a temporary nav aid... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its needed. I haven't seen a article that's come out yet calling the late Queen that. Plus, it puts confusion with Queen Elizabeth I. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you! A certain disgraced ex-PM has been pushing it hard (as even a very cursory google will confirm). I think the point is it helps deal with any such confusion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When did Charles become King

Thought I'd let everyone know of this discussion about what date Charles III became king in Oceania. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queue/Elizabeth Line

Thought I'd flag up The Queue to the task force as a relevant article that might be worth adding to the list? XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on one of your articles Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II

Hello there! I have recently started a RfC on an article which I know this Taskforce is monitoring. I am a relatively new editor and this is my first experience dealing with RfC, and pointers and suggestions about anything are welcome. I guess this is me publicising the discussion. I also noticed your Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events/London Bridge task force#To-do#Ongoing discussions section but it didn't seem like something to be decided yet, if at all. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jimmy Savile/FAQ

Thought I’d mention that even this page needed a change from “queen” to “king”, and that I’m slightly surprised it hadn’t been changed yet. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Elizabeth II/FAQ

Recently created this to address the dispute over the infobox image. Should anything else be added? Dronebogus (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future preparations

I recently started a discussion on King Charles's talkpage about what would happen when his reign ends. The gist of it was:

To pick an image. I suggested these three images:

Charles as Prince of Wales, 1984
Charles as Prince of Wales, 1972
Charles as Prince of Wales, 2012

And to come up with the opening paragraph. I suggested:

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; 14 November 1948 – [date of death]) was King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 8 September 2022 until his death in [year of death].

The proposal received a mixed response on the talk page. One editor suggested I place the discussion here, so that is what I have done.

Note: The consensus will change on this. This discussion is meant to be fluid. As new images and information are revealed, we can change the consensus on the image and the opening. We can always revise for future editors.

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate forum for that discussion is that page, obviously. (On that page in the future, IMO, but clearly views on that are somewhat split.) My cross-reference to here was in the spirit of suggesting sounding out the interest in some sort of "LB2"-like effort. i.e. making clearly required edits when one monarch pops their clogs and then next is shuffled into place, like flipping pronouns and updating textual references to the other as against the other. Or recruiting people for a focused editing effort on generally needed tasks on selected Important or Vital articles. Like "get the current text of the current monarch's article past a 'B'" -- hint, hint. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a future event should be bound by a consensus achieved now. Charles could easily live another quarter century if he takes after either parent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I redirect you to the multitude of things I have said on the king's talkpage and on here: The consensus will change on this. This discussion is meant to be fluid. As new images and information are revealed, we can change the consensus on the image and the opening. We can always revise for future editors.

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the same thing a "multitude" of times isn't especially helpful. The consensus can and likely will change, but right now it's pretty clearly the consensus is that there's no need to try to determine such a hypothetical WP:CRYSTAL consensus. It's purposeless to have a discussion that will just be replicated any number of times before it's needed, once when it actually is, and then several more times afterwards. Some people think that a switch to a 'historical' pic for Liz2 was too slow and we need to be quick as a limpet next time, in circumstances entirely unknown. Some editors think that switch was too hasty in any case. Personally I'd suggest giving it a rest at least until he's crowned, unless you feel there's an urgent need for a contingency plan for the case where he's run over by an English-wine-powered Bentley before then. Plenty of stuff to be doing in the meantime -- the article's in appalling shape.

A "LB2TF" more broadly isn't a terrible idea, but if people don't feel the urgency, then WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there IS to be a plan formulated it should be project wine-powered Bentley. Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1: we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, which likely will be a long time from now (“barring accidents”); 2: we should obviously use a picture of him as king, which we don’t have many of right now. Dronebogus (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can do both; get the article to GA status and get a consensus on the article upon Charles's death. It's not like it's one or the other, a with-us-or-against-us situation. Getting a consensus on this does no harm, so we may as well do it, but it is odd that it is such a controversial thing to bring up as nobody seems to want to lift a finger. As for getting the article past B-class: I have no particular interest in that exercise. That is for you to discuss and achieve, not me.

Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eating my words now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

listing as defunct

I’ve WP:BOLDly listed this task force as defunct and changed the ubox to past tense since its mission is complete. Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]