Talk:Operation London Bridge

New code?
After the June 2017 attack, which really did put London Bridge in police lockdown (the tube station was still closed Sunday night) it's more than likely that a new code phrase will be selected. Perhaps "Tower Bridge is up"? 192.121.232.253 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A new code phrase is indeed possible. As always we will have to wait until something is reported in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the new code phrase is "London Bridge is down...no seriously...we really mean it this time..." LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "Funeral in Berlin" will do? :) 195.67.149.160 (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Queen is dead. This is not a drill." seems most appropriate now that the old key phrase is public knowledge." CW (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "God help the Queen - we mean it, man!" ?;)188.150.64.57 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The key code "London Bridge" is in widely known and in current usage Marlarkey (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"London Bridge is down"
Does anyone else have issues with this sentence in the article:

"The phrase "London Bridge is down" will announce the death of the Queen to the Prime Minister and key personnel, setting the plan into motion."

It's all very Spooks/James Bond. In reality, is it not far more likely someone will just say "Sadly, the Queen has passed away - time to put Operation London Bridge into effect"?

No one is actually going to say "London Bridge is down", are they??

On that basis, I think it should be removed from the article as it is currently unsourced and the only sources I can find for that phrase are just journalists having wet dreams about Her Maj popping her clogs.

LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If James Bond is your only frame of reference for that sort of thing, I can see why you would think that. But it does happen in real life. The whole point of using a code word is so people know it isn't a joke. Now "London Bridge" is public knowledge it will have been changed to something else. Firebrace (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't changed and Time to put Operation London Bridge into effect is exactly what my town clerk said to me today (Mark Roberts, Mayor of Amersham). Marlarkey (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Operation London Bridge → Death of Queen Elizabeth II – The article is about the plans for the Queen's death, funeral, and the succession to the throne, rather than the codename "Operation London Bridge" per se. The proposed title better reflects this. I accept having an article about a future death could be confusing, so "Plans for the death of Queen Elizabeth II" may be more suitable. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the formal name is fine for now. The other can wait until, or if, "London Bridge is falling down" actually occurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article title works fine as it is, with plenty of coverage under that title. And please stop tempting fate - many believe her death could be a disaster. Edwardx (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Please be assured this move request was not intended to "tempt fate". jamacfarlane (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the current title makes clear that this describes planned preparations (which have been in preparation for decades) for what would happen after the death of the Queen. I also find the proposed title distasteful. Blythwood (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Likely the codename has been changed, whether or not the operation has been renamed, now that this intendedly secret codename has been leaked via newspapers and Wikipedia. Someone wrote the referenced newspaper articles; what was his source? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much my argument. The government is very unlikely to confirm the (or any) code word. I do appreciate my proposed title may be inappropriate, so am open to other suggestions, e.g. "end of reign" instead of death. jamacfarlane (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Although, having done some Googling it seems a number of local councils are referring to "Operation London Bridge" in their official meeting papers. jamacfarlane (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's fine for now. Changing it will just cause confusion and suggest that her death is imminent which it may not be. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

When name first used?
In the mid 1970s "Operation London Bridge" was the public name for a massive rail project that aimed to improve the efficiency of London Bridge station by rearranging the tracks well into the suburbs to untangle Cannon Street, Charing Cross and terminating trains. Was this plan using the same name at the time or has it been adopted since? Timrollpickering 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Most likely the name was picked up later - though some kind of planning for the funeral of Elizabeth would have existed already in the 1970s, under a different name. 195.67.149.160 (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The code name for the death of Elizabeth the Queen Mother was Operation Tay Bridge. That dated for 20 years ago Marlarkey (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Would?
In the "Plan" section, why does "will" ("The Queen's Private Secretary will be the first official... ....to convey the news." "The Private Secretary's first act will be to contact the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.") become "would" from the second paragraph ("The media would be informed..." "A footman would pin a dark-edged notice to the gates of Buckingham Palace." "The day after the Queen's death, the Accession Council would meet at St James's Palace to proclaim the new monarch." "The state funeral would be held at Westminster Abbey nine days after the Queen's death, after which her body would be buried in a prepared tomb at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.")? Does someone think there's a possibility the Queen won't die? Humbledaisy (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The plans have been changed dozens of times since the 1960s. Its different versions die quicker. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Source
I know the article is cited repeatedly, but almost all of this entry, save for the detail on other commonwealth territories, follows Sam Knight's Guardian article 'London Bridge is down': the secret plan for the days after the Queen’s deathso closely as to be close to plagiarism.212.219.197.241 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think plagiarism is an issue here. See this comparison. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New monarch makes 6 p.m. speech to the nation
We may need clarity on the sentence about the new monarch addressing the nation at 6 p.m., following the queen's death. If she dies in the evening shortly before, at, or shortly after 6 p.m., then it's likely the new monarch will wait until 6 p.m. the next day, to address the nation. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well the new monarch is definitely not going to address the nation on 9th July, regardless of whether 6pm or not. Marlarkey (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Lock?
Given the apparent imminence of this operation, should we consider locking this article for the immediate future? 208.65.36.128 (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking preemptive locking is avoided, see Protection_policy -- however edit activity is increasing with some reverts for vandalism and non-constructive edits in the last hour. Maybe we should request? Myninerides (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone has requested production, see Requests_for_page_protection/Increase Myninerides (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected for 3 days. --   LuK3      (Talk)   13:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation Unicorn
https://www.thenational.scot/news/21224640.operation-unicorn-happens-queen-dies-scotland/

