Talk:Line of Duty

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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)

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Line of Duty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like like an article that will be of interest to a general audience. On a very cursory glance, it seems close to being a Good Article already so I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 2,813 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 315 words.
• Authorship is 91.7% from the nominator with contributions from 141 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • I believe AC-12 should be singular rather than plural.
   • Please replace the comma in the middle of "The opening scene of the programme featured the shooting death of a man mistaken to be a suicide bomber, this was credited to the 2005 police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in which a man was incorrectly believed to be part of bombings in London."
   • The comma after "crafted it from the beginning," is superfluous.
   • Similarly, "and wished to exclude it, but were persuaded by Mercurio to keep it." Should either have a subject in the second clause (e.g. "it") or no comma. And I believe BBC is singular.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • The sources are generally credible sources.
   • Some sources are Amazon and the BBC, which seem close to self-publication. For examp;le, the source for the DVD release dates are the relevant Amazon product pages. Are there third party sources for this data?

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks confirm the BBC article "Line Of Duty to return for second series", Cronin 2015, Plunkett 2016, Hogan 2012, Rigby 2015 and Kanter 2021 cover the topic.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 21.3% chance of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely. The highest match is with an article in the Radio Times, followed by product pages on Amazon.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into a lot of detail on some aspects of the programme but is generally compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The logos are listed as "believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, the United Kingdom." Please confirm that the images can be used.
   • The other images have appropriate CC tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate.

@TheDoctorWho: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham:

• I have taken care of the three comma issues you mentioned above.

• That looks excellent. I really like a review with so few things to do.

• The sources published by the BBC should be okay for use per WP:PRIMARY.
• Same goes for the Amazon sources per the previous consensus mentioned at WP:AMAZON/WP:RSPAMAZON since those sources are only used to verify release dates.

• That is good news.

• I can confirm the logos are acceptable for use because they do not meet the threshold of originality in the United States

• That is too.

• Can you confirm with me the potential issue and/or location of the singular/plural usages of AC-12 and BBC? The two uses of AC-12's are used to show ownership back to AC-12. (The offices/headquarters belong to AC-12). I didn't see any use of BBC's in the article.

• Good question. Two phrases are "AC-12 investigate" and "BBC ... were persuaded by Mercurio", but there may be others.

Other than my question in that last bullet point I believe I've addressed all other questions/concerns you've had. TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: That looks great. Please see my answers above. simongraham (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham: I fixed those two, I briefly skimmed through the rest and didn't notice any others. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Excellent work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)