Talk:Line of Duty

Line of Duty is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by TheDoctorWho (talk) at 08:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: British police procedural drama television series (2012–2021)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Line of Duty article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Television: British Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as High-importance).

BBC High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Telephone area code 01632

The telephone area code 01632 is not fictitious. It is an obsolete code for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (the old alpha mnemonic was 0NE2, and it was replaced by 0191).

86.11.96.95 (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Duty showrunner in infobox

@MapReader: I'm going to start a discussion in good faith rather than edit war. The first time you reverted my edit it was because it was unsourced. That was on me, I'll admit that. However, I found a source, cited it in the article, and then you reverted again for completely unrelated reasons. Why weren't your second reasons brought up the first time? I'll also point out that other fields, such as the genre, running times, country of origin, and the original language, do not appear in the credits of the series either. By your logic, each of those fields should be removed since the credits have the final say. The instructions at Template:Infobox television doesn't state that the showrunner has to appear as a credit, only that it be reliably sourced. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He’s already credited as creator and writer, one of three executive producers and one of four producers, and we know that the various episodes of each series were directed by various other people. Creating a job title not listed in the credits doesn’t seem particularly helpful or add any value. Showrunner isn’t a title in common use in the UK, where this series was made, and insofar as it has a meaning it covered the same ground as writer/creator/producer. MapReader (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "showrunner isn't a title in common use in the UK" is plainly incorrect; sources credit Doctor Who, Sherlock, Sex Education, Heartstopper, His Dark Materials, Victoria, Happy Valley, and Peaky Blinders as having showrunners. These are all British television series. This is just a small handful, but I would assume there are others if you took the time to look into it. Once again "Creating a job title not listed in the credits doesn’t seem particularly helpful" also isn't a valid argument because there are other "helpful" things that don't appear in the credits of the series. The field exists for a reason, you don't get to cherry pick which fields we use just because you don't like it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel the need to mention that the BBC refers to Mercurio as the showrunner as well ([1] [2]) which should be official enough? TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader: it's been a few days without response while you have still been active in other areas. I feel that I have brought up some pretty strong points and sources to contradict your statements. This is your notice that withdrawing from this conversation will be assumed by me as a silent consensus and that I will reinstate my edits. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the original editor’s view, and a gap of a few days over a holiday period does not a consensus make. As I said above, the multiple references to Mercurio’s roles in the infobox already cover all bases as credited. MapReader (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

The consensus seems clear that as long as it is sourced it should be added to the infobox. The opposition argues that it is only secondary sources that say he is the Showrunner, and that he is not credited as showrunner so he should not be listed as showrunner. However, proponents of the addition have noted that the show was aired by the BBC and that the BBC has released multiple press releases which name him showrunner. As there are also multiple secondary sources, and sources from the BBC which released the show, calling Jed Mercurio the showrunner there does not seem to be a valid reason to exclude the information. --Chrhns (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Jed Mercurio be listed in the Infobox of this page as a showrunner?TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) 06:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: I believe he should as there are multiple high-quality secondary sources ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) which credit him as such. The earliest of these date back to 2014 while the latest is from 2022, proving that this isn't a case of recentism. The BBC, which aired the series, also credits him as the showrunner in multiple press releases ([8] [9], [10]). The BBC links are technically primary sources, but it does eliminate a theory that the title was assumed after I asked for an opinion at Template talk:Infobox television.

When I originally added it to the article based on these sources, I was reverted because another editor felt it was "americanism" and stated that "the credit doesn't actually appear in the series" and that the "term isn't common in the UK." I have attempted to dispute these theories with sources which credit plenty of other British series as having showrunners and pointing out that there are other fields in the Infobox containing information that isn't credited in the series (see the above discussion).

I'm posting my opinion in a separate comment so that the original question maintains a neutral point of view. I'm also leaving a courtesy ping for the original disputing editor @MapReader: so that they can comment as well. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural comment regarding WP:RFCBEFORE. I do not believe that other dispute resolutions such as dispute resolution noticeboard would help with this dispute as the two of us would continue to disagree on the same points. I also considered asking for a third opinion, but ultimately opted against it because I believe that there will be other similar cases in the future where the result of this RFC would help reach a consensus. I have however, attempted to reach out for other opinions from those who contributed to the decision to add the showrunner parameter in the first place, and only received one response at that discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: As long as it is reliably sourced on the body and/or infobox to confirm that Jed Mercurio is the showrunner. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with adding into the article as well, and it actually should be per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, that just wasn't the disputing editors original reason for a revert so I do feel that this RFC is still necessary. If consensus is to add it to the Infobox, I'll also add it into the prose. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion on the matter either way, but the infobox already says LoD was Created by Jed Mercurio and Written by Jed Mercurio; adding him as a Showrunner to the infobox (by replacing Directed by various) seems a bit excessive. I'd be fine with adding a line about him being credited as the showrunner to the body of the article or the lead. Some1 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth showrunner and director(s) can co-exist into the Infobox. We could add both directors and showrunner. There does however, seem to be a separate consensus within WikiProject Television not to list a series that has several directors in the field. There are also other cases where the same person is listed multiple times (i.e. Chicago Fire where the showrunner is also the creator and executive producer or Magnum P.I. where the showrunners also developed the series and are executive producers). The fact they're also credited with other things has never caused a case for removal. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You seem to be replying individually to the comments as they come in, which isn’t a constructive way to run an RfC. See WP:BLUD. The RfC has time to run; how about letting other editors feed in their views without jumping on each one? MapReader (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I responded to two comments.... I think it's hard to accuse me of bludgeoning with that. Not to mention, if you actually read WP:BLUD, it specifically says, "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view." It's impossible for me to have done that when no one has directly disagreed with my PoV. One person agreed and one person said they didn't have a strong opinion. I also haven't told anyone else they should change their !vote. I simply responded to other comments that have been brought up in the process about improving the article (i.e. adding the information into prose as well or the possibility of listing both directors and the showrunner in the Infobox) in an attempt to help build a consensus. I didn't start this RFC with the intention of responding to every comment, and likely won't, but if other editors do bring up points that I feel could be addressed, I will respond. "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided." TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There have been only two comments! Apart from your own. Just sit back and wait for, and respect, the views of others. MapReader (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No The counter-argument is that the Infobox is supposed to contain information, and showrunner is a job title that Mercurio never had. He was the creator, writer, and one of the executive producers, and one of the producers on the set, which are the jobs that he had, and was credited for. That secondary sources choose to use the term ‘showrunner’ as an easier shorthand way of saying “creator, writer and producer” isn’t surprising as media reporting, but doesn’t make it a piece of factual information as far as the staffing of the show is concerned. Adding a further descriptor into the infobox, over and above the ones Mercurio actually had, isn’t telling the reader anything that isn’t already clear, and is simply adding clutter. MapReader (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if it's sourced I can understand the point made by others that, since he's already listed as the creator and writer, it would be redundant. But if it's reliably sourced, redundancy shouldn't be a problem since it's true anyways. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RFC break

@MapReader: We can keep dragging this out further if you want. First of all your edit summary is misleading. You stated "you don’t close if you are actively involved in the original". If you notice, there are no close tags on this discussion, I didn't formally close it. The bot removed the tag as 30 days has elapsed. WP:RFCCLOSE says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." Consensus appeared clear to me and this is not contentious, hence why I added it. Secondly, you said "An RFC isn’t a vote. For what it's worth I am more than well aware. While I see how my edit summary could be misconstrued as taking a vote, I didn't intend that. I was simply trying to summarize the discussion in the simplest terms possible. I'd like to point out the additional wording at RFC close that says "Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]