It appears that since events are happening in Scotland, this will also go into effect. Operation Unicorn is currently a redirect to a french military operation. Should this redirect here, disambig or a stub created? Slywriter (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Done at Operation Unicorn IntUnderflow (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it worth mentioning that the name is taken from the national animal of Scotland? https://www.nts.org.uk/stories/the-unicorn-scotlands-national-animal 103.94.50.55 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022
On the last sentence of section "Background", please change "Charles, Prince of Wales" to "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" AliceHargreavesLiddell (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  Madeline  ( part of me ) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation Unicorn
It says "Balmoral Castle in England" it should be Scotland 2A02:C7F:1242:EF00:44EF:D16D:557E:C555 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (2)
Hi

It's not 'Operation London Bridge' as stated in your entry but 'Operation Unicorn' as The Queen died in Scotland. Her body will be transported to Holyrood House then to St. Giles Cathedral before finally being put on the Royal Train for transportation to London for her State funeral. 2A00:23C8:7586:D801:C86D:9DCC:C87:656A (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unicorn is the plan that supports the wider London Bridge operation for the event the death is occuring in Scotland (which it has). London Bridge refers to wider arrangements throughout the UK for her death and funeral. One does not replace the other, with Unicorn being a supporting plan for the wider "London Bridge" operation (death and funeral plans). Leventio (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Operation Unicorn is part of Operation London Bridge, it is the part of London Bridge that describes how the body is transferred to London from Scotland. Marlarkey (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Death of Elizabeth II
Title. The article topic (Operation London Bridge) concerns the planning for the death of Elizabeth II. Shouldn't this article and Death of Elizabeth II be merged (seeing as how the former concerns the planning for the latter)? Leventio (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added main discussion at Death of Elizabeth II (seeing as how I'm proposing that title be used as the primary). Leventio (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should. This plan has been known for years before her death. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's enough information here for the standalone article, similar to how we have Operation Hope Not and Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Closed with no merge. Leventio (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation Unicorn
“Operation Unicorn is the plan for handling the Queen's death in Scotland, implemented when she actually did.”

Should be “when she did” or “when she died”. 98.144.249.215 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (3)
This page states that Operation London Bridge is underway when it is in fact Operation Unicorn as HRH died in Scotland. 109.76.225.219 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope... Operation Unicorn is the related part of Operation London Bridge concerning how the body is dealt with as she died in Scotland and about how it is transferred back to London. Other parts of Operation London continue as defined (eg proclamations, lying in state in London, funeral of D-day+10).Marlarkey (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Canada section
Just a bit of cleanup needed for this sentence: "Regular programming is cancelled, advertisements was halted, and all CBC television and radio stations had shifted to a 24-hour news format." The sentence changes tenses and includes one wrong word. I suggest this as a fix: "Regular programming was cancelled, advertisements were halted, and all CBC television and radio stations shifted to a 24-hour news format." I'll leave it to someone logged in to make the fix! 174.2.92.104 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is about the plan, not reality
The article about written is about the plan for what should occur following the death of Queen Elizabeth. The historic references are to articles discussing the plan as something that is to happen.

