Line of Duty is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by TheDoctorWho (talk) at 08:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) 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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
@ 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
@
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)
Line of Duty is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by TheDoctorWho (talk) at 08:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) 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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
@ 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
@
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)