To change the tenses and to discuss the events as they are happening breaks all these references (as the references are to the plan, not to reality).

The article should largely stay as it was, being about the plan and what should happen. I do not think it should resemble a breaking news article with rapid (and sometimes conflicting updates). There should be a separate section for the real events, where it can be detailed where things happened as planned, and also where things happened differently to what had previously been reported planned.

I have tried to fix the Plan section several times now (and will continue trying to do so), but have lost my edits three times now due to edit conflicts.

Therefore, I felt best to write on this Talk page, so when I do get to submit the edit I can just say "See talk page" instead of trying to re-type the summary in there for the nth time! H. Carver (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried restoring the tensing (several were changed for events that haven't even occurred yet). Though running into the same issue, I've sort of fallen to letting the initial dust settle from the rash of edits today before going in and doing a sweep of fixes. Leventio (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The tenses were always strange, and even more confusing now --Rumping (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been able to make a start on fixing the issues raised above. I think I'm slowly making it better than it was earlier today, but I'm sure there's still going to be room for improvement, as I don't have long left before I'll have to stop editing for the time being. H. Carver (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The tenses here are fascinating, some linguistics expert should come and study them. Its a rare case where it feels like English is actually lacking a tense to describe what is wanted, a hypothetical but uncertain future. Is that was is meant by 'subjunctive' tense in other languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.195.240 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * English does have the subjunctive.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request 8 September 2022 (4)

 * What I think should be changed: The date of the Accession Council has not been confirmed, so it should be removed or a reliable source for the date should be added.
 * Why it should be changed: The two sources for the sentence are both from years ago; the current Accession Council website says that the Council "is usually convened within 24 hours of the death of the Sovereign"
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): It's difficult to provide a reference for the lack of something, but here's the Accession Council's website https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/the-accession-council/

2600:1700:BB50:6830:71C2:1C9D:8488:6B2F (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I note your issue, but there is a third solution - the mentions of the Accession Council should be reverted back to how they were originally written, when the article was discussing the plan as reported. Then the existing sources would properly support them. As you will see from the section immediately above yours, there is an issue with the article where the Plan and Reality have all been edited together in a very confusing way, resulting in the failed references that you have noticed. H. Carver (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now carried out this request and removed the date. H. Carver (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (4)
Change "Otherwise the coffin would be taken by plane to London and received by the prime minister and cabinet ministers." to "Otherwise the coffin would be taken by plane to London and received by the prime minister and cabinet ministers (Operation Overstudy)." Kinstray (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022
Please can you add the following text in addition to what is already there, in the Implementation section. Thank you.

Since Elizabeth ll passed away at her beloved Scottish estate, Balmoral. Operation Unicorn is now being implemented following her death. Source: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/fly-open-air-cancelled-edinburgh-27954881 TwoSkinsUK (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. Implementation already mentions Unicorn being implemented. Beloved is not neutral. -- Mvqr (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Article photo
Please don't mess around with the photo at the top of the article (see discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II on the photo issues there, as similar reasons apply). Personally, I would prefer to have a photo of the real London Bridge at the top (as once was), but will otherwise revert to the photo that had been there for a while until just tonight it got changed repeatedly.

It would be helpful if there was editor consensus over what photo to have at the top: whether it's the bridge or the Queen; if the Queen, which photo best represents her; or should it be something totally different? H. Carver (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is someone that is continously editing Elizabeth II's portrait in infobox to the 2015 portrait, when the 1958 portrait was decided on; and I have attempted to notify him several times as such.
 * Can someone block his access to editing the page? 58.96.79.59 (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets not throw arounds blocks so hastily. Both of you right now have been engaged in a protrated edit war for the past few days, and both of you (along with other interested parties) need to settle this in the talk page, not through edit summaries. Per WP:BRD, you should have brought this up to the talk page the first time they reverted it instead of restoring your contested edit. I don't really have an opinion on the lead image, and I'll defer to whatever consensus y'all reach with the image. But until such a time, I have restored the image to its last stable version prior to this protrated edit war. Leventio (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Past tense
Will the article ever be structured in a past-tense format now that the Queen has died? Or should this wait until the entirety of the plan has played out (after funeral procedures)? AlienChex (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the appropriate tenses will eventually be changed to past tense - but not while the plan is still being carried out and therefore a current event. At time of writing, the plan is (not was) in effect. H. Carver (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The plan still applies and so this article SHOULD NOT be changed to the past tense... it is a plan for the death of the monarch and currently applies for the death of King Charles Marlarkey (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Article lead photo
Which photo should be used as the lead image in this article?


 * A: File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg, captioned "Queen Elizabeth II in 2015" - the image present on 7 September
 * B: File:Queen Elizabeth II official portrait for 1959 tour (retouched) (cropped) (3-to-4 aspect ratio).jpg, captioned "Queen Elizabeth II in 1959" - suggested by several IP editors
 * Something else?

I am listing this for discussion due to recent edit warring, and have no opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the starting this RFC. I added a comment above following some earlier edit warring, and looking back on it now I feel as if I should apologise if it ended up being misleading; I pointed to another discussion about the Queen's picture with the intention of letting people inform themselves of arguments for or against various options. I didn't intend to in any way imply that the conclusion of the discussion there should be carried over to here.
 * As for the poll, my vote is Something else. As I say above, I would prefer to have a photo of London Bridge. Following a recent comment, I am changing my 'something else' to 'no lead picture' (see further below). My reasoning has not changed; this article is largely about the plan and not the person. That's not to say that the person isn't important, but we have another article, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II for the person and events as they actually happened. H. Carver (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that the article previously used File:London Bridge Illuminated.jpg, while our article London Bridge uses File:London Bridge from St Olaf Stairs.jpg. Do you have a preference one way or the other, or some other photo? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you put a gun to my head; a weak preference for the former as I think the bridge coming towards the viewer (when 'read' from left to right) feels better than the bridge moving away from the viewer. I have struck this reply given the amendment made above supporting 'no lead picture'. H. Carver (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support picture of London Bridge per H. Carver.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  18:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My vote would be to retain the 2015 photo. London Bridge is/was simply the codeword for the operation.  What the actual bridge looks like is totally irrelevant. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The bridge Meh on the queen, but I am interested in seeing the bridge. It is the plan's namesake, and also amusingly dull looking, which is honestly more illustrative than just a picture of the queen. The queen can have her picture in the body of the article, I think the body picture should be the 1959 portrait, in keeping with her official portrait on her page. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Better yet, why not a picture of the queen's body in the body of the article? I mean, wouldn't that be more in keeping with the topic? EEng 01:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * B: i.e. File:Queen Elizabeth II official portrait for 1959 tour (retouched) (cropped) (3-to-4 aspect ratio).jpg. Article is about funeral of QEII, not about the operation's namesake.
 * Photo B is more iconic IMHO. (NOTE: Editor is a volunteer for the WP:Feedback Request Service which randomly selects volunteers to give feedback to WP:RfC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article about the funeral of QEII is Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. This article is about the plan for the death and funeral. I realise it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction. Not least because if there is no distinction, this take us down a path leading to the proposed merger of this article and the one linked at the start of this comment. I think there's value in keeping the articles separate, not least because if the articles were merged, I don't know how we'd be able to gracefully incorporate the information about the aspects of the plan that were planned for, but didn't actually take place. H. Carver (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Bridge picture is my first choice, then A, then B. All three pass my personal good enough test. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A: i.e. fairly recent photo of person whose death and burial plans are the subject of the article. The bridge is merely the code term for the operation and as such is probably as much an allusion to the children's nursery rhyme, (London Bridge is falling down) as it is to any physical structure. I find the argument for the bridge bizarre - would we have a picture of a local vegetable farm on the article about The allied attack on Arnhem in WWII, or of a feudal 'high lord' for  the Normandy landings? Answer no, because the chosen codename is largely incidental to the main subject. I would choose a relatively recent photo both because the image is more familiar and because it is closer to the person whose death was planned and who actually died than a photo of the the newly crowned monarch would be.Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC) ps The burial plan is actually older than the modern bridge - which was not opened until 1973, therefore the connection between the funeral plan and the present structure is even more tenuous than I suggest above. Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC) pps per Markbassett, a photo of the recent funeral procession seems very apt. The chapel ledger stone would be less so IMO, since it followed the final (family) burial service and not part of 'Operation London Bridge' as such. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A as per Pincrete. Kpddg  (talk)  13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment For what its worth, I think this topic is a good example of an article that doesn't require a lead image (per MOS:IMAGELEAD, lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.). In saying that, if we must have a lead image, I would be inclined to choose one of the Queen's photo as opposed to the bridge, as an image of the Queen is at least relatable in that the plan revolves around the subject of the image. Echoing Pincrete's sentiments, I don't really see much reason to include the bridge image as a lead, given how the only real connection it has is namesake. Leventio (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I take your points about the cons of using a photo of the bridge. I'm still of the view that photos of the actual events should be avoided, because the article is primarily about the plan for what would happen and not about what actually happened. With those two things in mind, I could quite happily support your suggestion of simply not having a lead image. H. Carver (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Something of the article topic per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. The current one of the procession seems best, but I could also see the chapel ledger stone.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Something else. I agree with Markbassett that an image of the actual proceedings would be best, like the procession or The Queue or the lying in state. An image like these would be the most relevant to the actual content of the article. I find the idea of putting the bridge on the lead a little odd. My understanding is that funeral plans for senior royals have been named after bridges as of recent but an image of the bridge is hardly the most representative of the proceedings or the content of the article apart from the naming of the operation. The bridge should get a picture in the article, perhaps beside an explanation of the nomenclature. And the Queen should get a picture in the body of the article too. But the best lead is something actually depicting the events. I take Darkfrog24's point that this article is different from Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II but a picture of the proceedings (that occurred according to plan) is still more representative of the content than a flat image of the Queen (and a fortiori the bridge). Jtrrs0 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No lead image. I agree with Leventio, I don't believe there is a lead image that would appropriately represent the plan that this article talks about. please see MOS:LEADIMAGE. Dobble stein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A: (uninvolved user coming from the Politics RfC page.) Use A or another more recent pic as it is closer to the event. The pic B and such pics should go into the Bio not here. Venkat TL (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Something else.And that "something else" is no lede image. Including an image of either the Queen or the Bridge will not add to the quality of the article. If anything, imo, it will detract from the article. Remember, as per WP:MOS, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." AND "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." When in doubt, leave it out. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCEWritethisway (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Something else The topic isn't Queen Elizabeth II herself. Why not a photo of her funeral? Image B would be good in the body. Sergeant Curious (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

King Charles, major update required
I think discussion is required. As someone involved in local government, our council is still functioning as if Operation London Bridge is the defined plan for the death OF THE MONARCH, and not specifically for Queen Elizabeth, in line with national guidance. Until told otherwise all the national guidance I've seen is that Operation London Bridge is prepared and would be followed if and when King Charles dies. In future some other plan may be agreed but Operation London Bridge is the plan currently defined. That being the case, the entire article needs rewriting to change references to "Queen Elizabeth" to be replaced by a more general reference to "the Monarch".

How Operation London Bridge was carried out in the case of Queen Elizabeth is covered by another article, this article should be about the plan and the plan is a generic plan for the death of the monarch. Marlarkey (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * if and when King Charles dies – I'm intrigued by the if. Is there a chance he'll live forever? EEng 14:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * London Bridge is a specific plan/set of protocols related to the death for Elizabeth II, in the same way Hyde Park Corner refers to protocols for King George VI's death. While a lot of these plans share similarities (with state funerals and other conventional protocols) several intricacies within them exist that are chosen by said monarch.
 * Also in saying that, Wikipedia does have a general article for monarchical/state funerals here: State funerals in the United Kingdom. Other protocols and conventions surrounding the transition of the Crown are in this article here: Demise of the Crown. Leventio (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's untrue... London Bridge protocols remain in force in the UK to guide public institutions as to the protocols that apply in the death of the monarch or other senior royals. For instance National Association of Local Council guidelines lay down the London Bridge protocols that remain in force today. Marlarkey (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The plan for Charles's death is called Operation Menai Bridge. This is the information that is open and sourced. Even if what you are saying is true (I doubt it myself), Wikipedia cannot be updated to reflect that without being properly sourced. My suspicion is that while local councils may have guidance saying "If Charles were to die imminently, we will follow the same protocols as we did with London Bridge", that isn't quite the same thing. Time and the publication of Reliable Sources will tell. H. Carver (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001
— Assignment last updated by JackHUC (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)